NASA's 1999 Plan To Splash ISS

Didn't the "canceled" propulsion module require the shuttle carry up two cargo-bay sized palletized fuel cartridges after ISS integration?

How much of an engine would they really need?
The new plan could likely use a modified progress module.

Well, I'm glad to see someone thinks its a bad idea to de-orbit that thing so soon .. Granted if it becomes unsafe it would be the only answer . I think with proper servicing it should be able to fly well beyond 2016.

I would like to know how they came up ( would come up ) with this vehicle's aerodynamics and loads. Or did they?

The main problem with the ISS is that it sucks up over $2 billion of the NASA budget every year. That pretty much means no money for the Moon program at least until after the Orion and HLVs are developed and then those funds could be used to fund the Altair lunar lander.

That of course would delay the Moon program perhaps 5 to 10 years after 2014 or 2015. That means no Moon base program until the 2020s. That's if the administration at that time still wants to fund a Moon program.

Personally, I'd like to see the ISS ended the same year that we end the shuttle and use that money to start developing the Altair right now so that we could return to the Moon by 2016.

at its current size a progress could not deorbit the station, however an ATV would do so nicely and probably will deliver the final blow.

Marcel Willaims
So don't depend on an HLV system, to go to the moon. There are cheaper options. ESAS isn't the bestest, or even cheapest way to actualy go to the moon.

The White House new starts for the NASA’s human spaceflight are shown in the following:

1) Eisenhower Administration’s new start: Mercury program by the Administrator Thomas Glennan (1958).
2) Kennedy Administration’s new start: Apollo and Saturn V to the Moon by the Administrator James Webb (1961).
3) Nixon Administration’s new start: Human Space Transportation System (STS) by Administrator James Fletcher (1976).
4) Reagan Administration’s new start: Human Space Station by the Administrator James Beggs (1985).
5) Bush Administration’s new start: Vision for Space Exploration-Return to the Moon then go to Mars by the Administrator Sean O'Keefe (2004).

The STS program is over 38 years at 2015 and ISS program is over 30 years at 2015.

The best option would be the ISS ended the same year that STS end the shuttle at the end of 2015.

American needs the long term new space job such as return to the Moon then go to Mars!

The cheaper rocket options only do some of what we want. More tonnage means more equipment and more potential destinations off the same basic rocket systems.

Some ask why are we giving up the station to build moon rockets. I ask why are we giving up the moon for an aging space station?

Stations are disposable. They are temporary outposts designed to live only a relatively short time. We (or any if the three current space fairing nations, or handful of private businesses) can and will probably replace it.

...Opportunities for Moon shots don't come along very often.

Relax folks, it's a contigency plan. Prudent and agreed on by all partners, but not in any way imminent unless something goes wrong with altitude/attitude ISS control.

The de-orbit plan is a safety rule written into ISS agreements, irrelevant of ISS extension (look up 'liability'), should ISS enter uncontrollable mode and literally nuke a small sleepy town in Australia. And Progress, SM can bring it down as well. The ATV's thrusters are actually smaller.

Now, personally, the ISS is there and now and provides a first anchor destination for COTS. We'd piss off a lot of folks at JAXA, ESA, RSA, CSA if we (NASA) attempted unilaterally. We can't anyway technically.

The US Moon/Mars stuff are a pie in the sky. Dumping ISS to 'save' Moon flags and footprints makes no sense especially as it wouldn't help unless NASA is reformed drastically.

Deorbiting ISS before it time is a criminal waste.

I've always wondered why no plan has ever been devised to land the ISS softly on the moon. Granted it wasn't designed to do that, but we'll need a moonstation and the ISS is a giant leap towards just that. Think of the time and $$ it would save.

We can do anything if we put our minds to it.

Editor's note: put it in lunar orbit - interesting. On the surface - impossible.

When was the last time that 'Steve Cooke' and 'success' were in the same scentence? He seems like the death card to projects.

Regarding the ISS, I can only support minimal funding and only as long as required to meet international committments.

Science value for the ISS has always been dubious. Especially considering it's cost.

Space exploration means going somewhere, not passing time in LEO. Let's get going to the moon and great ready for Mars.

Sadly it will probably take 10 years from now to phase out STS and ISS.

The scientific output of the ISS is somewhat known. And is increasing. The geopolitical output is known even more.
The VSE/Moon/Mars program output is completely unknown and approaching zero.

Personally, I would cancel the stupid Cancellation program with that Ares crap out of MSFC, and transfer the monyies into ISS as a staging point, COTS, international participation, long term international 'Mars like' practice, and high ISP thruster and space rated nuke reactors.

If not on the lunar surface, how bout docking it on Phobos or Deimos?

If the ISS were currently or potentially capable of relocation and able to handle atomosheric interaction wouldn't it be a great idea to design a method to transport the ISS to the Moon where it would dock/lock with an elevated "fixed-Base".

Power could be supplied by the stations existing solar arrays and new "wind-turbines" could be built to capture the solar-winds that are so plentiful on the surface of the Moon.

Editor's note: it would be vastly cheaper to build a base on the Moon than to attempt to retrofit the ISS to "land" there.

The ISS is the provebial proto FUEL DEPOT. A SIGNIFICANT ADVANCEMENT. Fuel is transferred to its tanks regularly.

It is a part of infrastructure.

ESAS creates NO infrastructure.

Maxwell - You do know you can launch more than 1 rocket? ANd if you design it well, you'll find that you can launch more total, with a smaller size rockets, using mass productions.

Also, what is the point of "moonshots," if its nothing more than a feel good exercise ie flags and footprints?

Remember, ISS stands for International Space Station, not NASA Space Station. Has anybody questioned whether or not the other countries that are represented on ISS want to see the ISS deorbited so soon? NASA seems to have devised this deorbit plan as if they're the only space agency that uses and paid for the ISS. Besides, I'm guessing that by 2016, NASA still won't have any way to deorbit (or put into orbit) anything on their own, so they're not in a position to say when or how the ISS is to be "disposed".

The ISs needs to be turned over commerial enterprise. Let a company like biglow have it and use it as base for there space hotel. Anyone interested in a sexy vacation making love in weightlessness with great senery and cool ride in a falcon 9 dragen. That's what iss is truley good for

Well, considering some of the ideas here, I suppose my contribution would not be too off the wall. When Hubble is in need of another service (I know it is supposed to be ditched at that point), launch a thruster to attach and alter it's orbit to parallel and approach ISS. Have a Shuttle mission devoted to attaching HST to ISS. Then re-service and continue usage of HST as an attached instrument of the ISS. Possible?

Editor's note: excellent idea- and solar electric propulsion is the way to do this. But you want this to be a free flyer - there is too much noise on the ISS to allow it to point with the accuracy it needs to have.

Ferris,
The point is to avoid just doing flag and footprint missions by giving ourselves the added capability that doing more requires.

I don't know if brunellian thinking applies to launch vehicles, but I don't think 2 launch vehicles equal the same payload as a launch vehicle twice the size.
If only because you need to place both payloads on individually guided pallets for docking. Then there are space construction issues to consider.
There are good reasons to separate crew and cargo. But the more we can avoid splitting cargo, the more of it gets dedicated to the mission.

Maxwell

But the more we can avoid splitting cargo, the more of it gets dedicated to the mission.

And lets be fair - every system involved includes docking systems, and multiple launches. The question is, are we going to retain and utilize existing hardware and knowledge base - and that knowledge base includes on orbit construction, and on orbit refueling. Because storable propellant is at a TRL of a 9, and even cryo depots are, I believe, a 5-7 range. We are not talking about a large tech leap here.

Finally, if you want to grow commercial space, you need a market - Prop depots give you that.

You put that all together, and the point should be clear. Its time for an architecture that utilizes in space infrastructure.

There's got to be an EOL plan for the ISS. It stands a measurable (and rising) chance of a catastrophic accident making it at the very least uninhabitable due to orbital debris strikes, and the structural integrity of the whole assembly would also be questionable after such an event - it might not even be possible to de-orbit using an ATV if the station were to be at risk of disintegrating.

The answer, surely, is to use a low-thrust propulsion system to raise the station's orbit, and keep it raised. Solar-electric is the way - or indeed a scaled up VASIMR testbed. The ISS represents 700,000lbs or so of mass which should not be allowed to fall back to Earth.

Imagine a stack of VASIMRs taking the ISS to GEO, to act as the initial counterweight for a space elevator...

Bob Shaw

Ferris,
If you burn fuel to put more fuel and engine assemblies into orbit for jostling payloads around there's still no free lunch. More rockets would be needed. Which means more man hours on the ground, setting up each launch vehicle.
...and its back to the issues of orbital construction. I don't think transfering fuel out there is any less an issue than spending the hours needed to turn bolts on the ISS.

I think the current station serves as a good example of what we can expect when trying to do big missions with small payloads. The hidden loss is represented by the shuttle itself, which is several dozen tons of construction equipment sent up per module.
Even when thats minimized by using disposeable tugs, its still man hours and fuel spent to orbit unusable payload.

Maxwell,

Um, see Jeff Greason's presentation from this morning