SpaceX successfuly launches Falcon 9

[eion]

No, I absolutely agree that the ISS was designed wrongly from day one. They looked at what they had in launch capability (the Shuttle & Russian launchers like Proton) and built the station around that, which meant it needed dozens of launches and complicated assembly operations rather than building a station to be launched atop one or two heavy lift vehicle (ala Skylab) which has shown itself to be very cost efficient (I think Skylab altogether cost a tenth of what the ISS does, and if we weren't idiots it would still be up there and we could've built a station 4 times the size of the ISS by now).

What I'd like to see is the ISS put into hibernation with minimal crew for maintenance and with orbit boosting via VASMIR so that we can refocus on planetary exploration (you all know me, Mars or Bust)

And I know it's a sunk costs fallacy to just keep dumping money into ISS, but we've built it, it's there, we shouldn't just deorbit it like so much space junk.

[Sea Skimmer]

A minimal crew would be 3 people, which is all its had for most of its operational lifetime, which is yet another reason why it has sucked so hard. The dedicated lifeboat being canceled held them to that limit for a long time. Trying to keep the thing operational on a minimal budget would be too expensive to make sense. It really is an all or nothing kind of deal. The US has thrown stupidly expensive crap away before anyway, our military is forced into this all the time like shutting down the Safeguard ABM system 1 day after it became operational. I wouldn't kill the ISS instantly, since a lot of money would be lost on missions that are already planned and having hardware built, but I would basically make the end of 2011 the end of the station. All money would be diverted into building a very heavy lift launcher now, with a goal of a manned Mars flyby as soon as possible. I mean god... even a couple of hopefully cheap SpaceX supply missions to the ISS would already be enough money to put a nuclear powered rover on mars. Its insane.

[eion]

A minimal crew would be 3 people, which is all its had for most of its operational lifetime, which is yet another reason why it has sucked so hard. The dedicated lifeboat being canceled held them to that limit for a long time. Trying to keep the thing operational on a minimal budget would be too expensive to make sense. It really is an all or nothing kind of deal. The US has thrown stupidly expensive crap away before anyway, our military is forced into this all the time like shutting down the Safeguard ABM system 1 day after it became operational.

Well I guess it's time to invite China to the ISS party then. They've shown plenty of interest by the US has vetoed their involvement.

So basically we need a larger crew so that more experiments and research can be done, so it looks like the manned-Dragon (if it comes online, fingers crossed) with its 7 crew capacity might help out there. I wonder how long it can remain docked to the ISS before it needs to return home?

Yeah, the military might be used to throwing things away, but their budget is A) 36 times larger than NASA's and B) not subject to nearly as much political football (i.e. nobody ever gets called unpatriotic for "Not Supporting the Astronauts!")

[Sea Skimmer]

Well I guess it's time to invite China to the ISS party then. They've shown plenty of interest by the US has vetoed their involvement.

Yeah, no thanks to handing over all our space technology to the Red Chinese on top of all the crap they already stole from us. The whole space war thing has been heating up, and nothings going to stop it now.

So basically we need a larger crew so that more experiments and research can be done, so it looks like the manned-Dragon (if it comes online, fingers crossed) with its 7 crew capacity might help out there. I wonder how long it can remain docked to the ISS before it needs to return home?

They've got a second Soyuz docked full time now, about IIRC fifteen years after the proper lifeboat was killed, so the ISS can operate with a crew of 6. Still this means we are paying for only three people to do actual useful work. That could have easily been accomplished with a smaller station that wasn't so time consuming to operate and inspect... which is what the Soviets did for decades.

Yeah, the military might be used to throwing things away, but their budget is A) 36 times larger than NASA's and B) not subject to nearly as much political football (i.e. nobody ever gets called unpatriotic for "Not Supporting the Astronauts!")

Which is the damn problem, NASA is easily nickle and dimed to death which is why its stuck in a situation in which it can only support one major project now. That project has been chosen as the ISS which is an utter dead end. Obama has put off any real decisions on a future until well into his second term, and you know that with all the budget troubles that will just die after such a long gap. His claims that we need more studies are of course utter bullshit, space travel is the most over studied, under developed topic ever.

[eion]

Well I guess it's time to invite China to the ISS party then. They've shown plenty of interest by the US has vetoed their involvement.

Yeah, no thanks to handing over all our space technology to the Red Chinese on top of all the crap they already stole from us. The whole space war thing has been heating up, and nothings going to stop it now.

Would it really have to be like that? Giving them the right to perform research aboard the ISS and send a taikonaut or two in exchange for funding support would hardly require the handing over of all our "space technology." Hell, we trust the Brazilians with that much!

So basically we need a larger crew so that more experiments and research can be done, so it looks like the manned-Dragon (if it comes online, fingers crossed) with its 7 crew capacity might help out there. I wonder how long it can remain docked to the ISS before it needs to return home?

They've got a second Soyuz docked full time now, about IIRC fifteen years after the proper lifeboat was killed, so the ISS can operate with a crew of 6. Still this means we are paying for only three people to do actual useful work. That could have easily been accomplished with a smaller station that wasn't so time consuming to operate and inspect... which is what the Soviets did for decades.

So with a Dragon and a Soyuz you could have a crew of 10, or with 2 Dragons and a Soyuz or Shenzhou you could manage 17(!), though I think there are only 6 permanent sleeping spaces on the station right now, that could certainly be upgraded or they could just rotate about.

Yeah, the military might be used to throwing things away, but their budget is A) 36 times larger than NASA's and B) not subject to nearly as much political football (i.e. nobody ever gets called unpatriotic for "Not Supporting the Astronauts!")

Which is the damn problem, NASA is easily nickle and dimed to death which is why its stuck in a situation in which it can only support one major project now. That project has been chosen as the ISS which is an utter dead end. Obama has put off any real decisions on a future until well into his second term, and you know that with all the budget troubles that will just die after such a long gap. His claims that we need more studies are of course utter bullshit, space travel is the most over studied, under developed topic ever.

We completly agree. We need a better way to fund NASA and space exploration in general. Since the DOD budget is essentially bullet-proof, I've said this before, but I think we should tie NASA's funding to a percentage of total DOD spending.

[Simon_Jester]

Did you read what I stated? I wrote "Canceling Constellation was a bad call". Nobody with half a shred of sense proposed that, except the "fly the Shuttle forever!" crowd (yeah, its still around). What ideally would have come out of this, is SpaceX and commercial vehicles focusing on ISS resupply (at minimum), while NASA focused on building a heavy lift and an Orion spacecraft for beyond LEO manned missions.

I'm sorry, I know. It's just... everything else Obama is doing feels like window dressing compared to his decision to cancel Constellation. I don't know if there's still time to undo that and restart the program; I hope so, and I hope it'll get done. But I'm afraid he'll buy off the senators who would otherwise object, throwing money at this, that, and the other thing... and wind up creating a useless mess of a program that can't take us past LEO, doesn't give us heavy lift, and is more expensive than what it was meant to replace. And I can't for the life of me understand what the hell he's thinking, which is what really bothers me.

He's not trying to save money or he'd SAY SO, instead of throwing cash around hand over fist on everything he can think of. He's not trying to expand his legacy or he wouldn't attach his name so aggressively to the idea of canceling the program. What the hell is the point!?

[Skylon]

I'm sorry, I know. It's just... everything else Obama is doing feels like window dressing compared to his decision to cancel Constellation. I don't know if there's still time to undo that and restart the program; I hope so, and I hope it'll get done. But I'm afraid he'll buy off the senators who would otherwise object, throwing money at this, that, and the other thing... and wind up creating a useless mess of a program that can't take us past LEO, doesn't give us heavy lift, and is more expensive than what it was meant to replace. And I can't for the life of me understand what the hell he's thinking, which is what really bothers me.

He's not trying to save money or he'd SAY SO, instead of throwing cash around hand over fist on everything he can think of. He's not trying to expand his legacy or he wouldn't attach his name so aggressively to the idea of canceling the program. What the hell is the point!?

Constellation has not been officially canceled yet. That requires Congressional Approval, and cancellation is not going to be cheap, as due to the contract, NASA/The US government is obliged to pay the key contractors upon termination of the program. NASA HQ and the Johnson Space Center seem to be in conflict over what to do, with JSC still diving into studies related to Constellation, and HQ taking actions to make them stop. The last mockups built and tests budgeted are still going on.

Lockheed has already begun reassigning engineers working Orion to other projects, in a potential death-kneel for Orion.

What's been bugging me is that this is called "commercial" when really, the only thing commercial about it, is that the design is 100% created by the vendor of this vehicle. Every spacecraft built for NASA, with the possible exception of the X-15, was designed by NASA. Not every rocket. The Atlas and Titan II used for Mercury and Gemini were developed before those programs got a hold of them.

You can't call it commercial either if a manned Dragon spacecraft is operated by NASA flight controllers and flown by NASA astronauts. Then its almost the same as every spacecraft from Mercury to Shuttle. Built by a private company and flown by a government agency.

[Skylon]

So with a Dragon and a Soyuz you could have a crew of 10, or with 2 Dragons and a Soyuz or Shenzhou you could manage 17(!), though I think there are only 6 permanent sleeping spaces on the station right now, that could certainly be upgraded or they could just rotate about.

You'd need to step up station resupply a lot for that.

The sticky situation with Soyuz and buying seats is that NASA originally obliged to transport ISS crews. Expeditions 2 - 5 all launched and landed on the shuttle, while the Russians simply rotated Soyuz spacecraft to make sure a fresh lifeboat was available. When Columbia was lost, Soyuz took up the lion's share of crew rotation duties, whereas before, it had been a lifeboat. This is what makes the "Orion Lite" proposal rather dumb.

If Dragon flies manned, I'm not sure if it has the capability/what duration it can remain on orbit. Maybe the situation will return to the pre-Columbia days, with a Dragon ferrying US Astronauts to and from ISS and the Russians making sure a spare seat is on the Soyuz capsules for the Americans (this would also allow the Russians to resume launching commercial space tourists).

[eion]

You'd need to step up station resupply a lot for that.

If more researchers = more simultaneous experiments than more experiments = more return on investment then there is an economic incentive to accommodate the additional launches. Even if SpaceX sold 25% of those seats to tourists (~2 seats per launch) you'd still end up with 5 - 10 astronauts/researchers onboard at any one time, and that's not counting the Russian/Chineese launches. The cost of additional supply launches will actually go down as more are required, economies of scale and all.

If Dragon flies manned, I'm not sure if it has the capability/what duration it can remain on orbit. Maybe the situation will return to the pre-Columbia days, with a Dragon ferrying US Astronauts to and from ISS and the Russians making sure a spare seat is on the Soyuz capsules for the Americans (this would also allow the Russians to resume launching commercial space tourists).

According to the Datasheet on the unmanned model, it can remain in orbit for up to 2 years. Even assuming that the manned model only manages 50% as good in terms of docked time (Not using its onboard life-support or maneuvering system) that still means you'd only have to do 2 launches a year (call it 3 for safety) to maintain a 14 member crew round the clock.

Am I correct in thinking that the limiting factor is probably battery lifetime & the storage lifetime of the hypergolic propellant?

[Sea Skimmer]

Would it really have to be like that? Giving them the right to perform research aboard the ISS and send a taikonaut or two in exchange for funding support would hardly require the handing over of all our "space technology." Hell, we trust the Brazilians with that much!

It would end up meaning handing over a lot, because the Chinese wanted to field there own support ship as part of a deal. Brazil is a much different story being democratic and not a likely US enemy since the 1880s.

So with a Dragon and a Soyuz you could have a crew of 10, or with 2 Dragons and a Soyuz or Shenzhou you could manage 17(!), though I think there are only 6 permanent sleeping spaces on the station right now, that could certainly be upgraded or they could just rotate about.

Life support will not allow that many people to be on the station at once. Its not just a matter of raw capacity either, the ISS has a hose fed mask system for backup O2 supply with only limited hookup points. The station as planned when it was approved would have been bigger and able to handle around 14 people full time. Expanding the current station is fucking insane. You are talking about billions and billions of dollars, and without the shuttle nor a shuttle replacement we don't even have a good method of launching and installing any more large modules. Even if life support and sleeping didn't matter, I don't think the current station even has enough space for 17 people or anything close to that to be able to do any work.

We completly agree. We need a better way to fund NASA and space exploration in general. Since the DOD budget is essentially bullet-proof, I've said this before, but I think we should tie NASA's funding to a percentage of total DOD spending.

That wouldn't work very well since the DOD budget changes all the time, and in recent years is also subject to having huge war supplemental bills added a few times a year. I'd tie to total government spending if I did anything anyway.

[eion]

It would end up meaning handing over a lot, because the Chinese wanted to field there own support ship as part of a deal. Brazil is a much different story being democratic and not a likely US enemy since the 1880s.

What exactly would they need to operate a support craft? All I can imagine they would need is the publically available specs for the Common Berthing Mechanismand docking approach system used by the ATVs/Dragons, and that's assuming the Chinese don't just use the Russian segment to support all their operations. Am I missing something?

Life support will not allow that many people to be on the station at once. Its not just a matter of raw capacity either, the ISS has a hose fed mask system for backup O2 supply with only limited hookup points. The station as planned when it was approved would have been bigger and able to handle around 14 people full time. Expanding the current station is fucking insane. You are talking about billions and billions of dollars, and without the shuttle nor a shuttle replacement we don't even have a good method of launching and installing any more large modules. Even if life support and sleeping didn't matter, I don't think the current station even has enough space for 17 people or anything close to that to be able to do any work.

Well that's a pretty clear limit. Any idea how many of those hookups are available?

That wouldn't work very well since the DOD budget changes all the time, and in recent years is also subject to having huge war supplemental bills added a few times a year. I'd tie to total government spending if I did anything anyway.

That's probably a better idea, but the point remains that it would remove NASA funding as a political football.

[Sea Skimmer]

What exactly would they need to operate a support craft? All I can imagine they would need is the publically available specs for the Common Berthing Mechanismand docking approach system used by the ATVs/Dragons, and that's assuming the Chinese don't just use the Russian segment to support all their operations. Am I missing something?

Mainly how stupidly complicated and high risk everything we do manned in space is. Its like a combat mission every time they go up, and we've been pretty damn lucky so far with a number of incidents. If a Chinese spacecraft is going to service the station, then we need to know all the specifications of that system, and we need to share a lot of stuff in return. A lot of that would concern detail design methods, which is exactly what we don't want to hand China when they have such a nascent space program. Military and civilian space technology is linked at the hip, NASA being no exception. The reality is information that would help them build a safer supply ship would also help them build better military satellites and orbiters. Our own US space shuttle system was heavily aimed at military requirements, but then completely failed at them for being so overweight and unreliable. Even if we look past that, the reality is US politics are very opposed to China, and yet the space station program must be on a reliable base. Otherwise we risk some political fall out shutting down the entire operation.

One of the reasons why I want a big interplanetary booster is also because we could use to to ensure space superiority. Small rockets like Falcon 9 heavy just can't do that when it comes to orbiting payloads into the higher orbits. In the future we may need to orbit some big payloads to maintain that, and without secure early warning our whole nuclear deterrent falls flat on its face.

Well that's a pretty clear limit. Any idea how many of those hookups are available?

No I can't find anything that detailed, but the information probably does exist online somewhere. All and all being on the ISS is dangerous as hell. Past the inherent space debris and solar flare risk you've got a huge amount of equipment which can catch fire. Fires are really bad when you live inside a sealed tube made of tin foil moving several tens of thousands of miles per hour. The ISS has had incidents too in which they had to use those emergency masks because of something overheating. This is we we have to set the standard very high for quality and cooperation.

That's probably a better idea, but the point remains that it would remove NASA funding as a political football.

I can think of a lot of budget reforms I like. Its not going to happen, because congress giving up any level of detail line by line control of the federal budget at all would undermine the ability of everyone to grab pork and protect jobs in specific districts. The US congress is based on that shit, its what they trade to gain votes to reconcile bills. I don't even hate pork that much, its not THAT much money (though quite enough to make NASA super awesome) but the control system they have going is setup because of it. We'd need a constitutional convention frankly to budge the issue, and the nation is far too divided right now to have one.

[eion]

A lot of that would concern detail design methods, which is exactly what we don't want to hand China when they have such a nascent space program. Military and civilian space technology is linked at the hip, NASA being no exception. The reality is information that would help them build a safer supply ship would also help them build better military satellites and orbiters. Our own US space shuttle system was heavily aimed at military requirements, but then completely failed at them for being so overweight and unreliable. Even if we look past that, the reality is US politics are very opposed to China, and yet the space station program must be on a reliable base. Otherwise we risk some political fall out shutting down the entire operation.

So assuming the Chinese are only expressing interest in ISS involvement is so they can plunder our technology, allowing their supply ship to dock with the Russian segment should help alleviate some of those concerns. I imagine that the Russians are already sharing some of their space technology with the Chinese; using them as a buffer would make sense. And I’m sure there’s some way to get them to agree to start with just sending up taikonauts in Russian vehicles.

I really wonder how much of what is on the ISS is really top secret stuff. I'd probably be surprised, but it can't be that much if we trust the Russians with it, or is it that they've already jumped most of those hurdles themselves?

One of the reasons why I want a big interplanetary booster is also because we could use to to ensure space superiority. Small rockets like Falcon 9 heavy just can't do that when it comes to orbiting payloads into the higher orbits. In the future we may need to orbit some big payloads to maintain that, and without secure early warning our whole nuclear deterrent falls flat on its face.

You want them for defense, I want them for exploration, now if only we could find a reason for the anti-spacers to embrace Heavy Lift Boosters we'd be set.

Well that's a pretty clear limit. Any idea how many of those hookups are available?

No I can't find anything that detailed, but the information probably does exist online somewhere. All and all being on the ISS is dangerous as hell. Past the inherent space debris and solar flare risk you've got a huge amount of equipment which can catch fire. Fires are really bad when you live inside a sealed tube made of tin foil moving several tens of thousands of miles per hour. The ISS has had incidents too in which they had to use those emergency masks because of something overheating. This is we have to set the standard very high for quality and cooperation.

If that's the biggest thing stopping us, then you can just send up some portable oxygen bottles with masks. The bigger deal is not what to do in an emergency, but the fact that the main life support system can't support 17 people at once without a lot more resupply. But that's fixable with either money or engineering, and most likely both.

I can think of a lot of budget reforms I like. Its not going to happen, because congress giving up any level of detail line by line control of the federal budget at all would undermine the ability of everyone to grab pork and protect jobs in specific districts. The US congress is based on that shit, its what they trade to gain votes to reconcile bills. I don't even hate pork that much, its not THAT much money (though quite enough to make NASA super awesome) but the control system they have going is setup because of it. We'd need a constitutional convention frankly to budge the issue, and the nation is far too divided right now to have one.

You could let them keep their pork if you just set NASA's budget percentage as a minimum, and allow Congress a to allocate money above that.

I can think of a lot of things I'd like to bring up at a constitutional convention, but the chances of one ever being called (and one hasn't yet in our 220 years as a country) are pretty slim.