ISS Woes & To-Mars

SpaceNut · 2004-11-30 06:18:52

With the current budget now passed with less than but close to the asked for figure, what next will be delayed or out right cancelled in the coming years as we continue to build the ISS using the three remaining shuttles until it is complete or until we reach the retirement deadline as set out in the vision. I think this
Editorial | NASA Funding Spend wisely; don't get lost in space head line says it best.

Congress has given NASA a 5 percent raise in its 2005 budget, even as most federal agencies received budget cuts. But NASA still has to make some tough spending decisions if it's ever to achieve its deep-space exploration goals. America needs to have a heart-to-heart talk with itself to decide what it wants to do in space exploration. The lack of certainty now is one reason it was so hard to secure a modest budget increase for NASA, even with the support of the President and powerful House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R., Texas). Delay's newly reapportioned district now includes the Johnson Space Flight Center. The $388 billion spending bill approved last week includes $16.2 billion for NASA, $44 million less than Bush sought.

Budget analysts call for NASA cuts

Alice Rivlin, now a Brookings' analysts on Monday said Bush administration proposals to send astronauts back to the moon and on to Mars should be put on the budget chopping block. "I think we can learn much more about the universe much cheaper from unmanned vehicles," said Rivlin, now a Brookings' analyst. She added unmanned exploration also would improve safety.
"The most important lesson we've learned (from the manned space program) is how difficult it is to put a man in space and how little we've learned that could not be learned by satellites ...," said Niskanen, who has a more conservative policy outlook.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-02 19:49:25

NASA, Russians forging a deal for rides Crew-hours would be swapped for seats on Soyuz

NASA officials have confirmed Russian reports about an “outer-space swap” worth an estimated $60 million or more. If approved by the U.S. government, the deal could put off a looming crisis over access to the international space station.
RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov wrote about the deal on Wednesday. “Russia incurred a $60 million debt to the United States for help launching the Russian segment of the station into orbit,” he explained. “The debt was to be repaid in man-hours of working time in orbit.”
Crew-hours serve as the currency for research time aboard the space station. Partners in the 16-nation effort "spend" those hours on the projects they want to pursue. Thanks to those NASA contributions in the early stages of the space station program, the Americans currently have a positive balance of about 3,000 crew-hours — a valuable resource.
One crew-hour on the station is equivalent to about $20,000 in commercial terms. This equivalence was discussed last May when the Russians sought a 500-hour credit for allowing use of their spacesuits. Although NASA refuses to place any dollar value on crew-hours, its current balance of about 3,000 hours is unofficially valued at about $60 million.

Palomar · 2004-12-05 08:48:46

Theyve]http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/iss_supplies_041204.html]They've got the munchies

*Not a laughing matter entirely, but it did give me a chuckle.

astronauts are eating about 25 percent more food than expected

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-12-05 22:21:26

Sounds to me that the biological clocks have been set to fattening up for hibernation.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-09 09:52:55

Jumping back in from the other threads thoughts.

Once the partners agreements to lift the modules to the station have been forfilled and the US wants to back out, there becomes a time when only a shuttle size cargo area will be needed for repairs. This by in large will force the US to support this few missions with the current orbitors for ever how long the partners plan on keeping the ISS in orbit.
Point was, we have already seen that the gyros must use a shuttle to get them there and there must be other parts that can only be replaced by the shuttle ex. solar panels, radiators ect..
So even when we think we can get rid of the shuttle it keeps coming back to haunt us in the end or at least until the ISS comes down.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-09 10:09:10

The ISS and Shuttle were never truely seperate entities to begin with... the station's life could be prolonged by increased ATV flights from Europe without Shuttle, but by how much is a big question mark... the biggest issue seems to be attitude control capability; can the Russian modules' thrusters handle directional control without using up too much fuel? Will batteries fit through the Soyuz/Progress/ATV hatch?

SpaceNut · 2004-12-09 11:30:10

Now on the flipside of things going towards mars research we have the mars society desert center and a few others from the same group but where is Nasa other than a token appearence.
Well the russians are doing what Nasa is not Russian scientists are selecting volunteers to be locked in a capsule for 500 days to test plans for a trip to Mars.

edit:
Here is another effort to simulate the conditions that will be seen by 0 g's on the trip to mars.
Travelling to Mars in your dreams?

Can you imagine spending eight weeks in bed? ESA is looking for female volunteers who are prepared to do just that for a study taking place in Toulouse, France, from the end of February next year.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-10 11:24:31

There has been a number of stories running on the food shortage or at least the prospective chance that one will occur for the crew some time before the next progress is to arrive. Though this is not all that bad considered how close they are to us it could and would terrible to any crew on the Moon or Mars.
What ever happened to the food growing projects?

Palomar · 2004-12-10 11:52:19

There has been a number of stories running on the food shortage or at least the prospective chance that one will occur for the crew some time before the next progress is to arrive.

*A few hours ago I saw an article at Yahoo! news that the crew is being asked to ration its rations.

Got busy, didn't have time to link and post it here. Should still be in today's Yahoo! archive, of course.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-12-10 11:59:06

Thanks have read it. More of gloom and doom for failed Russian ship possibility than actual fact though. Latest spin doctor to bolster the cause for Nasa getting there own way and not relying on others IMO.

Palomar · 2004-12-18 07:56:13

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.htm … 835]Photos of Progress M-51 cargo vehicle

*...thought this might be of interest. I don't think I've ever seen actual photos of it.

[Hey! The "L" on that sign is upside down! Oh...wait a minute... :laugh: ]

--Cindy :;):

SpaceNut · 2004-12-20 06:49:46

Well it looks like men might get ruled out as the first to mars.

That's one small disappointment for man, a giant trip for women

Men may be from Mars. But, say scientists, only women are strong enough to fly there.
A new study by experts in the United States has claimed that women may make better and fitter astronauts for long trips into space. Men are simply biologically inferior and less able to withstand the rigours of space flight.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-20 07:53:08

Well it looks like men might get ruled out as the first to mars.
That's one small disappointment for man, a giant trip for women

This isn't really new information, I've heard essentially the same points for several years now.

The fact of the matter is that the basic... "design tolerances" for lack of a better term of humans in general aren't all that different. When determining crew for space missions minor advantages of men in certain regards and women in others just aren't that significant. Long-term exposure to zero G and radiation is bad for everyone, particulars of genitalia not withstanding. Picking the most capable volunteers on an individual basis is the best way to go.

But then If I had my way we'd send men and women. In large numbers.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-12-22 23:13:04

Well it looks like men might get ruled out as the first to mars.
Thats]http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=594572]That's one small disappointment for man, a giant trip for women

Nyeah, that's a bunch of hooey, all that. Maybe women would make better long-term astronauts than men. I've heard the point argued many times based off thought experiments about crew psychology, health, even mass, but there's been little hard data collected on the matter. In any case, the fact remains that whether we like it or not the fields of science and engineering are predominantly male-run professions (just pointing out a statistic, no sexism intended) and the best minds for the mission will often be found in male bodies.

Any mission crew should be picked based on a gender-blind assesment of who would be the best to go, based on capibilities and a little bit of crew dynamics. IMHO, this is another aspect of a mission to Mars that is blown out of proportion.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-22 23:18:34

Any mission crew should be picked based on a gender-blind assesment of who would be the best to go, based on capibilities and a little bit of crew dynamics. IMHO, this is another aspect of a mission to Mars that is blown out of proportion.

I agree, the crew should be picked for their skills alone, we need a 'Top Gun' style astronauts accadamy.

Besides if we send only women, they'd have a nice clean ship and plenty to eat, but what about the science???*

Graeme

* Before people accuse me of being sexist, it was a joke!

Palomar · 2004-12-23 09:36:46

Its]http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0412/23progress/]It's coming down to the wire

*They've lost 5 to 10 pounds since having to cut rations in half, are snacking on sweets. Glad to know they've got their Christmas dinner set aside. Apparently the previous crew getting into the current crew's food supply and not reporting their activities are partly to blame? This all could have been avoided. :-\

I really hope that supply ship gets there safely, the blast-off is okay and etc. Otherwise...hello Earth. Good luck and happy holidays to them.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-12-23 11:51:20

This is sort of interesting for what the supplies are in terms of quantity being brought to the ISS by the Prgoress M ship. While this is for just 2 people grand total of 10,094 pounds. Just think about what would be needed for the trip to Mars.

The supply ship will be carrying 5,047 pounds of cargo, including 1,234 pounds of propellant, 110 pounds of oxygen, 926 pounds of water and 2,777 pounds of dry goods.
The latter category includes repair equipment and spare parts, experiment hardware, clothing and about 70 food containers, 41 of which include American choices and 29 of which feature Russian menu items. That's enough food for 67 days of operations at one full ration per day per crew member and another 45 days at a consumption rate of 0.8 rations per crew member per day.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-25 19:48:43

Barring any mishap of docking to the ISS they will soon get the much need food supplies.

'Progress' to Dock with ISS on Sunday

Christmas comes to Space Station as supplies approach

Russian Cargo Ship Set to Dock With ISS

Craft rushes food to space station

SpaceNut · 2004-12-27 06:02:33

Another successful delivery.
Thanks should be given for the Russian's and there commitment to providing there ships for the ISS.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-28 21:08:04

I think this next item should probably also go under the Russians play hardball with regards to the ISS as well as here...

Russians ready pay-as-you-go space plan Agency says NASA will write off space station ‘debt’

Russia’s cash-strapped space agency said on Tuesday it would stop giving U.S. astronauts free rides into orbit in the future.
Under the new proposal, the United States would write off debts of man-hours that Russia owes for work carried out on the station in exchange for Russia launching its astronauts.
When the station was built, participants from 16 nations agreed money and expertise they would put into the project. Russia still owes some of its agreed input, some of which would be written off if the United States agrees to the plan.

Starting in 2006

DanielCook · 2004-12-29 18:58:35

Just noticed this link on projectconstellation.us, courtesy of Pravda -

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/ … tml]Russia flies to Mars in 2014, USA's Martian mission slated for 2030

Personally, I think, this should be read with a couple grains of salt ...

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-29 19:58:56

*chuckle* No kidding.

I could see them managing a mission around Mars and back, but no landing.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-30 05:20:02

I agree GCNRevenger; lots of grains of salt.
But when and if they were to get the funding level of Nasa just look out. For we already know that there equipment cost less as compared to comparable US stuff which costs on the order of at least 3 to 5 times what there's does.
With a very open mind this could happen under an international team effort. But do we really want to be dependent on Russia for space travel...

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-30 18:23:50

Russian equipment costs about half to 1/3rd what American stuff does, give or take a few million.

Russian equipment is also pretty limited in its scope, Russia makes decent rocket engines and can do so cheaply, they can build medium-light expendable rockets pretty easily, and primitive space maneuvering systems with good reliability...

...but that is about all they can do. Which isn't saying much.

Long term LSS systems, high power systems, nuclear engines and medium sized reactors, advanced automatic maneuvering systems, and LANDERS are all solidly American specialties. We know how to build HABs too, perhaps inflatable ones, and our rockets have the potential to stretch into the medium-heavy range needed for Lunar missions that Russian rockets cannot.

Not that the American government would tollerate much money or NASA operations going to Russia anyway.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-05 07:27:38

Well the Repaired Oxygen Generator Fails Again Aboard ISS

Russian flight controllers used 7.1 pounds of the 110 pounds of oxygen and air aboard Progress 16, which arrived on Dec. 25 and contained about a two-week supply, Navias said during ISS mission commentary today.
Additional oxygen sources aboard the ISS include a 42-day supply in the form of solid fuel canisters, as well as two full tanks inside the U.S.-built Quest airlock.

Station crew troubleshoots oxygen generator problem

The reserves are in the form of so-called "candles," which produce oxygen as a by-product of combustion,

Crew can breathe easy despite bad generator

Solid-fuel oxygen generation cartridges burn lithium perchlorate within metal housings. The resulting chemical reaction produces oxygen that is vented into the station's atmosphere. The devices are similar to those used aboard commercial airliners to produce breathing air for drop-down emergency oxygen masks.

Well the russian equipment may be cheap but is it really worth it in the long run? ???

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-11-30 06:18:52

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#77 2004-12-02 19:49:25

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#78 2004-12-05 08:48:46

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#79 2004-12-05 22:21:26

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#80 2004-12-09 09:52:55

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#81 2004-12-09 10:09:10

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#82 2004-12-09 11:30:10

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#83 2004-12-10 11:24:31

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#84 2004-12-10 11:52:19

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#85 2004-12-10 11:59:06

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#86 2004-12-18 07:56:13

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#87 2004-12-20 06:49:46

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#88 2004-12-20 07:53:08

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#89 2004-12-22 23:13:04

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#90 2004-12-22 23:18:34

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#91 2004-12-23 09:36:46

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#92 2004-12-23 11:51:20

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#93 2004-12-25 19:48:43

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#94 2004-12-27 06:02:33

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#95 2004-12-28 21:08:04

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#96 2004-12-29 18:58:35

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#97 2004-12-29 19:58:56

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#98 2004-12-30 05:20:02

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#99 2004-12-30 18:23:50

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#100 2005-01-05 07:27:38

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer