Extended ISS missions

Ad Astra · 2004-04-20 13:38:12

Right now, NASA has said that it's not ready for year-long ISS stays. The rationale is that the increased crew workload (due to reduced crew size) will interfere with the ISS biomedical program, and the proper procedures and equipment for combating detrimental effects of weightlessness aren't in place.

What does everybody in the forum think? Is NASA exercising prudent levels of caution here, or does the precedent set by Mir clear he way for extended stays?

clark · 2004-04-20 13:50:32

From what I read, it's the docs who are halting the operation, and it seems that Russia is looking to free up some passanger space to make a few more bucks on the multi-millionaire club.

I at least find the rationale that knowing more about what happens for 6 month stints (which require multiple data points) is the pre-requisite prior to engaging in longer duration missions. A person up there for a year is just one data point, as opposed to two data points for two people there at 6 months.

I can't speak with any certainity on if this is true or not, but there was a comment in an article that quoting some as saying that the effects of space on the human body at the 12+ month time period are permanent.

That's a long time to free fall and cook in space, and really, it kind of shows you just how much we need to learn before we go anywhere else.

Bill White · 2004-04-20 14:01:39

There are so many "behind the scene" issues in play here that I find it hard to really comment one way or the other.

After all, the Russians are plainly looking for more money and found a clever way to tie into NASA's alleged intentions of using ISS to do research into extended human missions.

Bottom line? IMHO its all just more kabuki theater.

Kabuki Theater in Washington -- a stylized ritual that's mostly for show.

dicktice · 2004-04-20 15:10:35

I hope not to be ostrasized for re-posting the following, which may provide the answer to the dilimma of having too few occupants for longer time spans aboard the ISS:

[I quote] After witnessing that last Soyuz launch, which went off without a hitch as usual, my slant on LEO activities right now, and into the foreseeable future (ten years, say) would be to add as many docking ports as can be to the ISS and launch Soyuz ships with "Astrocosmonauts," "Mission Specialists" and "Paying Passengers" enough to carry out work (as well as maintainence) as desired. That way, there'd always be enough "lifeboat" capacity to get 'em all back if worst comes to worse. I'd even adapt a Soyuz refueling means, for taking the Hubble refurbishment hardware up to its orbit, and then return it to the ISS. I'd develop the six-passenger Soyuz, and launcher for it, to enable the multi-TMA dockings to be reduced gradually and simultaneously increase the capacity of the Progress ships to handle the increased cargo and waste disposal quantities. The Chinese, with their fresh approach could be phased in or operate in parallel. The remaining Space Shuttle craft and infrastructure could then be superceded with "next generation" space transportation development, my grandchildren might use, because that ain't gonna happen in my lifetime. It'd work, and it's do-able right now. [Unquote]

Palomar · 2004-04-20 15:23:14

There are so many "behind the scene" issues in play here that I find it hard to really comment one way or the other.
After all, the Russians are plainly looking for more money and found a clever way to tie into NASA's alleged intentions of using ISS to do research into extended human missions.
Bottom line? IMHO its all just more kabuki theater.
Kabuki Theater in Washington -- a stylized ritual that's mostly for show.

*I agree with Bill.

--Cindy

dicktice · 2004-04-20 15:27:52

Cindy, I was sure I'd found the way out for all of us interested space travel fans. Where's the flaw in my reasoning?

Euler · 2004-04-20 21:17:07

Where's the flaw in my reasoning?

The first flaw is that the US would like to maintain an indigenous manned spaceflight capability, rather than relying on the Russians.

The second flaw is that the US cannot give any money to Russia due to the Iran Non-Proliferation act.

Bill White · 2004-04-21 07:20:06

Here is one [http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/index.ssf? … 222810.xml]editorial on the subject.

NASA's new focus on space exploration means that astronauts will be spending more time in space to prepare for longer missions, such as a journey to Mars.
But Russian space officials weren't thinking about the final frontier when they asked if the crew headed for the international space station in October could stay in orbit for a year. They were thinking about money.
Russia wants to sell seats on its Soyuz capsules to tourists, and keeping the space station crew in place for a full year will free up seats that would otherwise be occupied by their replacements.
NASA officials rejected this plan, with good reason. As long as the space shuttle program is grounded, the space station has to rely on the less capacious Soyuz capsules to bring supplies. That means only two people can stay on the station instead of the usual three. It makes little sense to saddle them with host duty.
What's more, scientists are still working on ways to combat the health effects of longer space flights. Astronauts may be willing to risk bone and muscle loss and other ills to extend humanity's reach into the cosmos.
But they shouldn't be asked to make that sacrifice so that Russia can make a few rubles off space tourism.

dicktice · 2004-04-21 08:16:57

Where's the flaw in my reasoning?
The first flaw is that the US would like to maintain an indigenous manned spaceflight capability, rather than relying on the Russians.
The second flaw is that the US cannot give any money to Russia due to the Iran Non-Proliferation act.

Well, I don't see your objections as flaws, since (1) the US already is relying on the Russians, and (2) the Non-Proliferation act is just that: a paper problem. No, what I mean is, given the proven hardware situated in orbit, on the ground and in the works--given adequate funds and forgetting political objections--what are the technical flaws that would prevent doing what I propose, starting right now?

Ad Astra · 2004-04-21 15:25:44

Nothing is stopping Congress from repealing the Iran Nonproliferation Act. However, I see problems with doing this, particulrly after each revelation about Iran's centrifuge facilities and their allegedly-peaceful nuclear power program. As long as the Russians continue building Iran's nuclear plant, you will not see this legislation repealed.

bolbuyk · 2004-04-21 17:05:28

Here is one http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/index.ssf? … ]editorial on the subject.
NASA's new focus on space exploration means that astronauts will be spending more time in space to prepare for longer missions, such as a journey to Mars.
What's more, scientists are still working on ways to combat the health effects of longer space flights. Astronauts may be willing to risk bone and muscle loss and other ills to extend humanity's reach into the cosmos.
But they shouldn't be asked to make that sacrifice so that Russia can make a few rubles off space tourism.

What I'm surprised of is that NASA pretends to be very cautious to defend such decisions. In Mir (and Salyut 7) more than ten cosmonauts have spent more than 200 days along in space, some of them more than a year. They have done research on it. The most of the cosmonauts have spent at least once half a year in space. And NASA continues to research on half-year stays, because they consider risks.

Just learn from the Russians. You can wait as long as you want with a 1-year stay, all that time you don't measure effects on it.

Wladimir Titov, Musa Manarov and Valeri Poljakov could walk away immediately after their landing aftermore than a year in space. Muscle problems? Just do the prescribed exercises. That's the conclusion of Mir, as far as I know.

Bill White · 2004-04-21 18:05:06

Russian reaction:

Yuri Semyonov, the outspoken chief of Russia's Energiya company that builds Soyuz and Progress spacecraft, immediately exploded: "Our position is rigid: The next crew must make a long flight."
"I would urge the American colleagues not to drag their feet on solving this issue," Semyonov said.
"It's extremely important for us. Our partners must listen to their Russian colleagues."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co … .html]Link here

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-21 18:22:59

Isn't there an instance or two where Astronauts, particularly American ones that served time on Mir, haven't ever really recoverd from prolonged weightlessness?

Just because you can walk doesn't mean that much.

bolbuyk · 2004-04-22 07:19:47

Isn't there an instance or two where Astronauts, particularly American ones that served time on Mir, haven't ever really recoverd from prolonged weightlessness?
Just because you can walk doesn't mean that much.

So, what's NASA's point? If there are no problems with long staying in space, I don't see why NASA doesn't go on. When they like to go to Mars, long duration is essential.

Semyonov said: "We need a program which is optimal for Russia and it's European partners." I totally agree with that. When we have to wait first for a flying Space-Shuttle this becomes a problem. NASA can't go on with putting forward their 'take it or leave it' strategy. Cooperation is more than that.

Bill White · 2004-04-22 07:40:12

Poker, anyone? I predict this goes badly for NASA. Whether it should go badly for NASA is largely irrelevant.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iss-04q. … s-04q.html

Rxke · 2004-04-22 09:05:52

That 'no-money-for-the-bad-ruskies' is so lame...

Can't they do a monetary 'detour': pay ESA, and then ESA pays RSA?

Russia simply has no options left, financially, and their extended missions seem like the only right thing to do right now. It *is* understandable NASA is not ready today, but they can't say 'later,' they have to give a firm date with either yes or no... Otherwise RSA will decide themselves.

Anyway, what can NASA do? shoot down a Soyuz when it launches with ESA/tourist crew?

Tough game.

clark · 2004-04-22 09:16:25

I'll take a hand in the poker game.

So, here is my ante:

You're NASA, you know that you are going to have to make some deals on the ISS, becuase the reality of the situation is that your Bird ain't flying anytime soon, and really, you want to ditch it, and the ISS as soon as possible.

What would be the best strategy in a situation like this?

I'll raise and say that this is some posturing on the part of NASA geared towards having some things to horse-trade with the international partners. When we say, "Come on guys, we don't need this module, or that module." NASA can then say, look, let's cut a deal, "The Russkies get their year long stays, ESA will get the Iran-treaty revoked (then they're not stuck footing the launch bills), and NASA here get's a redesigned space station that allows it to meet the 2010 deadline."

Any others want to ante in?

bolbuyk · 2004-04-23 07:32:45

I don't know really much about poker, but I agree that long-stay's are one of the best things America (and the other partners as well) can do. I don't see what extra facilities are needed to support a 1-year stay when a half-year stay is yet possible. The medical or bio-scientific reasons don't sound very essential to me. I think there are a lot of astronauts hoping to make that 1-year stay. (BTW I'm nearly sure 'my' Andre will do this!!)

The only reason I can imagine is then the loose of a flight because of that space-tourist (but also a US inhabitant).

But the sound NASA makes is to much from above, not new of course. With Mir, this was also the case, just paying 400 million dollars for 7 stay's, doesn't seem much to me. This can make things worse for NASA. Keep also in mind that most of the orbiting ISS-modules are yet Russian.

When we like to go to Mars, we have to support long stays. This is in particular a subject that asks a lot of time!!

Ian Flint · 2004-04-23 10:34:56

One thing I don't understand is why people think that to prepare for a Mars mission we need to spend more than 6 months in zero-G.

A mission to Mars will consist of 6 months in space outbound, 18 months on the surface, and 6 months back.

If you want to prepare for a Mars mission you should get a rotating space station up there to create artificial gravity equal to that found on Mars. 0.38g is what the astronauts will have to be prepared for, not zero-g. As a bonus you will work out the problems of rotating ships in space, so you can use artificial gravity to and from Mars. This will make arguments for studying zero-g null and void.

The Russians will love this too because it will essentially turn the ISS into nothing more than a tourist destination.

It's all so simple.

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-23 10:41:21

Actually... no

We don't need to learn how to keep astronauts healthy longer than six months in Zero-G, at least for Mars, because thats how long it takes to get there. Its possible to make the trip shorter then that with the use of a nuclear engine, with a GCNR you could maybe make the trip in a month or two.

Don't risk jerry-rigging human physiology and hope they make it to Mars "okay," just get there faster!

The pictures of smiling Russian Cosmonauts coming back after long stays in orbit are not sufficent proof that its practical, and even then it put a pretty big physical strain to keep that fit. I'd like to know how well Shannon Lucid & Co fared when they came back from Mir, if memory serves "not too well."

And by equipment on ISS, they don't even have that great of excercise gear... one of the Shuttle cargo flights even had to bring them a new bike I believe because they broke the first one. Also need bone testing, muscle testing, and blood testing gear to make a long stay safe.

If the Russians want to turn the ISS into a space hotel, works for me... just get us out of it!

Ian Flint · 2004-04-23 15:44:31

I agree, but how long will it take to build one of those GCNRs.

"I need power now, Scotty!!!"
"We can't go to warp for another 30 years, sir! I'm giv'n 'er all I've got!"
"Dammit Jim, our bones will decalcify...our muscles will shrink down to nuth'n!"
"Captain, the logical conclusion, under the present circumstances would be to spin the ship to create artificial gravity while using our chemical thrusters to guide us to our destination."
"Make it so."
"Who...let...Captain Pickard...on my.........ship?"

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-23 16:43:00

If we start tomorrow, then thats one day longer...

I think we ought to aim for four months or so being the zero-G limit, if at all practical.

Doing the whole spinning spaceship thing is harder than it sounds and would add additional failure modes to the vehicle. Also, i'm not sure if putting astronauts under the Coriolis force for 4-6mo+ is a good idea.

Ian Flint · 2004-04-23 17:56:15

The funny thing is, in 40 freakin years of space travel not a single vehicle has been tested to create artificial gravity.

That is worse than stalling nuclear power, SSTOs, Mars missions, and everything else.

If we are ever going to live in space we will need artificial gravity.

Ok, why four months?

Why not Coriolis forces for 4-6 months? We haven't even tried it for one day yet.

Boy, with 15 billion dollars per year at its disposal for 40 years (that's 600 billion dollars!) , NASA should have been able to answer every last question and more on this message board.

We need a smiley tearing its hair out in frustration.

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-23 18:20:43

Four months is even longer than the average submarine patrol, which is long enough to stay locked in a metal cigar... four months seems a nice round number to start with to avoid further skelatal/muscular damage.

My worry is that putting astronauts under a modest-to-high Coriolis force will damage their balence control when they get to Mars after a journey, which may take time to wear off, time astronauts don't have.

Except to beat the Commies to the Moon, Nasa really hasn't had any goal put to it.

RobS · 2004-04-23 19:22:33

Why would Coriolis damage our inner ears when years of pitching around at sea hasn't damaged any sailors' balance in several thousand years? Moderate coriolis can't be harder to adjust to than huge waves on the sea.

--- RobS

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-04-20 13:38:12

Re: Extended ISS missions

#2 2004-04-20 13:50:32

Re: Extended ISS missions

#3 2004-04-20 14:01:39

Re: Extended ISS missions

#4 2004-04-20 15:10:35

Re: Extended ISS missions

#5 2004-04-20 15:23:14

Re: Extended ISS missions

#6 2004-04-20 15:27:52

Re: Extended ISS missions

#7 2004-04-20 21:17:07

Re: Extended ISS missions

#8 2004-04-21 07:20:06

Re: Extended ISS missions

#9 2004-04-21 08:16:57

Re: Extended ISS missions

#10 2004-04-21 15:25:44

Re: Extended ISS missions

#11 2004-04-21 17:05:28

Re: Extended ISS missions

#12 2004-04-21 18:05:06

Re: Extended ISS missions

#13 2004-04-21 18:22:59

Re: Extended ISS missions

#14 2004-04-22 07:19:47

Re: Extended ISS missions

#15 2004-04-22 07:40:12

Re: Extended ISS missions

#16 2004-04-22 09:05:52

Re: Extended ISS missions

#17 2004-04-22 09:16:25

Re: Extended ISS missions

#18 2004-04-23 07:32:45

Re: Extended ISS missions

#19 2004-04-23 10:34:56

Re: Extended ISS missions

#20 2004-04-23 10:41:21

Re: Extended ISS missions

#21 2004-04-23 15:44:31

Re: Extended ISS missions

#22 2004-04-23 16:43:00

Re: Extended ISS missions

#23 2004-04-23 17:56:15

Re: Extended ISS missions

#24 2004-04-23 18:20:43

Re: Extended ISS missions

#25 2004-04-23 19:22:33

Re: Extended ISS missions

Board footer