It looks to me and some others that the ISS was a project devised to give
the Shuttle something to do.

Perhaps the number of launches budgeted for ISS was determined at
a time when STS launch rates were expected to be higher.

I think, again in hindsight, that ISS might have been done about as well
with 5-6 modules and a few solar panels.

It looks to me and some others that the ISS was a project devised to give
the Shuttle something to do.

The thing is so big now, and such an international effort, that NASA would
do well to keep it in operation.

If the US has no way to get to ISS after
2012 or whatever, I think the Russians will exercise an increased role in
determining what level of activity occurs on the station and who gets to
go there ....

Jeff Findley wrote:

That's the point of the COTS program. Still, if that falls through,
there
is Progress, ATV, and possibly HTV.

Does anybody really believe that private industry will develop some
automated cargo ship with all the guidance systems that would allow it
to get near enough the station to be berthed to a CBM hatch in just a
couple of years ?


The EU had Kurs to use as a template to develop their own system. NASA
has none of this that private contractors could use as a template.

Developping another ATV is pointless. It would still be limited by the
tiny russian hatches.

Again, that's the point of the COTS program. Also, there is the
possibility
that if Ares/Orion continues that we would see Orion flights to ISS.

Well, if Orion flies, it may do a couple of weekend camping trips to the
moon, but its main purpose will be to act as a ferry to/from the
station. If it flies. But that still doesn't solve the issue of cargo.

ATV is pretty huge. It makes Progress look puny by comparison.

Same tiny russian hatches. Great for food/supplies, but can't bring
racks up/down.

top of that, ISS was never designed to be an assembly location. You'd
almost certainly have lots of issues to deal with that would require
upgrades to ISS. For example, the CMG's might not have enough control

Upgrades to ISS wouldn't be needed. As you would grow the mars
expedition ship, the later's systems would take over or complement from
the station's system. When the ship leaves, then the station reverts to
its own systems.

In terms of assembly capabilities, the station will have great
capabilities for that. The arm, the cupolla and exsiting human life
support and existing system to bring supplies.

If you start from scratch, you will end up with something similar to the
station where it will take a very long time before you can start to
really do a lot of work there. You'll get a few minimal modules (like
Zarya and Zvezda) and until you get large neough structure to support an
arm, electrical power etc, then you can't have people stay there for
long periods of time.

With the station, you start off with all the necessary supplies (ECLSS,
Power, telecom) as well as hardware (airlock, arm) needed to do assembly
work.

The question then becomes: how long would it take to assemble the ship
standalone until it has gained all the functions/services that the
station can provide.

And remember that a mars expedition ship will likely be a international
endeavour. Perhaps even the chinese would participate.

It looks to me and some others that the ISS was a project devised to give
the Shuttle something to do.

In hindsight, the ISS is a rather grandiose project. Perhaps the number
of launches budgeted for ISS was determined at a time when STS launch
rates were expected to be higher. I think, again in hindsight, that ISS
might have been done about as well with 5-6 modules and a few solar
panels.

The thing is so big now, and such an international effort, that NASA would
do well to keep it in operation. If the US has no way to get to ISS after
2012 or whatever, I think the Russians will exercise an increased role in
determining what level of activity occurs on the station and who gets to
go there .... not claiming salvage rights, but a similar concept. At the
very least they will be able to charge a high fee for transport, reboost,
etc.

I would not expect the Russians to abandon ISS because the ability to fly
long duration manned missions carries a lot of status, and because the
station is a remarkable machine.

I would not expect the Russians to abandon ISS because the ability to fly
long duration manned missions carries a lot of status, and because the
station is a remarkable machine.

The Russians will keep flying because they keep getting paid for Soyuz
seats. Even if all the other international partners abandoned ISS, I'm sure
the Russians would keep flying tourists there.

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 01:43:09 -0600, "Revision"
ttsREMOVE@NOJUNKcharter.net> wrote:

It looks to me and some others that the ISS was a project devised to give
the Shuttle something to do. In hindsight, the ISS is a rather grandiose
project. Perhaps the number of launches budgeted for ISS was determined
at
a time when STS launch rates were expected to be higher.

And when the orbit was to be 28.5 degrees, giving Shuttle something
like 40% more lift to the Station than it can haul to 51.6, requiring
fewer flights (modules launched fully loaded, more or less.)

I think, again in
hindsight, that ISS might have been done about as well with 5-6 modules
and
a few solar panels.

That was the plan. US Lab, US Hab, Kibo, Columbus, and 2 or 3 Nodes.
Plus the Truss with two extra sections handling propulsion (P2 and
S2).

President Clinton killed that.

Not counting the Nodes and other essentially structural or semi-inert
'modules', I come up with 8 active modules at current assembly
complete. So they didn't miss what you 'think' would be proper by
much.

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:39:37 -0500, John Doe <jdoe@doe.org> wrote:

That's the point of the COTS program. Still, if that falls through,
there
is Progress, ATV, and possibly HTV.

Does anybody really believe that private industry will develop some
automated cargo ship with all the guidance systems that would allow it
to get near enough the station to be berthed to a CBM hatch in just a
couple of years ?

Orbital plans to use systems from DART and Orbital Express, which have
already flown.

"Brian Thorn" <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:j5v2t35lfj3hbi98sm7liqesbcfp36o6eg@4ax.com...
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 01:43:09 -0600, "Revision"
ttsREMOVE@NOJUNKcharter.net> wrote:

It looks to me and some others that the ISS was a project devised to give
the Shuttle something to do. In hindsight, the ISS is a rather grandiose
project. Perhaps the number of launches budgeted for ISS was determined
at
a time when STS launch rates were expected to be higher.
And when the orbit was to be 28.5 degrees, giving Shuttle something
like 40% more lift to the Station than it can haul to 51.6, requiring
fewer flights (modules launched fully loaded, more or less.)

No doubt. Using a bunch of MPLM flights to outfit a module is a terribly
inefficient way to outfit a module.

I think, again in
hindsight, that ISS might have been done about as well with 5-6 modules
and
a few solar panels.
That was the plan. US Lab, US Hab, Kibo, Columbus, and 2 or 3 Nodes.
Plus the Truss with two extra sections handling propulsion (P2 and
S2).

President Clinton killed that.

But he told us all it would save us money! ;-)

Actually, it was clearly a foreign policy move that had nothing to do with
saving money.

Is the space station a financial obligation thatNASAcongress desires to
get rid of for future & with hope pointing to projects they may or may not
finance? I don't see anyone willing to pickup the ball on this. The space
station modules were designed with the shuttle in mind and after the shuttle
is gone there will be a great washing of hands and slow decline into
obsolesete out post by 2015. Perhaps the DOE will have something else have
another target to practice on?

You're trying to re-write history. Originally the shuttle was to be a
manned space vehicle to *service* a LEO space station, which would be
launched by the Saturn V. Funding for both wasn't forthcoming...

Furthermore, the shuttle morphed into the much larger vehicle we see today
in order to gain political support for the program (i.e. DOD payload and
cross-range requirements).

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:

Furthermore, the shuttle morphed into the much larger vehicle we see today
in order to gain political support for the program (i.e. DOD payload and
cross-range requirements).

That was the largest single factor at work, but there were at least
two others.

One was a reluctance to accept just how much the mass costs of
reusability (wings, TPS, landing gear, heavier airframe) were cutting
into payload

Another, as it gradually became clear that we wouldn't come up with a
robust metal skin, was that a bigger planform with a bigger empty bay
*did* at least ease the heat loads on re-entry.

Indeed - many seem to miss that Shuttle was already growing for a
variety of reasons before NASA started romancing the DoD. (Mostly
because that shoots holes in the cherished 'DoD killed the Shuttle'
meme.) At most the DoD angle filled in some details, but not the
gross architecture.

Is the space station a financial obligation that NASA congress desires to
get rid of for future & with hope pointing to projects they may or may not
finance? I don't see anyone willing to pickup the ball on this. The space
station modules were designed with the shuttle in mind and after the shuttle
is gone there will be a great washing of hands and slow decline into
obsolesete out post by 2015. Perhaps the DOE will have something else have
another target to practice on?

Relocate ISS to the moon's L1, or why not Venus L2 ?
. - Brad Guth