Re: Future Retro Space Station Designs.


"Michael Gallagher" <mikejoe7g@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jbp2t39apn09umvceb2a3jbcak9eso2vt0@xxxxxxxxxx
I was wondering what kind of space station would be built to succeed
ISS, given that the orbiters would be retired and replaced by Orion by
then.

It's not at all obvious that there would be funding for a LEO station to
replace ISS. At least, not one that's mostly US built and operated. NASA's
direction seems to be back to the moon, with everything else be damned.

Obviously, segments would have to dock automatically, as the Russian
did with Mir, without an orbiter to assemble it, but what to start
with?

Not true. It's entirely possible to use a small "tug" to retrieve and dock
(or berth) modules to a station. One of the COTS proposals for ISS resupply
takes this approach. In the long run, this would seem to be cheaper since
your station modules/supplies don't need to have the ability to
independantly rendezvous and dock.

With Orion making Apollo cool again, I wondered about the
possiblity of resurrecting Skylab's dry workshop, using Ares V's EDS
stage; the solids and the first stage would orbit it.

I thought I'd read somewhere (NASA Spaceflight.com forums) that Ares V can't
put much of anything into orbit without an upper stage.

Nodes could be
put at either end for other modules to dock to. However, I read some
web pages on space station design and the idea of using spent rocket
stages fell out of favor to purpose-built modules years ago. And
AFAIK, the Soviets didn't use spent stages in their stations either.
So Ares V could launch purpose built modules that dock automatically,
sort of an "uber Mir," instead of a reconverted EDS stage.

Don't forget inflatables. NASA may have dropped the Transhab concept due to
lack of funds for ISS, but Bigelow Aerospace is actively pursuing this
technology.

Which would be better from a practical standpoint, given our
experience with ISS -- a "dry workshop" using the EDS stage, a
purpose-built blocks?

Purpose built blocks. Remember how Skylab's deployable
micrometeorite/thermal shielding ripped off during launch? Perhaps there
are better approaches to this problem today, but I think it's far easier to
stick your station modules under an aerodynamic fairing (e.g. like the ones
used for satellite launches) rather than try to make them bear the burdon of
their outer shell being designed for both aerodynamic launch forces and
micrometeorite/thermal shielding.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is the space station a dead end project?
    ... to get near enough the station to be berthed to a CBM hatch in just a ... that if Ares/Orion continues that we would see Orion flights to ISS. ... It's also concievable that you could launch an Orion minus its pressurized ... This will do nothing to prepare NASA for how to assemble hardware in LEO ...
    (sci.space.station)
  • Re: When is the next ISS assembly mission?
    ... > This launch will take appx 12 tons of equipment for the ISS, ... > will further components of the station be launched? ... segments and associated solar arrays. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • When is the next ISS assembly mission?
    ... This launch will take appx 12 tons of equipment for the ISS, ... further components of the station be launched? ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Manned space flight after the moon landing
    ... >> should have happened) with a proper station (which is what Dave is ... that's what you get with a socialistic government program like ISS. ... the US could learn how to cooperate with the russians to get ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
    ... > Hasn't ISS already done that, even if construction were to end today? ... NASA still has a lot to do in this area. ... >>This approach does nothing to help the commercial launch ... or CEV and the stick are going to get the shaft. ...
    (sci.space.policy)