Why Are Astronauts Always Cramped into Small Spaces?

[KCfromNC]

And how would this "little more effort" look like?

Nuclear thermal rocket - Wikipedia

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why are astronauts always cramped in to small places?

Three words:
Cost and engineering. Simple as.

 

[EmmaCat]

I think they're trained to deal with small spaces. They're like pilots in a cockpit, and probably some astronauts are pilots.

I visited a cockpit on a plane once. Phewwww! You'd have to leave and go into the passenger cabin to change your mind!

 

[iluvatar5150]

I don't need to know anyone personally anywhere

Ah, so you're just pulling stuff out of your back side. Got it.

to see that the appearance of that space station interior is extremely depressing and an eyesore that has to be endured unnecessarily and that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to improve it.

I'm not sure if that was intended as a joke or not, because they quite literally do have rocket scientists working on this.

It's interesting, because I have family who have worked in logistics for space missions including the shuttle & ISS, and friends who've worked on different aspects of other space missions including OSIRIS and JWST, and all of them will tell you how much planning, engineering, and design goes into launching and operating one of the missions. It's a safe bet that anything that can be thought of has already been thought of.

But instead of just fantasizing about being smarter than all these people, why don't you take the time to go ask some of them why they do it this way? Maybe they know something you don't.

From my perspective of having worked in recording studios and concert venues for the last decade or so, it's pretty clear to me one reason they don't bother with making the cables too neat is time. Properly dressing cables is surprisingly time consuming, and it's not even that effective if the cables aren't cut to length for a specific installation. And the whole exercise is a giant waste of time if the system changes with any regularity (as happens on the ISS). The folks I know who have been directly involved with the planning of the the astronauts' daily schedule, have described to me on multiple occasions how tightly choreographed their schedules are. They're quite busy, and I would hope that NASA would use their time more productively than just having them dress cables.

The wiring on the shuttle and any other MILSPEC (and beyond) project is absolutely top-notch (you can see the shuttle wiring at JSC's Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory) - when it makes sense to neatly dress the wiring, NASA et al do it, and they do it very well.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm not sure if that was intended as a joke or not, because they quite literally do have rocket scientists working on this.

Nah, real rocket scientists admit they're just pulling a giant prank on the ISS astronauts. Just a bit of revenge for the infamous '93 NASA Christmas party incident.

But seriously here's a basic introduction to what the actual engineering problem is, from someone who was so unfairly cooped up in the ISS for a mission : NASA - The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation

Find a way around this : Tsiolkovsky rocket equation - Wikipedia, and people building spacecraft will be all ears. Some of the brightest people supported by the largest economies on several continents have been trying for a century. But who knows. Maybe some random person on the internet has them all beat.

 

[timewerx]

I don't need to know anyone personally anywhere to see that the appearance of that space station interior is extremely depressing and an eyesore that has to be endured unnecessarily and that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to improve it.

My small room doubles as an improvised science research lab. It also got pieces of unsightly pieces of wire, cut up parts, pieces of carbon fiber, aluminum foil, aluminum chaff, coils, some books on engineering and math. It it also tight once I got my equipment out to work.

It's half as cluttered as the ISS. My point is, these things double as living quarters and research labs but in space. Saves space and a lot of money.

And as scientists and military personnel they were, they shouldn't be bothered sleeping with their work

My previous job, we did barracks. It's not really as bad as you think if you have good people around you. I'd volunteer for space any day, even if it takes years up there, can't complain with the view up there and the stuff you could do in weightlessness!

 

[AirPo]

Like in the film 2001 a Space Odyssey would be nice.

I don't recall the "effort" theme of that movie. Could you elaborate?

 

[AirPo]

You don't consider being able to touch both sides of the walls at the same time cramped? Or having to look at all those wires sticking out all over the place avoidable? Yes, I am aware that they are exceptional and are trained to deal with those conditions. But please note that anything that can be done to make life a little easier on humans psychologically during long duration periods in space will greatly improve the chances of the mission's success which depends on a great part on human ability to function normally under extremely unusual conditions. So some things should definitely be improved in the psychological effect that the spacecraft itself has on its occupants area.

Guess how much NASA and other international space agencies care about your claustrophobia.

 

[timewerx]

Like in the film 2001 a Space Odyssey would be nice.

I didn't notice this post of yours but NASA did have concepts like it. I had a book of all of NASA's station concepts back in the 50's/60's.

Many of them were quite massive. Some were even few miles across.

Such oversized stations depended entirely on materials coming from the Moon with a large permanent moon base up there. It takes a lot less energy to launch stuff from the moon and take them to Earth's orbit.

Such plans by NASA of course never happened because we didn't return to the moon and never established a base up there. It's just unbelievable when it did due to the economic potential. They must have a pretty good reason why they didn't establish a moon base which would have given a good stimulus to the economy.

 

[Radrook]

I didn't notice this post of yours but NASA did have concepts like it. I had a book of all of NASA's station concepts back in the 50's/60's.

Many of them were quite massive. Some were even few miles across.

Such oversized stations depended entirely on materials coming from the Moon with a large permanent moon base up there. It takes a lot less energy to launch stuff from the moon and take them to Earth's orbit.

Such plans by NASA of course never happened because we didn't return to the moon and never established a base up there. It's just unbelievable when it did due to the economic potential. They must have a pretty good reason why they didn't establish a moon base which would have given a good stimulus to the economy.

I agree, the plans were indeed grand and the visions magnificent and the certainty that they were all easily within our reach was never in doubt at that time.

 

[timewerx]

I agree, the plans were indeed grand and the visions magnificent and the certainty that they were all easily within our reach was never in doubt at that time.

The Moon was at the center of those big plans. It was the reason for the "moon race" between USA and the USSR.

The plan was to make factories in the moon that will process lunar soil into Titanium, helium 3, and water or Hydrogen and Oxygen. It will support a massive space building project on both Earth orbit, and supporting manned exploration of the planets.

For such potentially massive ROI of having a permanent moon base, all such plans were abandoned which doesn't make sense.

The return leg of the Apollo moon shots should be enough to convince anyone the very low energy requirements of sending spacecraft or material from lunar surface to the Earth's orbit. It took a much tinier ship and a lot less fuel to send the astronauts from the lunar surface, to lunar orbit and back to Earth.

 

[Radrook]

Sorry Radrook. I thought you were smarter than that. You are projecting how you would react in those circumstances onto others and everyone. I find the pictures of the all that equipment surrounding one absolutely brilliant. I would love to be in that environment. The difference is that I understand not everyone would like it. You should try to reach a similar accommodation with reality.

I have a certain familiarity with psychology which permits me to easily see the difficulties involved. Calling me stupid only shows me that you do not.

 

[Radrook]

Because ever ounce sent up their costs a fortune.
NASA isn't made of money.

I never claimed that NASA had no money issues. In fact I mentioned that money is a factor.

 

[KCfromNC]

The return leg of the Apollo moon shots should be enough to convince anyone the very low energy requirements of sending spacecraft or material from lunar surface to the Earth's orbit. It took a much tinier ship and a lot less fuel to send the astronauts from the lunar surface, to lunar orbit and back to Earth.

Granted, but some of that was also due to the fact that the outgoing stage needed to push enough fuel out there to get them back. The return trip didn't have to push around anything but the bare minimum to get them back to Earth.

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

THREAD IS PERMANENTLY CLOSED PER OP REQUEST

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[mnorian]

Mod Hat On
THREAD IS PROVISIONALLY REOPENED PER OP REQUEST
On Condition That There is No Flaming or Goading.
Carry On​

 

[Radrook]

The Moon was at the center of those big plans. It was the reason for the "moon race" between USA and the USSR.

The plan was to make factories in the moon that will process lunar soil into Titanium, helium 3, and water or Hydrogen and Oxygen. It will support a massive space building project on both Earth orbit, and supporting manned exploration of the planets.

For such potentially massive ROI of having a permanent moon base, all such plans were abandoned which doesn't make sense.

The return leg of the Apollo moon shots should be enough to convince anyone the very low energy requirements of sending spacecraft or material from lunar surface to the Earth's orbit. It took a much tinier ship and a lot less fuel to send the astronauts from the lunar surface, to lunar orbit and back to Earth.

Well, that explains the grand plans that were displayed in the film 2001 a Space Odyssey and which we all took for granted at that time as becoming a reality by that year.

 

[timewerx]

Well, that explains the grand plans that were displayed in the film 2001 a Space Odyssey and which we all took for granted at that time as becoming a reality by that year.

I think Hollywood took those ideas from NASA. Those NASA illustrations made it to Popscience if I'm not mistaken.

It should be a lot easier and way cheaper to do today as we can simply send robots to setup automated bases and automated processing plants on the moon. Without the human factor, there is no need to consider return trips, and no need for life support. The package will be a lot smaller and cheaper.

 

[Radrook]

I think Hollywood took those ideas from NASA. Those NASA illustrations made it to Popscience if I'm not mistaken.

It should be a lot easier and way cheaper to do today as we can simply send robots to setup automated bases and automated processing plants on the moon. Without the human factor, there is no need to consider return trips, and no need for life support. The package will be a lot smaller and cheaper.

That is another given we took for granted back then, a permanent base on the moon. It all seemed so easily within our reach and then it all suddenly stopped for no reason that we could understand. Now they are saying that the reason was the accident that almost took three astronaut lives when a malfunction occurred and they barely made it back to earth. If indeed a close escape brought the moon-base plans to a halt, imagine the effect it would have if we lose the whole crew during the first manned-mission to Mars. Ironically when we lost all those astronauts in the shuttle accident we didn't stop but simply made things safer. So the explanation that it was due to a close call doesn't quite cut it. Then you have the alien warnings conspiracy theories which of course aren't given much credence by many.