Discussion On Russian/US space relations

[Urwumpe]

*I can't remember what NASa are calling their new lunar plan this week, so I'm calling it ares. This may be wrong. Sue me

They call the program "Constellation", the launch vehicle is called Ares, like all Shuttle derived expendable launch vehicles in the last 20 years.

 

[Moonwalker]

I smell envy.

 

[Urwumpe]

I smell envy.

I smell glamor.

 

[Andy44]

Most citizens around the globe don't even care about space flight. So why should we continue at all?

Good question. Let us know when you come up with a good answer.

Of course, the answer for free people is, "If you think space (or whatever) is so important to you, YOU pay for it. Buy stock in Virgin Galactic or SpaceX and leave my wallet alone. Or you could convince me to help pay voluntarily."

I realize this isn't going to get through, though...

 

[vyrago]

I thought we were talking about US-Russian space relations? Nobody has yet offered a valid counter-point to my idea to keep the shuttles flying past 2010, even for emergency in the event of Russian inability or unwillingness to provide flights to ISS. Most reponses involved some sort of "they wouldnt dare!" remark.

Buzz Aldrin even proposed to have 3rd option, another temporary spacecraft to make ISS flights while constellation is developed. At least he has an opinion on this topic without having been asked by us! My idea is simple, im not saying "keep the shuttles flying indefinatly".

Im saying, that given the recent political developments with Russia and coupled with delays in the constellation program, is it not feasible that each orbiter has say 2 flights left in them? giving NASA a total of 6 more contingency flights to ISS. bad idea?

 

[GregBurch]

I'm such a Constellation basher that I'm actually starting to warm up to the idea of working up a plan to keep STS working past 2010. At least do the numbers and let's see what they look like ...

 

[Andy44]

Flying STS would be expensive, since things are already in motion to decommission facilities and move people elsewhere. If they really want a gap-filler, I would suggest that maybe NASA just take bids to see who can build a LEO capsule system that can fly on an EELV (like they should've done for Orion), and pick the best one.

Of course, that would mean using equipment "not invented here", and NASA has a bad attitude towards that. After seeing all the cool CEV designs they rejected in favor of their own Apollo-wannabe, I'm pretty down on NASA's ability to make good decisions about this stuff.

 

[Moonwalker]

Nobody has yet offered a valid counter-point to my idea to keep the shuttles flying past 2010

NASA engineers and managers (who know it at best I'd say) as well as members of the congress already offered a valid point which resulted in the retirement: the fleet ages. The days of STS are numbered for this certain reason. If STS-400 should happen, the retirement even will take place immediately very likely.

The mistake NASA made In my point of view was to start Constellation too late, by about one decade. Another problem involved I see is the ISS. Retirement of the Shuttle should have happened in the mid/end 90's already without building the ISS at all. This for sure shocks Shuttle and ISS fans but that's my honest point of view. The whole situation we have now delays the returning to the Moon and future missions to Mars unnecessarily. In my point of view manned space exploration is or at least should be about eploring the space instead of orbiting the Earth.

A gap bewteen two projects is not a news anyway. From Apollo to STS it was 6 years. While not supporting and giving up an orbital station during that gap also is not a news (Skylab). History repeats...

 

[Andy44]

While not supporting and giving up an orbital station during that gap also is not a news (Skylab).

Not news, but it's still a waste. And a lost ISS is a much bigger waste than a lost Skylab.

NASA engineers and managers (who know it at best I'd say) as well as members of the congress

Really?

 

[Moonwalker]

Not news, but it's still a waste. And a lost ISS is a much bigger waste than a lost Skylab.

True. But I think it is unlikely that ISS gets lost the way Skylab got. On the other hand I think it is for sure that ISS won't become what it was intended to become initially. The numbers of crew members might never really increase. In my imagination, if they should end the ISS era in the ocean in 2015, NASA never might fly to the ISS again after STS. If at all, Orions very first missions are going to become the very few final missions to the ISS.

 

[vyrago]

We're not just talking about gaps between projects, we're talking about the ability to keep ISS supplied with people and supplies as well as mount a rescue in the unfortunate event that one is needed. We can argue the merits of ISS all day, but the fact remains that it exists and is likely still being paid for. And some of the research that ISS will do is valuable to long term living in space, such that would be required for trips to Mars or other places.

 

[Moonwalker]

We're not just talking about gaps between projects, we're talking about the ability to keep ISS supplied with people and supplies as well as mount a rescue in the unfortunate event that one is needed.

The ISS is keeping supplied by Soyuz (which acts as a lifeboat already while the Space Shuttle actually just is a visitor rather than a rescue), Progress and the European ATV. Next year two Soyuz spacecraft are going to be docked for the first time by Expedition 19 while the number of crew members increases to 6 persons for the first time. The ATV is going to fly to the ISS once a year starting in 2010 while JAXA is working on its HTV.

No Space Shuttle required anymore past 2010 while the station is kept supplied and running.

And some of the research that ISS will do is valuable to long term living in space, such that would be required for trips to Mars or other places.

I'm not quite sure about this. A lot of time spend on ISS goes down the drain for maintenance. And most of the science aboard is done basically for life and science on Earth rather than in space: materials research (basically for industries), finding new methods for therapies (medicine) and such stuff. This is going to end in 2015 already. I can't really see a preparation for long term missions to Moon or Mars. In my point of view this seems to be a sort of propaganda to vindicate the ISS.

 

[GregBurch]

I'm not quite sure about this. A lot of time spend on ISS goes down the drain for maintenance. And most of the science aboard is done basically for life and science on Earth rather than in space: materials research (basically for industries), finding new methods for therapies (medicine) and such stuff. This is going to end in 2015 already. I can't really see a preparation for long term missions to Moon or Mars. In my point of view this seems to be a sort of propaganda to vindicate the ISS.

Well, it seems that your views on this subject are based entirely on the goal of achieving very small-scale and very temporary human missions to the moon and Mars. Can you see that many other people have a different set of fundamental goals in mind when they consider the space endeavor?

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, it seems that your views on this subject are based entirely on the goal of achieving very small-scale and very temporary human missions to the moon and Mars. Can you see that many other people have a different set of fundamental goals in mind when they consider the space endeavor?

Even worse, I interpret his argumentation as seeing the (next) goal, but not the way towards it. You can't do seven miles steps, so you need to do smaller steps. And the direct way to a target is not always the best.

Finally, it is all about 90%. You need 90% of the work for the last 10% towards a goal.

 

[Moonwalker]

Well, it seems that your views on this subject are based entirely on the goal of achieving very small-scale and very temporary human missions to the moon and Mars.

In my opinion we need to go to the Moon and start learning to live on it for a while before we can go to Mars. But Mars is something we can talk about in 2030 at the earliest and beyond is something we won't talk about within this century for sure. The very first goal should be and is going to be the Moon. We already started but we stopped. The first new missions will be small-scale and temporary, yes. We won't land there and stay there by the first missions including a large number of people and equipment. But we need to go there, to do it, no matter if it's small-scale missions at first, instead of staying in LEO and doing stuff we do since the 1980's.

Can you see that many other people have a different set of fundamental goals in mind when they consider the space endeavor?

Of course. But it seems to be mostly about something like colonizing Moon and Mars. But that's something which actually is not related to current real manned space flight. That's science fiction. Nobody within the business really is talking about at the moment. The next steps will be missions (not colonizing) to the Moon and Mars. That's what Constellation is going to do and which will require decades to do so. Anything else goes beyond current space flight.

 

[Chipstone306]

We're not just talking about gaps between projects, we're talking about the ability to keep ISS supplied with people and supplies as well as mount a rescue in the unfortunate event that one is needed. We can argue the merits of ISS all day, but the fact remains that it exists and is likely still being paid for. And some of the research that ISS will do is valuable to long term living in space, such that would be required for trips to Mars or other places.

Excellent point. I believe that long term planning for ISS was not properly researched. Nations change, leaders come, and go and priorites shift I can only imagine what is going to happen when it comes to the 2010 deadline for sts missions.
I want an ISS with 6 crew! for extended stays! I want to be assured that the ISS will be maintained to adequate levels and not given up on. I want to see more nations contribute to the maintenance and supplying of the station. Thankl god for the ATV...

 

[Urwumpe]

Excellent point. I believe that long term planning for ISS was not properly researched. Nations change, leaders come, and go and priorites shift I can only imagine what is going to happen when it comes to the 2010 deadline for sts missions.
I want an ISS with 6 crew! for extended stays! I want to be assured that the ISS will be maintained to adequate levels and not given up on. I want to see more nations contribute to the maintenance and supplying of the station. Thankl god for the ATV...

I want a International Space Outpost as successor. The ISS will end one day. Sooner or later. But there should be something following. And I think, that station should have a strict "Here to stay" message in the design. Instead of a End of Life, this station should be kept running by replacement of modules as long as the station is worth the effort. It should be open to all, by only setting standards for new modules, and with a clear growth strategy known to the public for at least 10 years in advance, so new modules can be designed and module berths rented. Relocation of modules should also be possible. EVAs should not only become a daily task, but also be controlled from with in the station (one operational problem we have not yet tackled, but which we will need to solve for mars). The crew size of the station should grow with the number of modules, and only a small fraction of the crew should be required for maintenance duties. Space tourism should be endorsed, as well as commercial modules. A international basic standard system for support spacecraft should be developed, which can in the required minimum configuration be build by any interested nation. Modules which are no longer required on the station get either returned to Earth or parked in a high junk yard orbit by space tugs for future reuse. The station should also aim at assembly and maintenance of pure space vehicles.

Of course, this has a lot of ground science to be done, to be realized, but I think, this is a good next small step away from Earth - becoming more and more autonomous from Earth and special political bodies.

One way to realize such a station would for example be reviving the double keel structure of the late space station freedom, and over time going from a ladder-like layout of the modules over a 2D grid to a 3D crystal grid... well, maybe that looks too much like a humanoid low tech Bord cube then.

 

[Donamy]

This is what I love about Orbiter most, the dreaming.

 

[gimp1992]

I tend to agree with Moonwalker 40 years ago we were taking our first steps on another celestrial body then we digressed into a space station and an extremely expensive space truck. Imagine where we would be if we had built colonies on the moon instead ow wasting money on the shuttle and with the help of the Soviets started to explore the solar system.

 

[Donamy]

You have to stand, before you can fly.