More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

SpaceNut · 2004-08-05 10:44:43

I Know that was under the assumption that no shuttle flights in 2003 for the most part and in 2004 with none until 2005 mid year should show an account surplus under shuttle refurbishment between flights category. At about a billion per flight with perhaps 8 missed flights.
Net balance Nasa Shuttle accounts of approximate 7 billion at least after upgrades to two shuttles.

So we will have a great big pile of SRBs and External tanks with no where to go if the shuttle is grounded forever. Due to contracts rather than purchase as you go from the given manufacturer. Everything should have stopped and only the necessary design rework for the external tank foam shedding should have been active.

As for closing and laying off those that work on External tanks and SRBs. When production levels drop it is normal practice to reduce the levels of full time staff.

Which recently means in the electronic manufacturing field is to fire all the temps or shared leased agency employees followed by permanent staff. Also contracts are usually curtailed or severely lowered and or cancelled even if a fine is levied.

There is usually only a temporary loss of skills or talent and temps are usually screened for the job search for the required skills needed.

The CAIB certification if used beyond 2010 was not spelled out for the set of requirements that would indicate a pass. With all the work that has been done one could claim each time it is re certified to fly.

BWhite · 2004-08-05 10:48:14

Why would Russia start work on their FGB-2? They say its for an additional ISS module. What purpose would that serve?
I might imagine that they could sell it. China comes to mind... Bigelow comes to mind...
They could attach it to ISS and use it as a "commerical" add on for paying tourists- NASA can't complain since it would ostenibly be Russian territory.
Ditching ISS as is means the ESA, Canada and Japan lose a lot of investment, time, and general cooperation in space.

Unlaunched international modules modules can be attached to the new no-NASA ISS.

The game is how much can Moscow demand from Washington for ISS support. And we do not have ALL the cards.

clark · 2004-08-05 10:54:53

Unlaunched international modules still need to be launched by the Shuttle. Pretty big friggin hand if you ask me.

wgc · 2004-08-05 10:58:22

Unlaunched international modules still need to be launched by the Shuttle. Pretty big friggin hand if you ask me.

There are a lot of people who knows what need to be done, and a lot of people who understand the importance of it.

Unfortuantley very few of them are in the commities in congress that make the decisions....

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-05 11:01:47

The remaining ISS lab modules are too heavy to launch on anything but Shuttle or SDV, since they have no guidence at all... Plus, they're all designed to fit American node hatches and use American electric voltages and American coolant lines etc.

BWhite · 2004-08-05 11:10:31

Unlaunched international modules still need to be launched by the Shuttle. Pretty big friggin hand if you ask me.

Why? All they need is a payload stabilization module to attach to the existing ISS module.

Go to a low inclination orbit and Ariane is plenty big enough to launch an ISS module PLUS another stage for stabilization.

New hardware? Yup, but not a big deal.

BWhite · 2004-08-05 11:12:14

The remaining ISS lab modules are too heavy to launch on anything but Shuttle or SDV, since they have no guidence at all... Plus, they're all designed to fit American node hatches and use American electric voltages and American coolant lines etc.

If this is true, the ESA will be especially angry if Russian - US diplomacy breaks down.

clark · 2004-08-05 11:14:21

Low inclination precludes Russian Soyuz launches, which means Russian space program can't launch tourists and can't stay afloat. They would be slitting their own throat for what?

Who is going to build the stabilization module? ESA? Where will they get the money for that given all their other priorities?

Russia isn't going to cough it up. Plus, Arianne may be capable of launching the modules (technically) but that dosen't change the fact that those modules were designed for Shuttle launch.

Edit- Which is why this is nothing new. Russia cris for more money, ESA pays, and NASA works a deal with ESA. Everyone is happy, more or less.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-05 11:15:59

Why? All they need is a payload stabilization module to attach to the existing ISS module.

Ahhh but stabilization module + payload faring cradle + new docking allignment hardware + ISS module will be pretty heavy... and I think too heavy for Ariane or Proton.

And you must launch the stabilizer with the module, or its too risky to dock with it.

BWhite · 2004-08-05 11:17:48

Low inclination precludes Russian Soyuz launches, which means Russian space program can't launch tourists and can't stay afloat. They would be slitting their own throat for what?
Who is going to build the stabilization module? ESA? Where will they get the money for that given all their other priorities?
Russia isn't going to cough it up. Plus, Arianne may be capable of launching the modules (technically) but that dosen't change the fact that those modules were designed for Shuttle launch.

Kouru.

France supplies the pad and Russia supplies the R-7s either for Soyuz or Clipper. The Ukranians have no problem partnering up with Boeing to launch Zenit at the equator.

= = =

The first choice for Russia and the ESA is to finish ISS. But if we Americans are too petulant about it, they do have other options.

clark · 2004-08-05 11:20:24

Look, this is all just talk:

from the original article that started this:

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/08/04/ … /iss.shtml

Russia will resume construction of a new section of the International Space Station (ISS) and will cease being a free “space carrier” for NASA, Aleksandr Aleksandrov, head of the test-flight service of Russia’s Rocket and Space Corporation (RKK) Energiya told ITAR-TASS.

This isn't RSA. This isn't Putin. This is a company guy in one department of RKK. He dosen't make policy.

Energiya mulls the plans of building a new module on the basis of FGB-2, which could be used not only for storing cargos and equipment but also as a place where the crew could work and rest, Aleksandrov noted.

Work and rest? They already have enough room for that for two people. This is for tourists.

FGB-2 was developed as a standby module for the Zarya bloc, the first Russian-built component of the ISS. Aleksandrov would not elaborate on the possible timing of the launch of the module, saying only that “everything will depend on financing”.

Everything depends on getting someone else to pay for the development, and deployment of this new module. They don't have the money for it.

BWhite · 2004-08-05 11:21:35

Why? All they need is a payload stabilization module to attach to the existing ISS module.
Ahhh but stabilization module + payload faring cradle + new docking allignment hardware + ISS module will be pretty heavy... and I think too heavy for Ariane or Proton.
And you must launch the stabilizer with the module, or its too risky to dock with it.

Again, if true, even more reason the ESA will be angry if they do not believe the Americans are being reasonable with the Russians.

And if we Americans will not support ISS long term (in spirit as well as letter) those ESA modules are pretty much worthless already.

BWhite · 2004-08-05 11:23:24

Look, this is all just talk:
from the original article that started this:
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/08/04/ … /iss.shtml
Russia will resume construction of a new section of the International Space Station (ISS) and will cease being a free “space carrier” for NASA, Aleksandr Aleksandrov, head of the test-flight service of Russia’s Rocket and Space Corporation (RKK) Energiya told ITAR-TASS.
This isn't RSA. This isn't Putin. This is a company guy in one department of RKK. He dosen't make policy.
Energiya mulls the plans of building a new module on the basis of FGB-2, which could be used not only for storing cargos and equipment but also as a place where the crew could work and rest, Aleksandrov noted.
Work and rest? They already have enough room for that for two people. This is for tourists.
FGB-2 was developed as a standby module for the Zarya bloc, the first Russian-built component of the ISS. Aleksandrov would not elaborate on the possible timing of the launch of the module, saying only that “everything will depend on financing”.
Everything depends on getting someone else to pay for the development, and deployment of this new module. They don't have the money for it.

Yup. Its all about money, and Iran. Throw them some dollars and the controversy goes away.

Only to come back when its time to retire orbiter for good.

wgc · 2004-08-05 11:25:06

The remaining ISS lab modules are too heavy to launch on anything but Shuttle or SDV, since they have no guidence at all... Plus, they're all designed to fit American node hatches and use American electric voltages and American coolant lines etc.

I'm no oracle, but I think the russians are just looking for a revenue stream.

there betting that the US taxpayers are not going to let the ISS turn into another Skylab.

And hedging

That it will be 2006 before the shuttles fly and that congress (with help from president elect Kerry) will succeed in pushing the cev development off indefinately.

When exacly did this country stop will to take risks, and also stopped looking at technological adancement as a national priority. Was it with Clinton , or before?

Palomar · 2004-08-05 11:26:09

The first choice for Russia and the ESA is to finish ISS. But if we Americans are too petulant about it, they do have other options.

*Why -not- offer ISS up to the highest bidder? Are we being petulant about it?

If this is true, the ESA will be especially angry if Russian - US diplomacy breaks down.

*You mean ESA will be angry at America (we can do no right nowadays, apparently).

ISS: A big "white elephant" going round and round in circles while the nations which co-own it squabble like Kindergarteners.

Again, there's got to be a better outlet for this time, energy and $ (otherwise going down the drain). It's a joke which we never should have involved ourselves in. So admit a mistake and offer to sell.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-08-05 11:31:28

The first choice for Russia and the ESA is to finish ISS. But if we Americans are too petulant about it, they do have other options.
*Why -not- offer ISS up to the highest bidder? Are we being petulant about it?

Are we being petulant?

Depends on why we are finishing ISS and how much gratitude we expect for doing it.

My biggest point is that to remain a grudging ISS partner is worse than "cutting bait" right now.

If ISS needs shuttle as much as GCNRevenger says, then to finish it and then promptly retire orbiter will create more bad blood with the ESA & Japan (IMHO) than just stopping now and making amends.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-05 11:40:34

ISS: A big "white elephant" going round and round in circles while the nations which co-own it squabble like Kindergarteners.
Again, there's got to be a better outlet for this time, energy and $ (otherwise going down the drain). It's a joke which we never should have involved ourselves in. So admit a mistake and offer to sell.
--Cindy

Amen Sister Cindy...

Without building a brand new cargo vehicle and making modifications to the ISS, even when it is Core Complete in 2010 and Russia launches FGB-II as a HAB module, then the ISS still can't accomplish much science without Shuttle hauling the big iron pieces. Progress-B, ESA ATV, and the JSA's cargo vehicle are all too small to deliver science racks, solar cell batteries, gyroscopes, or other bulky/heavy items or get science materials back down for soft landing.

So yeah, ditching Shuttle in 2010 is going to make everybody unhappy, but its either that or we keep going in circles around our blue marble forever until the Orbiters all blow up. We've got a contract/treaty/whatever to get the ISS to Core Complete, there isn't much of a way out of that, but beyond that pull the plug and sell.

Morris · 2004-08-05 12:03:05

We've got a contract/treaty/whatever to get the ISS to Core Complete, there isn't much of a way out of that, but beyond that pull the plug and sell.

I don't get it. Even people who have contracts have the option to re-negotiate if all parties agree. And why not if the ISS is going to be unproductive.

All <grin> we have to assure is the the space industries of the various countries will get their cut.

clark · 2004-08-05 12:05:12

We are doing a bit more than core complete- we will be done with core complete in less than 8 launches. We are planning in the neighborhood of 30.

Telling our partners that we will stop flying the Shuttle after 2010 allows everyone time to figure out an alternative to Shuttle.

So we can't bring back science racks. Develop another solution. We all have time to develop the means to deliver the bulkier items (which might be solved via CEV cargo module design). The sky is not falling.

Once the ISS is built, we can either keep two Soyuz up there- one from ESA, one from Russia, and perhaps even a CEV as an alternate. That allows a population greater than 2. We can use ATV for reboost and future modules will help maintain ISS orbit independantly- reducing the need for the SHuttle.

If ISS needs shuttle as much as GCNRevenger says, then to finish it and then promptly retire orbiter will create more bad blood with the ESA & Japan (IMHO) than just stopping now and making amends.

ISS needs the Shuttle to finish it, which is why we are going through the trouble of RTF. We are honoring our commitment (just like the bellicose Russians). We have no commitment and no real need to fly the SHuttle after ISS completion. We are signiling our intents well in advance, so I fail to see how our partners will get upset by us doing exactly what we said we were going to do.

RobertDyck · 2004-08-05 12:49:21

ISS still can't accomplish much science without Shuttle ... Progress-B, ESA ATV, and the JSA's cargo vehicle are all too small to deliver science racks, solar cell batteries, gyroscopes, or other bulky/heavy items or get science materials back down for soft landing.

Science racks were designed to hold science drawers. Multiple science experiments can be conducted simply by replacing experiments in standard drawers. You only need to replace a rack if the format of a drawer is changed. Progress and ATV can carry drawers, meaning they can service standard science missions. A seat in Soyuz can be replaced with a frame to hold a couple drawers for soft landing. I don't know how soft the DumpBox would land.

But this is getting off thread.

BWhite · 2004-08-05 13:12:11

ISS still can't accomplish much science without Shuttle ... Progress-B, ESA ATV, and the JSA's cargo vehicle are all too small to deliver science racks, solar cell batteries, gyroscopes, or other bulky/heavy items or get science materials back down for soft landing.
Science racks were designed to hold science drawers. Multiple science experiments can be conducted simply by replacing experiments in standard drawers. You only need to replace a rack if the format of a drawer is changed. Progress and ATV can carry drawers, meaning they can service standard science missions. A seat in Soyuz can be replaced with a frame to hold a couple drawers for soft landing. I don't know how soft the DumpBox would land.
But this is getting off thread.

I do not know which would be worse for US interests:

- - an ISS that is useless after the orbiter is retired, which will annoy our allies who committed to help build a station and then we pulled the plug;

or

- - an ISS that the RSA & ESA & Japan & Canada use in a manner they deem valuable after we withdraw from participation.

I am not talking engineering, I am talking politics.

clark · 2004-08-05 13:18:16

What are you worried about? We're going to the Moon!

We don't need the ISS, let them do whatever they want. Let Bigelow build private space stations, and NASA just rents.

ISS is not useless after Shuttle retirement.

BWhite · 2004-08-05 13:47:31

What are you worried about? We're going to the Moon!

Maybe. Thats why I am worried.

With the recent additional over-runs "on return to flight costs" and the potential for ESA & RSA whining in the future after RTF succeeds, the idea that we will finish ISS now and some future leader will bear the brunt of telling the ESA & RSA "NO" doesn't seem like a sure thing.

On ISS/STS all GWB is saying is that the next Preisdent will be tough. Promise.

Given the pork that STS generates and given that the orbiter is being re-built from the ground up as we speak and given that it will soon be deemed safe to back away from some of the CAIB recommendations, maybe in 2010 we are told that re-certification is NOT the big deal with thought it was.

And off in Crawford GWB says "Aint my headache."

clark · 2004-08-05 13:54:24

With the recent additional over-runs "on return to flight costs" and the potential for ESA & RSA whining in the future after RTF succeeds, the idea that we will finish ISS now and some future leader will bear the brunt of telling the ESA & RSA "NO" doesn't seem like a sure thing.

:laugh: Come on Bill, our partners are grumbiling because of their dependance upon the Shuttle- just like we grumble about the 51 degree orbit of ISS because of Russia. Why would they complain about removing the dependance? I think you are worrying about the wrong things.

Given the pork that STS generates and given that the orbiter is being re-built from the ground up as we speak and given that it will soon be deemed safe to back away from some of the CAIB recommendations, maybe in 2010 we are told that re-certification is NOT the big deal with thought it was.

Even in 2010 we have only 3 shuttles. For what? To ferry people back and forth to ISS? CEV will be developed for that. That means we don't need Shuttle, and the pork it did create will go to Bo-Lock Aerospace anyway in the form of CEV contracts and EELV launches.

They are increasing the flight rates, and trying to get around the CAIB requirements preceisely because they want to retire the Shuttle as soon as possible, and not have to go through recertification. If they want to keep her flying, then they would drag their feet to force recertification to complete the ISS. They are not doing that, so I fail to see the connection here.

Morris · 2004-08-05 18:53:45

With the recent additional over-runs "on return to flight costs" and the potential for ESA & RSA whining in the future after RTF succeeds, the idea that we will finish ISS now and some future leader will bear the brunt of telling the ESA & RSA "NO" doesn't seem like a sure thing.

What do they want that we would tell them "NO" to? I thought that the details of the mods in the overall plan had just been worked out at a meeting in Europe (Holland?).

What is the design life of the ISS and what is the modified date for completion of the proposed research? Won't the CEV be designed to be able to service the ISS after the shuttles are retired?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-08-05 10:44:43

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#27 2004-08-05 10:48:14

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#28 2004-08-05 10:54:53

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#29 2004-08-05 10:58:22

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#30 2004-08-05 11:01:47

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#31 2004-08-05 11:10:31

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#32 2004-08-05 11:12:14

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#33 2004-08-05 11:14:21

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#34 2004-08-05 11:15:59

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#35 2004-08-05 11:17:48

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#36 2004-08-05 11:20:24

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#37 2004-08-05 11:21:35

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#38 2004-08-05 11:23:24

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#39 2004-08-05 11:25:06

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#40 2004-08-05 11:26:09

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#41 2004-08-05 11:31:28

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#42 2004-08-05 11:40:34

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#43 2004-08-05 12:03:05

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#44 2004-08-05 12:05:12

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#45 2004-08-05 12:49:21

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#46 2004-08-05 13:12:11

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#47 2004-08-05 13:18:16

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#48 2004-08-05 13:47:31

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#49 2004-08-05 13:54:24

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#50 2004-08-05 18:53:45

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

Board footer