Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

Grypd · 2006-04-18 18:17:19

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

They sure do want to pack those tourists in. I wonder if I could talk the wife into letting me go. I dont know maybe an advance on the next hundred years wages....

SpaceNut · 2006-04-18 19:54:33

With more ships being built would it not lower the cost of each seat over time...
Tell them to build more.... and hurry I want to see the my name on a seat some day...

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-18 20:06:13

Sure, from $20M to $15M a pop or something...

Look, as long as your throw the whole rocket away, it will always be a joyride for the super-rich.

SpaceNut · 2006-04-20 12:04:06

This has happened before Space Station Fails to Boost Orbit in Engine Test

Russian ISS flight controllers hoped to test two engines along the aft end of the station’s Zvezda service module during a 14-second burn planned for 3:49 p.m. EDT (1949 GMT), NASA officials said. The engines have not been fired since Zvezda docked at the ISS in July 2000,

Grypd · 2006-04-25 04:37:33

ESA has the columbus module ready for delivery to the ISS

spacedaily: Columbus module ready for delivery

cIclops · 2006-04-25 06:08:32

it's been ready for two years

Commodore · 2006-04-25 07:09:47

All dressed up and nowhere to go...

cIclops · 2006-04-25 08:24:05

"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane

Heh that is a great quote ... btw Mullane did a long interview on the space show recently, he speaks very clearly about NASA and the VSE .. you can hear it here

SpaceNut · 2006-04-25 17:38:39

Progress 21 Heads For Space Station

Progress is carrying 5,040 pounds of equipment and supplies, including more than 1,900 pounds of propellant, just over 100 pounds of air and oxygen, 661 pounds of water and almost 2,360 pounds of dry cargo.
The Progress is similar in appearance and some design elements to the Soyuz spacecraft, which periodically transports crewmembers to the station, serves as a lifeboat while they are there and returns them to Earth. The aft instrumentation and propulsion module is nearly identical.

publiusr · 2006-04-28 14:09:17

Olympus smiles upon the R-7

SpaceNut · 2006-05-08 08:32:03

This has happened before Space Station Fails to Boost Orbit in Engine Test
Russian ISS flight controllers hoped to test two engines along the aft end of the station’s Zvezda service module during a 14-second burn planned for 3:49 p.m. EDT (1949 GMT), NASA officials said. The engines have not been fired since Zvezda docked at the ISS in July 2000,

This article The real significance of the ISS thruster test failure

The original plan developed at the Moscow Mission Control Center (the “TsUP” in the Russian acronym) was to test-fire the engines “just to see if they would work” after being idle for almost six years.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-10 06:30:01

Lots of jockeying of the manefest Hubble Servicing Mission moves up to flight 10 of a 17 mission schedule.

HST-SM04 - STS-125 - has now moved from Endeavour to Discovery, with a new NET (No Earlier Than) launch date of April 11, 2008, moving ahead of STS-119 ISS Assembly flight 15A - from the previous manifest.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-10 22:05:27

This is not good. is the station starting to show its age.

Space station loses orbit-boosting options

Several failures on the International Space Station in recent weeks have left the orbiting outpost with fewer altitude-boosting options. The failures leave the station slightly more vulnerable to being hit by a piece of space debris, although it is a remote possibility.
The station has to move to avoid space debris about once a year on average

Rxke · 2006-05-11 11:57:25

all of those failures can be solved with a software patch. The Zvezda one is straightforward, the other one just a matter of time before they figre out what's wrong.

Much ado about nothing really, IMO.

publiusr · 2006-05-19 10:51:08

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

Well, in a way you did--you had to come to the continent--spend money on infrastructure on a little thing called the "United States," build roads, etc.

Then you worked on MIT. So you wound up with a lot of money spent on that too if you take in the costs of the initial beachhead on through actual construction.

ISS is just one of the things the pointy heads and the white coats use to attack VSE. What a lot of scientists--the ones who won't help you bake the LV development cake (Atlas V for NRO, NH) but will help you eat it--don't understand is that they are the equivalents of folks asking for an oceanographic ship when we are still building longboats, as it were.

Spaceflight is a new field--and the engineering has got to come first--the science can wait.

SpaceNut · 2006-06-08 20:08:36

Soon Discovery will do another return to flight with a ET that has been certified after months of testing and modifications. Atlantis will have its tank in a few days in the port but it is a long way from being ready to preform as a rescue flight if there are mishaps with more shuttle foam debri strikes.
This does seem to be a bit of a concern with the news on the Elekron breaks down on ISS has broken down, just hours after being re-started following repairs - which included the installation of a new hydrogen vent valve during last week's spacewalk.

They will try an fix it again but for how long this time.

However, a failure to resolve the issue - and bring the Elekron back to full working service - could impact on the length of the Contingency Shuttle Crew Support (CSCS) timeline. The CSCS length is relevant to the amount of time a stranded Shuttle crew could stay on the ISS before being rescued.
Discovery's STS-121 mission next month has Atlantis in the standby rescue contingency role, with a LON (Launch On Need) requirement later the following month.

SpaceNut · 2006-06-12 19:33:10

How a Man, a Rat and a Spider Learned to Fly

the story of a trip he took into space with a rat.
She was a mother rat, part of a scientific experiment. She was placed in a cage with a litter of her babies and when the space shuttle went into orbit and everyone on board became weightless, Barry kept his eye on the rat, wondering how she would adjust.

SpaceNut · 2006-07-07 21:33:55

Lots of work being done over the next aproximate 10 days but wait until we have had a few more flights this year to celebrate the success of thoses ET clowns.
Next year will be different in that the Soyuz will have Nasa buying seats unless the flight dates change agian.
NASA to pay $12 million for ticket on Russian spaceship the charge applies to a US astronaut's planned flight in the spring of 2007.

Thou this may be the current price in the future this may change once more detail are made public with regards to the Russia, NASA Sign New Protocol on ISS Maintenance, Discuss Creation of Manned Space Vehicle

Some of the science that will be done during there stay. Thousands of tiny fruit flies NASA Sends Flies Into Space to Test Changes in Immune System

dicktice · 2006-07-20 12:40:41

Well! A lot has happened since the last post of July 7th, most of it bloody awful here on Earth. But things are moving, everyone's showing they're poker hands, and decisions are being forced on our so-called leaders. Ho-hum, eh? But, to my mind, the watershed has been reached in the space shuttle program, and just in time. That ability to inspect the surfaces in orbit, independent of outside observers (say) on the space station, did the trick. That, and the ability repair nicks and bruises to the reentry tiles, etc. via spacewalks. It even opens up the possibility of Hubble Telescope repair mission(s). Unless something I can't think of still lurks in Murphy's Lawbook, I venture to predict that the three remaining orbiters're gonna do us proud! And service the Hubble, besides finish assembling the ISS. Now, if we only had a way to get up and back after 2010. Maybe the Russians could ...?

RobertDyck · 2006-07-29 19:07:23

On July 10 I sent an email on the Mars Homestead General Discussion list asking if people would support a plan to complete ISS quickly. I argued that since NASA isn't going to build hardware for any manned space exploration until ISS is complete, let's get it done quickly. Doing so requires coordinated effort of all partner nations of ISS. The Mars Society is planning a lobbying blitz of Capital Hill at this year's convention since it'll be in Washington DC. Would you guys support my plan? Could we convince both US Congress and governments of other space station partner nations to go with it?

---
Michael Griffin proposed cancelling modules to reduce the Shuttle launch manifest from 28 launches to only 15. I think cutting back ISS is a bad idea. We need to test life support equipment in space and ISS is the perfect place to do it. Furthermore the centrifuge module can test human response to Mars gravity. I expect it'll be the same as Earth but with smaller muscles, but some people think it'll be more dramatic. Tests on the centrifuge could dispel those fears. I want to see it not only completed, I want Node 3 and the US habitation module. Those are the modules to house US life support equipment. I want the Sabatier reactor added to electrolysis of water, and direct CO2 electrolysis added as a high power back-up to replenish recycling losses. I also want to see an incinerating toilet (actually an electro-resistive oven similar to a kitchen oven on self-clean), to recover water from feces. JSC tested a system using an incinerating toilet. Russia proposed a vacuum desecrator toilet but NASA thought the plumbing too complex. Well, with no regular shuttle flights the station needs to recycle water; so install it. We can then see which works better in space, an incinerator or desecrator toilet.

I propose using launch vehicles of ISS partners. Europe's ATV can carry science racks, 8 launches of Ariane 5 with ATV can replace 5 launches of Shuttle with MPLM. Energia can lift 4 shuttle loads of modules and external equipment, plus a Progress service module and rendezvous radar. Use 4 launches of Energia to replace 16 shuttle launches. Either include a docking collar or a module with a docking port. Leave the pallet of parts docked to the station until a shuttle can come up to unpack it and deploy the parts. Or use CanadArm2 with astronauts from the station. The last thing is the Russian Science Power Platform. SPP was from the Mir2 design, it was to power Russian science modules. I was going to take 6 launches of Proton, but they found 2 shuttle launches could lift it. After American cancelled some modules they found they would have surplus power so assigned the 4th American solar array to Russian modules and cancelled SPP. Now NASA is talking about cancelling the 4th American solar array; Russia has threatened to launch SPP if NASA does that. American's didn't like that. I think they
(Russia) should. In fact, I think they should use 2 launched of Ptichka to lift SPP. (Ptichka is the last surviving Russian space shuttle.) So this would replace a total of 23 shuttle launches, leaving 5. That includes launching Node 3, US Hab, and a Hubble service mission. Each Energia mission would be followed by 1 American shuttle mission with a full cargo bay, the astronauts would deploy everything. One Hubble mission. Get America to pay Europe for Ariane/ATV launches, but you would have to get Europe/Japan/Brazil to kick in some money for Energia. America wouldn't pay for Energia. Canada could provide a free CanadArm to Ptichka, complete with support equipment and training, but nothing more. CSA has little money.

Kazakhstan bungled maintenance of the roof of building #112, the Energia vehicle assembly building. The Buran orbiter was in there at the time; it's destroyed now. Russia was pissed. Kazakhstan actually asked Russia to pay for repair; Russia demanded Kazakhstan pay since they destroyed it. The building hasn't been repaired since. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia has paid Kazakhstan rent for the Baikonur Cosmodrome. For this plan to work, we would have to ensure Kazakhstan doesn't charge Russia anything extra for Energia or the Ptichka orbiter. The building has been without a roof for 4 years, that will be the largest expense to restore Energia. Repair costs have to be controlled to get ISS partners to pay for it. The project would be killed by any attempt to charge rent or a surcharge by the guys who caused the damage.

As you guys are probably aware, any of the Russian space shuttle orbiters of the Burya program, including Buran and Ptichka, are launched as cargo on the side of an Energia launch vehicle. Although Energia can be launched as a rocket without the orbiter, the orbiter requires the rocket. That's why they have the same vehicle assembly building.

dicktice · 2006-07-30 13:43:28

Well thought out. I was surprised at your reference to Buran 1.02 (Ptichka) so I Googled its status, which confirmed what you said. Whilst I can't imagine mating it--after a hypthetical refurbishment and transport by An-225 to Canaveral--to the NASA launch hardware, for all sorts of reasons, a renewed Buran/Energia launch program still doesn't seem to be totally inconceivable after all! So, good thinking--and thanks for loads of material for future posts to kick around while we await the next (at long last) ISS-construction-oriented NASA Space Shuttle launch.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-30 21:20:11

"We need to test life support equipment in space and ISS is the perfect place to do it."

No. Life support systems can be tested here on Earth just fine, but if zero-gravity testing is deemed a nessesity, then put the first prototype Mars ship in Earth orbit with a CEV docking collar. We'll need to test the Mars ship with its full three-year duration anyway.

"Furthermore the centrifuge module can test human response to Mars gravity."

No. People won't fit in the ISS centrifuge.

"I want to see it not only completed, I want Node 3 and the US habitation module."

Why? The ISS doesn't go anywhere, just keeps us trapped here in circles forever.

"...so install it. We can then see which works better in space"

Install it on the prototype Mars ship, not the ISS. If its to be used on the Moon, then you can test it on Earth with our gravity just fine.

"Energia can lift..."

...Nothing. Because Energia doesn't exist anymore outside of a huge (foreign) donation to the Russians. The US would never do it, and the ESA would be hesitant to spend that kind of money outside of Europe.

~There is no money to resurect Energia
~It would take some years to restore Energia to operation, ISS would be built no faster
~Energia would require a heavy tug/cradle to carry the payloads to the ISS, and probably a robot arm to unpack modules to other arms, reducing its payload to three modules per flight

"Ptichka is the last surviving Russian space shuttle"

Oh come on, Russian space shuttle? They flew Bruan - once, unmanned - back in the 80s' and its computer was uselessly primative. Ptichka is a museum piece, its asinine to even talk about "resurecting" something as complicated as a space shuttle after so long.

"...that will be the largest expense to restore Energia"

Says you:

~Restoring RD-0120 production
~Restoring fuel tank production
~Digging Energia avionics out of a museum
~Designing and building the payload cradle/tug/faring
~Restoring the launch facilities, including the long disused liquid hydrogen handling facilities
~Restoring the launch pad itself, rusted over the years probably
~Training new launch crews for the ones you can't replace
~Modify Zenit-II/IIISL factory for Energia LRBs
~Then you have to restore the VAB

...Rent is the least of the worries. This is a terrible idea, and it will never fly politically and the engineering challenges are so steep that they just aren't worth it.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-30 21:29:33

Well thought out. I was surprised at your reference to Buran 1.02 (Ptichka) so I Googled its status, which confirmed what you said. Whilst I can't imagine mating it--after a hypthetical refurbishment and transport by An-225 to Canaveral--to the NASA launch hardware, for all sorts of reasons, a renewed Buran/Energia launch program still doesn't seem to be totally inconceivable after all! So, good thinking--and thanks for loads of material for future posts to kick around while we await the next (at long last) ISS-construction-oriented NASA Space Shuttle launch.

Nonsense! Google confirms only what the Russians boast.

Totally inconceivable? At what point does something so unlikely, so improbable crosses the threshold into effective impossibility? Obviously, your threshold is set solidly outside the realm of reason, very likely biased by Russia-worship too.

...We won't have to wait long. Atlantis is going up at near the end of August.

Rxke · 2006-07-31 00:31:36

Buran sustained severe damage to its airframe during reentry, ( it was literally bent out of shape,) so it was in effect un-reusable after landing, a little known fact.

This means, even if the Russians dit the neigh on impossible to try to resurrect the system, they'd still have a lot of testing to do before their remaining shuttle would be truly spaceworthy.

With only one shuttle, mothballed for, what, 20-ish years, and probably in a less than optimal condition, that'd be extremely expensive. Might as well say: impossible.

RobertDyck · 2006-07-31 07:47:06

What many Americans don't know or choose to ignore is that Buran was maintained by the Russian military in flight ready status, ready to fly on 3 days notice, until it was handed over to Kazakhstan on January 1, 2000. It wasn't shut down in 1988 as some people claim. I already posted my email to KBKhA; they retained plans, jigs, etc., do need a new CNC milling machine but are willing to swallow the cost of retooling on the condition they get a solid order for new engines. Strap-on boosters are the first stage of Zenit, the only difference is the gimbal has one degree of freedom instead of two. The external tank was built at the same factory that makes R-7 rockets, including the Soyuz launch vehicle. Russians design all military equipment so it can still function when it isn't pretty. All military aircraft have sturdy landing gear that can land on runways that Americans would consider abandoned or otherwise unusable. That means the launch pad is still usable. One Mars Society member posted a message on this board that she visited Baikonur and the Energia launch pad is in the same shape is the Shuttle launch pad at Vandenberg. The way Russians build things, that means it's fully functional. I have pictures of the rail lines from a tour group, and a relative is an engineer who used to inspect rail lines; they need weeds cut down but the rails and ties are perfect.

I spoke to an employee of Energia Ltd., the American subsidiary of RSC Energia, in December 2000. He said NASA had contacted them "a few years ago" about the possibility of using Energia for a manned mission to the Moon. He said they did a study and determined it would cost between 60 and 100 million US dollars to restore infrastructure. I also found a NASA web page that lists international launch vehicles, the price for Energia with EUS is listed as $120 million per launch in 1994 dollars. Form that I surmise "a few years ago" was 1994. That gives us a precise figure to restore infrastructure, and the Russian military maintained everything to no infrastructure degradation until January 1, 2000. Kazakhstan was kicking around the idea of launching Buran so don't expect any degradation before the roof collapse of building #112. It's in better shape than you think.

I will give you credit for one point; you would have to design the payload cradle/fairing. Not the tug, I already said we can just use a Progress service module with Progress rendezvous radar. Ensure one of the modules has a docking port, keep everything strapped together so the whole bundle docks with the station. It will require some software work for Progress to manoeuvre the larger payload.

I know, GCNReveneger you have always tried to claim everything American is good, everything Russian is bad. You also try to claim anything that's more than 5 minutes old is obsolete, worn out, or otherwise gone. If you want any capital project to succeed you'll have to get over that. Something as expensive as a space program is supposed to leave equipment this can be used long-term, without replacement. American commercial industry tries to prevent that with all things so they can continue to sell the same equipment over again. Cars are a prime example, they can be built to last a century but auto manufacturers deliberately design them to fail. It's called built-in obsolescence. For example, using a nylon bussing instead of a bearing with stainless steel ball bearings. It's a deliberate business strategy to produce ongoing sales. I found many Americans fell for it without even questioning the scam. You can't continue the scam with space hardware, it's too expensive.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2006-04-18 18:17:19

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#202 2006-04-18 19:54:33

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#203 2006-04-18 20:06:13

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#204 2006-04-20 12:04:06

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#205 2006-04-25 04:37:33

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#206 2006-04-25 06:08:32

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#207 2006-04-25 07:09:47

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#208 2006-04-25 08:24:05

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#209 2006-04-25 17:38:39

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#210 2006-04-28 14:09:17

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#211 2006-05-08 08:32:03

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#212 2006-05-10 06:30:01

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#213 2006-05-10 22:05:27

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#214 2006-05-11 11:57:25

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#215 2006-05-19 10:51:08

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#216 2006-06-08 20:08:36

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#217 2006-06-12 19:33:10

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#218 2006-07-07 21:33:55

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#219 2006-07-20 12:40:41

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#220 2006-07-29 19:07:23

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#221 2006-07-30 13:43:28

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#222 2006-07-30 21:20:11

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#223 2006-07-30 21:29:33

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#224 2006-07-31 00:31:36

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#225 2006-07-31 07:47:06

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer