Converting the iss into a spaceship to mars

[GreenWolf]

An analogy to help those who can't seem to understand that the ISS is not actually a spaceship.

Converting the ISS into an interplanetary Mars ship would be like turning a stationary deep sea oil platform into a cruise ship. Using only the tools and materials you can carry out to the platform in speed boats.

[Kerbart]

+having the Canadian robot arm would help a lot too, eh?

There, I fixed it.

[tater]

Makes no sense at all to send an old habitat, not designed for a mission in deep space, into deep space. Radiation issues alone would be enough to nix the idea, even if it was all brand new modules. Heck, it's not really fit for cislunar use, much less Mars. The number of reasons to use it are virtually nil, and the reasons against such use are about as many as you could name attributes of the ISS as a LEO facility.

[Technical Ben]

Too complicated?...really? When it comes to engineering humans hit the mark i mean look to your left.... Now look to your right.... I can almost geuss with a 90% certinty thay what ever you saw requierd a engineering marval of some sorte

And acceleration would not be a problem because the ship would be moving at a snails pace remeber its about dv not thrust

The only problem i can see would be radiation and the only thing i can come up with is eather 1 water 2 lead based paint or 3 a big effing magnet

When you convert your car to run across the ocean trenches, then come back and repeat "nothing is too complicated", until then, it's simplicity all the way.

[Moon Goddess]

This is the most likely way you'd see anything from ISS go to mars. One of the newer peices and the addition of an unlaunched piece that should have gone to ISS going to mars instead. And this plan won't even happen now with the extension to 2024.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Habitat

[tater]

A better analogy:

Many airlines have gone out of business, and have mothballed airliners lying around. Why not convert them in SSTs? They're both aircraft, right?

[Rematog]

Or... Convert the old airliners into motor homes..... someone's done this...

[StrandedonEarth]

Or... Convert the old airliners into motor homes..... someone's done this...

Houses, not motorhomes....

FunHouse even

[WestAir]

Forget Mars; I'd be impressed if they manage to do a controlled deorbit of the ISS.

[GreenWolf]

Forget Mars; I'd be impressed if they manage to do a controlled deorbit of the ISS.

Oh yeah, that'll be a fun light show. NASA has literally no experience doing controlled deorbits of large objects. The last space station they had crashed into western Australia.

The Russians, on the other hand, are pretty good at deorbiting large objects. Their cooperation could mean the difference between the whole thing safely burning up over the Pacific, or several hundred tons of space station smashing into an inhabited area.

[WestAir]

Oh yeah, that'll be a fun light show. NASA has literally no experience doing controlled deorbits of large objects. The last space station they had crashed into western Australia.

The Russians, on the other hand, are pretty good at deorbiting large objects. Their cooperation could mean the difference between the whole thing safely burning up over the Pacific, or several hundred tons of space station smashing into an inhabited area.

Could enough of the station survive reentry? Enough to cause fatal injury?

[GreenWolf]

Could enough of the station survive reentry? Enough to cause fatal injury?

Easily. Skylab massed about 77 tons, and pieces of it survived reentry and fell all over western Australia. No injuries, fortunately, but it was a pretty close call.

Mir was about 130 tons. It was deorbited into the Pacific in a controlled reentry. Its reentry profile was pretty steep, but several big pieces of it were recovered by salvagers.

The ISS is about 450 tons. Even in a controlled deorbit designed to maximize reentry heating, large chunks of it will survive.

It's not a question of whether pieces of it will survive reentry, it's a question of where those pieces will hit. And the answer to that question may very well depend on Russian goodwill towards the US.

[Dkmdlb]

I'm wondering if they are going to try to break it up into smaller pieces before they deorbit it. If not, there better be some on-the-scene video as it comes down.

[GreenWolf]

I'm wondering if they are going to try to break it up into smaller pieces before they deorbit it. If not, there better be some on-the-scene video as it comes down.

If it is deorbited in a controlled manner, it would make more sense to keep it in one piece. Easier to bring the whole thing down then.

If it's not controlled though, trying to break it into smaller pieces before it reenters is probably a good idea. The problem is, most of its modules are no designed to be undocked. So while it might be possible to break off some of the smaller modules, you'll still have several hundred tons of space station barreling through the atmosphere.

[Whirligig Girl]

I wonder if you could take only some modules from the ISS for free Mars habitation. Maybe with lots of rebuilding, but surely taking the stuff that's already up there would be more efficient than launching up new stuff.

[Dkmdlb]

We're back on this again? We've come full circle.

[GreenWolf]

I wonder if you could take only some modules from the ISS for free Mars habitation. Maybe with lots of rebuilding, but surely taking the stuff that's already up there would be more efficient than launching up new stuff.

No. We went over this already in the past 4 pages.

For those of you who can't be bothered to read four pages of posts, allow me to summarize.

SPACECRAFT. ARE. NOT. LEGOS.

Edit: Not trying to be a jerk here, but we literally covered every single reason why this wouldn't work. In four pages. Seriously.

Edited March 30, 2015 by GreenWolf

[Bill Phil]

SPACECRAFT. ARE. NOT. LEGOS.

Well...

They are. Kind of. They, however, have millions of pieces. And each piece has pieces.

Plus, the whole point of a modular station is so you can put it together... Not like legos, though.

[WestAir]

SPACECRAFT. ARE. NOT. LEGOS.

If you de-orbit 450 tons of Lego's...

[Camacha]

Plus, the whole point of a modular station is so you can put it together... Not like legos, though.

Sure, but rebuilding a space station to the point it can do such a mission means you would pretty much be building a Mars craft in orbit instead of on Earth. That is doing it the hard way. You would better just build another craft and launch it and be done with it.

[Bill Phil]

Sure, but rebuilding a space station to the point it can do such a mission means you would pretty much be building a Mars craft in orbit instead of on Earth. That is doing it the hard way. You would better just build another craft and launch it and be done with it.

I know that.

The ISS can't really be refit very efficiently. It's a lab in orbit. That's what it was designed to be. It's just as expensive to refit it and make a Mars ship (if not more) as it is to build a new one. But, building a new one wouldn't destroy an already good on-orbit lab.

[StrandedonEarth]

I wonder if you could take only some modules from the ISS for free Mars habitation. Maybe with lots of rebuilding, but surely taking the stuff that's already up there would be more efficient than launching up new stuff.

The Cupola would be a good score. I would think the solar panels would be good to salvage too, although I'm sure their rotary joints (SARJ) would be at the end of their lifespan.

Edit: I'm thinking more in line of pure salvage, not repurposing for a Mars mission

Edited March 31, 2015 by StrandedonEarth

[Nibb31]

I would think the solar panels would be good to salvage too, although I'm sure their rotary joints (SARJ) would be at the end of their lifespan.

Solar panels have a life expectancy of 20 years. They won't be generating much power when the ISS reaches its