International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

cIclops · 2008-05-18 07:53:13

Video of ISS fly over - 12 May 2008 - from spaceweather.com

"A new period of visible ISS transits over Europe has begun and will last for nearly three more weeks," says Dirk Ewers of Hofgeismar, Germany. "I took these pictures during the early morning hours of May 12th using a 5-inch refracting telescope."

Gotta see these amazingly clear images from such a small scope!

cIclops · 2008-05-22 02:38:35

Breakdown in life support system - crew forced to evacuate in Soyuz - 21 May 2008

Russian ASU Malfunction: While using the ASU toilet system in the SM, the crew heard a loud noise and the fan stopped working. After some troubleshooting the crew reported that the air/water Separator (MNR-RS) was not working. The crew then replaced the separator with a spare unit but reported afterwards that the ASU lacked suction. The crew next replaced the F-V filter insert, which provided good suction for a while but again exhibited weak suction. TsUP/Moscow instructed the crew to deactivate the ASU and use the toilet facility in the Soyuz spacecraft.

Commodore · 2008-05-22 07:34:54

Breakdown in life support system - crew forced to evacuate in Soyuz - 21 May 2008
Russian ASU Malfunction: While using the ASU toilet system in the SM, the crew heard a loud noise and the fan stopped working. After some troubleshooting the crew reported that the air/water Separator (MNR-RS) was not working. The crew then replaced the separator with a spare unit but reported afterwards that the ASU lacked suction. The crew next replaced the F-V filter insert, which provided good suction for a while but again exhibited weak suction. TsUP/Moscow instructed the crew to deactivate the ASU and use the toilet facility in the Soyuz spacecraft.

Oh crap.

noosfractal · 2008-05-22 21:34:03

The Soyuz TMA-11 ballistic re-entry was caused by the failure of the equipment bay to detach ...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4901625

cIclops · 2008-05-24 08:21:04

Imaged from Endeavour during separation 24 Mar 2008

High rez

Just a cool image.

SpaceNut · 2012-01-03 22:23:46

Lots missing from this thread

Five Russian Progress flights to the station are also planned in 2012 – Progress M-14M on 25th January, M-15M on 25th April, M-16M on 25th July, M-17M on 23rd October, and M-18M on 26th December. Deliveries of cargo from Europe’s ATV and Japan’s HTV.
This year will also mark the first of two long-awaited commercial cargo vehicles visit the station – SpaceX’s Dragon, and Orbital’s Cygnus.

JoshNH4H · 2012-01-05 17:08:16

Spacenut, has there been any news yet as to when the proposed launch date for the Falcon 9 COTS flight is? Has it been scheduled, or any approximate launch goals given?

Grypd · 2012-01-05 17:32:04

February the 7th apparently is the planned date. And they plan to be able to make the qualifications for both the COTS2 and 3 in one launch.

Good luck to them.

JoshNH4H · 2012-01-05 17:42:55

That is quite exciting. That is a launch I plan to watch.

louis · 2012-01-05 18:18:37

JoshNH4H wrote:

That is quite exciting. That is a launch I plan to watch.

Yes, that is definitely one to watch. Anything which means 100s of millions of dollars for Space X means we are several steps closer to humans on Mars.

SpaceNut · 2012-01-18 20:33:37

SpaceX had previously planned to launch a Dragon spacecraft on its Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on February 7. The company announced Monday, though, that there are "a few areas that will benefit from additional work" in order to ensure a safe and successful mission, and that it was working with NASA to determine a new launch date.

louis · 2012-01-18 20:36:22

SpaceNut wrote:

SpaceX had previously planned to launch a Dragon spacecraft on its Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on February 7. The company announced Monday, though, that there are "a few areas that will benefit from additional work" in order to ensure a safe and successful mission, and that it was working with NASA to determine a new launch date.

Better that than a belly-flop I guess.

JonClarke · 2012-01-20 19:02:04

louis wrote:

we are several steps closer to humans on Mars

This is all very good for SpaceX but how is this more significant that the first HTV, ATV or, for that matter, Shenzhou 8 and Tiangong?

Last edited by JonClarke (2012-01-20 19:02:58)

JonClarke · 2012-01-20 19:49:24

Went to a fantastic talk last night by the forner Korean astronaut Soyeon Yi. She is a great speaker talking about her own joruney into space, the reaction of her colleagues and family to her selection, what it was like to be the only asian and one of the few women undergoing spaceflight trainong and, of course her actual flight to the ISS. Well worth hearing her if you get the chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_So-Yeon

louis · 2012-01-20 22:08:50

JonClarke wrote:

louis wrote:
we are several steps closer to humans on Mars
This is all very good for SpaceX but how is this more significant that the first HTV, ATV or, for that matter, Shenzhou 8 and Tiangong?

The significance of Space X is (a) that their founder and prime mover is dedicated to the objective of getting humans to Mars to settle the planet as quickly as possible and (b) they are cutting the price per kg to escape our gravity well substantially. So for me that's how Space X developments are more relevant to Mars colonisaiton that other earlier rocket developments.

JonClarke · 2012-01-21 06:42:46

louis wrote:

The significance of Space X is (a) that their founder and prime mover is dedicated to the objective of getting humans to Mars to settle the planet as quickly as possible and (b) they are cutting the price per kg to escape our gravity well substantially. So for me that's how Space X developments are more relevant to Mars colonisaiton that other earlier rocket developments.

Pretty much every space agency as a goal of getting people to Mars and to reduce the cost of egtting to space.

Musk may well want to do this "quickly" but SpaceX are still years behind schedule simply to get Dragon operational as a basic cargo carrier. Their rockets have a very spotty reliability record,and there are not been a vast rush of commerical contracts. Nearly all their income is from the US government.

Don't get me wrong, they have done well for themselves, but we are kidding ourselves if we think this is a massive step forward on the road to Mars. It's not.

Rune · 2012-01-21 08:21:02

JonClarke wrote:

louis wrote:
The significance of Space X is (a) that their founder and prime mover is dedicated to the objective of getting humans to Mars to settle the planet as quickly as possible and (b) they are cutting the price per kg to escape our gravity well substantially. So for me that's how Space X developments are more relevant to Mars colonisaiton that other earlier rocket developments.
Pretty much every space agency as a goal of getting people to Mars and to reduce the cost of egtting to space.
Musk may well want to do this "quickly" but SpaceX are still years behind schedule simply to get Dragon operational as a basic cargo carrier. Their rockets have a very spotty reliability record,and there are not been a vast rush of commerical contracts. Nearly all their income is from the US government.
Don't get me wrong, they have done well for themselves, but we are kidding ourselves if we think this is a massive step forward on the road to Mars. It's not.

I actually agree totally with the spirit of what you are saying, but there is a point of it on which I believe you are wrong, specifically the part about "there are not been a vast rush of commerical contracts". If you look at their current published manifest, they have 14 flights booked for 2015, 13 of them Falcon 9's, and only 5 of those are for NASA. That seems significant contracted business for me. Like, more tonnage than China is lifting this year, for example, and comparable to the rest of the US launch industry, combined.

Rune. They are doing extremely well on sales, I'd say.

Terraformer · 2012-01-21 09:36:10

Well, I think Dragon certainly is a step towards space colonisation, since it will lower the cost of getting people to orbit, which will help in building the Lunar infrastructure. If they can get launch costs down to $2000/kg, that's certainly going to help.

louis · 2012-01-21 09:56:58

JonClarke wrote:

louis wrote:
The significance of Space X is (a) that their founder and prime mover is dedicated to the objective of getting humans to Mars to settle the planet as quickly as possible and (b) they are cutting the price per kg to escape our gravity well substantially. So for me that's how Space X developments are more relevant to Mars colonisaiton that other earlier rocket developments.
Pretty much every space agency as a goal of getting people to Mars and to reduce the cost of egtting to space.
Musk may well want to do this "quickly" but SpaceX are still years behind schedule simply to get Dragon operational as a basic cargo carrier. Their rockets have a very spotty reliability record,and there are not been a vast rush of commerical contracts. Nearly all their income is from the US government.
Don't get me wrong, they have done well for themselves, but we are kidding ourselves if we think this is a massive step forward on the road to Mars. It's not.

This is like saying a child who can't read at three will never read. Space X's development from a standing start as a non-state organisation was nothing short of phenomenal. Once they have the capability of (medium to) heavy lifting, orbital assembly and a manned capsule, there will be nothing holding them back.

The difference between Musk's dedication (I used the word advisedly) to reaching Mars and the formal, distant objective of a national Space Agency (with many competing short term, medium and long term goals) couldn't be wider.

Musk for me embodies the idea of something I have always called for: a separate Mars and Lunar Settlement Agency. He's kind of doing it by himself.

I think you will be amazed at the speed with which Musk advances towards Mars as the commercial money starts flowing in and as the company's capability increases. It will be eventually a case of NASA coming along for the ride.

JonClarke · 2012-01-22 05:05:13

louis wrote:

This is like saying a child who can't read at three will never read. Space X's development from a standing start as a non-state organisation was nothing short of phenomenal. Once they have the capability of (medium to) heavy lifting, orbital assembly and a manned capsule, there will be nothing holding them back.

A standing start covering very well covered ground, using technology that is mostly 50 years old.

Heavy lift? Orbitl assembly? Manned capsule? Counting your chickens before they have hatch (again). He has no money for heavy lift. He has no money for a manned capsule. He has no money for orbital assembly, or even anything to assemble. He might have one day, but only if someone else, almost certainly NASA or the military or intelligence agencies, pay him.

They have had only seven launches so far and three of those have failed. They have only had two flights of their medium launcher, their uncrewed capsule has not finished its test program. This is very early days for them.

The difference between Musk's dedication (I used the word advisedly) to reaching Mars and the formal, distant objective of a national Space Agency (with many competing short term, medium and long term goals) couldn't be wider.

He can be as dedicated as he likes but less those national agencies pay him he is not going anywhere. He is ju stanother contractor.

Musk for me embodies the idea of something I have always called for: a separate Mars and Lunar Settlement Agency. He's kind of doing it by himself.

Th reality falls far short of this.

I think you will be amazed at the speed with which Musk advances towards Mars as the commercial money starts flowing in and as the company's capability increases. It will be eventually a case of NASA coming along for the ride.

I have been amazed at how quickly he has fallen behind schedule.

NASA won't "be along for the ride" on any Mars mission with SpaceX, it will specify the mission, provide the payload, and pay the bills. SpaceX is just a trucking company. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

However we are way off topic for this thread. Start your own if you want to indulge in wishful thinking regarding SpaceX. I won't discuss this further here with you.

Last edited by JonClarke (2012-01-22 05:38:58)

JonClarke · 2012-01-22 05:38:12

Rune wrote:

I actually agree totally with the spirit of what you are saying, but there is a point of it on which I believe you are wrong, specifically the part about "there are not been a vast rush of commerical contracts". If you look at their current published manifest, they have 14 flights booked for 2015, 13 of them Falcon 9's, and only 5 of those are for NASA. That seems significant contracted business for me. Like, more tonnage than China is lifting this year, for example, and comparable to the rest of the US launch industry, combined.

Rune. They are doing extremely well on sales, I'd say.

I have checked their launch mainfest, and you are right abou the number of flights they list. I find it hard to believe though. More than thirty flights in the next 5 years? From an organisation that has flown only seven times in the past six years (three of them failures)? Forteen flights in a year compared the record with less than one a year is an increase of moe than 1400% in two years time?

I wonder how many of them are firm orders (like the COTS flights) and how many are options?

Note too that the table is already obsolete - COTS 2/3 did not fly in 2012, Bigelow has liad off half its staff and may well be in no position to fly anything.

It would not be the first time that SpaceX has been creative with the truth! And it probably won't be the last....

IMHO they will be doing well to meet COTS.

But as I said, this is my last statement on this subject in this thread with you, which isn't really about SpaceX.

JonClarke · 2012-01-22 05:46:37

Terraformer wrote:

Well, I think Dragon certainly is a step towards space colonisation, since it will lower the cost of getting people to orbit, which will help in building the Lunar infrastructure. If they can get launch costs down to $2000/kg, that's certainly going to help.

It's not yet proven that Dragon will reduce the cost of getting people into space, especially as the manned version has not even flown.

The most that can be said is that it increases the diversity of ways of hauling cargo to the ISS. Which is quite enough of a step forward at this stage.

louis · 2012-01-22 05:49:31

Jon,

I would agree that if NASA are sensible they could be in formal charge of the Space X mission to Mars. But I think the bulk of the technology and money will be provided by Space X. Space X do ideally need NASA with all its coms and ground control capability, its launch facilities, and its strength in depth in terms of expertise across a range of space related activities. Not to have them on board would make the mission a lot more expensive.

SpaceNut · 2012-01-22 12:18:51

If we could get the Admin's to copy the posts starting with 181 through to this one into the Space X thread of discusion that would be great to getting the ISS topic back on track...

International Space Station Alpha will be 360 feet long and weigh 460 tons give or take with lots of science in process....

Flying just outside the atmosphere in low Earth orbit, the space station coasts along only 242 miles (or 390 km) above the ground.

Manned for over 11 years but we hear so little about it or what we are doing for science in the main media news...

http://www.spacetoday.org/SpaceStations.html

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

SpaceNut · 2012-05-05 13:49:09

The ISS schedule slips Dragon launch to May 19 – future manifest outlook of SpaceX’s first Dragon spacecraft to visit the International Space Station (ISS) has been set.

Sited reason for delay

“SpaceX and NASA are nearing completion of the software assurance process, and SpaceX is submitting a request to the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station for a May 19th launch target with a backup on May 22nd,” noted the SpaceX release relating to the latest slip. ”Thus far, no issues have been uncovered during this process, but with a mission of this complexity we want to be extremely diligent.” While it is understood that SpaceX, who were previously targeting May 7 for Dragon’s launch, would have preferred to launch on May 10 rather than the May 19, that date presented a problem for NASA mission planners due to its close proximity to the Soyuz TMA-04M launch, free-flight and docking.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2008-05-18 07:53:13

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#177 2008-05-22 02:38:35

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#178 2008-05-22 07:34:54

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#179 2008-05-22 21:34:03

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#180 2008-05-24 08:21:04

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#181 2012-01-03 22:23:46

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#182 2012-01-05 17:08:16

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#183 2012-01-05 17:32:04

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#184 2012-01-05 17:42:55

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#185 2012-01-05 18:18:37

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#186 2012-01-18 20:33:37

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#187 2012-01-18 20:36:22

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#188 2012-01-20 19:02:04

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#189 2012-01-20 19:49:24

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#190 2012-01-20 22:08:50

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#191 2012-01-21 06:42:46

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#192 2012-01-21 08:21:02

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#193 2012-01-21 09:36:10

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#194 2012-01-21 09:56:58

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#195 2012-01-22 05:05:13

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#196 2012-01-22 05:38:12

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#197 2012-01-22 05:46:37

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#198 2012-01-22 05:49:31

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#199 2012-01-22 12:18:51

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#200 2012-05-05 13:49:09

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

Board footer