Unobscured Vision Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Article Link | Phys.org Website Russia on Saturday announced initial plans to build a new orbital space station together with NASA to replace the International Space Station (ISS), which is set to operate until 2024. Russia and NASA recently agreed to keep operating and financing the ISS until 2024, but future joint space projects have remained in doubt, as relations between Russia and the US have plunged to post-Cold War lows over the Ukraine conflict. "Roscosmos together with NASA will work on the programme of a future orbital station," the head of Russia's Roscosmos space agency, Igor Komarov said, quoted by Interfax news agency. Komarov made the announcement flanked by NASA administrator Charles Bolden at Russia's Baikonur launchpad in Kazakhstan. "We agreed that the group of countries taking part in the ISS project will work on the future project of a new orbital station," Komarov said. The Russian space chief said that the project to build the new station would be "open" and could include countries that are not currently involved in the ISS. "The first step is that the ISS will operate until 2024," he added. Russia had threatened to pull out in 2020 but said earlier this year it would keep up its role until 2024. Roscosmos and NASA "do not rule out that the station's flight could be extended," Komarov added. "Its term of existence will depend on the implementation of our joint projects," Komarov said. Russia had said earlier this year it planned to create its own space station after 2024 using its modules from the ISS after it is mothballed. Russia's deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin, who oversees the space sphere, appeared to downplay Komarov's comments on Saturday. "The Russian government will study the results of the talks between Roscosmos and NASA. The decisions will be taken later," Rogozin wrote on Twitter. Late Friday, a spacecraft launched successfully carrying Russian and US astronauts to the ISS, two of whom will spend a historic year-long term on board in an experiment to study the physical effects of long-duration space missions. It'll be interesting to see what they have planned for the new station, and if any private companies like SpaceX, Orbital ATK, Bigelow, and others will be involved in the project. I'm curious, though, why the sudden change in course. Not two months ago Russia was talking about decoupling their segment of the ISS and using that as the core of a new Station in partnership with China. Maybe they realized it wasn't practical (like the rest of us had already knew) or really workable without some serious effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Expect expandable habs to play a part. As recently as last month Gen. Bolden said a new station would leverage commercial and specifically mentioned Bigelow. This also sounds like a job for Blue Origin's launcher (not NGLS), Falcon Heavy and BFR - all heavy lifters far beyond what Shuttle could lift. The Lockheed Martin Jupiter/Exoliner tech (see this thread) would also be useful. Unobscured Vision 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted March 28, 2015 Author Share Posted March 28, 2015 Awesome. It'll be a nice, active roster of checkouts and proving for everyone's gear then, and a nice platform for everybody to test out new ideas that currently can't be done on the ISS. Can't wait to see what projects get unveiled for it in the next 5 years. The planning phase starts now, people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 This NBC News report is less definitive, but still promising, http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/russians-talk-about-next-space-station-nasa-n331896 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beittil Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 News of it being debunked has been around already, shouldn't be hard to find. Also: Javascript is not enabled or refresh the page to view. Click here to view the Tweet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Chasing Russian news is like herding cats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Chasing Russian news is like herding cats. I would consider herding cats to be a far more profitable pastime... +Matthew S. 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 So, let me get this straight. NASA and Roscosmos Heads have a joint announcement about a new Space Station to replace the ISS, but later on are saying nobody has really committed to anything yet. Seems legit. Here's an idea: SpaceX, Orbital, Bigelow and a bunch of the other private Aerospace companies get together and do a feasibility study/think tank about building their own station. Let's bypass the realm of endless bureaucracy (where "planning" is a sick joke) and see what can really be done when the latest technology and the best minds are put to the test. And yes, Potions are allowed. (Gamer reference). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 SpaceX and Bigelows already have an agreement, and Bigelow has a separate one with Boeing. Add Lockheeds Jupiter-Exoliner then the fun starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryster Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I expect this, or better. +Matthew S., Unobscured Vision, +E.Worm Jimmy and 3 others 6 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 As long as Lockheed understands that this is NOT a Government operation, and that purposeful stalling/bureaucracy/sabotage/backstabbing/espionage BS will see them (as well as any other participant Company involved) removed from the project, and their material, financial, and technical contributions to the project will transfer to the Majority Participant. This is not a game of who can "one-up" the other; it's a worthy goal of doing better, faster, and cooperatively. That should keep everybody on the up-and-up. @Ryster: Now we're talking. Ryster 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I expect this, or better. USS_Enterprise_approaches_the_Earth_Spacedock.jpg More like, +E.Worm Jimmy 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I'd settle for this: But would rather have this! Unobscured Vision, +E.Worm Jimmy and xrobwx71 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Rotation gravity stations present numerous design problems regardless of what Clarke thought. Hell, the 11.6m centrifuge in Discovery One would be a problem due to the Coriolis effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beittil Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Screw rotation yo! Let's invent some artificial grav plating Hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachno 1D Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Rotation gravity stations present numerous design problems regardless of what Clarke thought. Hell, the 11.6m centrifuge in Discovery One would be a problem due to the Coriolis effect. Had to look that one up DocM but this page seems to suggest humans can adapt to its effects unless Im missing something http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/23jul_spin/ DiZio and Lackner have found that people can adapt to rotational speeds as fast as a carnival-ride-like 25 rpm. That's about as fast as people turn their bodies during day-to-day life. For comparison, a spinning spaceship would likely rotate more slowly, perhaps 10 rpm, depending on the size and design of the craft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 It's not so much the spin rate as the radius and gravity gradiants. In a short radius spinning hab the coriolis effect makes a ball tossed vertically curve away from you in the direction of rotation. Worse, if you stand up suddenly you'll be pushed over in that direction. Not great for stability. You'd also notice that the simulated G force is different between your head and feet, and this gradient can cause interesting circulatory system effects. In an experiment last year with a short radius centrifuge, thoracic blood relocated to the upper and lower leg. With a longer radius blood pooled in the abdomen. Neither is particularly good as blood pooling in either can generate clots. This could be mitigated by daily anticoagulant injections, much like is done with bed rest patients, but then you risk increased bleeding in the case of an injury. Now consider that these effects on other bodily systems are only beginning to be studied. Cerebrospinal fluid? Biliary tree? Urinary and lymphatic systems? The jury's still out. Needless to say, a lot of work needs to be done before the first real rotational gravity protocols are issued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachno 1D Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Ah right so in small scale virtual gravity enclosures the effect would in effect be traumatic to the human body so I guess something on the scale of that in Elysium would be required to reduce the effect as long as one lived on the outer sections of the sphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Likely. The problem is that while quite a bit is known about fluid shifts and pooling in zero G the work on rotational gravity of varying degrees isn't plentiful. Do we need 1G, or will .7G do? .5G? .3G? .15? <crickets> The best fractional G data we have is limited to a short stay on the Moon where sensors were pretty ancient. No Doppler ultrasound etc. Today you could do a Doppler with a gadget the size of a cell phone, and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingskippy Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Too bad they couldn't use Bigelow tech to build rotation gravity stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 The load paths are all wrong for the current design, but they could probably do it. The radius of the full structure would still have to be pretty large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Rotation gravity stations present numerous design problems regardless of what Clarke thought. Hell, the 11.6m centrifuge in Discovery One would be a problem due to the Coriolis effect. It doesn't -have- to rotate... Even without that, it's a good sturdy design choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 I suspect that creating Artificial Gravity on any structure, while hypothetically possible, would introduce some real challenges to the designers. It would have to be engineered to withstand stresses like a structure on Earth would, and would not simply be "floor-by-floor" or "selective" gravity like Star Trek would have us believe. This structure would also exert a curiously strong gravitational pull upon the local environment for its' size. The shape of the Gravity Well upon local Spacetime would, in fact, appear as a singularity instead of a planet (just incredibly tiny and weak by comparison). It would be a very interesting thing to see, from an instrumentation point of view. In fact, this effect upon the local environment would need to be dealt with and compensated for. Any vessel attempting to dock with this station would find it quite difficult without very powerful RCS thrusters (and then an active docking structure) to counter the effect. Techniques for approach could mitigate this somewhat but there's really no way past needing active procedures. It'll take more educated minds than myself to deal with it. I guess that's what I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingskippy Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 If they shifted the design to where most of the equipment/computers were in the central support structure, I'm sure they could reinforce the outer inflatable wall with Kevlar bands to support the weight of a human and their berthing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Observer Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 More like, Un This or Nothing!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts