Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

Commodore · 2006-01-26 17:29:22

I thought the CaLV tank was going to be significantly different anyway. Placing the payload on top is bound to change the internals significantly. Even though much of the same construction and handling equipment can likely be used.

In other news, the Russians, Japanese, and Europeans seem to see a bright future for the ISS.

ISS To Evolve Into International Space Port - Official

I for one would really like to see what they they can do with it. But I think its clear that the Shuttle can't do it all, and that needs to be made clear to them. We should work together to build something that can.

The "May" shuttle launch will be key. If the foam still flies, they might as well land at Reagan International and save themselves a flight.

SpaceNut · 2006-02-17 21:46:44

NASA plans to park space shuttle Atlantis in 2008

With just 17 or so flights left on the shuttle manifest before the program is terminated in 2010, NASA's three remaining orbiters can only expect to fly about five missions each. As it turns out, NASA now plans to retire Atlantis in 2008, after five flights, rather than put it through a required overhaul and to "fly out" the remaining half-dozen missions on the manifest with Discovery and Endeavour.

Why is the end goal count still changing?

Also if the Atlantis is not good enough to fly in 2008, then how can is salvaged parts be any better....

With Discovery only a few flights out of its main overhaul, Endeavour soon to come out of its latest slumper. Then why is not doing the one for Atlantis practicle, when a higher burden of flights per ship is something that seems to be at issue.

RobertDyck · 2006-02-19 01:08:32

Remember my scheme to launch multiple modules with SDV and rendezvous an orbiter, launched from the other pad, for last mile navigation and assembly? I looked at the manifest again based on current news.

Russia said if America doesn't launch the 4th large solar array, they'll launch the Science Power Platform themselves. Well, good; I think they should. That would provide power for all Russia science modules.

However I feel the station should not be scaled back at all. In fact, I still feel Node 3 and the US Habitation module should be launched. That would provide a complete space station, not a hobbled half-done thing.

As I said before, replace 6 missions with the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module with 10 launches of the European ATV. That lifts internal equipment to the station. American launch vehicles would only be used for modules and external equipment.

I had previously said this would result in 7 more launches of the Space Shuttle orbiter:
• return to flight
• service Hubble
• 3 combination missions: orbiter & SDV
• Node 3
• US Habitation module

The change is removing the Science Power Platform (SPP). If the Russians launch it themselves, it frees room on an SDV to lift Node 3 and US Hab. If SDV was to be Shuttle-C the payload diameter would be restricted to a single module, so two stacked modules with strusses strapped to their sides and packed full of equipment. Those trusses could serve double duty: holding modules together during launch and structural trusses for the station. However, if they build Magnum instead of Shuttle-C then the payload fairing can be wider. Assume the core stage is the same diameter as the current Shuttle ET; payload can be wider yet like the payload fairing of Delta 2. That would permit 4 modules side-by-side like 4 beer cans sitting in a 2-by-2 square. The fairing doesn't have to be cylindrical, it could be form fitting around the 4 cylinders. Letting air pass in the recess between cylinders reduces the aerodynamic profile, hence the aerodynamic stress.

Using Magnum instead of Shuttle-C, and telling Russia to launch SPP themselves reduces the Shuttle launch manifest to only 5 more launches. The combination flights will require a lot of assembly. Endeavour with its Extended Duration Orbiter palette can stay on orbit the longest so it should be used. Discovery could be used for Return to Flight and Hubble. That would mean there are no further flights for Atlantis. Atlantis can be retired now.

Commodore · 2006-02-19 17:29:06

As much of a waste of payload volume it might be, I think double barreling it would just over complicate things. First off, the CaLV is a non starter with the shuttle still flying. You won't have a shuttle to help. I think the best way to do it is to build a cartridge with as many of the modules and their shuttle like cradle that will fit, and to drive the whole thing right up to the port and dock. Any other connections can be done via space walk from the station. Then the cradle releases the module, backs off, and releases the cradle. Rinse and repeat untill your out of modules.

The big question is what peices can be deployed like that. The 4 truss segments are the only ones that I think still need the shuttle. The rest are cylindrical and should be perfect for the above method.

RobertDyck · 2006-02-19 21:55:58

If you return the "cradle" to Earth and reuse, you have the full shuttle orbiter. That's 104.3 metric tonnes upon landing. It can lift 16.050 tonnes to ISS. One hell of a waste. If you don't reuse the "cradle" it's a waste of money. Most importantly, an on-orbit tug requires development money. The current space technology environment requires a hell of a lot of money to develop anything.

Years ago I suggested a 3 tonne on-orbit tug, unmanned and reusable. It would be permanently stationed at ISS. When a cargo is lifted by Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V or now "The Stick", it would be inserted into the same orbit but not actually rendezvous. The tug would separate from ISS, rendezvous with the cargo palette, use an end effecter the same as CanadArm to grab it, then pull to ISS. If the cargo is a module, the tug could push the docking hatch against its partner on ISS. If the cargo is a group of trusses, solar arrays and radiators, CanadArm2 on the station could grab it. Ideal would always include something that could be connected to the station; then parts could be pulled off one-by-one to install at their final location. It would be less expensive to send fuel via cargo ship than replace this tug for every mission. Since ISS is an international station, and all nations participating are supposed to be partners, you could send fuel via either Progress or ATV. But no work has been started to develop such a tug, and if development were done by major aerospace contractors it would cost a lot.

Don't, please don't, don't, don't, don't repeat the same mistakes that were made at the end of the Apollo program. They destroyed all launch capability for Saturn V to focus on the Shuttle. This was done for two reasons:
1) they had very little money, needed to pour everything into one program
2) they followed the military doctrine of "burn the ships". Several times during invasion, generals found troops poorly motivated to proceed with the attack. The general ordered the ships burned to ensure there was no turning back. Once troops saw the ships burn, they had to charge ahead or die. They were motivated to win the battle because that was the only way to live. NASA deliberately destroyed Saturn V launch facilities to force congress and engineers to ensure the Shuttle was completed.

Now you suggest there won't be a Shuttle Derived Vehicle at the same time as the Shuttle orbiter. This means "burn the ships" once again. If we still had the Saturn V we could easily return to the Moon and on to Mars. Yes, I would like to decommission the Shuttle program as soon as possible because it costs so much. But ignoring a method to quickly complete ISS just with the excuse the orbiter and SDV won't be operational at the same time is stupid. Yes, stupid. There's no reason to make one exclusive to the other. You can convert one pad and one MLP, leave the other. Michoud was sized to manufacture 50 ETs per year, it can certainly build a couple shuttle ETs and SDV core modules in one year. How many Shuttle ETs are sitting in storage right now?

Commodore · 2006-02-19 22:49:13

If you can find the development money then by all means. But nothing I've seen indicates we can just park the shuttles in a hanger untill the CaLV is ready to fly.

Oh and I intended the cradle to be disposable. They are custom built for the modules.

SpaceNut · 2006-02-28 08:04:31

Hi everyone,
This is further compounded by the work on the ET not having been thugh sufficient wind tunnel testing to even justify its use on the next shuttle mission.

Uncertainties cloud shuttle schedule Despite official plans, some sources say May launch is iffy at best

With this there is the ‘Ankle-biters’ pile up on shuttle to-do list including Windows, sensors, seals and scrapings spark concerns at NASA

Top this all off with Nasa still thinking rescue mission if per chance there are major issues.

NASA plans ambitious STS/ISS finale

Here is what is going and on what shuttle... maybe...

2006
1 – May 10 – STS-121 – ULF1.1 – Discovery – MPLM Leonardo
[August 4 – STS-300 – CSCS for STS-121 – Atlantis]
2 – August 28 – STS-115 – 12A – Atlantis – P3/P4
[October 28 – STS-301 – CSCS for STS-115 – Endeavour]
3 – November 16 – STS-116 – 12A.1 – Discovery – P5 & Spacehab-SM
4 – December 7 – STS-117 – 13A – Atlantis – S3/S4 (possible postponing to 2007)
2007
5 – March 15 – STS-118 – 13A.1 – Endeavour – S5 & Spacehab-SM
6 – May 3 – STS-120 – 10A – Discovery – Node 2
7 – June 14 – STS-122 – 1E – Atlantis – Columbus
8 – August 23 – STS-123 – Endeavour (possible ULF2 with MPLM Leonardo)
9 – October 11 – STS-124 – 1J – Discovery – JEM PM Kibo
10 – November 29 – STS-119 – 15A – Atlantis – S6
2008
11 – February 7 – STS-125 – HST-SM4 – Endeavour
12 – April 3 – STS-126 – Discovery (possible 17A with MPLM Donatello)
13 – May 22 – STS-127 – 2J/A – Atlantis – JEM EF Kibo
14 – July 3 – STS-128 – Endeavour (possible UF3 with MPLM Donatello; the 6 person ISS crew is established with this flight)
15 – October 2 – STS-129 – Discovery (possible UF4 with Express 1 & AMS-02)
16 – December 4 – STS-130 – Endeavour (possible 19A with MPLM Donatello)
2009
17 – March 19 – STS-131 – CLF – Discovery
18 – May 14 – STS-132 – 20A & 14A – Endeavour – Node 3 & Cupola
19 – August 20 – STS-133 – CLF – Discovery
**Flights 17 and 19 under review as CLFs

Another reference to the scheduel NASA Flight Assignment Working Group (FAWG) Space Shuttle Planning Manifest 24 Feb 2006

Yup Gound well tread on.

Does the goal justify the means being ISS complete by continued shuttle flights IMO if the next few shuttle flights go off without a hitch maybe but does the means to complete the goal by using just the shuttles upon possible failure mean a cancellation of the goal to complete the ISS IMO we need to change the plan and definitely the means to get it done. If the goal of the use of the ISS is ever to be of use.

Now I have read that the launch vehicles of Lockheed and of Boeing have the potential to loft such payload weights but they lack the shuttles protective cargo hold (payload cradle) and the final mile guidance.

How can this stailmate ever change if the same companies can not even get the basics of the CEV to a completed unit for operations without billions of dollars to do so....

Now that the ISS, shuttle missions are out in the open Station partners discuss schedule; Agencies eager to finish outpost

Of course each nation is lobbying for its specific modules to be launched...

NASA plans to resume construction of the half-built station with about 15 shuttle missions.

Seems like that magical number is still not really set in stone...

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-01 08:32:29

"Now I have read that the launch vehicles of Lockheed and of Boeing have the potential to loft such payload weights but they lack the shuttles protective cargo hold (payload cradle) and the final mile guidance.

How can this stailmate ever change if the same companies can not even get the basics of the CEV to a completed unit for operations without billions of dollars to do so...."

The big Delta-IV heavy does have the power to lift most modules, but there are two fatal problems with this, first off most modules aren't able to be pushed from the end like a rocket does, but are built to be pulled from the side by the Shuttle cargo bay clamps. To make a frame around the payload to hold it like the Shuttle does would make it too heavy to lift all the modules.

The last mile guidence is probobly the bigger problem; that no modern upper stage can do any better then get the payload on an orbit that intersects the station within several kilometers. You need a tug to brake the payload to match orbits with the ISS, able to maneuver those last few kilometers to the stations' vicinity, and finally to (SAFELY) aproach the station and stop so it can be captured by the robot arm. And do this while being smart enough to abort the maneuver by itself if something goes wrong.

Oh, and the mass of such a tug combined with the payload would probobly be too heavy for the big Delta-IV, and if you leave the payload free-floating for any length of time, it will go into a spin due to gravitational perturbations and be un-dockable forever, so you really can't send them up seperatly.

SpaceNut · 2006-03-03 08:35:37

ISS a money pit that was sold as the means to future science but with the eggs all in the shuttle basket it has been tough for Nasa to show just how it will be used if it can not be completed.
The partners that were pulled into this do feel that they are in the cold if what they have built can not be delivered for use. A recent meeting has put forth the desire to complete the ISS and to then worry about the science to use it. With this Nasa has put forth the con of needing a comercial ability to resupply the station in the future. Nasa Joint Statement by International Space Station Heads of Agency news release

NASA, Partners Set Space Station Construction Plan to complete the International Space Station (ISS) by 2010, delaying science utilization to make way for 16 shuttle flights to piece together the orbital laboratory.
“We are largely deferring utilization and we are paring logistics to the bone,” Griffin said during a press conference at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. “We don’t like that. But confronted with a choice between having a high confidence to complete the assembly of the station…or utilizing it heavily as we built it and possibly not finishing, we chose the former course.”

Alot of what happens depends on what goes up when and to the other partners continuing use of soyuz progress tag team and the coming soon ESA ATV. Of course this all falls on the heels that Atlantis is to be retired early in 2008 to reduce shuttle costs. But if the shuttles are to continue in the rescue mission mode of one nearly ready to launch at any time then how can we heap more work on to the other remaining ships.

This has been caused by a decision to keep the budget increases small and to tighten the belt. NASA's Budget Blunder
All of which has lead to a decrease in the efforts of science and associated missions probes.

Lots of commotion on capitol hill on the issue of science being cut as well.
[url=http://www.house.gov/science/press/109/109-199.htm]SCIENCE LEADERS ARGUE FOR DIFFERENT PRIORITIES IN NASA’S SCIENCE BUDGET FOR FY07
NASA Agrees to Reexamine Allocation[/url]

NASA Budget Puts Key Science Priorities at Risk

Here is a graphical representation of where we are with the ISS construction, the 16 flights to call the station complete and what is not going up by a shuttle flight.
NASA Exploration Systems Architecture Study: 28 Flight (Rev. G) ISS Assembly Sequence vs. 16 Flight Assembly Sequence

Rxke · 2006-03-04 06:00:27

WTF??? no CAM? it would be the single most worthwile addition to the ISS...

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-04 09:28:46

Less ISS componets = Less reason to prop up the wreched piece of junk which will slow down Mars

John Creighton · 2006-03-04 17:57:15

Too me it just sounds like there is not enough money for NASA to do everything people want it to do.

Austin Stanley · 2006-03-05 01:18:01

I think it is worthwhile to start at least thinking about the possibility of a Inter-orbit tug. We are eventualy going to need such a vehicle. Transport bettwen various orbits is a common enough task (that will hopefully become more common) that it will probably make sense to eventualy develop some sort of dedicated vehicle (probably robotic) to perform these tasks. High impluse ion engines are fairly reusable (need to be stocked up with Argon/Xeon periodicly) and so it makes sense to consildate the engines need for changing orbits into one craft with higher efficency and reusability.

Currently I do not think the design costs are worth it. Especialy as we begin to focus our space program on Moon/Mars and away from Earth orbit. However, if we did have such a vehicle, building constructs such as the ISS would be much easier, AND it would allow us to have easier access to higher energy orbits (like GEO). Furthermore, this project is of small enough scope that a smaller space program like that of Japan or the ESA could focus on it. It would eventualy pay enormous dividends to sucha group who continued to focus on operations in Earth orbit.

Grypd · 2006-03-05 17:54:43

I think it is worthwhile to start at least thinking about the possibility of a Inter-orbit tug. We are eventualy going to need such a vehicle. Transport bettwen various orbits is a common enough task (that will hopefully become more common) that it will probably make sense to eventualy develop some sort of dedicated vehicle (probably robotic) to perform these tasks. High impluse ion engines are fairly reusable (need to be stocked up with Argon/Xeon periodicly) and so it makes sense to consildate the engines need for changing orbits into one craft with higher efficency and reusability.

It is interesting to note that of the modules going to the ISS the Russian Zvezda module which was to be launched as a shuttle payload is now to go up on a Soyuz. Why is it interesting well the Russians originally designed the Zvezda as a russian only module to be launched then moved into position by the Zarya tug.

The Soyuz cannot launch enough to be able to send the power module as well so NASA has promised to power the Science module. This is a major change as NASA and the US goverment had been extremely forceful in ensuring that only the Shuttle would provide the transport for the ISS elements. Supply would be provided by the various space agencies.

So Russia will get a space tug and NASA will essentially allow its use at the ISS. :?

SpaceNut · 2006-03-05 21:36:46

While the possibility of the ISS Zarya tug would fit the bill for last mile guidance so would a modified progress. But the iss module issue seem to be with the module designs that were meant to be in the protective cargo hold of the shuttle. Now if the Russian could indicate what would need to altered on the modules waiting for shuttle transport and a little bit of cooperation be extended to get the modules to orbit then lets move on. Other wise we have little choice.

SpaceNut · 2006-03-10 07:47:56

Lots of whining lately on the Low fuel tank sensor and old SRB boosters.

Did Nasa forget that the ET that was removed from Discovery after fueling test was the one that had this problem and before the mating process for its flight had the same SRB's that were just now tested done as well since they were 4 plus years old.
Just how many SRB's in stock does Nasa have that are reaching this 4 year old status?????

Commodore · 2006-03-22 18:46:36

NASA: No canisters -- no spacewalks

CO2 filters missing and handrails falling off. Wonderfull.

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-22 18:58:40

*groans*

SpaceNut · 2006-03-22 23:01:30

U.S. spacewalks halted while ISS handrails tested

Space station managers said Wednesday they discovered some odd bubbling on the interior of some handrails that are still on the ground.
Russian spacewalks also have been put on hold because four canisters needed to rid carbon dioxide from the air spacewalkers breathe can't be located on the station.
"We do lose things occasionally on board the space station," Shireman said. "There are little nooks and crannies and oh by the way, things don't stay where you put them. They float away."

Does not seem all that bad but this does bother

The bubbling was discovered after the handrails were heat-treated during their manufacture, Shireman said.
"They got about 100 degrees hotter than they were supposed to get and ... it caused this change in the metal,"

I would rather like to know which idiot gave the order to build with defective units?

SpaceNut · 2006-03-24 07:48:14

It would appear that Nasa has a work around for the hand hold issue..
[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11981400/]Good news gets lost in space station shuffle
Orbital achievements obscured by tiny tempest over spacewalk[/url]

Four new air scrubber canisters for the Russian spacesuits have been misplaced, and the crew has been given a few extra hours to look for them among the 18,000 other items currently being cataloged by a computerized inventory control system.

Sounds like they need a specialize storage pantry rather than just placing things in any empty location that is available.

While the article does mention some problems in finding canisters for the Russian space suits it does go on to tell what science is being preformed on the station towards the end of the first page.

NASA’s mission manager for Expedition 12, Pete Hasbrook, said schedulers had planned to get seven to nine hours per week of science operations from the crew, squeezed into their heavy load of station maintenance and repair, plus two hours of daily exercise. “We achieved 13 hours a week” for scientific work, he announced.

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-24 13:01:36

Science is not measured in hours, science is measured in progress. What progress are the ISS crews achieveing?

publiusr · 2006-03-29 15:19:09

Well, to play Devils advocate--MIT didn't do much science either--before the builders finished bricking it up and putting the roof on.

Grypd · 2006-03-29 15:21:53

But MIT did not take Hundreds of Billions just to build the place and years and years of doing nothing.

publiusr · 2006-03-29 15:47:56

You got me there.

SpaceNut · 2006-04-18 12:10:24

Russia To Double Spacecraft Production By 2009 in response to a decision to increase crew members of the International Space Station (ISS) from two to six.

Currently the plant builds two Soyuz manned spaceships and four Progress cargo carriers every year.
"We will be producing four Soyuz manned spaceships and seven to eight Progress cargo ships by 2009," Strekalov said. Enditem

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2006-01-26 17:29:22

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#177 2006-02-17 21:46:44

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#178 2006-02-19 01:08:32

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#179 2006-02-19 17:29:06

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#180 2006-02-19 21:55:58

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#181 2006-02-19 22:49:13

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#182 2006-02-28 08:04:31

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#183 2006-03-01 08:32:29

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#184 2006-03-03 08:35:37

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#185 2006-03-04 06:00:27

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#186 2006-03-04 09:28:46

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#187 2006-03-04 17:57:15

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#188 2006-03-05 01:18:01

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#189 2006-03-05 17:54:43

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#190 2006-03-05 21:36:46

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#191 2006-03-10 07:47:56

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#192 2006-03-22 18:46:36

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#193 2006-03-22 18:58:40

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#194 2006-03-22 23:01:30

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#195 2006-03-24 07:48:14

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#196 2006-03-24 13:01:36

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#197 2006-03-29 15:19:09

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#198 2006-03-29 15:21:53

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#199 2006-03-29 15:47:56

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#200 2006-04-18 12:10:24

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer