Kind of dumb ISS question

[Stag]

How come when they were designing the ISS, they did not model the space station in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Not in appearance or size, but the fact that it rotates and creates an artificial gravity for the inhabitants. Granted during construction it would be a booger to manage, but once completed, fire up the thrusters and let that puppy spin. It would not take much considering the zero gravity and if designed correctly the rotational forces could be well managed.

Just a thought. Being here in Central Florida and watching the space program it just seems there are very few leaps taking place only incremental change. Now with Orion coming, seems a bit of a step sideways if no backward. Seems to me, that if there are to be any true leaps in space flight/living it will likely come from the private sector.

Thoughts?

 

[diankra]

How come when they were designing the ISS, they did not model the space station in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Not in appearance or size, but the fact that it rotates and creates an artificial gravity for the inhabitants. Granted during construction it would be a booger to manage, but once completed, fire up the thrusters and let that puppy spin. It would not take much considering the zero gravity and if designed correctly the rotational forces could be well managed.

Just a thought. Being here in Central Florida and watching the space program it just seems there are very few leaps taking place only incremental change. Now with Orion coming, seems a bit of a step sideways if no backward. Seems to me, that if there are to be any true leaps in space flight/living it will likely come from the private sector.

Thoughts?

Simple answer number one: some of the research you want to do on a space station needs zero-g (ok, micro-gravity) conditions (crystal growing, for starters). If it can be done in gravity, then it's cheaper to do it on Earth, and less dangerous, and a research lab is cheaper than a space station.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

From what our resident NASA posters have said elsewhere, there are two main reasons why the ISS doesn't spin.

First, the shuttle would also have to rotate at the same rate to dock with the ISS and it doesn't (and maybe can't) carry enough fuel to start rotating to dock and then stop rotating for re-entry.

Second, the ISS is multi-axial so while rotation may give a fair simulation of gravity in one module it would cause screwy gravity in another module. Some of the modules would be nice and "horizontal" while others would be like "vertical" shafts that the astronauts would have to climb up and down like a ladder.

-MEC

 

[Harry]

And of course, imagine the complexity of building such a rotating system, and the facilities to keep it balanced (even when people and supplies are moved around), the docking and EVA procedures.

I've read about indications that rotating habitats would need to be quite huge to avoid people getting sick from the spin (I think it's called the coriolis effect).

The ISS is actually a very important project. It may not be as advanced as you like, but what we are learning is how to coordinate an international space effort, and how to actually construct (and maintain) a space station of this size.

You may be right on Orion being a step backwards. But the Shuttle is getting old and is becoming a bit cumbersome, with so many safety issues. The Russian counterpart is much simpler, and is actually the lifeline of the station. I think the Americans do need some of that basic reliability. Maybe when Orion is up and running, NASA can focus on some 'high concept' launcher again. Of course, they never should've scrapped the Saturn/Apollo system in the first place

 

[Stag]

Diankra, that didn't even cross my mind - obviously that makes so much sense. However, if you are building gravity centrifically by spinning something, the closer you get to the hub or axis of spin, doesn't that remain relatively unaffected by the forces created by the spin?

Regarding your post, Plixtxoplik, I understand that but one wonders if the design was different from the get go if there would be an engineering solution to be able to dock the shuttle to a rotating station.

EDIT: To answer Harry. Believe me, with today's budget constraints and politics, I am simply happy that we still have a manned presence n space. I remember the gap between Skylab and the shuttle and wondering when we were going to be in space again. I also agree with the reliability item you raise. However I think part of the problem is that NASA or at least the space contractors seem to want to reinvent the wheel. Why not take the lessons we've learned from the orbiter and design a more flexible, durable and simpler design. Building in that reliability based on things that have a proven track record. If I am not mistaken, one of the preliminary designs for the orbiter replacement was just that.

 

[diankra]

Diankra, that didn't even cross my mind - obviously that makes so much sense. However, if you are building gravity centrifically by spinning something, the closer you get to the hub or axis of spin, doesn't that remain relatively unaffected by the forces created by the spin?

Probably not, surprisingly. In the past, work on the ISS, its Russian predecessors and Skylab has had to be carefully scheduled as some of the micro-gravity (and astronomy) work could be disrupted even by something as apparently negligible as the vibrations caused by astronauts exercising or closing hatches, or by thrusters firing to maintain orientation.
That's why a lot of the space station designs produced in the lead-up to the ISS had a unmanned research platform which could be let loose as a free-flyer and then redocked as part of the proposal at one time or another - until, inevitably, the budget cuts began.

 

[Brent]

I just assumed it was cause of construction costs and such. Look how long its taking for them just to build the ISS.

 

[IJD GAF]

Yeah. The ISS is the most expensive object ever constructed.

 

[John Picard]

How come when they were designing the ISS, they did not model the space station in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Not in appearance or size, but the fact that it rotates and creates an artificial gravity for the inhabitants. Granted during construction it would be a booger to manage, but once completed, fire up the thrusters and let that puppy spin. It would not take much considering the zero gravity and if designed correctly the rotational forces could be well managed.

Just a thought. Being here in Central Florida and watching the space program it just seems there are very few leaps taking place only incremental change. Now with Orion coming, seems a bit of a step sideways if no backward. Seems to me, that if there are to be any true leaps in space flight/living it will likely come from the private sector.

Thoughts?

Don't confuse science fiction with science fact The boys and girls at NASA know what they are doing.

 

[Stag]

I am sure they do know what they are doing, but they are also bureaucratic and sometimes that just smothers creativity and new ideas. I will say this, if they run across a problem, they sure as hell know how to track it down and resolve it.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I am simply happy that we still have a manned presence n space. I remember the gap between Skylab and the shuttle and wondering when we were going to be in space again.

Get ready to relive those days.

When the shuttle fleet is grounded and retired in 2010, the United States will still be several years from having any manned launch capacity. We'll need the Russians and the Europeans to ferry astronauts and supplies to ISS; we won't be able to do it ourselves.

 

[Stag]

^Yeah that stinks. Hopefully, congress won't use that as an opportunity to slash the budget for NASA.

 

[NCC621]

The president also has a lot to say about NASA's budget. There's a real question as to which - if any - of the leading presidential candidates (of both parties) will support a robust program of space exploration.

http://www.nasawatch.com/
SEE: "Who's Worse for NASA: Democrats or Republicans?"

 

[WalkinMan]

I would have loved to see an actual 2001-style station built...sigh, those 1970's books which predicted colony space stations by now...

...incidentally isn't there the idea of an artificial gravity, rotating design used for the manned Mars mission?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I am simply happy that we still have a manned presence n space. I remember the gap between Skylab and the shuttle and wondering when we were going to be in space again.

Get ready to relive those days.

When the shuttle fleet is grounded and retired in 2010, the United States will still be several years from having any manned launch capacity. We'll need the Russians and the Europeans to ferry astronauts and supplies to ISS; we won't be able to do it ourselves.

What about Project Constellation?

 

[Mike Okuda]

Project Constellation has the real possibility of allowing NASA to send astronauts to the International Space Station more safely than is possible with the Space Shuttle. It is also the centerpiece of NASA's plan to return humans to the moon, and then reach to Mars and beyond. Whether this will happen - and when - is a big question, and is in part dependent on the decisions of the next president of the United States, as well as the Congress.

 

[MIB]

Honestly, and it hurts to say this because I'm a big space enthusiast, I feel that the ISS was a massive waste in money and resources. Especially considering that there were and are designs we could have persued that wouldn't have only produced a better station, but it could have been done by NASA working solo. My above all favorite would be the Space Island concept which is essentially sky lab only kicked up a few notches. (http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/home.html)

Don't get me wrong, I support international cooperation, but I think at this point no one can disagree that relying on the Russian Space Agency to do their part and do it on time was a huge mistake. Especially since NASA couldn't have possibly picked up the slack when the inevitable would happen. And now the result is a station that is massivly overbudget, only partially complete, and already nearing the end of it's life span (which is 2012 or 2015 if I recall correctly). And now we have no shuttle to boot (which, even some NASA personel have admitted, was also largely a waste of cash and resources).

 

[Squiggy]

Had Columbia not occured, the ISS would be done by now.

 

[Stag]

Honestly, and it hurts to say this because I'm a big space enthusiast, I feel that the ISS was a massive waste in money and resources. Especially considering that there were and are designs we could have persued that wouldn't have only produced a better station, but it could have been done by NASA working solo. My above all favorite would be the Space Island concept which is essentially sky lab only kicked up a few notches. (http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/home.html)

Don't get me wrong, I support international cooperation, but I think at this point no one can disagree that relying on the Russian Space Agency to do their part and do it on time was a huge mistake. Especially since NASA couldn't have possibly picked up the slack when the inevitable would happen. And now the result is a station that is massivly overbudget, only partially complete, and already nearing the end of it's life span (which is 2012 or 2015 if I recall correctly). And now we have no shuttle to boot (which, even some NASA personel have admitted, was also largely a waste of cash and resources).

Which is why the commercialization of space is probably the way to go - quicker, faster and probably more reliable. At least more creative ideas. I would wager that given ten years and the same budget, the private sector could do far more and far better then NASA could during the same period. I am not saying they are not capable, but simply being a governmental entity bogs them down in red tape.

 

[JustAFriend]

When the shuttle fleet is grounded and retired in 2010, the United States will still be several (years) DECADES from having any manned launch capacity. We'll need the Russians and the Europeans to ferry astronauts and supplies to ISS; we won't be able to do it ourselves.

There, I fixed it for you....