ISS Woes & To-Mars

SpaceNut · 2005-06-16 09:55:19

Well it seemed that I posted a little to soon with the update on the stations rubbish removal.
ISS dumps one tonne of waste

[url=http://en.rian.ru/science/20050616/40530650.html]
Russian spacecraft Progress sunk in Pacific[/url]

It will deliver food supplies, firefighting and medical equipment, fresh underwear and personal hygiene articles, as well as fuel for attitude control thrusters, fresh and technical water, and research equipment.

Russians to launch cargo ship tonight

Mission will be ninth to help space station since Columbia

The Progress is scheduled to dock at the station at 8:44 p.m. Eastern on Saturday, bringing with it a total of 4,662 pounds of food, water, oxygen, fuel, spare parts and other cargo. Another Progress is scheduled for launch on Aug. 25.

Palomar · 2005-06-16 10:09:01

No space station! Don't build a space station at all! There isn't enough worth doing up there to justify the billions of dollars you would throw away in building and maintaining the thing. The old mantra of "microgravity research station" was, is, and continues to be an equally big lie as Shuttle flying dozens of times a year for $60M a pop. You especially don't go trying to salvage bits of the accursed ISS!

*"Amen" to that, brother! :band:

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-06-23 05:40:51

What]http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iss-05zzy.html]"What pieces might be left on the ground..."

*Another item of potential interest to all us ISS lovers. Might complement the article Commodore posted from the 16th.

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-06-25 07:31:26

At the moment the ISS relies only on supplies delivered by Russian Progress cargo ships and of crews delivered by the Soyuz spacecraft.

With the failure in the third stage of the Molnia rocket delivering the light sail to orbit there is the problem that the Molnia third stage and the Soyuz rockets third stage are very similar. Until the fault can be found, recognized and a solution found the Russians have stopped all flights of Soyuz rockets.

The ISS supply run is now in jeopardy.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/06/25/ … tml]Moscow News Article

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-25 07:52:01

*Crosses his fingers and hopes reaaallly hard for another Shuttle delay of, say, six months*

RobertDyck · 2005-06-25 13:04:30

The article says the halt of Soyuz was due to failure of a military satellite, not the solar sail. The military satellite was launched on a Molnia-M rocket, which is part of the R-7 rocket family. The Soyuz-FG launch vehicle is used for Soyuz and Progress spacecraft. Soyuz-FG has 4 strap-on boosters, a core stage, and a second stage; it doesn't have a third stage. I think the stage the article calls the third is actually the second. The second stage of the Molnia-M is similar to the Soyuz-M, but the Soyuz-M second stage has slightly larger tanks. The modern Soyuz-FG has an RD-0124 engine for its upper stage instead of an RD-0110. The article says it was engine failure so I don't see why Soyuz-FG should be affected.

The Cosmos-1 solar sail craft was launched on a Volna rocket launched from a submarine, derived from a missile: R-29R (NATO designation SS-N-18, 'Stingray'). They're still not sure what happened, but it appears to be the same problem as a previous Volna launch: payload failed to separate from the third stage.

GCNRevenger: your negativity is not constructive. Politicians will see "space stuff" as one single entity. If a project as expensive as ISS fails, they'll pull NASA funding, not redirect it to a Mars mission. If you want to go to Mars then NASA has to prove success, that means ISS success and Shuttle must succeed as well until it's decommissioned.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-25 13:32:18

Nonsense, the only truely "unconstructive" thing is to wish for Shuttle and the ISS to stay in business! If Soyuz is out of business for four or five months, then the ISS will have to be abandoned, if Shuttle RTF is delayed (yippie!).

Their continued exsistance has been the millstone around NASA's neck for the last thirty years, and are the primary reasons that NASA has never been faced with the need to GO anywhere beyond Earth orbit to justify its exsistance.

And what are you talking about with the ISS and Shuttle "suceeding?" They are ALREADY failures, they were even failures before they left the drawing board! NASA is only being forced to do this to save political capital, and nothing more.

If Congress is so sensitive that they will pull NASA's funding over the ISS debacle, then Congress can't be trusted to fund Moon/Mars initiatives any which way when they fully internalize the truth.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-27 05:10:28

If Congress is so sensitive that they will pull NASA's funding over the ISS debacle, then Congress can't be trusted to fund Moon/Mars initiatives any which way when they fully internalize the truth.

I agree with you there if funding was pulled shame on you congress.
How does one keep a steady cash flow though when the sums are measured in Billions.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-27 12:29:52

NASA to Buy ISS Cargo Services

NASA will soon solicit offers from firms interested in delivering cargo and crew to the international space station (ISS), but NASA Administrator Mike Griffin said he wants to buy services, not dole out development contracts to newcomers who were shut out of the competition to build the space shuttle's replacement.

Sort of leaves you with the pork barrel choices or no change to the status quo.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-27 12:34:14

Not really... its just expecting companies to put their own money, and not getting NASA to fund every little project and take all the risk.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-27 12:44:06

Lost in Space

Well here is the first expiration date that I have seen for the ISS.

The shuttle and space station programs would be better targets for cost-cutting. NASA originally planned about 25 shuttle flights over the next five years to deliver the trusses, solar arrays, docking nodes and laboratory modules needed to complete the station. The shuttle and station consume 40 percent of NASA's budget and will burn through at least $40 billion between now and their scheduled phase-out dates (the shuttle in 2010, the station in 2017). In contrast, the Voyager mission costs only $4.2 million a year.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-27 15:59:27

Woo hoo!

Though not soon enough for my liking

Commodore · 2005-06-27 17:11:26

Once construction is complete theres no reason why a single HLLV cargo launch and a couple crew rotation CEV's can't be launched for well under $2 billion a year. And with much more capability.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-27 17:20:15

Cost? The trouble is all the overhead of running both programs if you aren't doing much with them. It costs around $2-3Bn a year for NASA to keep the Shuttle program in business if it flies or not.

Commodore · 2005-06-27 19:37:13

Were not going to be flying the shuttle by then. And if were not putting enough hardware up on the moon to justify putting the 3-4 launchers per year together we might as well throw in the towel cause were not going to be able to do much.

Palomar · 2005-06-27 21:09:37

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID … lID=2]Lost in Space
Well here is the first expiration date that I have seen for the ISS.
The shuttle and space station programs would be better targets for cost-cutting. NASA originally planned about 25 shuttle flights over the next five years to deliver the trusses, solar arrays, docking nodes and laboratory modules needed to complete the station. The shuttle and station consume 40 percent of NASA's budget and will burn through at least $40 billion between now and their scheduled phase-out dates (the shuttle in 2010, the station in 2017). In contrast, the Voyager mission costs only $4.2 million a year.

GCN: Woo hoo!
Though not soon enough for my liking

*Agreed.

Sorry for the cynicism, but what are the chances NASA (and friends possibly) will come up with yet another money-gobbling stuck-in-LEO scheme (and we're still not seeing a manned mission to Mars within the next 3 decades)?

::sigh::

--Cindy

idiom · 2005-06-27 22:04:30

Space stations are boondoggle magnets. They attract phrase like 'fuel depot', 'on-orbit construction' and 'microgravity industry'. Wierd logic begins to form, like 'why would we have a space station if the lunar mission did not obviously have to dock there?'

Pretty freaky stuff, put that thing away.

RobertDyck · 2005-06-27 23:40:34

Space stations are boondoggle magnets. They attract phrase like 'fuel depot', 'on-orbit construction' and 'microgravity industry'. Wierd logic begins to form, like 'why would we have a space station if the lunar mission did not obviously have to dock there?'
Pretty freaky stuff, put that thing away.

Um, what? Where did this come from? I don't see what you're responding to.

Just as an out-of-context reply to a single post, sure I would like to see a manned mission to Mars, but why slam space stations? This reminds me of the criticism of Mir. Everyone said Mir was old and unsafe, we needed a new station. That ISS would be the wonderful new replacement, after all anything constructed by America must be so much better. A science reporter for the CBC commented that Mir is 12 years old, but 12 years after construction the ISS will also be 12 years old. ISS will experience the same problems, so let's learn how to operate a space station now before the same problems are duplicated. That was before the first ISS module was launched. Now look at everyone criticising ISS. Actually Mir was much more successful, primarily due to the fact you could do useful work on it after the core module was launched, long before construction was complete. Now we have flip-flopping politicians who can't seam to stick with the project to completion. I've proposed on this board how to complete ISS quickly so we could move on, but even that was slammed. If you guys can't stick with anything, why do you expect the politicians you elected to do better? And if you can't stick with something as close as a space station, how do you expect to complete a project just as big but on another planet and with 26 month per round trip schedules?

Yea I know, talk about a lunar space station is just stupid. There's nothing in lunar orbit, no point of being there. Any science mission to Mars does not require a fuel depot in Earth orbit. Silly things like that are completely unnecessary, just a waste of money. However, claiming "Space stations are boondoggle magnets" is just unfair. Many executives of the major aerospace firms treat anything about space as 'pork ' to be 'milked' for as much money as they can. That means a lunar or Mars mission will be just as much a boondoggle. Any corporate executive who's focused on money will not see why we need to go to space at all, so will treat everything in space as a boondoggle to line his/her pockets. If you let that happen with ISS then it will happen with a Mars mission as well. If you abandon ISS without any results then don't expect any results from an attempted Mars mission either. The ISS is a test of NASA, of the aerospace industry, and of the advocacy community. Are you capable of sticking with the project to successful completion? Focussing on the advocacy community, are you capable of sustained support or will you grow bored? It's a lot of money, if you won't support the project and those congressmen who ensured congress supplied the money, then why should congressmen direct limited national funds in that direction? After all, there's a gigantic deficit and national debt to deal with. There are domestic issues that could use the money. If you want to see a manned Mars mission, then start demanding results from ISS.

clark · 2005-06-28 05:38:09

Over here, it's all about Mars. Cool.

Now look out the window and take a gander at all those stars and planets, and oh yeah, that big freaking Moon hanging over our head.

A fuel depot might not make sense for Mars. Okay, fine by me. But space exploration shouldn't be about one particular destination. The destination isn't important. It's the ride that counts.

Going beyond LEO means we start going somewhere else. Going to the Moon means we can go just about anywhere. A direct path to Mars takes us to only one place, Mars. The path laid out for VSE will take us anywhere we wish to go.

So remember, enjoy the ride.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-28 07:33:12

However, claiming "Space stations are boondoggle magnets" is just unfair. Many executives of the major aerospace firms treat anything about space as 'pork ' to be 'milked' for as much money as they can. That means a lunar or Mars mission will be just as much a boondoggle. Any corporate executive who's focused on money will not see why we need to go to space at all, so will treat everything in space as a boondoggle to line his/her pockets. If you let that happen with ISS then it will happen with a Mars mission as well. If you abandon ISS without any results then don't expect any results from an attempted Mars mission either. The ISS is a test of NASA, of the aerospace industry, and of the advocacy community. Are you capable of sticking with the project to successful completion? Focussing on the advocacy community, are you capable of sustained support or will you grow bored? It's a lot of money, if you won't support the project and those congressmen who ensured congress supplied the money, then why should congressmen direct limited national funds in that direction? After all, there's a gigantic deficit and national debt to deal with. There are domestic issues that could use the money. If you want to see a manned Mars mission, then start demanding results from ISS.

What is it with you and trying to save stuff Robert?

Space stations are indeed boondoggle magnets at the moment for one very simple easy-to-understand reason: there is no worthwhile justification to have any manned space station anywhere. Zero-gravity research is just not very useful compared to the cost of performing it in a big manned station. It has been, by and large, as big of a lie as the henious ones about Shuttle flying dozens of times a year for little more then new tank costs. This is also true for the ISS (to keep Shuttle and the RSA in business) and for Mir (an attempt to replay "Red star in the sky" from Sputnik, show up Apollo).

The ISS is not and cannot be a "test" of NASA, the ISS is already a nearly total failure, and no amount of will nor reasonable investment will change this. It is suicidal to make the ISS a measuring stick for NASA, because they will be forced to do the exact thing that they must absolutely get away from, and that is to utilize LEO for ANY reason. The huge cost ($2.5-3.0Bn+ per year, 25-30% of the spaceflight budget) of trying desperatly to get something useful out of the ISS will go a long, long way to bleeding NASA dry and keeping us stuck here! We must GO someplace, any place, because LEO is the ultimate graveyard orbit for space agencies.

Going places is also fundimentally different then building space stations near Earth; that the general public couldn't care less about small, reasonably sized stations... but a trip to Mars? Thats lunchbox, poster, and primetime documentary material. Yes, I think that would actually hold alot more interest... who cares about staying on little tin can so close to home doing abstract experiments most can't understand? It will grip the public's attention far more effectively to show them the practicality of Lunar mining, the fantastic images produced by Lunar darkside scopes' tended by humans, and eventually the first perminant "town" on Mars... if there is present life on Mars, it could take years to find.

Anyway, NASA will not be able to do any of these things if they can't keep prices under control, which is as much their own fault (perhaps you have heard of the "Space Shuttle"?) as this unnammed shadowy cabal of evil corperations you like to blame all (and I do mean ALL) our problems on. Since NASA will have to go there and show tangibile results to remain relevent (please, for goodness sakes, no more zero-G candy videos), then they will be forced to become fiscally efficent any which way.

Edit: By the way, Roberts plan to finish the ISS quickly with Shuttle-C is, quite frankly, a fairy tale. The plan assumes that we can build Shuttle-C is only one year which is simply beyond the realm of credibility. By the time this vehicleis available, it will not get the job done much faster. It also gets us trapped with the Shuttle-C configuration, which cannot accomodate large-diameter payloads (MarsDirect or DRM), manned flights (MarsDirect), upper stages efficently (MarsDirect or direct escape launch to anywhere), and precludes modifying Pad 39 to make an inline SDV HLLV later... which would waste Shuttle-C's development dollars anyway.

Commodore · 2005-06-28 09:22:22

People don't seem to understand that well never be able to do anything serious in space without LEO infrastructure. We'll never be able to send any more than expendable toys to the Moon, nor anything but Apollo like missions to Mars without breaking the bank on massive launchers.

LEO construction is unavoidable.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-28 09:46:59

Eventually, in the long term, yes some LEO infrastructure would be nessesarry to develop the Moon or colonize Mars.

But that day is not today, nor is it any time soon

Reuseable vehicles, which would be needed to take advantage of orbital or surface infrastucture, are not anywhere near as efficent as expendable rockets (particularly large ones) for actually building that infrastructure.

Plus, NASA needs of all things right now momentum, to actually start on projects that will either take us to other worlds or mean NASA's destruction. To do this, development costs (which have been historically pretty high for reuseables) must be kept fairly low, at least for now, which means simpler expendability comes first.

Later on, later, when rocket propellants can be lifted very cheaply (like by RLVs) from Earth and/or created on Moon/Mars/etc, then some infrastructure and (semi-) reuseable vehicles make sense. That day is not today, is NOT, and will not be here for some time.

Large expendable vehicles also have the inherint advantage of large payload size (by volume), which I feel is nessesarry for Mars ships of sufficent size. Forcing a little too much modularity on Mars ships will increase the price substantially. If a Mars ship is built in only two or three big pieces, then orbital infrastructure is unnessesarry for early to mid term missions.

Palomar · 2005-06-30 05:34:01

http://www.space.com/imageoftheday/imag … 30.html]As seen from the ISS

*Altitude of 220 miles. Astronaut John Phillips snapped this pic. It's close to his home territory, apparently. Bits of other info in the article too (unrelated to the AZ situation).

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-06-30 10:45:54

NASA to pull out of International Space Station?

While the noise of the political gong is loud in actuallity just because one chooses not to send any more personel or supplies for use by there Astronauts. Does that mean we no long own or have claim to what we have sent up, I think not.

It is a matter of for sciencetific value have we learned all that we can from the utlization of the ISS and does it support the vision of exploration needs.

From a commercial view it has lots of value as tourist attraction and more but how does the one's government and others resolve there involvements to a suitable end to transfer this equipment into private hands?

SpaceNut · 2005-07-07 07:33:10

Well the contract to send Gregory Olsen, American businessman to fly to the International Space Station as early as this October has been signed. Olsen had tried to make the trip last year, but was medically disqualified from training last summer because of an unspecified condition.

Lots more news links available here on this story

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2005-06-16 09:55:19

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#202 2005-06-16 10:09:01

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#203 2005-06-23 05:40:51

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#204 2005-06-25 07:31:26

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#205 2005-06-25 07:52:01

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#206 2005-06-25 13:04:30

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#207 2005-06-25 13:32:18

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#208 2005-06-27 05:10:28

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#209 2005-06-27 12:29:52

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#210 2005-06-27 12:34:14

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#211 2005-06-27 12:44:06

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#212 2005-06-27 15:59:27

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#213 2005-06-27 17:11:26

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#214 2005-06-27 17:20:15

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#215 2005-06-27 19:37:13

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#216 2005-06-27 21:09:37

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#217 2005-06-27 22:04:30

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#218 2005-06-27 23:40:34

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#219 2005-06-28 05:38:09

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#220 2005-06-28 07:33:12

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#221 2005-06-28 09:22:22

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#222 2005-06-28 09:46:59

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#223 2005-06-30 05:34:01

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#224 2005-06-30 10:45:54

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#225 2005-07-07 07:33:10

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer