Senate panel authorizes money for Mars mission, shuttle replacement

Post by thelambentonion » Sat, Sep 24, 2016, 2:40 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #26

At least they want to fund the Commercial Crew project. Space-X should have sent a manned Dragon capsule to the ISS by now. There seems to be political pressure to hold them back until ULA can catch up. (Space-X now claims they know why they had a pad explosion. They're saying "breach in the helium system".[1] But what caused that? What part has to be changed? This just came out a few hours ago, so the details are la…

Post by rangibaby » Sat, Sep 24, 2016, 6:05 AM UTC

speeder wrote: post #7

nickff wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the International Space Station (ISS) is the ISS. It was an exercise in 80s and 90s design, and you could launch an equally capable science platform at a lower cost than refurbishing the current station. One of the main reasons why NASA is reluctant to replace the existing station is that they are afraid that the program would get cancelled, and they will be left with no station.

Also the I part of ISS kept the world space research orbiting around NASA. For example Brazil make every single research that requires a station (including vehicles, modules and medical science) use the ISS. Without the ISS Brazil could for example attempt its own station, or help China instead. NASA is very powerful, but if everyone help China or Russia instead, it would be bad for USA strategically.

Post by NotSammyHagar » Sat, Sep 24, 2016, 6:10 PM UTC

baq wrote: post #30

TeMPOraL wrote: post #2

Great! > • Expand the full use and life of the space station through 2024 while laying the foundation for use through 2028. So does that mean ISS is not going to be abandoned by 2024?

consider this: one full-size bigelow inflatable module has more volume than the 1/3 of ISS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B330 . three launches to get a bigger ISS. think about it.