ISS Woes & To-Mars

John Creighton · 2005-10-11 11:29:24

Well the space tourist business continues on for the rich. Japanese businessman picked as next would-be "space tourist" could become the fourth non-professional to travel to outer space next fall.
An eight-day vacation at the International Space Station will cost the man $20 million.
While the last visitor is about to depart from his stay of seven days.
U.S.-Russian Crew Depart Space Station
Coming down is fast...
The Soyuz will cover the approximately 250 miles from the station to Earth in about 3 1/2 hours.
Edit
Russian space agency to focus more on commercial flights
We have potential space tourists from many countries lining up, including our own countrymen. The problem lies in the number of spacecraft that can fly them to space,"

Head of Energia rocket and space corporation Nikolai Sevastyanov told the news conference that the future of human space flights largely depends on commercial flights.
Sevastyanov said that after new generation spacecraft appear, including the reusable Kliper, the requirements to the physical state of cosmonauts will be less stringent. "Then space tourists will be counted by the hundreds," he said.

huh, I would of never thought there would be such a big market.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-11 11:31:43

Ya but still way to rich for the working poor to do anything but dream of doing it.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-18 20:55:24

Nasa is struggling with what to cut from the final manifest for the stations completion by the shuttle and as note the Japanese module was one of those on the block to not make it to the station.
NASA In Talks With Japanese About Nuclear Reactors on the Moon

NASA Administrator Mike Griffin made a trip to Japan this week - accompanied by Space Operations Mission Directorate Associate Administrator Bill Gerstenmeier. Topics under discussion include NASA's new exploration architecture and the International Space Station (ISS). Specifically, talks were to focus on how the U.S. wants to change Japan's contribution to the ISS.

This is where the partners come in when making plans that affect them.

NASA entered into a special barter deal with Japan in the late 1990s where by Japan would develop and build the Centrifuge Accommodation Module - a specialized gravitational biology laboratory. When delivered, it would be considered as a U.S. research laboratory module. In exchange, NASA gave future credits to Japan for the cost of launching its JEM (Kibo) module and part of the common ISS operational costs that would be charged once Kibo was on orbit.

So what does that have to do with Japans bartering, well it is about making new deals and hopefully Nasa can keep them better than there current ones.

As part of the deal being negotiated, according to NASA and industry sources, Griffin is considering offhaving Japan build a nuclear reactor that would be delivered to the lunar surface - a task once considered part of NASA's now evaporating Project Prometheus. Japan would also likely get the chance to place astronauts on a lunar mission.
Of course, all of this is a long way off - the soonest that the reactor - and any Japanese astronaut - are likely to be heading for the moon is the end of next decade.

Nuclear power has been trumpeted as the only means to make a long duration missions and step towards colonization or extended base use possible.

Japans support for such a project could mean a lot for those against nuclear power in that it is time to change there stance.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-19 09:30:10

Launch of the European Space Agency’s
Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) delayed to May 2007 by a major flight-control software rewrite and other technical problems.

There were to be Nine cargo crafts to be built for launched by Ariane 5 ECA to act as a resupply ship to the International Space Station (ISS). The unmanned ATV was to have delivered supplies to the ISS starting in 2003. But the date has been steadily pushed back until the decision this year to delay the launch from October to May 2006, and now May 2007 a 12 month delay.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-19 13:12:28

Late yesterday the Russian side of the ISS had a malfunction with regards to raising its orbit.

Operation to boost space station orbit fails

This is not good..

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-19 15:53:21

The only way this could be bad in a big way is if the next Progress also fails, which isn't very likly.

Commodore · 2005-10-19 16:02:05

And thats assuming they can't get this one working, or can't use the other engines.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-19 19:57:09

More from spaceref on this. NASA Space Station On-Orbit Status 19 October 2005

Last night’s ISS reboost was aborted when Progress 19 thrusters shut down after only 117 sec into the first of two planned burns.
short first burn resulted in only 0.32 m/s delta-V (instead of 5.88 m/s planned), with 0.55 km altitude increase (instead of 10.1 km planned from both burns).
ISS Orbit (as of this morning, 10:49am EDT [= epoch]):
Mean altitude -- 347.1 km
Apogee height -- 347.7 km
Perigee height -- 346.5 km
Period -- 91.48 min.
Inclination (to Equator) -- 51.64 deg
Eccentricity -- 0.0001678
Solar Beta Angle -- 22.5 deg (magnitude increasing)
Orbits per 24-hr. day -- 15.74
Mean altitude gain in last 24 hours -- 550 m
Revolutions since FGB/Zarya launch (Nov. 98) -- 39526

So how low of an orbit before this becomes a real issue?

SpaceNut · 2005-10-24 08:52:56

Well it was rumored that we would be visiting the Japanese to see if we could batter for a new deal of nuclear for the moons missions in exchange one would think for a seat to the moon.
A MATTER OF TRUST for Future Exploration Depends on ISS Completion

NASA's International Space Station partners are working with the U.S. agency to move their expensive ISS hardware forward in the dwindling space shuttle launch schedule, to give it a better chance of reaching orbit.
If it doesn't get there, the impact on President Bush's space exploration plans could be dire. Bush needs international cooperation to make his plan work, and that will be hard to come by if he doesn't deliver the goods to the station.
"I think it's quite natural; without JEM there should be no meaningful cooperation, I'm afraid," says Kaoru Mamiya, vice president of the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA).
JEM is the Japanese Experiment Module, a $3-billion laboratory, storage unit and exposed research platform that has been at Kennedy Space Center awaiting a shuttle launch since May 2003. With the last shuttle flight now targeted for December 2009, and the drop-dead date for shuttle retirement nine months after that, the partners are getting seriously nervous.

Here is why this is a problem:

Plans call for Europe's Columbus laboratory to launch on the eighth shuttle mission, counting from resumption of operations next May with STS-121. The May flight would be the second of two test flights to check improvements made since the Columbia accident. If it goes as NASA hopes, the following six missions would emplace the remaining truss elements and solar arrays on the ISS, and position a second pressurized node to receive Columbus and JEM.
JEM itself would require the three shuttle flights after Columbus to install.

Of course with the end of flight looming closure the partners would all like there respectivew hardware flown as early as possible. Which leaves the US to fly key parts to strengthen the station for later launches such as the truss.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-24 12:54:31

"Bush needs international cooperation to make his plan work"

Why? In fact, I think that "international cooperation" is something to be avoided in VSE, at least for main systems.

Commodore · 2005-10-24 15:29:11

We don't need it. But it does no one any good to burn bridges.

In fact, if we simply explain to them the Shuttle can't do it by itself, but we are going to field an alternetive method (DaStack) we could probably get them to help fund a vital part of the VSE.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-24 16:58:22

The catch is, I'm not sure TheStick can do it either... even the maximal five-segment version, the one that won't be carrying the CEV, would be close to the launchers' limit to the ISS attitude/altitude... Plus, since the ISS componets are designed to be pulled from the side, not pushed from the bottom, the parts themselves would need a cradle to carry them with, which would probobly push the mass over the limit. To make matters even better, the payloads would spin out of control without at least minimal stationkeeping ability, which means continous power and thrusters at minimum. I think these things taken together makes it questionable if TheStick could carry the rest of the ISS bits and pieces reguardless of the investment. Even with the five-segment booster and the SSME upper stage, if there were any problems that reduced the rockets' payload, that could very well be too much... then there is the cost of the cradle/tug attachment even if it would fit.

John Creighton · 2005-10-24 17:03:30

The catch is, I'm not sure TheStick can do it either... even the maximal five-segment version, the one that won't be carrying the CEV, would be right at the launchers' limit to the ISS attitude/altitude... Plus, since the ISS componets are designed to be pulled from the side, not pushed from the bottom, the parts themselves would need a cradle to carry them with, which would probobly push the mass over the limit. To make matters even better, the payloads would spin out of control without at least minimal stationkeeping ability, which means continous power and thrusters at minimum. I think these things taken together makes it questionable if TheStick could carry the rest of the ISS bits and pieces reguardless of the investment.

If that is true I wonder why Griffin claimed it could?

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-24 17:07:52

The catch is, I'm not sure TheStick can do it either... even the maximal five-segment version, the one that won't be carrying the CEV, would be right at the launchers' limit to the ISS attitude/altitude... Plus, since the ISS componets are designed to be pulled from the side, not pushed from the bottom, the parts themselves would need a cradle to carry them with, which would probobly push the mass over the limit. To make matters even better, the payloads would spin out of control without at least minimal stationkeeping ability, which means continous power and thrusters at minimum. I think these things taken together makes it questionable if TheStick could carry the rest of the ISS bits and pieces reguardless of the investment.
If that is true I wonder why Griffin claimed it could?

Did he? Or was he referring to Shuttle-C?

Commodore · 2005-10-24 17:28:37

The catch is, I'm not sure TheStick can do it either... even the maximal five-segment version, the one that won't be carrying the CEV, would be right at the launchers' limit to the ISS attitude/altitude... Plus, since the ISS componets are designed to be pulled from the side, not pushed from the bottom, the parts themselves would need a cradle to carry them with, which would probobly push the mass over the limit. To make matters even better, the payloads would spin out of control without at least minimal stationkeeping ability, which means continous power and thrusters at minimum. I think these things taken together makes it questionable if TheStick could carry the rest of the ISS bits and pieces reguardless of the investment.
If that is true I wonder why Griffin claimed it could?
Did he? Or was he referring to Shuttle-C?

DaStack I was refering to was the HLLV. It's an open question as to if the heavy lifter could be ready in time, though if the ISS could be completed in its entirety I think we could bend the 9/30/2010 date somewhat. We are afterall talking about finishing the single biggest component of the VSE the 2010-2011 period. Pluss the better part of the TLI stage needed to get it in a stable orbit next to the station.

In order to afford it we'd probably have to cut the Shuttle fleet down to one, with one as an emergency backup. The turn around time for one Shuttle would probably be at least 5 months.

Someone had figured out launch manifests for side by side HLLV-Shuttle missions. If we stretch the on orbit time of the Shuttle to its limit, we could launch one cargo prior to the shuttle, and possibly 2 while the shuttle is in orbit. That is, assuming we can not launch all of them prior.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-24 18:05:15

Well, you had me confused... TheStick is the little single SRB medium rocket for launching capsules or small(-ish) cargo to Earth orbit, the big HLLV roughly follows the "Magnum" proposals from earlier NASA Mars plans, and goes by the name "Hercules" in ATK brochures. An alternate version, using RS-68 instead of SSME in the first stage, is dubbed "Longfellow".

If we started right now today, I don't think we could have the HLLV done by 2010 while we kept the Shuttle lines open at all, and even 2010 would be pushing it. Building the big HLLV will absorb alot of money, and may involve changes to KSC infrastructure that make it incompatible with Shuttle.

I don't think the Shuttle "multi-assembly" mission would happen, that kind of mission complexity is a biiig bullseye for the demon, Murphie.

John Creighton · 2005-10-24 18:25:00

Sounds like he said it could be done by using the stick to me:

MR. ACOSTA: All right, Brian.
MR. BERGER: Brian Berger with "Space News and Space.com."
Should it prove necessary, could you use the CLV to complete a space station assembly and can you fly the space shuttle through 2010 without more money than you have in the currently public five- year budget plan?
DR. GRIFFIN: Well, surely we can fly the space shuttle through 2010 with no more money than we have in the five-year budget plan. The question is what effect that will have on other dates within the program and we don't know that yet. NASA has enough money to fly the space shuttle.
Now, with regard to using the CLV, the crew launch vehicle to finish emplacing station components should that not be completed by the shuttle, yes, of course. This is a vehicle which can lift in an unmanned mode 25 metric tons. It can easily lift, easily lift any payload allocated presently to the space shuttle.
There would be substantial extra expense if we had to develop a strong back to allow the space shuttle present--to allow the cargo elements and international partner elements presently manifested on the space shuttle to be flown on the CLV. So, extra money would be required and possibly some requalification of the partner modules would be required for this new system.
But it could be done. I would rather not do it. We don't want to spend the money to do something like that, which is why I have said on several occasions that the President's plan to utilize the space shuttle for its intended purpose, to complete the assembly of the space station is the right plan. Life will be much easier if we complete the space station using the shuttle.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18122

SpaceNut · 2005-10-24 20:53:25

These are the other references for the CEV DaStick.
This is the Design Candidates Studied for heavy lift derivatives while this on covers just the shuttle componentry which includes DaStick Table of SRB segments to engine types used to push the Capsule to orbit plus the payload info as well.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-27 07:15:50

As previously mentioned the ISS station boost did have a problem and a temporary hold on firing the progresses engines has been lifted. There has been a firing to see if the problem is re-occuring.
At ISS, Russian Spacecraft Successfully Fires Engines in Test

A Russian spacecraft attached to the International Space Station (ISS) successfully fired its engines Wednesday during a brief test to check its systems, NASA officials said.
The unmanned Progress 19 cargo ship fired its engines at 4:12 p.m. EDT (2012 GMT), boosting the ISS about 1,312 feet (400 meters) higher above Earth, NASA spokesperson Kylie Clem, of the agency’s Johnson Space Center (JSC), told SPACE.com.
Russian flight controllers planned to conduct two Progress engine maneuvers before a new cargo ship – Progress 20 –docks at the aft end of the space stations Zvezda service module in December,

They will most likely try again before the next ship is set for launch.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-02 08:18:45

Well as countless stories are indicating we have The International Space Station So Far: Five Years of Service, But Incomplete hit a milestone for human spaceflight Wednesday, marking five years of continuous human habitation in Earth orbit.

This article does give a run down as to what is remaining to do to complete the station. In my previous post we know what flights we might be using to make the construction of the ISS continue.

With this aniversary there is the lingering question of [url=http://www.flatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051102/NEWS02/511020382/1007]Station's future at standstill
U.S. plans to finish assembly, but experts question commitment[/url]

The uncertainty raises questions about America's reputation as a world leader in space as well as NASA's ability to recruit international partners for future expeditions to the moon, Mars and other celestial destinations.
"It would make the whole vision of international exploration of the solar system look a little bit weak if we don't meet our commitments on the space station"
"If we can't make this work as we originally planned, then it undermines everybody's confidence about the future possibilities of cooperation, and there will be a need for future cooperation.

Shuttle thankfully was not all the eggs were counting on to keep the ISS going.

With the exception of a single shuttle visit this past summer, the station partnership since the Columbia accident has relied solely on Russian rockets and spacecraft to ferry crews and critical supplies to the outpost.
The propellant launched periodically aboard Russian Progress space freighters during the lengthy hiatus in shuttle flights has enabled the 206-ton station to maintain its altitude and avoid a destructive plunge through the atmosphere.

This has been over a 2 year period, so could we expect to use that much cargo on a trip to mars. Is there anyway to calculate out the volume required for this much stuff?

Of course looking at the future years of shuttle and of Iss construction Nasa is claiming that they will be short 3 to 5 billion. How is that possible?

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-03 06:50:57

"Nasa is claiming that they will be short 3 to 5 billion. How is that possible?"

Three reasons:

Even though the hurricanes didn't flatten Michoud and Stennis, the surrounding towns have been essentially obliterated. Thus, NASA needs to pay some big money to get the workers at these facilities back, which means building or renting floating apartment blocks for them and their families... on top of repairing the very large facilities. KSC might need a little work too from recent hurricanes.

The Space Shuttles cost about a billion dollars a flight with "normal" levels of maintenance and care, but since NASA is in hyper-parinoid mode they would probobly cost tens or a few hundred million more. Over the course of four years with three or four flights anually, that adds up to a few billion.

And lastly, since M. Giffin has thus far not dared to make meaningful cuts in the Shuttle Army, their cost combined with the hardware development costs for VSE will naturally be higher then the Army's cost alone.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-03 08:47:28

Why should we the tax payers foot the bill for how others live and work?
Unemployeement is all they are entitled too.

After last years Huricane season for Florida and now for the Alabama, Louisiana is it not time to relocated to safer locations.

Damage to facilities themself were minimal as compared to KSC's.

Agreed "NASA is in hyper-parinoid mode" and they should not be. Risks are risks and we can not add costs just because there is a phobia to them.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-03 11:11:27

The people that run Michoud and Stennis are as important as electricity, they don't work without them. And, without Michoud (and probobly Stennis, politically at least) then NASA can't even fly Shuttle again much less VSE.

The physical damage to the facilities themselves is irrelivent, the homes surrounding them are almost as important, and they are all gone. Not just damaged, but gone-gone... and providing temporary housing for some years will not be cheap.

NASA is going to be in hypra-parinoid mode over Shuttle one way or another... if NASA loses another Shuttle, then there is a good chance it will be fatal to manned spaceflight, reguardless of the money or future.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-03 11:28:56

I found why the shuttle funding issue in the House committee document status hearing on page 6 is the shuttle budget project table.

The paragraph just above it:

Projected Space Shuttle Budget Shortfall
While NASA is increasingly committing funds within the its exploration program to high-priority efforts to develop a CEV and CLV two years ahead of its original plan, the agency is facing funding shortfalls in its Shuttle program. NASA’s fiscal year 2006 – 2010 budget assumes that funding for the Space Shuttle program will decline by a total of approximately $4.8 billion over the next five years (see figure below) because of savings the agency had said two years ago that it expected to realize as the Shuttle approached its retirement date of 2010.

So it would appear that the funneling of funds from the shuttle to speed up the developement of the CEV and CLV are the issue for the short fall.

As for there homes being gone, that is what home owners insurance is for. Also if you can do carpentry you can build your own home. You can also buy trailers even if for temporary housing, modulars and other home construction styles.

It is still warm done there so they can even pretend that they are on a camping trip and live in tents until the funding for their homes comes though from the insurers.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-03 11:58:45

Its going to be years until their homes are restored, which is longer then NASA can wait, even if they had homeowners insurance checks in hand today.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2005-10-11 11:29:24

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#277 2005-10-11 11:31:43

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#278 2005-10-18 20:55:24

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#279 2005-10-19 09:30:10

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#280 2005-10-19 13:12:28

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#281 2005-10-19 15:53:21

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#282 2005-10-19 16:02:05

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#283 2005-10-19 19:57:09

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#284 2005-10-24 08:52:56

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#285 2005-10-24 12:54:31

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#286 2005-10-24 15:29:11

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#287 2005-10-24 16:58:22

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#288 2005-10-24 17:03:30

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#289 2005-10-24 17:07:52

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#290 2005-10-24 17:28:37

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#291 2005-10-24 18:05:15

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#292 2005-10-24 18:25:00

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#293 2005-10-24 20:53:25

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#294 2005-10-27 07:15:50

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#295 2005-11-02 08:18:45

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#296 2005-11-03 06:50:57

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#297 2005-11-03 08:47:28

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#298 2005-11-03 11:11:27

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#299 2005-11-03 11:28:56

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#300 2005-11-03 11:58:45

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer