Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Until I figure out how to un-close it, at least.

0 (0%)

So yeah.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: May 01, 2014, 02:06:40 pm

[mainiac]

Nearly all the stuff can be done by robots nowadays :/

Robots require maintenance just like humans.  You can run them without maintenance like a deep space probe or the mars rovers but that comes at the cost of severely limiting their range of function.  The ISS would have no point if it was being run by robots.

[Helgoland]

You could send them back down for maintenance, either single robots or whole modules... I'm fairly certain we could build a fully automatic space station if we wanted to. Sattelites work without human interference, after all.

[smjjames]

@helgoland: Pfft, there's PLENTY of non-propoganda reasons to keep a space station in orbit, like say, science, and as a mid point between stations on the moon or mars.

As for decommissioning it after 2020, what are we going to replace it with? Unless they mean decommission as in hand over to private companies.

I like how this has turned into a discussion about space.

[mainiac]

You could send them back down for maintenance, either single robots or whole modules... I'm fairly certain we could build a fully automatic space station if we wanted to. Sattelites work without human interference, after all.

Sending them down sounds rather more expensive then sending food up to humans.  A versatile robot is a very hefty object.

Satellites are much simpler then the ISS.

As for decommissioning it after 2020, what are we going to replace it with? Unless they mean decommission as in hand over to private companies.

The decommissioning thing is that the structural integrity starts to dangerously erode after 2028 or so requiring either major repairs or ending the mission and going back to the drawing board.  Personally I see the merits in both ideas.

[10ebbor10]

@helgoland: Pfft, there's PLENTY of non-propoganda reasons to keep a space station in orbit, like say, science, and as a mid point between stations on the moon or mars.

So, we can use a space station to support other space stations. And most science can be done via sattelites much cheaper than via the ISS. The only science that can not be done using robotic experiments is science on humans in space, and that science only serves to allow us to keep humans in space longer.

So really , manned space stations have no other purpose than allowing for other manned space stations.

As for decommissioning it after 2020, what are we going to replace it with? Unless they mean decommission as in hand over to private companies.

Decommision as in dumping it out of orbit. As in, this manned space program thingy turned out to be a dramatic waste of money, and we're not replacing it.

Each man day on the ISS costs 7.5 million dollar. Comparison, a single rocket launch costs 50-60 million dollar for a midsized flight.

You could send them back down for maintenance, either single robots or whole modules... I'm fairly certain we could build a fully automatic space station if we wanted to. Sattelites work without human interference, after all.

Actually, there's little point in having a space station. Just send up (re-useable) lab sattelites. It's how the majority of space based science happens.

As for decommissioning it after 2020, what are we going to replace it with? Unless they mean decommission as in hand over to private companies.

The decommissioning thing is that the structural integrity starts to dangerously erode after 2028 or so requiring either major repairs or ending the mission and going back to the drawing board.  Personally I see the merits in both ideas.

Actually, the 2020 decommision data was purely for financial reasons, it's off the tables now, with the station being funded till 2024.

[smjjames]

Oh yeah, structural integrity, I see your point. But still, given the value of having a space station (also, what propoganda besides space tourism?), what are we going to replace it with?

Since there's the structural integrity problem and the fact that we have learned so much and developed new materials and even methods, I'm all for decommissioning it and building a new one with the knowledge, materials, and methods we have now that we didn't in the 90s.

[MarcAFK]

And the default Dragon can not be used to transport people. The ones used for ISS supply runs do not have a lifesupport system installed. They have to take in air from the ISS. Also, they lack seats.

I was talking theoretical, the capsule is already perssurised and has circulation fans, pressure regulation and temperatiure control, without anhy additional life support the 10 cubic meter volume could provide oxygen for 1 person for 10 hours without significant loss of function, or 5 times that untill risk of unconciousness or death. carbon dioxide however is more significant and the internal volume would become toxic after 5 hours and unconciousness/death would occur at around 8 times that. Of course the lowering oxygen level would increase the severity of CO2 toxicity.
Consider that a standard return ti earth form the ISS takes about 5 hours so you could probably shove half a dozen people in there with no additional life support and they would have a good chance of survival. But of course it would be insane to not add additional life support and since the craft is already basically habitable it wouldn't be hard to just shove some a co2 scrubber in the and a few deck chairs :p.

[10ebbor10]

Oh yeah, structural integrity, I see your point. But still, given the value of having a space station (also, what propoganda besides space tourism?), what are we going to replace it with?

Since there's the structural integrity problem and the fact that we have learned so much and developed new materials and even methods, I'm all for decommissioning it and building a new one with the knowledge, materials, and methods we have now that we didn't in the 90s.

Why would we replace it? Manned spaceflight is expensive, and there's little reason to send humans when we could send a dedicated probe or robot instead, except for the PR value. The ISS cost approx. 150 billion USD.

Spoiler: Let's look at ESA's budget (Huge) (click to show/hide)

You see, almost 10% of our budget goes to human spaceflight. And the ESA isn't even carrying most the cost of this, thanks to many useful agreements. Meanwhile, it's in the other budget parts the most research is done.

[Sheb]

Does it have landing gear though? I though the SOP was to fill them up with waste and send them burning into the atmosphere.

Also, the ISS already cost a massive 150 billions. That's like, a thousands science satellite. Does anyone really want to argue that the ISS was a cost-effective lab (apart for research on humans)?

[10ebbor10]

The Dragon is a reusable capsule. It's the European ATV's that are send to burn. It does make a chute assisted sea landing though.

It wasn't a cost effective lab for research on humans either. All other space stations, like SpaceLab, but also Mir,  were like 3 times cheaper.

Edit: Also, you don't just throw in some chairs and a life-support systems in and call it a day. Remember, human rated means that, amongst other things, it crashes into the ground/sea with a force equal to a survivable car crash. Such a force might set the lifesupport system on fire.

[smjjames]

Well, I'm sure the science and lessions learned (like things not to do when building a space station maybe) was worth it.

[miljan]

Pro russian occupied Lugans police station
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89aM-fKTOIU

Fights in Kiev between pro ukraines, and pro ukraines nazis?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSxpMQKzb3s

Pro russian attacking pro ukraine in Donetsk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu8K9kKnvC4

[smjjames]

Now we just need pro-Russian and pro-Russian fighting each other.

[Knit tie]

Now we just need pro-Russian and pro-Russian fighting each other.

Oh, they do. It's not televised, but we've had a pretty nasty fight between hardcore nationalists and hardcore communists in the neighbourhood recently.

[smjjames]

Now we just need pro-Russian and pro-Russian fighting each other.

Oh, they do. It's not televised, but we've had a pretty nasty fight between hardcore nationalists and hardcore communists in the neighbourhood recently.

I kind of meant in Ukraine, unless that's what you mean.