Hope for ISS - O'Keefe opens NASA's wallet

Mark S · 2002-09-19 19:51:06

Sean O'Keefe announced today that the FY 2004 budget for NASA will include funds to move the ISS beyond core-complete, finally making it into a world class research facility with a crew of six.

The upgrades wouldn't happen until after 2006, but it gives us space-nuts hope that mankind will finally have a permanent foothold in space devoted to science. I'm guessing that the new habitat will be based on the Italian logistics module. The lifeboat will not be available until after 2009 (a derivative of the SLI crew module), but the lifeboat may not be necessary at all.

Blogger Rand Simberg, a "recovering aerospace engineer," argues that such a vehicle isn't necessary. If there is a medical emergency, a single Soyuz could evacuate the injured crew plus two astronauts to pilot the ship during reentry. If the station needed to be evacuated completely, two Soyuz would do the job.

Adrian · 2002-09-20 03:46:03

While I am of course happy that funds to construct the ISS for six people have been provided, I am doubtful of Simberg's analysis. Previously I would have agreed with him, but I recently attended a lecture by a doctor on the ISS space medicine planning team - he helps work out the medical procedures they might have to use in space, chooses what kind of instruments they should take up there, that sort of thing.

He said that while the X-38 was overengineered, it was truly a beautiful piece of work and would have been excellent for returning injured crew members - I think it had a crash bed or something. The Soyuz, on the other hand, was downright dangerous for taking down injured personnel. Firstly, all three crew have to be crouched up in the fetal position, which is obviously not a good thing for someone who might be badly injured. Secondly, the Soyuz is small and cannot store necessary medical supplies, extra oxygen being a principal one of those (extra oxygen is always a good thing to someone injured). Since it's small, it makes it that much more difficult to treat anyone on board.

So while Simberg might be a good space engineer and writer, he is not a doctor and does not appear to grasp all the issues involved. The problem of returning injured crew is not merely an engineering one - it is a medical one.

Adrian · 2002-09-20 04:00:37

BTW Mark, do you have a URL for a report about O'Keefe's announcement? I haven't been able to find anything yet.

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-20 07:21:36

Hmm, it's not on NASAWatch. I'm not sure this is great news, though. I would rather NASA work on a better launch vehicle. But to each his own, I guess.

Mark S · 2002-09-20 08:48:29

The article on the ISS is one of the headlines on Aviation Now

Phobos · 2002-09-20 22:48:53

I agree with the sentiments that NASA should get to work on more productive projects. At this point the ISS would better serve as a tourist trap to generate revenue for more worthy space endeavours. Most of their projects could be carried out fine on a smaller, much more inexpensive space station.

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-21 05:49:48

Well Phobos, let's hope this Space Elevator experiment takes off. You can't blame NASA for not looking in to new technologies, because they do it all the time. I guess you can blame them for giving grants to just about everyone, though, but it's not like all of them are fake.

A 2006 timeframe is just... annoying. Isn't China to begin their manned space flights in 2005? C'mon NASA, fix yer damn manned spaceflight problems.

Adrian · 2002-09-21 06:11:50

I think you guys are being a bit too critical of NASA at the moment. They're in a difficult situation - now that the ISS is a reality and it's in orbit, something has to be done about it. Leaving it at core-complete - in other words, only capable of sustaining three astronauts - is simply the worst thing they could possibly do. Not only would it annoy all of the ISS partners who paid up on the assumption that they would be able to send astronauts up (which you can't do unless there's capacity for six) but it would also cripple the station's ability to do any real science whatsoever. There *are* useful things that can be done on the ISS, and the general consensus I saw at the science conference I went to was that now it's up there, we might as well use it.

I'm not denying the fact that putting the station up there in the first place was a bad idea - they should have developed a new RLV instead, maybe. But it is up there now, and finishing the construction is the best - and only - thing they can do. Once they've done the construction then they can say in all truthfulness, "It's done, we're finished, now we can do something else."

Phobos · 2002-09-21 13:18:37

A 2006 timeframe is just... annoying. Isn't China to begin their manned space flights in 2005? C'mon NASA, fix yer damn manned spaceflight problems.

Unless there's been a schedule change, the articles at Space Daily indicate that China is planning to launch their first manned mission in 2003. Bad thing though is that China apparently won't be putting up a space station for another 25 years if those recent glut of articles are accurate. I guess that means we can kiss goodbye watching taikonauts bounce across the moon in 2010. I guess they could just pull a moon hoax.

Not only would it annoy all of the ISS partners who paid up on the assumption that they would be able to send astronauts up (which you can't do unless there's capacity for six) but it would also cripple the station's ability to do any real science whatsoever. There *are* useful things that can be done on the ISS, and the general consensus I saw at the science conference I went to was that now it's up there, we might as well use it.

Yeah, your right Adrian. NASA would be nailed to the wall if it were to suddenly pull the plug on the ISS after putting this much effort into it. The public and anti-space politicians woud have a field day pointing fingers and demanding an end of funding to various NASA projects. It's a true damned if you don't, damned if you do kind of situation.

SpaceNut · 2015-08-16 09:50:08

fixed shifting issue...

Wow its been a long time since Adrian and Josh Cryer posted thoughts to topics...

The Nasa question is one of what it is doing with the funds it is recieving and what are we getting for it in the long run.....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-09-19 19:51:06

Re: Hope for ISS - O'Keefe opens NASA's wallet

#2 2002-09-20 03:46:03

Re: Hope for ISS - O'Keefe opens NASA's wallet

#3 2002-09-20 04:00:37

Re: Hope for ISS - O'Keefe opens NASA's wallet

#4 2002-09-20 07:21:36

Re: Hope for ISS - O'Keefe opens NASA's wallet

#5 2002-09-20 08:48:29

Re: Hope for ISS - O'Keefe opens NASA's wallet

#6 2002-09-20 22:48:53

Re: Hope for ISS - O'Keefe opens NASA's wallet

#7 2002-09-21 05:49:48

Re: Hope for ISS - O'Keefe opens NASA's wallet

#8 2002-09-21 06:11:50

Re: Hope for ISS - O'Keefe opens NASA's wallet

#9 2002-09-21 13:18:37

Re: Hope for ISS - O'Keefe opens NASA's wallet

#10 2015-08-16 09:50:08

Re: Hope for ISS - O'Keefe opens NASA's wallet

Board footer