A siginificantly smaller space station (ISS has about fifty times the mass of Tiangong 1).
Russia planning de-orbit of ISS in 2020
- Thread starter Candlelight
- Start date
A siginificantly smaller space station (ISS has about fifty times the mass of Tiangong 1).
To reach the ISS you have to launch at a certain time of day and be in a certain orbit. It's pretty useless as a lifeboat.
Space exploration in general is a "money pit."
NASA needs to start thinking like the Russians have for a time now. I'm sure millionaires and billionaires would spend a fortune to visit the ISS. Shit, why not sell the facility to someone like Branson where he can one day take 'space tourists,' for over night visits?
Nonono, sell it to Richard Branson. The first space hotel.
Or maybe a company like SpaceX would be interested in it? The could rent it out as a research facility and space hotel.
(Case in point, MirCorp actually intended to buy and refurbish Mir back in 2000, but the company went bankrupt before it could happen and the station was subsequently de-orbited a year later. Maybe a more stable company could actually go for something like this.)
(Case in point, MirCorp actually intended to buy and refurbish Mir back in 2000, but the company went bankrupt before it could happen and the station was subsequently de-orbited a year later. Maybe a more stable company could actually go for something like this.)
Perhaps for the initial Chinese segment. And, for something so larger such as the ISS, they're not really get much use out of it!
Mr Awe
The space station would indeed make a nice space inn, at least compared to what's been in space before it. It's spacious, it has an acceptable toilet, has a lot of living space, and the living space is comfy. It's certainly the closest thing we have to one, and it might remain that way for a long time. And if you're a space nerd, it is probably be the most awesome hotel in existence.
But that's not how I imagine a space hotel:
1. A space hotel would be designed for space tourists, not work, scientists and nerds. It will look differently, although I do not know how. It will have less wires, less visible nuts and bolts. Some ideas from Star Trek TNG/Voyager might work. Vegetation inside the hotel would also be nice.
2. A space hotel needs to have a turning artificial gravity segment. It's not necessary, but not everybody would want to sleep in microgravity or spend the entire day in microgravity. And I'd love a 2G section myself.
3. A space hotel needs attraction. You don't go to a hotel for the hotel.
a) Observation modules with large windows, windows with shutters and sunscreens for the habitable modules (rooms).
b) Regular space walks on exterior walkways. You might have a small decorated exterior plane that gives you a walk in the park feeling.
c) An observatory module with a large telescope and several small ones that allow you to view the stars without an atmosphere.
Save for the vast size and the artificial gravity part, you can do most of that for the price of the space station. And if it is a scalable design that was well-planned, you can eventually add the size additions and the rest of the things.
Oh, and did I say about the 0.3g swimming pool?
Last edited:
And, as far as I'm concerned, that's the end of it. It had a decent run. We all want it to end. Since it's an International space station, it's nice we're all in agreement on how to end it.
I don't know about that. People travel thousands of miles, literally every say, to resort hotels and never leave them for the duration of their stay.
Quite a lot. The station is 417289 kg, and lifting something from LEO to higher orbit requires like half of the fuel to get it in LEO in the first place. The largest rocket currently in existence can lift 1/10 of the station to LEO.
Are you sure about that? Most of the fuel needed to put something into orbit is burned speeding it up to orbital velocity. I believe it's possible to put a low thrust, highly efficient engine (like an ion engine) on the station to get it to a higher orbit, but it would take a LONG time for it to do so. I'd have to dig though my old orbital mechanics books to get any hard numbers, though.
Hm... Very true... In fact to move the station you need low thrust, moving it slowly, otherwise it will break into pieces. Ion thrusters are 10 times more efficient than solid rockets, and VASIMR even more, and what's more, a VASIMR will be installed on the station this or the next year. It will cost 1/20 of the cost of the current chemical rockets that are used now for station-keeping.
OK, let me try to do this again with this, and somebody correct me where I'm wrong:
* Station-keeping requires 50 m/s annually on average as far as I can tell.
* Moving the station to GEO would require 4000 m/s delta-v, moving it to the moon would require 6000 m/s.
* The VASIMR provides 5 N thrust, the station mass is 417289 kg.
* The VASIMR requires 200 KW power, and the station can spare only half of that, so the engine will only work half of the time. Or something.
* Station-keeping currently costs $200 million annually currently, and it's going to cost 1/20 of that with VASIMR, that means $10 million for 50 m/s.
So, I make the conclusion that:
* Station-keeping requires 1 month of thrust (2 months with the pauses).
* Going to GEO will require 10 years of thrust, going to the moon will require 16 of thrust. With the pauses that's 20 and 32 years.
* Moving the station to GEO would cost $800 million, moving it to the moon would cost $1.2 billion. But this cost doesn't take a great deal of things into account, so it's probably a huge underestimation. As a start, it doesn't take into account keeping the station operational without people inside for 10-20 years, loading it with argon for the VASIMR to replace the waste hydrogen that would be otherwise used for station-keeping, shielding it from radiation so that the station continues to work for these 10 years at higher altitudes, etc.
It looks like too much, but I'd say it's feasible, and worth it to preserve the station.
You might wanna include the cost to resupply the International Moon Station. Lifting something cargo is one thing...we already have several companies vying to do it. Lifting cargo to the moon is something else.
Exactly; first use electric power in a tether to raise it to a higher orbit, then -possibly- to power a retrofitted ion-drive... also my thoughtsThat's exactly what I'd like to see.
Or at the very least shove it far out into Lunar orbit or many even a Langragian Point.
Start an orbit museum.
Probably. I was just expressing dismay at these things that have been lost to History. On the other hand, somebody may be able to figure out a cheap way to do it. There was an interesting story in Analog a few years back that was based on the idea of the power generated by the Space Shuttle as it passes through the Earth's magnetic field. This causes the orbit to decay. What they did was use solar panels to pump energy back into the magnetic field which caused the Shuttle's orbit to increase without expending fuel. It might also be possible to use a couple of those ion engines to slowly inch it up to a high orbit over a period of months or years.
Better stick a mighty big disclaimer on it first; when that ol' thing falls to pieces with a truckload of Chinese taikonauts they'll want to sue someone.
