ISS gets funding until 2024
- Thread starter DarthTom
- Start date
The bit you quoted explains why it's a good idea, so I don't know why you're asking. Do you disagree with the reasons listed, or what? Weren't you the one complaining about a lack of manned space travel in the other thread? If you like manned space travel, you want to keep the ISS operating.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yes, I want the ISS to continue receiving funding.
Me too.
And it should get a huge Terran Empire logo on the side of it, just to mess with Trek fans who hear "ISS" and get the wrong idea.
And it should get a huge Terran Empire logo on the side of it, just to mess with Trek fans who hear "ISS" and get the wrong idea.
Given how it took a decade or so to construct, the question is what happens after 2024 or 2028 when the station rezches the end of it's life.
Will it be replaced, can it be replaced?
Even if we can launch heavier/bigger modules on rockets rather than using the Space Shuttle for some modules. How easy would it be to construct it without having the Space Shuttle.
Will it be replaced, can it be replaced?
Even if we can launch heavier/bigger modules on rockets rather than using the Space Shuttle for some modules. How easy would it be to construct it without having the Space Shuttle.
A
Amaris
Guest
Orion is a capsule, not a rocket or space station.
From the little I have read there may not be an international successor to ISS, at least not involving as many participants. The russians keep working on proposals to build their own again.
I hope that with the next station, if there is one, NASA can build it from fewer but larger components. Who knows though. NASA may not build one next. They might just lease space on a commercial station.
From the little I have read there may not be an international successor to ISS, at least not involving as many participants. The russians keep working on proposals to build their own again.
I hope that with the next station, if there is one, NASA can build it from fewer but larger components. Who knows though. NASA may not build one next. They might just lease space on a commercial station.
A
Amaris
Guest
I know Orion's not a space station, but the Orion program is expected to be up and running by then, and the Orion program is designed as an LEO cargo people hauler, which means upgrades and new supplies for a new or existing ISS. Now, unless NASA forgot how to propel their capsules into space, I'm not seeing your point.
Actually. Orion is not a LEO cargo/people hauler. It's mission is beyond low earth orbit missions. Commercial space craft such as SpaceX's Dragon are being hired for LEO cargo and crew missions. Orion, once again. is just a capsule and can't get into space on it's own. The SLS is the intended launcher for it, although for at least the first Orion mission a Delta Heavy will be used. The intention is for Orion to only be used for crew/cargo rotation of a new or existing ISS if commercial spacecraft never make it to operational status.
Seeing as Dragon is already flying operational cargo missions and is on schedule to start flying manned missions (barring congress doing something asinine like cutting funding to COTS regardless of the fact that it's been some of the best bang for the buck NASA has ever had) to ISS at least 2 years before Orion, I don't think there is any problem of that.
The fate of SLS and whether it actually makes more than a few launches remains to be seen.
Que Publiusr to come tell us that SLS is the answer to all our prayers.
Seeing as Dragon is already flying operational cargo missions and is on schedule to start flying manned missions (barring congress doing something asinine like cutting funding to COTS regardless of the fact that it's been some of the best bang for the buck NASA has ever had) to ISS at least 2 years before Orion, I don't think there is any problem of that.
The fate of SLS and whether it actually makes more than a few launches remains to be seen.
Que Publiusr to come tell us that SLS is the answer to all our prayers.
A
Amaris
Guest
From here: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/mpcv/#.Us5Dy_ut-4k
NASA Orion Page said:
Please stop, because I don't know what you're going on about.
Back in the day, Orion was something else.
What's in a name?
Reusing the same name within the same arena for something entirely different is a clever way to avoid confusion, like DIVX and DivX. When that codec first appeared, it was frequently noted, "Not to be confused with the defunct home video format!" If they wanted to avoid confusion, they would have come up with a different name!
Seriously, NASA couldn't come up with a name other than that already used by a high-profile project? (The BUCK ROGERS series used the name "Ranger 3" deliberately because that probe was lost in space.) NASA could have named the new vehicle after one of the horses that pulled Apollo's chariot around the sky, perhaps.
Reusing the same name within the same arena for something entirely different is a clever way to avoid confusion, like DIVX and DivX. When that codec first appeared, it was frequently noted, "Not to be confused with the defunct home video format!" If they wanted to avoid confusion, they would have come up with a different name!
Seriously, NASA couldn't come up with a name other than that already used by a high-profile project? (The BUCK ROGERS series used the name "Ranger 3" deliberately because that probe was lost in space.) NASA could have named the new vehicle after one of the horses that pulled Apollo's chariot around the sky, perhaps.
Are we not reading the same thing? Bolded for emphasis.
As I said. It's perfectly capable of going to ISS, but that's not it's intended purpose. It will only fill that role if commercial space is unable to.
I have very little faith Robert Maxwell that there exists enough political will and/or support to go to Mars - that is with NASA paying for it. The American public has IMO lost interest in using taxpayer dollars to fund huge projects e.g. a mission to Mars.
And is there enough international interest to muster a coalition of nations to make such a project affordable. Shit, as it stands now the only way we'd even be able to afford to go to Mars in the forseeable future is to borrow from the Chinese to do it.
With that in mind - I'm personally unconvinced about the scientific value for the station - at least for Americans.
It's too bad that NASA's charter probihits selling space - or NASA time - on the station to billionaires who do have a keen interest in paying their way to the heavens.
On a brighter note, Nat Geo is doing an ISS special this spring:
A
Amaris
Guest
Indeed we are, but your initial statement was something else entirely.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yep, the Orion capsule isn't designed primarily as an LEO cargo/people hauler, but it does have the capacity to act as such, to the point where it's in the program's mission statement.
Oh, and it's "you're." If you're going to be snarky and correct me on some kind of minutiae, and ignore everything else I've said, at least spell things correctly.
Ah, sorry. Guess I didn't proof read that last post I made carefully. You're going to have to point out how I ignored "everything else you said", though, since all I did was expand on exactly what Orion is and it's mission.
Yes, crew and cargo to ISS is a backup role for Orion. One saddled on it by congress. Now lets look at the reality of it filling that role. To get it there in the near future we have 2 probable launch vehicles, SLS and DeltaIV Heavy. The DeltaIVH, while operational, is not man rated and will take years and millions of dollars to do so. The SLS is in a word, overkill. It can lift 70 tons of payload to orbit of which Orion is a small part of. Now the issue with that is the fact that it costs roughly half a billion per launch and has a projected flight rate of only twice per year. To make things worse, there's no money in NASA's budget to make use of the excess payload capability for a trip to ISS using SLS. They'll have to use ballast. Now, we've got a half billion dollar rocket doing milk runs to ISS to carry mostly ballast.
So yes, Orion can:
A. carry crew
B. carry cargo
C. serve as backup transport to ISS
Will it ever do C? I hope not.
Did I make anymore grammatical errors?
Yes, crew and cargo to ISS is a backup role for Orion. One saddled on it by congress. Now lets look at the reality of it filling that role. To get it there in the near future we have 2 probable launch vehicles, SLS and DeltaIV Heavy. The DeltaIVH, while operational, is not man rated and will take years and millions of dollars to do so. The SLS is in a word, overkill. It can lift 70 tons of payload to orbit of which Orion is a small part of. Now the issue with that is the fact that it costs roughly half a billion per launch and has a projected flight rate of only twice per year. To make things worse, there's no money in NASA's budget to make use of the excess payload capability for a trip to ISS using SLS. They'll have to use ballast. Now, we've got a half billion dollar rocket doing milk runs to ISS to carry mostly ballast.
So yes, Orion can:
A. carry crew
B. carry cargo
C. serve as backup transport to ISS
Will it ever do C? I hope not.
Did I make anymore grammatical errors?
Similar threads
