Slashdot Mirror
Russia Aims Towards Mars
Iddo Genuth writes "Russia's Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) has announced its intentions to build a low-orbit space station which, according to the agency, will support future exploration of the moon and Mars. There's also a suggestion to extend the operational lifespan of the International Space Station by five more years, resetting its retirement date to 2020. The project proposal is already on its way for review by the Russian government. Some Russian sources also reportedly proposed the (rather ludicrous) idea of converting the ISS into some kind of an interplanetary transport vehicle, which would serve as the 'ultimate mother ship' in manned planetary missions to the moon or even Mars."
You're right, it's not crazy. They have actually gone "plaid" instead. Sure, most of what you are saying is interesting and insightful. It just overlooks the fact that the ISS has been plagued with malfunctions and other serious problems. Quite frankly, it's the Yugo of space stations. Yeah, its "gets us there", but it is not something we want to "drive" across the Solar System.
You're right - it isn't a crazy idea. It's a barking-at-the-moon freakin' lunatic idea, proposed only by folks who are either crazy themselves or (being kind) utterly innocent of any acquaintance with the facts.
To start with, the ISS isn't designed to be operated unmanned. Next, the electronics onboard ISS aren't shielded against the radiation in the Van Allen Belts. Lastly, it's thermal controls are designed for the warm conditions of LEO not the arctic icebox of lunar orbit.
So yeah, in theory you could boost about 500 Shuttle loads of fuel and move it to Lunar orbit... In practice, it'll arrive there dead.
Sure, it's a stretch. Kind of like saying it's a stretch for me to fly from Seattle to New York by flapping my arms - though it might be possible for with a propulsion efficiency breakthrough, like strapping a 747 to my back.
Not much friction on the ISS... so as long as its not a giant burst of thrust(which it wouldnt get anyway)... there is no need for individual thrust for each compartment. Basically.. out of all the problems with taking the ISS out of earths orbit.... this is one of the lesser concerns.
Note that those two sentences are mutually exclusive. Equatorial orbit is NOT the plane of the ecliptic.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Actually the budget deficits were not manageable; they were simply pushed back.
This is not a partisan issue at all; increases in the national debt are public record and there for anyone to see, be it on wikipedia or .gov websites.
The Reagan administration borrowed more money than all the presidents before him, combined. Basically, it was the same idea as living "well" by maxing out credit cards and getting new ones when you fill up the old ones. Fun while it lasts, but someone has to pay for it eventually.
So, we get to where we are today, with the interest on the national debt being more than 20 times NASA's annual budget. Granted, a lot of that came from both presidents Bush too, especially the latter. GHWB kind of inherited a problem there from Reagan.
Anyway, remember that when you look back to the Reagan years as some kind of boon for the space industry. Short term, definitely; long term, not so much.
the ISS needs the earths magnetic field to protect it from solar radiation... the 2 most reliable defenses against it are 1.. about 6 feet of lead to shield from it or 2. create a magnetic field large enough to protect the ISS once it out of earths magnetic field, i am not sure if we have this technology yet and if we did... it would be HUGE so not very likely to fit on the ISS anyway. Another problem assuming the first is fixed.. is fuel... rockets would be a waste of money... would be better off with a newer technology(like deep space one had, ion propulsion) might take a bit to get up to speed but if you are only going to stick it in an orbit around the moon it wouldnt take much with a slingshot from earth. its only about 200k miles anyway.(also dont forget how much fuel you would need for each type of propulsion system... rocket fuel isn't very efficient for long distances and it would take up a LARGE LARGE LARGE amount of space and add weight that you just cant have for this type of thing) It would be more effective to build a spacecraft thats actually designed for interplanetary travel and use the ISS as a "hub" for the spacecraft or something... there are plenty of uses for the ISS beyond 2020, but having it be a manned interplanetary spacecraft just doesn't seem like a viable one.
Nerd.
You need to lose the energy you used to get there. Technically it's possible to be captured without burning any energy except for course correction maneuvers and leaving Earth orbit, but you want to be going far faster than that. Generally things going to Mars are either aerocaptured or aerobrake, sometimes in addition to a kick stage. Aerobraking would take too long for humans, and ISS can't be aerocaptured. You need a kick stage.
You will be lose points for poor grammar.
Never mind the fact that getting to an equatorial orbit from where the ISS is now is not easy.
You can't easily turn your orbit 'left' or 'right'. Taking the extreme example, say you wanted to do a 90 degree left turn from the ISS's current orbit. You have to do two things simultaneously :
- Lower your current forward velocity from it's current value of approx 7 kilometres/sec to zero.
- Increase the velocity in the direction you want to travel from zero to 7 kilometres/sec.
Let's just say that you're not going to be doing that with an ion thruster any time soon.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
You can do a left turn with an ion thruster. It's just that you have a very, very, wide turning circle.
Well, somewhat simplified they can be compared this way: 90 miles above the Earth, the ISS 'sees' (thermally) the warm Earth beneath it. (Think of how it feels standing near a bonfire.) 90 miles above the moon, the moon fills much less of the sky, and while warmer on the day side is much (much) colder on the night side. (Think standing in front of a small electric heater.)
People are used to thinking only in terms of the sun when it comes to thermal environment of space, but that is the result of years of journalistic simplifications. (I know you've heard it too - "blazing hot in the sun, freezing cold in the dark".) In reality, its a bit more complicated than that.