ISS Woes & To-Mars

SpaceNut · 2004-10-16 18:51:52

Well it has been a little bumpy this time docking with the ISS but all was ok with the manual docking. It would appear that some sort of deal has been struck in order to keep going to the ISS.

Russia and NASA have agreed to develop a pattern for purchasing Russian Soyuz spaceships and other space equipment for the International Space Station (ISS) by 2006, Alexei Krasnov, head of Roskosmos' manned-mission programs, announced on Saturday.

"The pattern of our cooperation with NASA will incorporate both barter-based and commercial purchase transactions. It is expected to cover the Russian side's ISS-related costs over the 2006-2009 period," he said, answering a RIA Novosti question.

ROSKOSMOS: RUSSIA AND NASA WILL DEVELOP PATTERN FOR PURCHASING RUSSIAN SOYUZ SPACESHIPS AND EQUIPMENT FOR ISS BY 2006

http://en.rian.ru/rian....alert=0

SpaceNut · 2004-10-21 06:38:29

This article does show promise for what the station was intended for all along.

Russia to increase number of space experiments on ISS
http://www2.interfax.ru/eng/news/politi … story.html

SpaceNut · 2004-10-25 08:28:47

While not an ISS issue one that would resolve the construction by providing heavy lift cargo capability is however in the it would be unmanned. This would rely on the ongoing Dart program or at least its end results if not hardware.

Lots of links in the article.

2004 Oct 25 : DART Spacecraft to Launch Oct 26 With First Spacecraft-based Ecliptic RocketCam™ On Board

SpaceNut · 2004-10-26 05:37:24

The project may face a weather delay for launch today but the article goes on to say that they have gone against the warning level in the past.

This time may be different in that they do not want to lose the 95 million projects hardware to error in judgement to launch when it would be safer to do it on another day.

Weather May Scrub Launch of NASA's DART Spacecraft

Alexander Sheppard · 2004-10-29 21:56:59

"Oh but your wrong, the ISS definatly did have a purpose to begin with, which is has fulfilled beyond NASA's expectations, it just isn't the one (science) thats advertised... The little tinker-toy space station(s), which later became ISS, was conjured up as a project to keep Shuttle busy and ISS construction engineers working for as long as possible in such a fasion that the project could not be axed without grevious political expense. In this role, the ISS has been spectacularly sucessful."

For the most part I concur. The idea was to have a stable source of activities and, therefore, profits for the large aerospace corporations which feed off of NASA and, in the larger scheme of things, the Pentagon. These are powerful political interests.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-29 22:20:42

I don't think it has alot to do with commertial interests, much of Lockheed/Boeing's space money still comes from the USAF and alot of NASA's budget stays in house. The real reason is, that government agencies first and primary goal is to exsist indefinatly, and hence without a purpose for NASA's manned spaceflight programs then there would be no more justification to exsist.

So we have Shuttle, which is at least being operated in order to employ as many engineers as possible, and it needs a purpose of building the ISS which keeps alot of engineers in business for years and years.

Simply pulling the plug on the ISS is an even bigger deal then that... without Shuttle getting the ISS to at least more or less finished condition, the station is worthless to the International partners. Not only will they want to be paid back their shares of the project, but the cost of the lost productivity and results too... I don't think NASA could afford their demands.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-01 11:29:37

A use for the ISS after all.

The 5-year IMPRESS Project (acronym for Intermetallic Materials Processing in Relation to Earth and Space Solidification) will bring together the academic and industrial expertise of 42 research groups from 15 countries, across the enlarged European Union and Russia.

Developing New Materials With The Help Of Space Research

John Creighton · 2004-11-01 11:46:21

In terms of industrial application, the team has decided to focus on gas turbine blades for power generation and aero-engines, as well as catalytic devices such as Raney catalysts and hydrogen fuel-cell electrodes.

Just curious how big are gas turbine blades? I know hydro turbine blades are gigantic. Are the materials for these blades supposed to be made on earth or in space. By How much do they expect to improve the performance of the turbine. How much power is produced per turbine blade?

Alexander Sheppard · 2004-11-01 23:01:00

There isn't much question that the large aerospace companies have more ties with the Pentagon than with NASA; but without government subsidy and protection as a whole they would probably collapse outright, and NASA is a part of that, if not the biggest part.

In any case, as far as I know, something like http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=nasa+c … rs+85%]85% of NASA's money passes through contractors and so, it is really more a state corporate bureaucracy rather than a state bureaucracy.

I might note that Zubrin is quite aware of all this, although he doesn't use those terms.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-02 07:00:13

So how much of a percentage does the military give those same contractors for space capable rockets, specially those that Nasa does use?

SpaceNut · 2004-11-03 11:53:47

Speaks for it's self.
NASA ISS Near-term Assembly Sequence Nov 1 2004

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2004/11 … le.lrg.jpg

Also on the side of those in congress that are for space, Space: No Big Changes in Congress
So far the space landscape in Congress has changed little. Of all the key players, only Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX) has lost a reelection bid.

Most major space backers in Congress win reelection

Members of the US Senate and House of Representatives who hold key positions on space-related committees won reelection Tuesday night, with the exception of one Texas Congressman. Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX), the ranking minority member of the space subcommittee of the House Science Committee, lost his reelection bid, in part because of a controversial redistricting of the state's Congressional districts. Other members of the House who lead key committees did win reelection, including House Science Committee chairman Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), ranking minority member Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), and space subcommittee chairman Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA), who is expected by many to take over the space subcommittee, also won reelection. In the Senate several key members won reelection, including Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), chair of the space committee of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), ranking minority member of the VA-HUD-independent agencies subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Republican Party maintained control of both houses of Congress, slightly increasing their margin over the Democrats.
Related Links:
Riverside (CA) Press-Enterprise article about Calvert
http://www.pe.com/localne....51.html
Election coverage from spacepolitics.com
http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/2004_11.html

lego · 2004-11-08 13:29:14

Would it be possible to send the whole iss to mars, if it can be put into a geostationary orbit over earth, why not put it in a geostationary orbit over mars? Surely there is a way to propel it there and back? It could be turned into a "space shuttle carrier" with 4/5 space shuttles docked into it - they could be expendible emergency backup; as some of them are nearly ready for the scrap heap already. Send the shuttles up to dock with the station, automated without any crew, if one of them does not make it, it isn't a big loss financially or a loss of life at all. The ISS is the closest thing to a "space ship" that we have. It's storage facilities are far better than either the soyuz or the space shuttle. And once the mission is finished the astronauts could take one of the space shuttles docked onto the space station to get back to earth. Then it may be able to go back to its old job.

The only newly-made specialised craft(s) which would be required to be built would be the ones used to get the astronauts to mars from the ISS and back to the ISS. ( a moon-rover type buggy would also be useful for exploring the planet itself)

ps:would folding up the solar panels be required to send the ISS going towards mars at about 45000kph, I remember seeing animations of probes supposedly going at 45000kph with their solar panels folded out.

what speed is the ISS currently moving through space while orbiting over the earth and what effect do particles of matter in space have on the outside of the craft?

Sounds like a way to get to mars on the cheap to me.

Is this whole idea "nuts" or could it be classed as "theoretically possible" by rocket scientists/engineers.

Rxke · 2004-11-08 13:42:04

Hi, Lego,

it's nuts! :;):

Sadly it can't be done without rebuilding the shuttles extensively. They're just not built to withstand more than a few weeks in space...

and the ISS would kind of fold together if pushed out of orbit, it's not built to survive that push.

Maybe, maybe attaching cables to release the tension, but again, that would need a major rebuild of the station, there are no attachemet 'hooks,' for starters, cables tend to snap etc etc.

and also, ISS needs constant supplies, it's not built with a closed environmental system, again: would take a lot of tinkering to get it right...

It could be done, if someone really really wanted to, but it would NOT be cheap.
Better to start from scratch...

SpaceNut · 2004-11-08 13:43:53

Not plausible.
Structurally not capable.
Modules not shielded enough for presence outside of earth orbit.
only 3 shuttles remain not 4 or 5
Just not plausible...

But empty cargo modules for shuttle C or other rocket types for completing the ISS. If orbital build is used could be saved for disassembly and reuse for transporting unit to the moon or to mars individually now that might be more plausible. But moving it whole is not.

Rxke · 2004-11-08 13:49:00

Good point, Spacenut: the shielding...

Astronauts would get too much radiation, now ISS orbits in a relatively radiation free orbit, so the ISS hasn't got too much shielding. Costly to retrofit that...

In short it would take an awful amount of launches to get extra hardware up: shielding, strenghthening stuff, petrol errr propellants, extra oxygen/food etc...

no...

SpaceNut · 2004-11-08 13:59:13

But if rockets in general cost less to launch per payload then orbital assembly would make more sense in some ways than the big booster super duper heavy lift giant that we will need to design before we can even start....
Shielding could be the very water that is needed for the astronauts journey.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-09 10:03:20

Thou this is not about the ISS directly it would be a direct factor barring its out come to Nasa and future use of this corporation.

Spacehab Files Tort Claim For Losses on Space Shuttle Mission

SPACEHAB, Incorporated today announced that it has filed a formal claim against NASA under the Federal Tort Claims Act seeking restitution of its losses totaling in excess of $79.7 million resulting from the tragic destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia on February 1, 2003.

Rxke · 2004-11-09 12:43:47

I thought they had done that already?

SpaceNut · 2004-11-09 13:14:42

The article reference a minor pay out of 8 million I think. So one might assume that there is now some sour grapes between the two over its loss. Especially since they will not be needing them anymore, for all remaining flights must go to the ISS only or to at least there orbital plane as I understand it.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-11 20:29:19

Will the AMERICAN CONGRESS allow the scheme of NASA to barter and purchases there ships?

RSA HEAD TO APPEAR IN AMERICAN CONGRESS TO PROMOTE RUSSIAN SPACESHIP SALES

SpaceNut · 2004-11-12 11:39:20

Russia to boost ISS after orbit decays faster than usual

You would have thought that they would have included maybe an Ion drive engine for just that purpose rather than relying on docked progress to do so.

Palomar · 2004-11-13 10:38:16

http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04111212 … tml]Russia to boost ISS after orbit decays faster than usual
You would have thought that they would have included maybe an Ion drive engine for just that purpose rather than relying on docked progress to do so.

*That's a short, nifty article.

Says average decline is 150 meters a day, but due to the recent magnetic storms the decline is 300 meters per day; total of 4.3 mile decline since last boost.

Also, the next supply vessel will deliver necessities and holiday gifts to the crew. :;):

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-13 10:43:52

Ah the Russians... trying to get around the punishment for their assistance in the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Also hanging over our heads that the ISS isn't worth diddly without a larger crew, so we'd have to buy more Soyuz or seats on Klipper until CEV is ready.

John Creighton · 2004-11-13 11:07:01

Russia to boost ISS after orbit decays faster than usual
You would have thought that they would have included maybe an Ion drive engine for just that purpose rather than relying on docked progress to do so.

I wish they had but to move the ISS with an ION drive would require a lot of power. I wonder if in the future it is possible to expand the solar array or add a nuclear unit. I am sure a nuclear unit would be politically palatable given the low orbit of the ISS.

Palomar · 2004-11-13 11:39:42

*Probably most folks posting in this thread know this already, but I was curious for more details about the boosting procedure, etc., and found this via Google search:

Solar flux sunlight and other solar phenomena add to the problem. Re-boosts will keep the Station orbiting between 217 and 285 miles, the altitudes required for the proper operation of everything from labs and living quarters to logistics and launch vehicles.
Control Module Zarya's twin engines provided the First Element propulsion for re-boosts. Then the Russian service module's two main engines assumed this duty. As ISS assembly progressed and logistics spacecraft began making their re-supply runs, Russia's Progress M1 cargo vehicles serve as the primary Station re-boost propulsion systems. Russia has used the single-engine, remotely piloted craft to re-boost a number of orbiting vehicles, Mir among them. ISS re-boost are planned by the Trajectory Operations Officer at Mission Control Center-Houston and will be executed by Mission Control Center-Moscow.
The operation of some station systems and experiments is suspended during re-boost, but it is not expected that power reductions will be necessary. Once the station is maneuvered into a "re-boost attitude," propulsion burns are executed for a fixed amount of time without active guidance. Re-boosts will usually require two propulsion burns.
The ISS will be maneuvered back into its normal attitude at the end of the second burn.

http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/H … 4.cfm]From this web site

*Cool.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-10-16 18:51:52

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#27 2004-10-21 06:38:29

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#28 2004-10-25 08:28:47

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#29 2004-10-26 05:37:24

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#30 2004-10-29 21:56:59

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#31 2004-10-29 22:20:42

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#32 2004-11-01 11:29:37

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#33 2004-11-01 11:46:21

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#34 2004-11-01 23:01:00

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#35 2004-11-02 07:00:13

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#36 2004-11-03 11:53:47

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#37 2004-11-08 13:29:14

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#38 2004-11-08 13:42:04

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#39 2004-11-08 13:43:53

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#40 2004-11-08 13:49:00

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#41 2004-11-08 13:59:13

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#42 2004-11-09 10:03:20

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#43 2004-11-09 12:43:47

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#44 2004-11-09 13:14:42

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#45 2004-11-11 20:29:19

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#46 2004-11-12 11:39:20

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#47 2004-11-13 10:38:16

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#48 2004-11-13 10:43:52

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#49 2004-11-13 11:07:01

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#50 2004-11-13 11:39:42

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer