ISS cutbacks

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-12 15:27:19

Well, there is one simple fact that makes the whole idea kinda of moot... that if there were a serious incident needing that kind of repair, one which would cause decompression death before the ISS crew could reach the Soyuz/CEV capsule, then repair doesn't matter. The crew will already be gone... The ISS strategy for severe punctures is to "hope they don't happen," and statisticly, that is a valid argument. In which case, you might as well send up a repair-the-ISS mission from Earth aboard Shuttle or Soyuz or heavy CEV and repair the puncture that way if there is a hole with the crew safe and sound on the ground.

The ISS is already going to be stocked with spare tiles, thermal blankets, and the "reentry caulk" for Shuttle. I imagine the ISS already carries a tube of RTV silicon for minor holes. NASA has abandoned launching replacement RCC panel covers.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-08-12 16:21:30

I think the biggest reason for KISS in engineering is economics. If a simple solution is adequate why spend the money in components and design to create a more optimal solution. However if a simple solution is not adequate then KISS goes out the window. As an example I doubt anyone would try to apply the principle of KISS to a weather forecasting system that must predict the weather 2 weeks in advance for a town.

Yeah, that's kinda what my point was. Hydrogen peroxide and hydrogen both have their advantages and weaknesses as fuels, but if hydrogen peroxide is adequate for the job (And with an isp the same as N2O4/UDMH when mixed with kerosene it probably is adequate) it will make for a lot fewer headaches. If it's necessary to use some complex system for a given task, go ahead, but it will make everyone's life easier to use the simplest system possible.

Euler · 2004-08-12 18:56:39

If it's necessary to use some complex system for a given task, go ahead, but it will make everyone's life easier to use the simplest system possible.

"Simple" is not always the same thing as cheap or reliable. Rockets are conceptually a lot simpler than airplanes, but they are still much more expensive and dangerous.

dicktice · 2004-08-14 10:32:42

Incredibly, the following event which is essential to keeping the ISS "up and running" while we dither about: what to do? . . . what to do? gets none of the kudos it deserves. Nothing in sciece fiction ever predicted such blatant unappreciation for what these Soyuz/Progress Russian successes-on-a-shoestring can mean to the future of space travel from Earth

Russian Supply Ship Docks at Space Station
VOA News
14 Aug 2004, 13:31 UTC

Progress M-50 vessel
A Russian supply craft has docked at the International Space Station, delivering vital supplies to the crew manning the orbiter circling the Earth.
Russian officials say the Progress M-50 vessel docked at Space Station Alpha on schedule early Saturday.
The craft is carrying necessities such as water, food and fuel, as well as letters from home, movies and magazines for the station's two crewmen, American astronaut Michael Finke and Russian cosmonaut Gennady Padalka.
The supply ship lifted off Wednesday from Russia's Baikonour cosmodrome in neighboring Kazakhstan.
Russia has been resupplying the space station since February 2003, when the U.S. space shuttle fleet was grounded after the shuttle Columbia disaster that killed all seven crew members.

Shame on us!

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-14 10:58:46

Oh stop your self-flagellating prostrations...

The Russians are doing what we expect of them, holding up their end of the bargain in an extremely expensive and lopsidedly funded joint venture. I would be mad if they didn't send up Progress vehicles.

Progress-M, by the way, is a pitiful toy compared to what is needed. The ISS requires dozens of metric tons every year to do useful work, and the puny Progress can hardly keep a crew of three up there with its two-ton capacity... held back by the Russian's refusal to invest the capital and adopt superior propellants or use their larger rockets for supply missions.

The Progress is so small, that large items like science racks, batteries, gyroscopes, major LSS componets, and many other vital pieces simply won't fit. Its iffy if you can even launch Astronauts' semirigid space suits up in the little thing.

The Space Shuttle is a debacle... a horrible mistake... but it is not emblematic of our "best" technology. We could very well build a fine supply vehicle, possibly a stretch version of the CEV launched on Delta-IV HLV, Atlas-V, or "Atlas-VI."

And if the ISS were important, we would... but its not.

Morris · 2004-08-14 11:56:57

Incredibly, the following event which is essential to keeping the ISS "up and running" while we dither about: what to do? . . . what to do? gets none of the kudos it deserves. Nothing in sciece fiction ever predicted such blatant unappreciation for what these Soyuz/Progress Russian successes-on-a-shoestring can mean to the future of space travel from Earth
Russian Supply Ship Docks at Space Station
VOA News
14 Aug 2004, 13:31 UTC

Progress M-50 vessel
A Russian supply craft has docked at the International Space Station, delivering vital supplies to the crew manning the orbiter circling the Earth.
Russian officials say the Progress M-50 vessel docked at Space Station Alpha on schedule early Saturday.
The craft is carrying necessities such as water, food and fuel, as well as letters from home, movies and magazines for the station's two crewmen, American astronaut Michael Finke and Russian cosmonaut Gennady Padalka.
The supply ship lifted off Wednesday from Russia's Baikonour cosmodrome in neighboring Kazakhstan.
Russia has been resupplying the space station since February 2003, when the U.S. space shuttle fleet was grounded after the shuttle Columbia disaster that killed all seven crew members.
Shame on us!

I agree completely. And yet our shuttle and ISS people manage to find ways to complain about the Russians. They just can't stand it that the Russians' (necessarily) simpler spacecraft are more reliable than the more technologically advanced but more fragile shuttle.

Since NASA has screwed the American taxpayer to the tune of MANY billions of dollars by hugely overdesigning the shuttle, every Soyuz flight is a reproach to them. Some call the NASA plan technology development, others corporate (and NASA employee) welfare. Well, maybe "workfare" would be a more appropriate term.

I see that there are already cost overruns on RTF for the shuttle. This is a chronic condition for NASA. Time to fire whole planning staffs and find some Kelly Johnson types who can bring complex projects in on time and under budget to provide some leadership in those programs. It is notable that many of the NASA unmanned programs manage to meet time/budget constraints very well.

It's interesting to note that we could easily have been on Mars by now. But NASA's plan for implementing Bush I's Mars initiative was so expensive that it staggered even the jaded sensibilities of the U.S. Congress. If a tiny fraction of that money had been given to Bob Zubrin, Bert Rutan, etc. we'd have been there by now.

Hey, I have an idea, lets let the contract for planning the space exploration initiative to the Russian Space Agency. Ummm, no, given the chance the RSA would be even more greedy than NASA.

But I understand the Russians are going to start making us pay for the resupply sometime next year.

dicktice · 2004-08-14 12:13:33

GCNR: You wrote: "We could very well build a fine supply vehicle, possibly a stretch version of the CEV launched on Delta-IV HLV, Atlas-V, or "Atlas-VI."
Well, we won't, and you know it, because we don't any longer have the requisite "fire in the belly." You're young, and I'm old. That's about all it amounts to. Older folks have to plan, based upon what already exists step by step, consistantly like the Russian space program has from the start. I'm tired of your negative comments about the working stiffs out there, doing what we ought to be doing. So (in the words of your next First Lady, and for the same reason): Go shove it.

Morris · 2004-08-14 17:08:39

GCNR: You wrote: "We could very well build a fine supply vehicle, possibly a stretch version of the CEV launched on Delta-IV HLV, Atlas-V, or "Atlas-VI."
Well, we won't, and you know it, because we don't any longer have the requisite "fire in the belly." You're young, and I'm old. That's about all it amounts to. Older folks have to plan, based upon what already exists step by step, consistantly like the Russian space program has from the start. I'm tired of your negative comments about the working stiffs out there, doing what we ought to be doing. So (in the words of your next First Lady, and for the same reason): Go shove it.

Are you saying that this

the requisite "fire in the belly"

plus this

plan, based upon what already exists step by step, consistantly like the Russian space program has from the start

would equal this?:

1. get the job done
2. restore fiscal credibility
3. increase national and employee pride in agency accomplishments
4. encourage feelings of gratitude and appreciation for the efforts of our partners
5. widen technology development by using the saved money on systems involving both space and non-space components, e.g. alternative power systems (e.g light a similar fire under fusion research)

dicktice · 2004-08-15 11:11:36

Gosh . . . if I hadn't been so impatient with the negativism expressed over and over regarding the USSR/Russian stubbornly pragmatic approach to rocket and space vehicle engineering, never of course intended to get us out of the fine mess NASA has got us into . . . sure.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-15 11:43:23

What I see is negativism too... about NASA Its like you hate them or somthing... Hopefully not because you hate America... Glorifying the Russians for things that cannot or will not do is also mystifying. Why do you do this? Their capabilities and accomplishments are simply not worthy of such lavish adoration... Concerning the ISS project, the Russians have done even less then what we expected of them. They now have the nerve to tell us to cough up money to fly Astronauts on Soyuz.

dicktice · 2004-08-15 12:56:22

Not at all. We had a right to expect NASA to do better-- much better--until Apollo was junked. Unnecessary wars, frittering away that first-time-ever enthusiasm that gets Congress fired up with anything between elections, could be blamed. They always seem to go along with the President, however foolish internationally. And since they have to profess scientific ignorance--even revel in it--to get re-elected, NASA, as the election bridging public service, should remain firmly in the scientific/engineering driver's seat, and not cave in--resulteing in abortions like what happened to the Space Shuttle program, when push came to shove. I approve of the engineering integrity of the now-Russian approach, as I wrote, using whatever they have at hand to keep space travel (as I like to call it) still active. Call me a romantic (blush) but having been raised on "golden-age" science fiction, and reluctantly worked on pre-sputnk ballistic horrors for a living, I don't have to adore the Russians. I'm just damned appreciative that they still have maintained their space transportation capability, now when we've lost ours--only for the time being, one hopes--what with the Chinese plugging away to good effect, as well. We should be pulling up our spacesuit socks, war or no war: that most expensive in every way means of going bankrupt--billions for a carefully planned space travel program vs. trillions for an open-ended warfare on terrorism--which only costs the other side mere hundreds of thousands to keep us shaking in our boots.
I hope that's enough de-mystification on my part. What's yours?--on a positive note for once, eh?

SpaceNut · 2004-08-16 08:05:15

The problem is that America lost it's only manned vehicle it still has others for cargo thou they like even the Russians do have there limitations as well.
Thank full yes for the Russian manned ride but angry at not paying to continue these rides is a mistake. The amount of money barely pays for the building of such rockets how could this do any harm militarily.
These are our Partners for the ISS we should not treat them any differently than what we would want to be treated. Lets be fair to each other on this accord.

Morris · 2004-08-16 10:00:22

What I see is negativism too... about NASA Its like you hate them or somthing... Hopefully not because you hate America... Concerning the ISS project, the Russians have done even less then what we expected of them. They now have the nerve to tell us to cough up money to fly Astronauts on Soyuz.

Glorifying the Russians for things that cannot or will not do is also mystifying. Why do you do this? Their capabilities and accomplishments are simply not worthy of such lavish adoration...

Let's see, building a vehicle that is cheap, works, and keeps on working is not worthy of praise? Well, from the perspective of someone who has gotten hold of his share of unreliable technology, I'll give you a consumer/taxpayer's perspective. Until a technology is highly reliable, it isn't technology. It's just a bunch of little boys and girls playing with mudpies.

As long as they enjoy it, and learn something from it, we can and should give it modest support. But when they insist on a whole personal water theme park just to get started, maybe it's time to take another look.

Now if a private corporation wants to invest in a theme park for them because it figures that they will create something which will make a lot of money, more power to them. But a private company, unsubsidized by government, isn't going to give the producers of high cost failures a lot of second chances.

And a technology which is cheap and reliable but doesn't have 1000 experimental "bells and whistles" attached is worth much more than one that has these things and is either very complex/costly to operate or unreliable or both. In competitive industry we can, on the whole (though there are exceptions), let long-term sales tell us which total technologies (final products) are the best. Unfortunately, with products produced primarily through government funding we don't have this information until, at best, very late in the game.

And as far as "lavish adoration" goes, for some people saying anything positive about another country at all is "lavish adoration" or even treason. Maybe someone needs to write a good grade B movie about the current perspective, Day of the Xenos.

Euler · 2004-08-16 18:11:13

Russian manned spaceflight has been a smart, economical program of gradual improvements with few missteps, allowing the Russians to accumulate more total experience with humans in space than NASA, while working with a much smaller budget. Russian robotic probes, on the other hand, are really pretty pathetic, while NASA has had great success in that area. NASA can do better than Russia, and probably will in the future, but you have to admit that Shuttle was a mistake which wasted a lot of time and money.

Morris · 2004-08-16 20:33:23

Russian manned spaceflight has been a smart, economical program of gradual improvements with few missteps, allowing the Russians to accumulate more total experience with humans in space than NASA, while working with a much smaller budget. Russian robotic probes, on the other hand, are really pretty pathetic, while NASA has had great success in that area. NASA can do better than Russia, and probably will in the future, but you have to admit that Shuttle was a mistake which wasted a lot of time and money.

Thanks for summarizing NASA so succinctly. By the way, they might consider giving the head of their public information staff more responsibility. I love the way they share information with the us.

I hope you are right about NASA and manned spaceflight in the future, but once a "sock the taxpayer" ideology gets established in a program, you practically have to fire or retire the whole management staff before you can start over. Or hire a ruthless czar who can con the system and still get the job done. Didn't we have a student on one of these threads share his paper about Robert Moses? That's the type.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-16 21:11:38

Ah, but what can Russian hardware do? The Progress-M, only 2.2 tons of payload, and they waste a good rocket and Soyuz chassis? Shuttle can theoreticly deliver 7X as much per launch or 9X per year. ESA's ATV carries over four times as much, and large objects won't fit through the door on the Russian ports... way to go Ruskies.

Soyuz capsules are still cramped, still use fuel that eats through the tanks, still unable to return signifigant payloads. The Proton... gosh, where to start? Giant tank of flying, burning liquid poison? Zenit rockets still blow up way too often even after years and years of messing with the engines, unless they spend double the money preparing them and/or get Lockheed to help. Finally after all this time, going to employ Cryogenic engines in an operational vehicle, only about 40 years late...

Its cheap, its reliable, and it works... but asside from the stillborn Energia (of questionable reliability) or the Soyuz and some engine concepts, its just pretty worthless technology, and why I have limited respect for it.

I have no problem conceding that Shuttle is a horrible spaceship either. But the trouble with Shuttle is more political than anything, it was a vehicle meant to be all things to all people, including the accountants, which doomed it to be a terrible ship before it left the drawing boards... Not a sign of NASA's capability.

Euler · 2004-08-17 00:29:00

Its cheap, its reliable, and it works... but asside from the stillborn Energia (of questionable reliability) or the Soyuz and some engine concepts...

Isn't that enough? The Russian technology does just what it needs to do rather than being able to do everything that everyone wants it to do. As you pointed out, Soyuz is a very cheap and reliable spacecraft, and they are looking to improve it further with Klipper. Russian engine technology has been better than western technology, though now the west is catching up by using Russian ideas. Russia also built Mir, which allowed their astronauts to gain many years of experience in 0-g conditions. Russia does not have nearly enough funds to launch an interplanetary trip, and that is not likely to change soon, but I think that they have done well with what they have.

Anyway, compare it to what NASA has been doing in manned spaceflight for the last 25-30 years. We built Shuttle, and um... not much else.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-17 05:52:26

Ya lots of failed programs in the x series, tons of demonstrators or mock ups and the closest they came to something that was off the shelf and re-usuable was the DX.

Way to go Nasa, nothing like a workfare program.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-17 06:25:52

Now here is a real surprise of science being done on the ISS.
Soldering Surprise
There's nothing routine about working in space, as astronaut Mike Fincke found out recently when he did some soldering onboard the International Space Station.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004 … solder.htm

So we actually can build things in space if given the tools. Who would have thought it.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-19 05:05:06

The last half of this page of response postings at http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin/ikonboar … 260;st=165
have really been dealing with Iss cutbacks under the Hubble Mistake action needed topic. My response is the same from here down.

But in response to why other vehicle that could lift modules or nodes to the iss for install.
First you have the shuttle arm used to place into location for attachment to the Iss.
second is that each module was not designed to take the pressures of launch to orbit on the hulls or outer shell.

Designing a new shell to take these forces would probably weigh more than each module and still there would be the need for how to remove from protective casing once in orbit with the ISS and what to do with the casing as well.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-08-19 21:39:56

The Space Shuttle is a debacle... a horrible mistake... but it is not emblematic of our "best" technology. We could very well build a fine supply vehicle, possibly a stretch version of the CEV launched on Delta-IV HLV, Atlas-V, or "Atlas-VI."
And if the ISS were important, we would... but its not.

(Charlie Brown voice:) Awwwgh! My computer has been acting like HAL 9000 the last couple of days, so this is the first time I've been able to use the internet since last friday.

Excuse me? GCN, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just spent the last few pages saying that a new supply vehicle could never ever be built? You go off on how idiotic the shuttle and the ISS are, then turn around and attack anyone who thinks NASA isn't performing up to par. Do you support NASA unconditionally as it is now? If you were alive in the Apollo era don't let that disillusion you. Short of some second JFK, we're pretty much stuck where we are and NASA isn't going to change too much. It's going to be a tug-of-war between politicians and myopic NASA administrators, with everybody unhappy in the end. And meanwhile, the private industry is taking it's first baby steps out there beyond Earth while you look down your nose at it. And would it kill you to post a link to somewhere that says that the Russian hatches are to small?

SpaceNut · 2004-08-23 11:23:06

So we actually want to do science on the ISS. What ever happened to all the science that has been conducted thus far?

This is probably old but what ever happened to it, Russian Scientists to Send Newts, Crawfish and Snails to Space.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/05/10/space.shtml

Grypd · 2004-08-23 14:06:01

It may that the actual modules that will do the real science are still sitting on the ground waiting there ride up. Certainly the ESA columbus and the japanese module are still waiting

SpaceNut · 2004-08-24 07:19:46

Columbus: European Laboratory
http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESAFRG0VMOC_iss_0.html
Experiment stations proposed for module.

Fluid Science Laboratory
European Physiology Modules (EPM)
BIOLAB: Biological Experiment laboratory
European Drawer Rack (EDR) Multi-discipline flexible carrier
Material Science Laboratory Electromagnetic Levitator (MSL-EML)

Japanese ISS Module
Experiment Module (JEM) "KIBO"
http://www.jaxa.jp/missions/projects/is … dex_e.html
Centrifuge Project is a laboratory for conducting gravitational biology research
http://www.jaxa.jp/missions/projects/is … dex_e.html

SpaceNut · 2004-08-31 06:42:10

While not being a cutback due to reduced shuttle flights it how ever is effected by when will it actually go on the ealiest possible one.

A room with a view for the International Space Station: Completion of the cupola observation module
http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/SEMZH40 … dex_0.html

The cupola project is the outcome of a bilateral barter agreement between the European Space Agency and NASA, under which ESA is providing the cupola for the ISS in exchange for Shuttle transportation of European equipment and experiments to the station.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2004-08-12 15:27:19

Re: ISS cutbacks

#152 2004-08-12 16:21:30

Re: ISS cutbacks

#153 2004-08-12 18:56:39

Re: ISS cutbacks

#154 2004-08-14 10:32:42

Re: ISS cutbacks

#155 2004-08-14 10:58:46

Re: ISS cutbacks

#156 2004-08-14 11:56:57

Re: ISS cutbacks

#157 2004-08-14 12:13:33

Re: ISS cutbacks

#158 2004-08-14 17:08:39

Re: ISS cutbacks

#159 2004-08-15 11:11:36

Re: ISS cutbacks

#160 2004-08-15 11:43:23

Re: ISS cutbacks

#161 2004-08-15 12:56:22

Re: ISS cutbacks

#162 2004-08-16 08:05:15

Re: ISS cutbacks

#163 2004-08-16 10:00:22

Re: ISS cutbacks

#164 2004-08-16 18:11:13

Re: ISS cutbacks

#165 2004-08-16 20:33:23

Re: ISS cutbacks

#166 2004-08-16 21:11:38

Re: ISS cutbacks

#167 2004-08-17 00:29:00

Re: ISS cutbacks

#168 2004-08-17 05:52:26

Re: ISS cutbacks

#169 2004-08-17 06:25:52

Re: ISS cutbacks

#170 2004-08-19 05:05:06

Re: ISS cutbacks

#171 2004-08-19 21:39:56

Re: ISS cutbacks

#172 2004-08-23 11:23:06

Re: ISS cutbacks

#173 2004-08-23 14:06:01

Re: ISS cutbacks

#174 2004-08-24 07:19:46

Re: ISS cutbacks

#175 2004-08-31 06:42:10

Re: ISS cutbacks

Board footer