International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

SpaceNut · 2015-07-28 20:47:56

When a rocket blows up —1 in 20 fail—who pays for it?

On a cloudy day in May, a Russian-made rocket roared off a launch pad in Kazakhstan. A few minutes later, it was falling from the sky, its payload—a $300 million Mexican communications satellite—disintegrating over Siberia.
A little over a month later, one of SpaceX's rockets exploded about two minutes after liftoff from Cape Canaveral. It took with it $110 million in NASA's supplies for the International Space Station.
The failure of the Mexican satellite mission in May will cost insurers about $390 million—the second largest claim ever in the space insurance industry and far more than the premiums that have been collected so far this year.
There are only about 50 insured launches each year paying about $750 million in premiums to a handful of companies. If just a few big accidents pile up, there is a real risk of the industry ending up in the red—and it looks like 2015 is shaping up to be a tough year.

"Rates are approaching historical lows, despite the fact that we have had claims of approximately $500 million and only $250 million in premiums," said Mike Vinter, executive vice president of Aon International Space Brokers. "The underwriters are certainly in a loss position for the year."

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-07-29 07:38:15

How much do you think it would cost to build this space station? It is the design from the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey. According to this diagram, it rotates enough to simulate Mars gravity in the outer ring, about 1.6 times a minute at this given diameter. I can find some uses for a station like this. According to the specifications, it could house 600 people in orbit under 1 Mars gravity in Low Earth orbit. Suppose we actually tried to build it as a real space station, not as a movie prop, it was designed by Werner Von Braun after all! A whole bunch of little details would have to be added to make it a functioning space station. If we built it, what uses could it have? I think as a Space Hotel, it could be useful. People could experience Mars gravity without going to Mars.

You can read it better if you go directly to the site:
http://www.starbase79.com/images/2001Sp … tation.JPG
As you can see it states a gravity of 0.38 that of Earth, other versions of it give it a rotation rate of 1 per minute and a lunar gravity in the outer rings.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2015-07-29 07:47:16)

RobertDyck · 2015-07-29 13:34:44

1956 description of a space station. Click image for YouTube video of Wernher Von Braun himself describing it.

This is the original wheel space station. It's been used many times, in 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Trek: Deep Space 9. His description is an inflatable, with nylon because that was the latest 1956 technology. Today we would use kevlar. And instead of metal plates for micrometeoroid shielding, we would use the composite shield of TransHab. Imagine this built with TransHab / Bigelow Hab technology.

He envisioned space based weather observations, communications, surveillance. His station would hold 50 crew members, and he thought it was a prerequisite to go to the Moon. Some claim a station is a prerequisite for Mars; some ideas just don't die. Of course I've said we have ISS now, so use it. NASA's plans in the early 1970s were a station based on Skylab with 7 crew and zero-G, replaced by this one. Obviously that was after Apollo.

My point is rather than estimate the station from the movie, what would the cost be for this one?

Last edited by RobertDyck (2015-07-29 16:55:06)

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-07-29 15:06:17

the Movie one has three levels, and can be rotated to simulate Mars gravity, it is somewhat bigger. The 2001 Space Station V is a full fledged Space Hotel. I think the edges should be rounded to reduce the amount of atmospheric leakage. I think is we reduced the number of staterooms the Movie Space Station design can be used as a prototype Mars colony, one wheel can be dedicated towards the growth of food crops under simulated Mars gravity. If anything goes wrong, the crew can enter the escape pods and reenter the Earth's atmosphere in an easy escape.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2015-07-29 15:08:06)

SpaceNut · 2015-08-15 17:55:06

I do not believe that the changing of the manager for the station will have any effect of its use or its cost....

NASA names new space station program manager
Posted: Sat, Aug 8 5:58 PM ET (2158 GMT)
The longtime NASA manager of the International Space Station manager is leaving the agency, NASA announced this week. Michael Suffredini, who had been ISS program manager since 2005, is leaving NASA to take a job in private industry. He oversaw the program through its final assembly stages and through agency efforts to increase commercial and other research uses of the station, as well as use of commercial cargo and crew vehicles. Kirk Shireman, former ISS deputy program manager and Johnson Space Center deputy director, will succeed Suffredini as ISS manager.

SpaceNut · 2015-09-14 20:05:28

What happens to astronaut poop? NASA finally has an answer
Astronaut Scott Kelly is spending a year in space, and you might be surprised (and probably a little grossed out) by what happens to all the waste generated in that period.

Kelly will produce 180 pounds (82 kilograms) of poop during the course of a year in space, according to NASA.

What happens to astronaut pee and sweat you might ask? NASA says 730 liters (193 gallons) of the stuff will be recycled throughout the course of Kelly's space year for him to drink.
Other fun facts about the mission and Kelly's body: Living in microgravity will cause 2 liters of fluid to shift out of his legs and towards his head. He's also going to have to faithfully exercise about two hours a day to keep his bones, muscles and heart in shape while in orbit.

Void · 2015-09-15 13:41:00

It appears that NASA is not interested in synthetic gravity yet. I think they are looking at taking space medicine as far as they can without it, for keeping a human healthy as long as possible.

This causes me to suspect along with other evidence that they see a future where a highly automated mining of NEO's brings significant resources into the Earth-Moon system. Water, then construction materials, then platinum group metals all the way to Earth.

Also, I think they are planning to pace themselves until several parallel developments occur.

-Private concerns taking over launches from Earth for the most part.
-Expandable space habs.
-Better space suits.
-Satellite that can be refueled/refurbished/repurposed. (An orbital customer for space services)
-Better interplanetary transfer propulsion systems.
-And for now characterizing the nature of Mars and other solar system objects which might be targets for industrial activities in the further future.

I think they have structured like they have, anticipating that there will be quite a few improved methods available by then time a mission to Mars would be considered for real.

For instance most of those things listed above are likely to be getting fairly real within 10-20 years.

SpaceNut · 2015-09-15 18:33:28

Thats funny that you should talk about artificail graity as I was reading the nasawatch website today and came across this posting by Kieth,,,, NASA Talks In Glowing Terms About Centrifuge It Cancelled which is now up to comments...of which its been at least a decade that its been sitting outside rusting and corroding....

CO9BncEWIAEIkVH.jpg:small

ISS centrifuge demonstration

If produced, this centrifuge will be the first in-space demonstration of sufficient scale for artificial partial-g effects. The demonstrator would be sent using a single Delta IV or Atlas V launcher. The full cost of such a demonstrator would be between US$83 million and US$143 million. It could be operational in less than 39 months after start.

now who has any extra cash ... what about crowd funding....

Void · 2015-09-15 20:52:38

I would have prefered that the centrifuge experiment go forward, but it has not.
One path, that seems to be opening up would indicate that the space station could be a steping stone to automated space mining for water.
Looking to the optimistic side, might keep spirits up.
If as has been suggested, automated space mining might be able to bring water from small neo asteroids to the Earth-Moon system, I have to presume this would only be done if there was a real market for it in orbit.
So, I suggest that that water for a Mars mission extracted from asteroids could be split, and the Oxygen and Hydrogen from it would be put to two separate purposes.
So, I will speculate on an alternate plan for a mission to Mars using. I speculate, because I recognize that like many of the people who post here I have imagination, but unlike many of them, am weak on practical knowledge.
THE ASTEROID OXYGEN:
-Chemical launch from Earths surface to LEO, where on board Oxygen from the Earth's surface is almost entirely burned to reach LEO, but the ship will still contain all the fuel for the mission to Mars. A hydrocarbon fuel I presume, not Hydrogen.
-Oxygen strored as liquid in orbit would then refill the ships Oxygen tank(s). That Oxygen presumed to come from asteroids. I presume that this method might allow for a faster flight to Mars using chemical rockets, while still using current hardware, or hardware 10 years to 20 years in the future.
THE ASTEROID HYDROGEN:
What to do with the partner Hydrogen from the Asteroid water? It is hard to store, but if you used it to send drone to Mars, using a devise like the VASIMR, the boil off would not be a problem for the most part, at least not until it reached Mars. So the drones should not require extreem refrigeration for liquid Hydrogen.
I have seen Robert Zubrins criticisms of the VASIMR, and I am going to consider that nuclear reactors will not be available to run one for some time. So, I will eliminate it as a propulsion method for a personed vehicle. But if you have a drone rocket powered by solar pannels you do not have to rush to Mars to protect humans. Therefore the pace can be set more towards the life expectancy of the solar pannels + a safety margine of life expectancy.
So, the amount of solar pannel inertia can be reduced the engine can be smaller, and it can poke along.
So, I am saying preposition materials sent with an automated solar VASIMR. Optionally using the solar pannels to reduce orbit by grazing the Martian atmosphere.
Prepositioning materials to the surface of Mars and perhaps also prepositioning return to Earth materials into Martian orbit.
So, if this would work, your humans could take a faster passage to Mars, reducing medical damage, and I presume having an option to go directly to the surface with a lander, and return to orbit vehicle, having their surface mission. Then returning to orbit, and returning to Earth with materials prepostioned in Martian orbit by the VASIMR(Hydrogen-Solar) drones. Of course the robot drones will have to be very reliable. It would be costly if one failed to complete it's delivery mission.
So, I am making myself a target.
I am in favor of the centrifuge eventually, but I wonder if it should be used in LEO, and instead of trying to adapt it for interplanetary flight. Try to keep humans either in LEO, or on an objects surface where the inertia of radiation shielding is not an issue (Moon, Mars).
When the centifuge technology were adapted to LEO, I am wondering if just a little synthetic gravity will go a long way along with the existing space medicine to allow humans to stay in LEO for years at a time.
I suspect that just a little synthetic gravity might allow the body to adjust fluid imbalances between the upper and lower body (Legs). This may reduce damage to the body quite a lot.
After all, we lay down in bed 1/3 of a day, and so the body might be able to balance the fluids if it has just a little assistance from a weak gravitational field. That is a hope, anyway.

Last edited by Void (2015-09-16 09:43:24)

SpaceNut · 2015-09-16 20:07:33

We have some data with long term effects via Gennady Ivanovich Padalka which has spent a total of approximate 879 days in space spending time on Mir and the International Space Station.

Mir mission August 13, 1998 February 8, 1999 accumulated 179 days
Recovery days 1534
Expedition 9 April 21, 2004 October 23, 2004 additional 185 days
Recovery days 1635
Expedition 19/20 March 26, 2009 October 11, 2009 additional 199 days
Recovery days 947
Expedition 31/32 May 15, 2012 September 17, 2012 additional 126 days
Recovery days 905
Expedition 43/44 March 11, 2015 September 12, 2015 additional 184 days
Recovery to current day.......

I would assume that exercise onboard the iss helped in the shorter recovery times in the later trips so it appear at 900 days at 1g is enough to see on a mars trip to be able to stand at splash down on earth....

GW Johnson · 2015-09-17 09:28:38

What I see from those numbers is a compelling need to resort to near-1-gee artificial gravity during the transits to and from Mars. The two transits are each 6 to 8.5 months long. A year at Mars at only 0.38 gee is unlikely to be all that therapeutic, IMHO, so 1 full gee on the return transit is a part of the recovery from 0.38 gee for a year on Mars.

The only way I see for NASA or anybody else to ethically consider sending people to and from Mars weightless would be to fly a very fast mission: 39 days 1-way, and maybe only a month or so at Mars. That's a big leap down the slippery slope of converting it back into a flag-and-footprints stunt instead of building a first-trial live-off-the-land base.

Plus, that propulsion DOES NOT YET exist. I doubt very much it will in 20 years, actually, as this NASA and big space community is most definitely not the same culture that went to the moon in 8 years from goal-setting.

Again, IMHO.

GW

SpaceNut · 2015-09-17 17:44:46

It would seem from this small amount of data but what is the leel of exercise and what is the criterior that is used to show what is healthy for space flight?

Why do astronauts have to work out on the International Space Station?

RobertDyck · 2015-09-17 18:03:43

I'm going to be harsh. Shannon Lucid spent 6 months on Mir: Shuttle launch 22 March 1996, Shuttle landing 26 September 1996. Duration 188.17 days. She exercised vigorously, and walked around the Shuttle on return. She also reported that when Russian cosmonauts were supposed to be exercising, they were drinking vodka. Russia had also established a set of exercises that were intended to slow body degeneration: muscle atrophy, bone loss, etc. They found those exercises had no effect. But Shannon reported the cosmonauts weren't doing the exercises. She reported the Russians falsified the logs. Did the cosmonaut you're citing actually do the exercises on Mir. Or his first mission to ISS? I notice a stark reduction in recovery times after that.

SpaceNut · 2015-09-17 20:07:58

Ya would be nice to have other data sources to correct for the inaccuracy. to prove out what level of exercise would be enough to keep the astronaut healthy.

Void · 2015-09-18 00:42:58

Make sure you hear me express that I have great respect for the members posting here recently.

However I am going to deviate the conversation again, because it does appear to me that NASA wants nothing to do with long time flights to Mars, and intend to wait however long it will take to get a better option.

http://www.rt.com/usa/246581-mars-39-days-rocket/

Mars in 39 days? US company wins NASA grant to try & reach Red Planet

39 days. I believe you did sort of mention that GW Johnson. You did not sound to optimistic about it.

It's in your neighborhood, but I would think it likely that pedestrians can't just walk in and poke into their business.

But for me this settles the matter. I did try to imagine a way potentially to improve the options for chemical passage to Mars, but the silence tells me what you think.

But it is interesting that NASA really seems to want to get out of the chemical age when it comes to deep space, it appears.

I believe that I have heard that optimists are right more often than not. It's just a matter of time in this case I think. Don't know if I will be seeing humans on T.V. from Mars in the nursing home though.

Question: Does anyone have any idea about how SpaceX would plan to deal with this issue with there equipment.

Last edited by Void (2015-09-18 00:47:58)

Void · 2015-09-18 01:23:08

O.K. This whole thing annoys me.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077393/ns/te … fu31TiFPIU

Bone is a living tissue, like your heart, your liver or anything else. We tend to think of bones as something inert, but that’s not the case. They’re metabolically active. Bone tissue is constantly being broken down by certain cells, and built up by other cells to maintain the functional rigidity of the bone. Much of that activity comes in response to the stresses we put on the bones, during walking or exercising. Even when you’re in bed, there are still some muscle forces acting on the bone, providing the stimulus for the remodeling of the bone.

First of all, as for centrifuges, I have faith that they would work. Chickens have been raised in centrifuges at high Gee, and they do develop very heavy legs. This testing was done on the Earth, where the existing 1 Gee field was supplemented by a centrifuge. So, centrifuges seem to have potential.

But I am proposing/questioning something else.

Hope I don't get myself into trouble here, but proposed solution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKJtS27DMtY

Various such machines exist, some made by "MTS", but this video has a "Swiss" version which illustrates what I am thinking very well.

Obviously a hydraulic "BED" for a human is the game to try playing. Plenty of bed ridden persons on Earth to try it on. Maybe they could get paid for the testing, and have a job so to speak. Nice, I think

Mostly compression of the feet with the shoulders restrained by spring loaded pads. Bungee cords, to limit the movement of the knees and other parts of the body during compressions, but with enough slack in the bungees and springs, so that the total possible compressive travel will not endanger the subject person.

The video's show very rapid repetitive vibrations on the test objects in the testers. However, I am thinking walking or running speed.

This would be primarily for the bones of the legs and back, but if workable, I would think neck and arms could be addressed as needed later.

So this machine would be built and tested on Earth, not requiring rigorous weigh reduction measures. If it worked on it's test subjects, then it could be modified for space flight, and tried out on the space station(s).

As for muscles, perhaps a combination of drugs, and better exercise equipment could help.

But I have to believe until proved wrong that there should be no reason why this will not work for bones, and frankly I am rather annoyed that it hasn't been mentioned.

The only way it would not work, would be if this quote is a falsehood.

Bone is a living tissue, like your heart, your liver or anything else. We tend to think of bones as something inert, but that’s not the case. They’re metabolically active. Bone tissue is constantly being broken down by certain cells, and built up by other cells to maintain the functional rigidity of the bone. Much of that activity comes in response to the stresses we put on the bones, during walking or exercising. Even when you’re in bed, there are still some muscle forces acting on the bone, providing the stimulus for the remodeling of the bone.

So, I am annoyed. Why hasn't this been tried?

Goodnight finally!

Last edited by Void (2015-09-18 01:49:39)

GW Johnson · 2015-09-18 09:38:09

What we already know from decades of long-duration space station stays is that exercise slows some but not all the effects of microgravity exposure. There a lot more diseases than weakened bone. I'd hazard the guess that we have not yet found them all. The gradient induced by gravity affects biochemistry, or we would not be getting hints of immune system damages.

And exercise slows these effects, but does not stave them off permanently. That's why up to now, stays on the ISS have been 6 months or less, very few exceptions. Based on Salyut and Mir experiences, about the max you can expect is a bit over a year. Maybe a year-and-a-half at most. Very weakened, long recovery.

The fact that Russian cosmonauts might have cheated by neglecting their exercises (screwing up some of the database) changes none of this picture. We still have a very fuzzy limit of 6 months to a year-and-a-half. And because there is a recovery time, we already know enough to fear (and rightly so) that astronauts weakened by the long trip to and from Mars will be too unhealthy to withstand the gees of a free return reentry upon coming home.

As I have said before, we still do not know that 0.38 gee at Mars is enough to be really therapeutic. Until we know, the only thing we know for sure is that near-1-gee is enough, because that's what we evolved in.

None of this should be a bottleneck to sending men to Mars. But, it does constrain your vehicle designs and your mission architecture: you must supply artificial gravity in the neighborhood of 1 gee. I see a lot of resistance to that because of thrown weights and costs, but those fears are pointless. There's nothing quite so expensive as a dead crew.

As for VASIMR (or Hall effect or other electric thrusters), I'm not sure solar will have the power density to make it or any of the other electrical schemes accelerative enough to be worthwhile for sending men to Mars fast enough to avoid microgravity diseases. Nuclear might do it, based on the power/weight ratios achieved in the old NERVA NTR, but nothing even close shows up in nuclear-electric schemes we have flown so far. High power density nuclear electric sources (needed for electric propulsion) are a technology not yet developed, which puts it decades, not mere years, away.

All that being said, we have what we need to send a crew to Mars and get them back safely. We have had it for some years now. Either someone has the $ and bellies up to the bar to do this, or not. The rockets we already have can fling modules for LEO assembly to create the ship (whatever design it is) or ships for the journey.

If we use the spinning-baton approach for artificial gravity to avoid battlestar galactica problems and rube goldberg failure modes, we end up with an orbit-to-orbit manned transport that we ought to re-use to amortize its costs over multiple missions. And we use landers to take the crew to the surface. If these are big enough, they are the surface habs. Or they can be connected with other things sent down 1-way to be the surface habs.

Myself, I'd make the landers big, and I'd make them one-stage reusable. That actually can be done with chemical propulsion. But not using chutes. It'll take supersonic/hypersonic retropropulsion to land big items, or inflatable heat shields, or both together. That's the long pole in the tent, not some giant rocket too expensive to use.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2015-09-18 09:52:06)

Void · 2015-09-18 11:56:41

I have nothing against your synthetic gravity scheme. I think you and I both see evidence that NASA is not currently interested in such a device for going to Mars. My only conclusion is that they want a faster mode of travel, and until they have one they are not going.

Or, they are so long term thinking that they will take up the centrifuge much later.

I see this as the likely answer to their behaviors:
http://www.space.com/30582-asteroid-min … lsion.html

PASADENA, Calif. — A new way to harvest asteroid resources is being eyed as a possible game changer for space exploration.
The patent-pending innovation, called "optical mining," could allow huge amounts of asteroid water to be tapped, advocates say. This water, in turn, could provide relatively cheap and accessible propellant for voyaging spacecraft, lowering the cost of spaceflight significantly.

APIS_ASTEROID.jpg?1442544639

So, if these people did pull this off, with water resources in proximity to the Moon, I surely changes all the calculations for how to go to Mars.

I suggested splitting the Oxygen and Hydrogen from some of it, and experimenting with VASIMR drones, with downsized solar panels, and downsized engines, and relatively slow transit times, more of a spiral orbit to a destination than an elliptical intercept. This to carry heavy probes to get ground truth, and also to preposition supplies.

I suggest this for the VASIMR, to give it a useful task, and so that a less than full scale model can be tested, and evaluated, to get some confirmation of value and performance. The VASIMR drones would use Hydrogen. This would leave behind the Oxygen.

Of course that can be used for life support for humans, and as Oxidizer for chemical rockets. Or;

Paramagnetic Oxygen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt4P6ctf06Q

An Oxygen mass drive propulsion system. No fuel required

However at one time I tried to imagine a combination of mass drive and pulsed combustion propulsion. Boogie man don't like that I think.

Anyway, I feel your cautions are valid, and valuable. It is not good to leap foolishly, but I am also an optimist.

Here is a claim from NASA that a trip to Mars is not that far away: (Their words, not mine)
http://www.space.com/30580-nasa-manned- … ality.html

Void · 2015-09-21 22:16:37

For what it is worth, I would not like to leave without trying to prop up the faith of the faithful on this site, for it's objectives.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russi … p_999.html

Russia, US to Jointly Prepare Mars, Moon Flight Road Map
by Staff Writers
Moscow (Sputnik) Mar 31, 2015

File image.

Russia and the United States will work together on a roadmap to send humans to Mars and the Moon, according to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. The Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos and its US counterpart NASA will jointly hammer out a "road map" program on flights to Mars and the Moon, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said on Saturday.
Bolden, who is currently on a tour of Russia's Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, added that he had discussed joint efforts to send missions to the Red Planet with Roscosmos head Igor Komarov, including time frames and funding.
"Our area of cooperation will be Mars. We are discussing how best to use the resources, the finance, we are setting time frames and distributing efforts in order to avoid duplication," Bolden said.
The NASA chief also pledged to put US astronauts back on the Moon, saying that his country never abandoned its hope of a comeback.
Bolden added that in the future, NASA is planning "to attract more private developers to our joint exploration projects of the Moon and Mars," as well as initiate an ambitious program to harvest minerals from an asteroid.
NASA announced the extension of cooperation with its International Space Station partners, including Russia, for another nine years in February.
The US-Russia cooperation on the development of the international Space Station is under way despite the fact that NASA halted the majority of its joint activities with Russia over the Ukraine crisis in April 2014.
The last US mission to the Moon was Apollo 17; its astronauts returned to Earth from its closest neighbor on December 19, 1972.

So, in a related article, it appeared to say the Bolden said that NASA has every intention of returning to the Moon, which surprised me.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_ … e_999.html

NASA Selects Companies to Develop Super-Fast Deep Space Engine
by Staff Writers
Moscow (Sputnik) Apr 08, 2015

File image: VASIMR engine.

NASA announced it will partner with a variety of companies in new attempts to create more advanced space technology - including a new engine that could get humans to Mars in less than 40 days.
The Texas-based Ad Astra Rocket company, a member of NASA's 12 Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextStep), boasted their VASIMR engine can get humans to Mars in 39 days.
The engine rocketed to fame several years ago when it was revealed to cut a journey to Mars down from months to weeks. And even though it does require a nuclear power source, of which NASA has a shortage, after its successful test in 2013 the agency is considering employing it.
"We are thrilled by this announcement and proud to be joining forces with NASA in the final steps of the technology maturation," said Dr Franklin Chang Diaz, Ad Astra's Chairman and CEO, in a statement.
"We look forward to a very successful partnership as we jointly advance the technology to flight readiness."
Over a three year period, NASA will give Ad Astra around $10 million dollars to fully develop a new version of the VASIMR engine to be flight ready. With the successful demonstrations of their new VX-200-SS prototype, able to fire continuously for more than 100 hours, NASA will consider employing the propulsion system on their future excursion to Mars.
NASA said in a statement that other commercial partners such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Dynetics Inc were in place to explore other possibilities on Mars.
"Commercial partners were selected for their technical ability to mature key technologies and their commitment to the potential applications both for government and private sector uses," said William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations at NASA Headquarters.
"This work ultimately will inform the strategy to move human presence further into the solar system."
A Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR), developed by Ad Astra, is an electromagnetic thruster for the propulsion of a spacecraft. It employs radio waves and magnetic fields to ionize and heat a propellant to generate a thrust for lift off.

They intend to test it on the space station as well, supposedly saving 19/20th of the cost of re-boosting the station to a higher orbit.

And I won't annoy you by doing more than mentioning what you already know, that the Russians have fair experience with reactors in space, and although those are too small for VASIMR, the US has looked into larger ones from time to time.

Looking at the investment that apparently our government entities are making in both Russia, and the VASIMR, I would find it hard to believe that a nuclear reactor for VASIMR will not show up at some point.

Last edited by Void (2015-09-21 22:24:38)

SpaceNut · 2015-10-18 21:10:31

Rocket and Space Corporation (RSC) Energia has patented inflatable space module for ISS

Issues or Nasa and Bigelow.....

The module consists of a rigid core compartment with a constant volume and a multi-layered transformable pressurized shall deployed around it. With that, the size and ergonomics of the rigid compartment fully match the working areas of conventional space station modules.
The transformable shell consists of different functional layers: for protection against meteoroids and radiation, thermal insulation, and external structural support layer. In the transportation configuration the shell is compactly stowed around the compartment, which allows launching the module inside payload fairings of the launch vehicles that are currently in use. In space it is deployed into the working configuration, the pressurized volume is increased by several times.
The size and shape of the rigid load-bearing compartment, make it possible to accommodate within the module additional radiation protection in the form of an instrumentation rack covering the constant volume useful area, which results in better crew protection during their long-duration stay onboard the spacecraft.
It is expected that the use of transformable modules will make it possible to increase the useful pressurized volume of the ISS Russian Segment and of the future space stations, will provide a more effective crew protection against ionizing radiation, meteoroids and particles of space debris as compared with rigid compartments.

I see this as being a chance for competition to keep cost low and there is a need or both to suceed....

No need for rheteric so do not do it......

SpaceNut · 2015-10-25 17:25:14

BEAM module waits for transportion to the ISS

Beam will serve as an experimental module designed to test the hardiness of expandable modules in space. Engineers at Bigelow packed up the unit for transportation to Florida from their Nevada headquarters in March of this year. The module was supposed to fly to ISS in September aboard SpaceX’s CRS-8 mission. However, that was before a Falcon 9 rocket, carrying the CRS-7 Dragon cargo ship bound for the outpost disintegrated during launch.
The walls consist of alternating layers of foam and a material called Nextel. These layers provide impact resistance and thermal protection as the outside temperature can vary from –200 °F (–128.9 °C) in the shade to over 250 °F (121.1 °C) in sunlight. The inner structures form an airtight bladder that contains the pressurized atmosphere. Bigelow replaced the Nextel cloth with Vectran and Kevlar during the reengineering process.
BEAM will be attached to the aft port of Tranquility sometime in early 2016.

SpaceNut · 2015-11-05 22:17:58

Happened on this link for Space suits and radiation exposure....

http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TR … 212051.pdf

SpaceNut · 2015-11-07 22:32:25

It will be soon that a new delivery contract will be needed for cargo to the station....SpaceX and Orbital each got a share of NASA's first round of $3.6 billion in commercial cargo contracts to supply the ISS and its about time for a new contract....

NASA drops Boeing from race for $3.5 billion cargo contract

NASA has informed Boeing that it is out of the running for a $3.5 billion competition to send cargo to the International Space Station, a company spokeswoman said Thursday.
Boeing has received a NASA contract to send astronauts to the ISS aboard its CST-100 Starliner capsule beginning as early as 2017, but its bid to get US space agency funds for a cargo version in the coming years was dismissed.

I do believe that the Dream chaser is still in the running....

SpaceNut · 2015-11-21 22:53:12

NASA and SpaceX contracted their first flight together, setting a launch window for late 2017 from Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

SpaceX and Boeing are under contract for two to six flights each aboard the Crew Dragon and CST-100 Starliner, respectively. Boeing and NASA previously signed their order together six months ago; with this, SpaceX

SpaceNut · 2015-11-29 16:44:32

A repost of plant growth on the ISS:

RobertDyck wrote:

Veggie Plant Growth System Activated on International Space Station
Growing Plants and Vegetables in a Space Garden

We need to stop experimenting and actually get to food growth with longer growing season crops as well as annuals to better guage what we will see on a mars mission.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#351 2015-07-28 20:47:56

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#352 2015-07-29 07:38:15

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#353 2015-07-29 13:34:44

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#354 2015-07-29 15:06:17

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#355 2015-08-15 17:55:06

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#356 2015-09-14 20:05:28

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#357 2015-09-15 13:41:00

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#358 2015-09-15 18:33:28

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#359 2015-09-15 20:52:38

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#360 2015-09-16 20:07:33

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#361 2015-09-17 09:28:38

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#362 2015-09-17 17:44:46

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#363 2015-09-17 18:03:43

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#364 2015-09-17 20:07:58

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#365 2015-09-18 00:42:58

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#366 2015-09-18 01:23:08

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#367 2015-09-18 09:38:09

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#368 2015-09-18 11:56:41

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#369 2015-09-21 22:16:37

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#370 2015-10-18 21:10:31

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#371 2015-10-25 17:25:14

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#372 2015-11-05 22:17:58

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#373 2015-11-07 22:32:25

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#374 2015-11-21 22:53:12

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#375 2015-11-29 16:44:32

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

Board footer