Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

SpaceNut · 2015-03-01 21:10:50

kbd512 wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
kbd512 wrote:
After decades of operations conducted at multiple space stations, is there still a lot of critical science work that must be performed at a space station in LEO in order to advance human space flight activities required for a Mars mission?
We could use ISS for closed loop ECLSS experiments, but that's about it.
Yea, that's the one. I have argued we need to test life support for the full duration of a Mars mission. Can we operate ISS for 26 or 28.5 months without any cargo resupply? A Mars mission won't get resupply.
We've yet to test a high reliability, fault-tolerant closed loop ECLSS subsystem or artificial gravity generation aboard ISS.

Then lets get a base line without ECLSS Closed or not at all.

So lets collect as much of the data from each mission that sends supplies or is used to boost the station along with the man count plus duration to equalize the data to be averaged for a base line mars mission plus the oxygen candles.

I wish to tabulate food, oxygen, buffer gasses, water that represent a one shot mars mission with no resupply and no recycling as that will come later once we plot the deliveries that are used over time between reflls. By doing this we will understand consumption rate, volumes for storage and the Mass for delivery to mars surface for later use of these items.

I do hope others will contribute the information to this topic so that we can nail down the surface mass of these for a crewsa Mars duration stay.

Example mission to find Data within:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stati … gures.html

The International Space Station is not only an orbiting laboratory, but also a space port for a variety of international spacecraft. As of November 2014, there have been:

•100 Russian launches
•37 Space Shuttle launches
•1 test flight and 3 operational flights by SpaceX’s Dragon
•1 test flight and 2 operational flight by Orbital Science’s Cygnus
•4 Japanese HTVs
•5 European ATVs

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stati … embly.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stati … ments.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stati … upply.html
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html

This paragraph that follows should probably have its own topic but will include to narrow what I am looking for from this topic in the above sentences.

Lets just account for what is recycled by the Russian electrolysis unit for Oxygen, plus US oxygen generation unit, as well as the sabiter unit after the resupply data is tabulated as the number of times that each has been broken would mean to me that a complete extra unit would need to be brought with the crew to mars as there will be no resupply mission with parts to repair them. It also should be clear with the data that when these are broken that we have a surge of need from resupply in that comodity.

Found a link with the head count http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/I/ISS.html at the bottom of the page.

kbd512 · 2015-03-01 22:29:37

Why are we going to baseline this? A Mars mission without closed loop ECLSS requires slightly insane mass, given current lift capabilities. CL-ECLSS is, more or less, a hard requirement for any realistic Mars mission.

For a crew of four, assuming a 600 day surface stay (or shorter stay and contingency consumables, however you wish to think about it) and 360 day round trip transit time, that's well north of 140t to LEO, never mind the mass required for TMI. We've never landed something with the mass that the surface habitat would require, in consumables alone, for a stay of that length. Why concern ourselves with how much it would weigh?

Once development has been completed, let's fly VPCAR and TSAC aboard ISS and see how well that works.

CL-ECLSS and ISRU make the mission doable from a mass and cost perspective.

GW Johnson · 2015-03-02 09:35:35

140 tons of anything is only "huge" if you insist on launching it with one rocket. We don't have to do that anymore. Launching and assembling large masses is no longer insane, because launch prices are much lower now than when we built ISS. An order of magnitude lower, or maybe a bit more. Around $2500/lb flying full with the current fleet, vs $30,000+/lb with shuttle.

If you cannot make a recycling or closed life support system work (at least in time for the mission), then you fly with bigger, heavier stored supplies, if you want to go at all. The sense I have is that closed life support is still very experimental, and largely unsuccessful, as of yet. I rather doubt that picture will change in only 1 decade, if you want to go in 2025, say.

If you make your mission dependent upon developing that (or any) technology, you never will fly. Someone else will. That's not to say we shouldn't work on the technology, because we should. But when you intend to fly, you use what is ready "now", or you won't fly. It's hard enough to just make the vehicles work with all-existing stuff. That's school-of-hard-knocks talking, and it's a very important lesson.

As for ISS, by about 2025 to 2030, it will literally be falling apart (and endangering crews) as Mir did before it. These things wear out, as I said before. If nothing else, metal fatigue sets in. But working/moving parts are the real trouble. Your hatches will quit sealing, for one. And the electronics/electrical will be the first systems to start failing. At least that's been the history of it since man first starting building flying machines.

GW

SpaceNut · 2015-03-02 18:34:58

kbd512, GW Johnson gave answer to you question

kbd512 wrote:

GW Johnson wrote:
Why are we going to baseline this? A Mars mission without closed loop ECLSS requires slightly insane mass, given current lift capabilities. CL-ECLSS is, more or less, a hard requirement for any realistic Mars mission.
If you cannot make a recycling or closed life support system work (at least in time for the mission), then you fly with bigger, heavier stored supplies, if you want to go at all. The sense I have is that closed life support is still very experimental, and largely unsuccessful, as of yet. I rather doubt that picture will change in only 1 decade, if you want to go in 2025, say.

I would also include that we would want to account for it breaking down with the initial preload of cargo at the landing site as there will be no second chance if it does. With the data we have predictable out comes for failure of equipment and the resulting increase in the baseline numbers when it does.

Also I think when we talk about human missions to Mars we are talking long stay in my mind and not a sortie flag and foot prints as that will kill any follow up attempts due to cost.

RobertDyck · 2015-03-02 19:08:29

GW Johnson wrote:

As for ISS, by about 2025 to 2030, it will literally be falling apart (and endangering crews) as Mir did before it.

How old is your house? Did you buy a brand new house in a new subdivision? I didn't. My house was built in 1907. Maintaining a space station is the same as maintaining a house. Yes, it takes cleaning. Yes, it requires replacing air filters periodically. Yes, it requires replacing rubber seals of sink faucets. But no, you don't have to destroy the entire house.

Ps. My house had new plumbing 2 years before I bought it in 1990. I had to replace most of the equipment in the toilet tank last summer. In 2009, I had the bearing rebuilt for the blower of the clothes dryer; an appliance built in 1961 or 1962, so before I was borne. A natural gas clothes dryer, trying finding one today!

SpaceNut · 2015-03-02 19:59:47

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_ECLSS

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files … _eclss.pdf

Carbon dioxide is removed from the air by the Vozdukh system in Zvezda. Another Russian system, Vozdukh (Russian Воздух, meaning "air"), removes carbon dioxide from the air based on the use of regenerable absorbers of carbon dioxide gas.
Carbon dioxide and trace contaminants are removed by the Air Revitalisation System. This is a NASA rack, to be placed in Tranquility, designed to provide a Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly (CDRA), a Trace Contaminant Control Subassembly (TCCS) to remove hazardous trace contamination from the atmosphere and a Major Constituent Analyser (MCA) to monitor nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, and water vapour.

The Elektron system aboard Zvezda and a similar system in Destiny generate oxygen aboard the station. The ISS has two water recovery systems. Zvezda contains a water recovery system that processes waste water from showers, sinks, and other crew systems and water vapor from the atmosphere that could be used for drinking in an emergency but is normally fed to the Elektron system to produce oxygen.
The American segment has a Water Recovery System installed during STS-126 that can process water vapour collected from the atmosphere, waste water from showers, sinks, and other crew systems, and also urine into water that is intended for drinking. The Urine Processor Assembly uses a low pressure vacuum distillation process that uses a centrifuge to compensate for the lack of gravity and thus aid in separating liquids and gasses with operational level of recovering 70% of the water content.
The Oxygen Generating System (OGS) is a NASA rack designed to electrolyse water from the Water Recovery System to produce oxygen and hydrogen.

This is why we have 2 differents systems for oxygen generation from waste water.

NASA claims the three Elektron oxygen generators on board the International Space Station have been 'plagued with problems', sometimes forcing the crew to use backup sources (either bottled oxygen or the Vika system discussed below). To support a crew of six, NASA added the oxygen generating system discussed above.

kbd512 · 2015-03-02 21:12:51

SpaceNut wrote:

kbd512, GW Johnson gave answer to you question

SpaceNut, that's just the mass for the consumables and the subsystems that contain them. You have to stuff that into vehicles with enough volume to actually carry all of it, with the largest vehicle in terms of mass and volume being a lander that we currently have no way of getting onto the surface of Mars. If it "only" costs $2.5K/lb, that's $770M in launch costs alone (edit: that's $770M just to get the consumables mass to LEO), using the least expensive launch services provided by SpaceX. As I said before, it's insane.

CL-ECLSS isn't "nice to have", it's mandatory.

SpaceNut wrote:

I would also include that we would want to account for it breaking down with the initial preload of cargo at the landing site as there will be no second chance if it does. With the data we have predictable out comes for failure of equipment and the resulting increase in the baseline numbers when it does.

I think three CL-ECLSS subsystems are required for the surface habitat. The tech currently in development is efficient enough in terms of mass and volume to make this possible.

If we want mobile surface exploration, then I think we should seriously consider minimal mass and capability ascent vehicles and forgoing emplaced habitats for electric/methalox hybrid Winnebagos. The crew should land in two or perhaps three mobile surface habitats near the ascent vehicle. If all vehicles are functional, then our Martian road warriors start a year long convoy-style road trip across Mars.

SpaceNut wrote:

Also I think when we talk about human missions to Mars we are talking long stay in my mind and not a sortie flag and foot prints as that will kill any follow up attempts due to cost.

If we do a Mars mission without the tech to sustain our presence there, that's the only mission we'll ever do in our lifetimes. I doubt anyone here wants that, as bad as we all want humans on Mars.

Last edited by kbd512 (2015-03-02 21:26:27)

Terraformer · 2015-03-03 09:42:33

RobertDyck wrote:

GW Johnson wrote:
As for ISS, by about 2025 to 2030, it will literally be falling apart (and endangering crews) as Mir did before it.
How old is your house? Did you buy a brand new house in a new subdivision? I didn't. My house was built in 1907. Maintaining a space station is the same as maintaining a house. Yes, it takes cleaning. Yes, it requires replacing air filters periodically. Yes, it requires replacing rubber seals of sink faucets. But no, you don't have to destroy the entire house.
Ps. My house had new plumbing 2 years before I bought it in 1990. I had to replace most of the equipment in the toilet tank last summer. In 2009, I had the bearing rebuilt for the blower of the clothes dryer; an appliance built in 1961 or 1962, so before I was borne. A natural gas clothes dryer, trying finding one today!

Is your house made of metal? Is it exposed to significant temperature variations? Is it in a severe radiation environment?

SpaceNut · 2015-03-03 20:37:35

kbd512, I do understand that we need to "stuff that into vehicles with enough volume to actually carry all" butwhen we say that we will lob a chunk of mass via rocket x we are not considering anything but a total mass. So that is why I want to see what the problems are in a baseline maximum value that takes into account when the life support system is not working at its best.

I do want CL-ECLSS and it is a mandatory end goal when it works but we should plan for even a partial system with backups for equipment failure.

There was a topic that did talk about the Winnebago approach to mobility of exploration and it does require small cargo drop zones along any planned path that a crew would follow as it does explore but in the end they finish at a MAV site as a final encampment.

That said we are now talking 2 different travels to Mars and reasons for going even thou we say that we are going for science. Its clear to me that the science returned are different from each and if I had my way a dual mode exploration would be run in parallel.

kbd512 · 2015-03-03 22:26:27

I presume we're doing this as a "what-if" scenario to determine how much mass we have to stage on the surface of Mars for those inevitable instances where our ECLSS is on the fritz, because that's the only context in which it makes any sense. If you have redundancy for your ECLSS in your transit habitat then unless you completely lose power, in which case everyone dies anyway, the "what-if" is pointless because you can't be resupplied.

I mentioned the mobile exploration architecture because it would seem to make sense to design a mission that permits you to travel to supply caches spread across the surface of Mars if you really distrust your ECLSS engineers that much, scout for potential staging sites for future exploration or settlement activities, and perform field science while you're at it.

I read into what you asked as wanting to know how much mass and in what configurations we'd have to stage it on Mars. The short answer is that not having reliable CL-ECLSS is cost prohibitive. If we wanted to, we spread supplies across the surface of Mars for contingency scenarios. However, you then have to travel to those resupply sites. Would it not make infinitely more sense to have redundancy for your ECLSS, or simply have replacement parts and tested & approved methods of field repair, and use ISRU for collecting oxygen and water rather than trying to ship all of it there?

GW Johnson · 2015-03-03 22:55:38

My point about wearout applies to flight vehicles, for which minimum weight is critical. Houses are anything but minimum weight, so comparing houses to flight vehicles is a rather egregious non-sequitur.

Besides, not all houses last. Custom-builts tend to hold up well, while the crackerboxes they put up as tract homes tend to fall apart in under 2 decades. Same applies to appliances, none of which are min weight designs.

Metal structures have a fatigue life that you have to observe. They say composites do not have fatigue, but I do not believe that (we haven't had them that long yet, to have the necessary long-term experience to know). Fatigue life shows as a negative-slope curve on a log-log plot, with abscissa number of cycles, and ordinate cyclic stress level. If the stress is low enough, the slope breaks to zero (stresses under that level are OK for "infinite fatigue life").

Few flight vehicles today (air or space) have structures so lightly loaded as to have the "infinite fatigue life". The last one I know of was the wing structure in the DC-3, from 1935. Most of the space technology we discuss here derives from missile heritage, which was all one-shot stuff. The low inert weights are achieved by loading the structures to yield and even beyond, factor 5-10 or even 10+ beyond the "infinite fatigue life" stress levels.

Aluminum is the worst of all about this effect. Between yield and ultimate you get to load the thing only a tiny handful of times, maybe even only once. That's really short working-life stuff, defined as cycles of one kind or another (number of landings for airplanes, usually). Pressurizations for tankage. You get the picture.

Like I said somewhere above, ISS will be worn out and endangering its crews by about 2025 or so (just like Mir did before it), unless it is rebuilt or replaced in some way. If it were me, I'd build replacement modules as the issue arises, launch each one to the station, use it to replace the corresponding worn-out module, and then de-orbit the junk ,module. Another one starts failing, do it again. And again, etc. Same thing applies to the solar panels, too. Same age problem, plus degradation of polymers and crystals by intense UV.

Doing it piecemeal like that gets you two really important advantages: (1) low political visibility (more probable funding), and (2) you could add a centrifuge module and finally study what level of partial gee is actually therapeutic. That last is crucial for long term deep space travel and off-world bases with men.

Launching a series of 15-20 ton modules one at a time over several years can be done with the current launcher fleet, for >10-factor launch cost reduction under what we paid using shuttle to build it originally. Later this year should be Falcon-Heavy's first flight. That one could launch 50-ton items for factor-30 savings over costs with shuttle.

Those costs and payload capabilities being what they are, I fail to see the purpose in wanting to restore the shuttle, other than nostalgia. And I also fail to see the purpose in the new giant NASA rocket, because it represents an increase in launch costs over what we now how, not the decrease it should have been. What we have right now (US, European, and Russian launchers) is simply way better. Different from previous and pre-conceived notions, but better.

GW

kbd512 · 2015-03-03 23:34:26

GW,

As I said before, STS should only be utilized for missions that require the capability to bring something sizable back. I don't want to actually fly an orbiter if it's not required. The vast majority of missions won't require its unique capabilities. By now you'd think that someone at NASA would learn that once you acquire a capability, you never give it up. If you can ever get it back, it will cost you dearly.

What has the loss of Saturn V cost us in terms of space exploration capability?

The design of SLS made it a spending program, plain and simple. There's no reason whatsoever why it should cost so much, take so long to develop, or not have simply been designed from the outset to have the lift capability that NASA wanted. Unfortunately, government administrators always double down on stupid because having the integrity to admit that you or your staff made a mistake costs you your job.

SpaceNut · 2015-03-04 20:47:41

Yes it is a what if senerio kbd512 as we have seen with a near miss with Apollo 13 and 2 shuttle loses. We must be prepared to find a way to survive in the face of any failure that might happen as the cycle for mars is not a short one to overcome from such a great distance when it comes to resupply or rescue.

In another topic RobertDyck had started to tabulate the masses for the life support systems as they stand but when we are already mass constrained we will either sacrifice one of the sytems as well as backups if we can not launch it or land it on mars unless we can move it to a preload landing salvo and not take it with the crew.

GW Johnson · 2015-03-06 16:03:03

BTW, the "imperical" in the title of this thread should really be spelled "empirical". That assumes what is meant is to follow results/facts-based designs rather than something imposed-from-above arbitrarily. Which actually is where we are with NASA having stuff imposed by Congress, as in SLS/Orion as the latest, and dating back to a semi-reusable drop-off tank and booster design for shuttle about the time Apollo was cancelled.

GW

SpaceNut · 2015-03-06 22:05:37

Dammed english language when it comes to sound alike spellings, yes that was the intent of the discusion and not an imposed specification or forced make work program efforts.

This is the sort of typical Nasa data pages for each resupply. Granted we have the spec's for the progress space vehicle but its still is not going to be all that easy to compile into the format that will show the trends.

Expedition 9 Apr 29, 2004– Oct 23, 2004 Gennady Padalka Mike Fincke

Expedition 10 Arrival and Departure Events
10 Oct 23, 2004– Apr 24, 2005 Leroy Chiao Salizhan Sharipov

Progress 16 Cargo Craft Docks to International Space Station on 12.25.04

"delivery of 2.5 tons of food, fuel, oxygen, water, supplies the Progress is loaded with 1,234 pounds (560 Kg) of propellant, 110 pounds (50 Kg)of oxygen and air, 926 pounds (436 Kg)of water and more than 2,700 pounds of spare parts, life support system components and experiment hardware. The manifest also includes 69 containers of food for Chiao and Sharipov."

Progress 17 Cargo Craft Arrives at Space Station 03.02.05

" 2.3 tons of supplies and equipment 4,631 pounds of cargo are 386 pounds (175 Kg)of propellant, 242 pounds (110 Kg) of oxygen and air, and 1,071 pounds ( 487 Kg)of water 86 containers of food, an additional 160-day supply for the Station. Spare parts for the Russian Elektron oxygen producing system and the Vozdukh carbon-dioxide removal system are among cargo items, as are spare parts and supplies for the Station’s toilet."

Expedition 11 Apr 24, 2005– Oct 10, 2005 Sergei Krikalev John Phillips

Progress 18 Cargo Craft's Arrival a Station Highlight 06.18.05

"4,662 pounds of cargo is 397 pounds (180 Kg) of propellant, 242 pounds (110 Kg)of oxygen and 926 pounds ( 421 Kg) of water. 3,100 pounds (1410 Kg) of dry cargo, including food, other equipment and supplies and experiment hardware. Among that dry cargo are spare parts for the Russian Elektron oxygen generation system, which has been out of operation for several weeks. Additional Solid Fuel Oxygen Generators (SFOGs) or ""candles,"" each of which can provide enough oxygen for one crewmember for one day, also are among cargo items"

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases … 13712.html

The Progress is also carrying 40 solid fuel oxygen-generation canisters as a supplemental source of oxygen, if required.

kbd512 · 2015-03-07 05:11:13

I think we can look at a typical resupply mission and easily determine that a significant mass fraction of the cargo is devoted to propellant, breathing gases, and water. It highlights the requirement for any long duration mission requiring a high degree of self sufficiency to use electric thrusters for station keeping and have reliable closed loop ECLSS.

For ISS, or any lunar or Mars missions for that matter, to remain within the far reaches of the realm of affordability, much better propulsion and life support systems need to be tested aboard ISS. All we could establish by tabulating cargo masses would be resupply rate for the consumables. Consumption rates for oxygen were recorded on Expedition 12, although that was a number of years ago and we'd need more data to baseline average oxygen consumption. One would think that NASA would have this information.

SpaceNut · 2015-03-07 10:48:21

The initial data was with just the russian waste water generation into oxygen and no water recovery systems as provided with the US system but even as the ISS did make improvements the outputs of waste which were sent over board via venting was not measured. Waste was hydrogen and Carbon dioxide with solid waste ending up in the ocean.

With the ISS getting its latest sabetier reactor some of what would have been waste vent oxygen in the CO2 waste was recovered and the waste hydrogen was used to make water but there is still the waste methane of which the ISS does not use that is unmeasured still even when it works.

So any Mars or Moon mission needs a water resource as even with the best of recovery and resupply it may mean that we will not survive if the systems were to fail.

The data set was from a Nasa page but I wonder if the Russin details were lost in translation a bit but going forward in time to another subset will bring in the variations in use as the changes to the station did happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_(spacecraft)

Progress-M 11F615A55 (1989-2009)Main article: Progress-M
Progress-M logistics resupply spacecraft.The upgraded Progress M (GRAU: 11F615A55, manufacturer's designation: 7K-TGM) was first launched in August 1989. The first 43 flights all went to Mir; following Mir's re-entry, Progress was used as the resupply vehicle for the International Space Station. As of August 2014, there have been 56 flights to the ISS and more are scheduled.
The Progress M is essentially the same spacecraft as the Progress, but it features improvements based on the Soyuz T and TM designs. It can spend up to 30 days in autonomous flight and is able to carry 100 kg more. Also, unlike the old Progress crafts, it can return items to Earth. This is accomplished by using the Raduga capsule, which can carry up to 150 kg of cargo. It is 1.5 m long and 60 cm in diameter and has a "dry mass" of 350 kg. Progress M can also dock to the forward port of the station and still transfer fuel. It uses the same rendezvous system as the Soyuz, and it features solar panels for the first time.
Launch mass 7,130 kg
Cargo mass 2,600 kg
Dry cargo mass 1,500 kg
Liquid cargo mass 1,540 kg
Length 7.23 m
Diameter of cargo modules 2.2 m
Maximum diameter 2.72 m
Dry cargo compartment volume 7.6 m³
Solar array span 10.6 m

Progress M1 (2000-2004)Main article: Progress-M1
Progress M1 is another variant, capable of carrying more propellant (but less total cargo) to the space stations. There have been 11 of these flights.
Mass: 7,150 kg
Capacity cargo: 2,230 kg
Capacity dry cargo: 1,800 kg
Capacity propellant: 1,950 kg

Sure would be nice if some one at Nasa would start using Metric values...

At this point I am trying to refine the way to get the most acurate number.
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/progress-m-m.htm

The Progress M carries following cargo to a total ammount of 2350 kg
Maximum Pressurized Cargo: 1800 kg
Cargo Volume 6.6 m3
Maximum Water 420 kg
Maximum Air or Oxygen: 50 kg
Maximum Refueling Module Propellant: 850 kg
ISM Propellant Surplus available to Station: 250 kg
Trash Disposal in Cargo Module: up to 1600 kg
Waste Water 400 kg
The relative amounts of pressurized cargo, refueling propellant, air, and water will vary within the constraints of the total payload limit. For example, if the maximum amount of propellant is carried then the amount of pressurized cargo will be less than the maximum amount.

SpaceNut · 2015-03-07 20:59:30

Here is the press kit information http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/presskits/index.html which will help with the crew count onboard the station with respect to the resupply missions.

The number we would generate from the ISS resupplies could be used a varification of what Mars One would need.

http://www.mars-one.com/technology/mars-transit-vehicle

It will carry close to 800 kg of dry food, 3000 liters of water and 700 kg of oxygen on board. No water or Oxygen will be recycled, because the trip lasts only 210 days. Not recycling these components eliminates the need for recycling systems, backups, spare components and reduces power and cooling requirements. The 3000 liters or ( kg) of water is also used for radiation shielding.

Weight of 1 liter (l) of pure water at temperature 4 °C = 1 kilogram (kg).
A liter is defined as one cubic decimetre (1 l = 1 cubic dm).
1 l = 1kg of water = 0.001 cubic m = 0.264172052 US gallons = 1.05668821 US quarts.

SpaceNut · 2015-03-08 12:05:44

continuing with number:

Expedition 12 Oct 10, 2005– Apr 8, 2006 William McArthur Valery Tokarev

Progress 19 09.10.05 – Docks

The supplies include food, fuel, oxygen and air, clothing, experiment hardware, Russian spacesuit components and spare parts for the Vozdukh carbon dioxide removal system. A new water circulation liquids unit is onboard the supply ship. This unit is for the station's Elektron oxygen-generating system which is inoperable. The unit will be installed next week to try to bring Elektron back into service.
Progress payload includes 1,763 pounds of propellant for the Russian thrusters; 242 pounds[ 110Kg ] of oxygen and air in tanks as a backup supply for the oxygen generated by Elektron; and 463 pounds [ 210 Kg ] of water to augment the supplies left by the Space Shuttle Discovery during the STS-114 mission.

Space Shuttle Discovery STS-114 mission is ? will need to add in later

Progress 20 12.23.05 – Docks

The Progress holds 1,940 pounds of propellant for the station's Russian thrusters; 183 pounds [ 83 Kg ] of back up oxygen and air for the Russian Elektron system; and 463 pounds [ 210Kg ] of water to augment onboard supplies. More than 3,000 pounds of spare parts, experiment hardware, life support components and holiday gifts round out the cargo.
The Progress that arrived Sept. 10 will remain docked until early March. The crew will stow trash in it, and on Dec. 31, use the remaining 43 kilograms (94.6 pounds) of oxygen in the craft’s tanks to replenish station cabin pressure.
The Elektron oxygen-generation system in the Zvezda module remains up and running on its primary pump. It will be shut down on Dec. 28, and the crew will burn solid fuel oxygen generation candles for two days to recertify the system.

Epedition 13 Apr 8, 2006– Sep 28, 2006 Pavel Vinogradov Thomas Reiter, Jeffrey Williams

Progress 21 04.26.06 – Docks

The 21st Progress to visit the station has just over 2½ tons of equipment and supplies on board. Included in its 5,040 pounds of cargo are more than 1,900 pounds of propellant, just over 100 pounds [ 46 Kg ] of air and oxygen, 661 pounds [ 300 Kg ] of water and almost 2,360 pounds of dry cargo.

Progress 22 06.26.06 – Docks

The 22nd Progress unpiloted cargo carrier brings the station more than 1,900 pounds of propellant, just over 100 pounds of air and oxygen, almost 250 pounds of water and almost 2,860 pounds of dry cargo.

SpaceNut · 2015-03-10 21:00:52

Expedition 14 Sep 28, 2006– Apr 21, 2007 Michael Lopez-Alegria Sunita Williams, Mikhail Tyurin

ISS Progress 23 10.26.06 – Docks

The station's 23rd Progress unpiloted cargo carrier brings to the orbiting laboratory more than 1,900 pounds of propellant, about 110 pounds 50 Kg of oxygen, and 2,784 pounds 1262Kgof dry cargo

ISS Progress 24 01.19.07 – Docks

The station's 24th Progress unpiloted cargo carrier brings to the orbiting laboratory more than 1,720 pounds of propellant, about 110 pounds 50Kg of oxygen, and 3,285 pounds 1490Kg of dry cargo – a total of 5,115 pounds.

Expedition 15 Apr 21, 2007–Oct 21, 2007 Fyodor Yurchikhin, Clayton Anderson, Oleg Kotov

ISS Progress 25 05.15.07 – Docks

The station's 25th Progress unpiloted cargo carrier brings to the orbiting laboratory more than 1,050 pounds of propellant, almost 100 pounds of air, more than 925 pounds of water and 3,042 pounds of dry cargo – a total of 5,125 pounds.

ISS Progress 26 08.05.07 – Docks

The station's 26th Progress unpiloted spacecraft brings to the orbiting laboratory almost 1,600 pounds of propellant, more than 100 pounds of air and oxygen, more than 465 pounds of water and 2,954 pounds of dry cargo. Total cargo weight is 5,111 pounds.

louis · 2015-03-11 05:20:57

GW Johnson wrote:

My point about wearout applies to flight vehicles, for which minimum weight is critical. Houses are anything but minimum weight, so comparing houses to flight vehicles is a rather egregious non-sequitur.
Besides, not all houses last. Custom-builts tend to hold up well, while the crackerboxes they put up as tract homes tend to fall apart in under 2 decades. Same applies to appliances, none of which are min weight designs.
Metal structures have a fatigue life that you have to observe. They say composites do not have fatigue, but I do not believe that (we haven't had them that long yet, to have the necessary long-term experience to know). Fatigue life shows as a negative-slope curve on a log-log plot, with abscissa number of cycles, and ordinate cyclic stress level. If the stress is low enough, the slope breaks to zero (stresses under that level are OK for "infinite fatigue life").
Few flight vehicles today (air or space) have structures so lightly loaded as to have the "infinite fatigue life". The last one I know of was the wing structure in the DC-3, from 1935. Most of the space technology we discuss here derives from missile heritage, which was all one-shot stuff. The low inert weights are achieved by loading the structures to yield and even beyond, factor 5-10 or even 10+ beyond the "infinite fatigue life" stress levels.
Aluminum is the worst of all about this effect. Between yield and ultimate you get to load the thing only a tiny handful of times, maybe even only once. That's really short working-life stuff, defined as cycles of one kind or another (number of landings for airplanes, usually). Pressurizations for tankage. You get the picture.
Like I said somewhere above, ISS will be worn out and endangering its crews by about 2025 or so (just like Mir did before it), unless it is rebuilt or replaced in some way. If it were me, I'd build replacement modules as the issue arises, launch each one to the station, use it to replace the corresponding worn-out module, and then de-orbit the junk ,module. Another one starts failing, do it again. And again, etc. Same thing applies to the solar panels, too. Same age problem, plus degradation of polymers and crystals by intense UV.
Doing it piecemeal like that gets you two really important advantages: (1) low political visibility (more probable funding), and (2) you could add a centrifuge module and finally study what level of partial gee is actually therapeutic. That last is crucial for long term deep space travel and off-world bases with men.
Launching a series of 15-20 ton modules one at a time over several years can be done with the current launcher fleet, for >10-factor launch cost reduction under what we paid using shuttle to build it originally. Later this year should be Falcon-Heavy's first flight. That one could launch 50-ton items for factor-30 savings over costs with shuttle.
Those costs and payload capabilities being what they are, I fail to see the purpose in wanting to restore the shuttle, other than nostalgia. And I also fail to see the purpose in the new giant NASA rocket, because it represents an increase in launch costs over what we now how, not the decrease it should have been. What we have right now (US, European, and Russian launchers) is simply way better. Different from previous and pre-conceived notions, but better.
GW

Personally, for an analogue mission, I would favour the moon...fly in zero G in lunar orbit for 6 months then land and test out weighted suits (to replicate 1 G). You can also try out the habs, rovers, solar power systems, food production, rocket fuel production and other systems. The benefit of course, is that you can go rescue them if there is a massive failure or health issue.

SpaceNut · 2015-03-11 16:43:54

Any moon circling and landing would be less than a dry run as it would not have the landing dificulties, the use of CO2 atmosphere, or possible glacier covered ice for water but it does make a safe way to experiment. But I think that the non space advocates are tired of seeing the likes of Nasa go round and around in circles even if its not LEO.

SpaceNut · 2015-03-22 20:22:48

I was hoping for better records but after capturing the data, I think you all will agree thats not the case:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stati … aunch.html
10.27.10
The ISS Progress 40 (P40) cargo craft launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan at 11:11 a.m. EDT Wednesday. The Russian resupply craft is headed to the International Space Station and delivering 1,918 pounds of propellant, 1,100 pounds of oxygen, 498 pounds of water and 2,804 pounds of food, spare parts and supplies.
Seems that there is a big gap in the manefests as none of the ships have any details as what they bring for resupplies until this next arrival.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/640968main_spac … 042012.pdf
It would seem that the cargo manefests for Dragon are all totals with no specifics....
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files … r7_508.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stati … docks.html
10.31.12
The ISS Progress 49 cargo craft docked with the aft end of the station’s Zvezda service module at 9:33 a.m. EDT Wednesday following its successful launch from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan at 3:41 a.m. Progress 49 is delivering 2.9 tons of supplies to the orbiting complex, including 2,050 pounds of propellant, 62 pounds of oxygen, 42 pounds of air, 926 pounds of water and 2,738 pounds of spare parts, experiment hardware and maintenance equipment.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stati … 4/p50.html
02.11.13
The ISS Progress 50 resupply ship docked with the station’s Pirs docking compartment at 3:35 p.m. EST, delivering 1,764 pounds of propellant, 110 pounds of oxygen and air, 926 pounds of water and 3,000 pounds of spare parts, experiment hardware and logistics equipment --- 2.9 tons of supplies in all.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stati … 42613.html
04.26.13
The ISS Progress 51 cargo craft completed a two-day journey to the International Space Station when it was captured at the Zvezda service module on Friday at 8:25 a.m. EDT. After conducting leak checks at the docking interface, the Expedition 35 crew members opened the hatches to the cargo craft at 11:39 a.m. and began the long process of inventorying and unloading its 3.1 tons of food, fuel and equipment.
The unpiloted cargo craft launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan at 6:12 a.m. on Wednesday loaded with 1,764 pounds of propellant, 48 pounds of oxygen, 57 pounds of air, 926 pounds of water and 3,483 pounds of spare parts, experiment hardware and other supplies for the station crew.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stati … aunch.html
06.15.13 – Albert Einstein Docks
The European Space Agency's (ESA) fourth Automated Transfer Vehicle cargo craft (ATV-4) launched atop an Ariane 5 rocket will deliver more than 7 tons of supplies to the station when it docks to the aft port of the Russian Zvezda service module on Saturday, June 15.
The cargo includes 5,465 pounds of dry cargo, experiment hardware and supplies, 1,896 pounds of propellant for transfer to the Zvezda service module, 5,688 pounds of propellant for reboost and debris avoidance maneuver capability, 1,257 pounds of water and 220 pounds of oxygen and air.

The Cygnus also have just total cargo delivered and no details...

http://www.nasa.gov/content/russian-car … e-station/
11.29.13
Progress 53, which along with its Soyuz booster was rolled out to Baikonur’s Site 31 launch pad on Saturday, is delivering 1,763 pounds of propellant, 48 pounds of oxygen, 57 pounds of air, 925 pounds of water and 3,119 pounds of spare parts and experiment hardware to the station.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/new-russian … h-station/
February 5, 2014
Progress 54 is loaded with 1,764 pounds of propellant, 110 pounds of oxygen, 926 pounds of water and 2,897 pounds of spare parts, experiment hardware and other supplies
http://www.nasa.gov/content/crew-gears- … e-station/
April 8, 2014
progress 55 no details available...
http://www.nasa.gov/content/cargo-ship- … er-launch/
July 23, 2014
The ISS Progress 56 resupply spacecraft, packed with almost three tons of cargo, 1,764 pounds of propellant, 48 pounds of oxygen, 57 pounds of air, 926 pounds of water and 2,910 pounds of spare parts, experiment hardware and other supplies for the Expedition 38 crew

SpaceNut · 2015-04-07 21:07:44

If these are executed according to the manifest, CRS-6 will be followed by CRS-7 in June and CRS-9 in December, each of which will carry an International Docking Adapter (IDA) to support NASA’s Commercial Crew needs, whilst CRS-8 in September will deliver the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) to the space station.

That cargo consists of 1,100 pounds (500 kg) of crew supplies, including care packages from home, food and provisions, 1,140 pounds (518 kg) of miscellaneous items for the station’s Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) and Electrical Power System (EPS), 1,860 pounds (844 kg) of “Utilization” hardware—including U.S.-sponsored experiments and research payloads from the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and the European Space Agency (ESA)—and about 79 pounds (36 kg) of command and data-handling equipment, TV and photographic gear and EVA tools.

SpaceNut · 2015-04-12 19:29:35

Thanks for thi post

RobertDyck wrote:

Image from Wikipedia, showing space food for ISS. Note the beef pattie and creamed spinach require hot water so come in a plastic bag with fitting for a plastic tube. The tube is laying on the spinach. It's also interesting that most NASA food for ISS is labelled in both English and Russian.
Skylab galley...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2015-03-01 21:10:50

Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#2 2015-03-01 22:29:37

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#3 2015-03-02 09:35:35

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#4 2015-03-02 18:34:58

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#5 2015-03-02 19:08:29

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#6 2015-03-02 19:59:47

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#7 2015-03-02 21:12:51

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#8 2015-03-03 09:42:33

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#9 2015-03-03 20:37:35

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#10 2015-03-03 22:26:27

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#11 2015-03-03 22:55:38

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#12 2015-03-03 23:34:26

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#13 2015-03-04 20:47:41

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#14 2015-03-06 16:03:03

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#15 2015-03-06 22:05:37

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#16 2015-03-07 05:11:13

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#17 2015-03-07 10:48:21

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#18 2015-03-07 20:59:30

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#19 2015-03-08 12:05:44

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#20 2015-03-10 21:00:52

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#21 2015-03-11 05:20:57

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#22 2015-03-11 16:43:54

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#23 2015-03-22 20:22:48

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#24 2015-04-07 21:07:44

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

#25 2015-04-12 19:29:35

Re: Imperical ISS data for Mars Mission

Board footer