GreenWolf

You misunderstand. I was referring to something like 2002 AA29. Cruithne is in such an eccentric orbit that it trying to capture it would be silly. Edit: If we're going with a nuke, we could use it to power a mass driver. Depending on the type of material you can get from your chosen rock, you could literally use the asteroid (or, rather, pieces of it) to move it into your preferred orbit.

Well then, let's return to the original topic. What about one of the asteroids in a horseshoe orbit around Earth? The delta-v to get to them while they're near Earth is pretty low, and it would only take a relatively small push to move them into an Earth capture orbit. The advantage of building an asteroid base is that the small size of most asteroids makes landing on one more similar to docking to another spacecraft, but they would still have enough mass to provide a non-negligible amount of radiation shielding. Construction would probably be easier than a Moonbase, since you're not having to haul materials down the Moon's gravity well. In fact, construction could be as basic as hollowing out a section of the rock and coating the walls with a sealant to make them airtight.

First off, if we're comparing payload carriers, you want to look at launches of the Soyuz rocket, whichis used to launch both the Soyuz spacecraft and the Progress resupply craft. According to Space Launch Report, Soyuz has flown more than 860 times. (Link). And even if it does have safety record comparable to a shuttle (an assertion I find dubious), it's still far cheaper than the shuttle.

Well, the ATV is already set up to allow for a rear docking port. So not too much modification there. An MPLM could be used as well, although it would probably need to be modified more heavily to operate on its own. As for the core, some kind of Tranquility node derivative would probably work. Most of our existing ISS modules are based off of the MPLM in one way or another, which makes sense when you realize the MPLM was designed to fit in the Shuttle's cargo bay. But anything we build in the future will probably be descended from the MPLM as well. Edit in response to your second edit: A modified Unity node would work great as a core. If we setup some kind of automated docking system like the Russians have, we might not even need the Canadarm. An arm might be useful for unloading cargo, but something like the Strela cranes could be used instead. For the cargo block, we have a lot of options. Modified AUN, upgraded ATV, modified MPLM, or maybe even a straight up FGB if the Russians will sell some to us. Would it be better to have a separate habitation module though, instead of using space inside the core a cargo block?

Maybe as a core. The six CBMs would make it really useful in that capacity. I still favor using a modified ATV as a cargo block though, similar to what they did with the Leonardo ATV once its mission was done. Edit: Derp, Leonardo was a Multipurpose Logistics Module, not an ATV. Not sure how I got them confused. Regardless, the MPLM would actually work really well as both a core and a cargo block, since the Harmony node is basically a modified MPLM. Double Edit: Huh, apparently the ATV is also derived from the MPLM. Maybe we do have our FGB after all.

The other thing the Russians have is the Functional Cargo Block. Almost every single one of their non-core modules has been some variation on the FGB, mostly because it already exists and it works really well. We'd need something similar, in addition to a standardized core. The problem is, we don't have anything like the TKS to grab an FGB from, since the Shuttle was our main logistics vehicle for ages. Perhaps some sort of ATV derived module? Or buy some FGBs from the Russians?

So the main cost of the ISS, does, in fact, come from the US. Guess it's a good thing we pay the largest share of its cost. Edit: If the shuttle and the lack of off-the-shelfness for the USOS is the main reason for the high cost of the ISS, should we expect future stations to be cheaper? Someone already pointed out that using Falcon Heavies, we could build a pretty cheap station. What kind of modules could/would be used on it? Bigelow Transhabs? FCBs? More DOS cores?

Maybe we can try and breakdown the costs. So what exactly contributes to the cost of a space station? Station launch costs. Obviously, if your launcher costs a billion dollars a flight, things are gonna get expensive real quick. Resupply launch costs. Same as above. If your resupply missions cost billions, that adds up even faster. R&D costs. If you've never built a station before, learning how to do it can be expensive. Module construction costs. Building the modules takes time and money. Again, if you've never done this before, it won't be cheap. Cost of assorted infrastructure. Communications relays, launch facilities, employee salaries. These all require money. Anything I'm missing? Edit: These are all good points. I never really thought of the number 3 angle, although it really should have been obvious.

I imagine that the ROS is probably cheaper than the USOS, since it uses more Functional Cargo Blocks and Salyut derivatives, just like Mir did. Which makes sense, since the ROS is mostly composed of pieces that were intended for Mir-2.

Maybe the question should be, why was Gemini so expensive?

Yep, the Mir core was DOS-7. Salyut 7 was DOS-6. The major difference was that Mir had six docking ports instead of two. And all of its additional modules were based off of the Functional Cargo Block, and launched atop Proton rockets. Skylab was launched atop a Saturn V, if I remember correctly. And the Saturn was not cheap.

First, some background. This debate started in another thread, and has, unfortunately, somewhat derailed it. So, I'm starting the thread so the debate has a home to live in where it won't wreck other threads. Now, Yuri Koptev has said that the entire Mir program cost 4.2 billion dollars. (Link to web archive of NY Times article with his statement here.) This seems somewhat incongruous with the ISS's price tag of 150 billion dollars. (Multiple different sites make this claim, although I can't seem to find a primary source stating the ISS's cost.) Is Koptev's statement accurate? If so what are some possible reasons for the low cost of Mir? Is the ISS's cost being inflated? More importantly, which one is an accurate indicator of the cost of future modular stations?

How is it a lie to label a mission under a different name? The mission still happened. We know what it was. Calling it something else doesn't actually change anything. And Gagarin still went to space. The difference between landing with the capsule and parachuting out is trivial. If you think it doesn't count because of that, you have some f***** up priorities. Once again, I ask you to provide sources for your claims. Can you prove that the Russians lied about the costs of Mir? If so, please provide a source, because I would love to know what the actual cost was. But until you provide a source, I'm lending zero credence to your claims. Also, I again suggest we take this to another thread or a PM.

First off, you're engaging in the poisoning the well logical fallacy here. Second off, we've already established in other threads that NASA management has lied about the costs of their programs in the past in an attempt to secure funding. Indeed, I don't think they've ever given an accurate cost projection. So, if anything, we should believe the costs of the ISS are even higher than NASA claims. Edit: Also, there's nothing about the US government that forces its employees to be honest. All governments try to look good. That's not unique to the Soviets. Maybe try and give some actual counter-sources instead of resorting to logical fallacies? Second Edit: We've really derailed this thread (and the ISS one) arguing about the Shuttle. Perhaps we should take this to a dedicated thread?

Right, so the ISS masses about 4 times as much, carries twice the crew, and has three times the volume, yet costs almost 50 times more than Mir. You're right, it's not a favorable comparison. For the ISS. As for using cheap labor being a "cheat", that's ridiculous. Finding ways to cut costs isn't cheating, it's smart. If NASA wants to overpay their ground crews, that's their problem. Personally, if I ever need a space station built, I'm gonna ask the Russians. Edit: If you actually read the entire Astronautica article, you would realize that mass listed is for the core module only. Which did, in fact, mass 20 metric tons.

Uh, I'm gonna call BS on this. Encyclopedia Astronautica lists the cost to keep it operational as $220 million per year. Yuri Koptev, Director of Roscosmos, has gone on record stating the entire Mir program cost $4.2 billion dollars. Unless you can give me some hard sources backing up your statement, I'm gonna go with Mr. Koptev's estimate. Link to web archive of NY Times Article with Koptev's statement: Here Link to Encyclopedia Astronautica article on Mir: Here Other random link: Here

Shuttle-Mir happened at a point in time where Russia had basically no money, what with the collapse of the Soviet Union and all. Shuttle-Mir was the US agreeing to cover some of the costs of Mir in exchange for getting to send astronauts up to it. Some cosmonauts flew on the shuttle, and some astronauts flew on Soyuz. With the US's money, the Russians were finally able to send up the last few Mir modules. And the experienced gained from Shuttle-Mir was directly used in the construction of the USOS for the ISS. But the use of the shuttle in building the ISS is one of the reasons why it cost so much more than Mir.

This is patently, absurdly false. Soyuz is the most successful manned launch vehicle/spacecraft in history, with both more launches and fewer people killed (4 vs the Shuttle's 14). Oh, and it's been in service for 50 years now, and probably will be for another 50. And it's a lot cheaper than the Shuttle ever was. This also means more people killed if there's an accident. Also, when it's cheaper to launch a half dozen Soyuz than it is to launch one Shuttle, being able to carry seven people isn't that big of an advantage. This is correct. However, the Shuttle sucked up a huge amount of funding that could have been better spent on other things, like more and better deep space probes, or actually building that massive space station they wanted to build in the 70s in the decade it was planned for. The Shuttle massed over 100 metric tons, with a payload capacity of about 20 metric tons. By comparison, the Proton has a payload of 20 metric tons, and is far cheaper than the Shuttle, since it doesn't waste launch capacity trying to boost a 100 ton brick into orbit every time it launches a payload. The 35 Shuttle flights to the ISS cost somewhere around 50 billion dollars. Compare that to the 4.2 billion dollars spent on the entire Mir project, including the six Proton launches to assemble it. Yeah, if I'm building a station in orbit, I'm gonna go with Proton over Shuttle any day. Additionaly, the Hubble repair mission was basically a one-off thing. Sending the Shuttle up to repair a satellite is almost always more expensive than just replacing the sat, with Hubble being a notable exception (and it still probably would have been cheaper to replace it).

Actually, there are very few commonly used rockets in real life with a diameter less than 2.5 meters. In fact, most of them are more than 3 meters in diameter. The range of sizes seems to be between 5 meters and 2.5 meters. Of course, Kerbin is a tenth the size of Earth, so it would probably have smaller rockets.

You remember Samson Kerman from Chapter 7.5? The one listed in the OP as the "Crew Safety Advisor"? Yeah, he's gonna get a lot more coverage in the near future. Probably more ulcers, too. (Do kerbals get ulcers?)

Somewhat less than 200 days (I forget the exact number). Although I'm not sure if their batteries could last an entire Münar night, so they could freeze before they starve. Then again, they do have that karbonite generator they could use. Regardless, rescue operations get much more complicated if they stay on the surface. Chapter 10 should be up tomorrow or Saturday. I have the gameplay and write up for about half of it done, but I'll need another hour or two of gameplay done before it'll be long enough to post.

Well, first Romal and Hankin will need to MacGyver their way back into orbit. If they can do that, they have enough supplies to hold out over 200 days waiting for rescue.

The original STS was what was too ambitious. There was no way that it could have ever gotten funding, and NASA knew it. So instead, they tried to get the shuttle to do everything. And it failed. Badly.

The original vision for the Space Transportation System was too ambitious. It was supposed to be launched at a rate of once a week, be completely reusable, and lower the cost of access to space. It was supposed to be able to carry large amounts of cargo into space, service satellites in orbit, carry a large crew into orbit, and return payload to Earth. The Department of Defense wanted it to be able to launch satellites into a polar orbit, NASA wanted it to be able to science, and Congress wanted it to be built by every aerospace contractor in the country. In the end, it wasn't really reusable (the entire orbiter basically had to be rebuilt after each mission), it didn't launch once a week, it increased the cost of access to space, it couldn't launch to a polar orbit, it was too expensive to use for servicing satellites, its cargo capacity was mediocre, its was incredibly dangerous as a crew vehicle, it was rarely used to return payloads from orbit, and it only facilitated a minimal amount of scientific research. And eventually, all of the contractors were bought out or consolidated into Boeing and Lockheed Martin, who formed ULA. So really, the shuttle failed to accomplish any of its intended goals. But at least it looked pretty.

I have to ask, what exactly is there about the "shuttle era" this is worthy of being memorialized? The end of beyond LEO manned missions for half a century? The expensive deathtrap that was the shuttle? The 100 billion dollar political project that is the ISS? The only thing the shuttle era represents is human stupidity and failure. We have plenty of monuments to that already.