More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

SpaceNut · 2004-09-21 09:52:54

NASA has stressed that the problems do not pose a threat to the astronauts' safety. The space station is equipped with various backup systems for keeping the cabin filled with oxygen, including oxygen tanks attached to the space station, tanks stored in the unmanned Progress supply vehicle that is docked to the station and chemical flares called "candles" that release oxygen when ignited.

The backups could last 90 to 140 days as indicated by both articles. The crew scheduled to return to Earth aboard a Russian Soyuz capsule by the end of October it is unknow if this continues if another will be sent up.

040329_spacestation_bcol10a.standard.jpg

Space station goes to Plan B for oxygen
Crew not in imminent danger, but safety margin narrows

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6031881/

Space O2 Generator Fails Again
http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697, … _tophead_4

Palomar · 2004-09-21 11:02:57

NASA has stressed that the problems do not pose a threat to the astronauts' safety. Space station goes to Plan B for oxygen
Crew not in imminent danger, but safety margin narrows
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6031881/]ht … d/6031881/
Space O2 Generator Fails Again
http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697, … _tophead_4

*Without wanting to sound glib (because human lives are at stake)...it just seems like an endless soap opera with that damned ISS. ::shakes head::

How does THIS impact how the general public views space exploration? That thing is being kept together by a thread and a wire. :-\ I can hear it now: "The ISS is a lemon about to fall apart any moment, and they want us to send people to Mars?!"

:bars:

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-09-21 11:21:49

Yup, you are right in that if this were the Mars vehicle concepts at work, the crew would always be on the leading edge of danger as it journeyed to Mars.

Now just add some music, a few cameras for all the action and we have a money maker in suspense films or reality tv.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-05 08:07:14

Looks like we are finally serious to resolve the oxygen making equipment problems.

A local company is getting thousands of dollars from NASA and the U.S. Air Force to develop better portable ways of cleaning and recycling water aboard space vehicles and aircraft.

NASA Supports Company's Space-Age Recycling Research
http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/wnne … etail.html

SpaceNut · 2004-12-15 11:42:07

Russia says USA not pulling its weight on International Space Station project

We proposed making the new Russian Kliper spacecraft and the American manned research spacecraft completely compatible and interchangeable at all fundamental stages of space flight

I am surprised with this one statement on wanting interchangability of parts. I wonder just which ones or if it means all. It would help to lower all space costs but would that require each nation having a counter part factory for manufacturing of these in each others nation to build like items.

More Jobs?

John Creighton · 2004-12-15 11:50:39

Ideally the Americans will work with the Russians to make sound choices with regards to standardization. Standardization usually significantly help reduce cost and it makes it easier for smaller companies to participate. However competition between countries and the desire for large aerospace companies to maintain there market dominance could thwart such an effort. It will be an interesting watch.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-15 12:33:13

*cough* What Russia actually means is that they should be allowed to compete for CEV contracts, much like France wants to compete for USAF tanker planes... and undercut American companies with cheap labor and/or gov't subsidy.

Which will never happen, since all that money going out of America to Russia would be inexcuseable since spaceflight is a nationalistic concern... nor would America permit having Russian veto power over American rockets.

This talk of the US not pulling its weight with the ISS is a pathetic slap in the face... who exactly poured $70-80Bn and will spend another few billions more into the program? What? Russia didn't pay but a tiny fraction you say? What a joke the Russians are...

John Creighton · 2004-12-15 12:53:17

*cough* What Russia actually means is that they should be allowed to compete for CEV contracts, much like France wants to compete for USAF tanker planes... and undercut American companies with cheap labor and/or gov't subsidy.
Which will never happen, since all that money going out of America to Russia would be inexcuseable since spaceflight is a nationalistic concern... nor would America permit having Russian veto power over American rockets.

This kind of reminds me of the notion of an American car. Parts to cars are made all over the world and most cars are a multinational product yet we think of some cars as American and some cars as foreign. Clearly the US wants to maximize the local benefit for the dollars it invests in aerospace and there is nothing wrong with that. However such protectionism leads to a more expensive inferior product. It also inhibits the ability of smaller companies to find a neice in the aerospace market helping to preserve the monopolies of the large aerospace giants. Standardization works both ways. It makes it easier for foreign companies to sell parts to the US and it makes it easier for US companies to sell parts to foreign companies. If this is about protectionism call it what it is and put terrifies on parts produced by foreign companies.

I also reject the notion that it will give Russia a veto power over American rockets. On the contrary it will increase the number of contractors that can build the necessary parts making it easier for America to make the necessary purchases if America faces a local shortage. For instance the shuttle disaster.

This talk of the US not pulling its weight with the ISS is a pathetic slap in the face... who exactly poured $70-80Bn and will spend another few billions more into the program? What? Russia didn't pay but a tiny fraction you say? What a joke the Russians are...

I think I will save this debate for another time whether I agree or disagree.

BWhite · 2004-12-15 13:25:13

I believe the article is seeking funding to use Kliper as an ISS transport. And unless we withdraw from ISS participation soon, we may need to do something to allow a better job of crew transfer than Soyuz, especially since CEV is not scheduled to be man-rated until 2014.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-15 14:48:17

A few things John,

Protectionism does reduce the total global wealth, but not nessesarrily national wealth. If the aim is to maximize national wealth then it is a nessarry measure. Especially in cases where foreign governments conspire against American companies (see EADS vs Boeing tanker deal).

The regular ideas reguarding protectionism don't always apply to the government, since the aim of government is not to make money. If the government places value in keeping its money in America, where it can generate taxes for America, and stimulate the American economy rather then the Russian one, then Congress will gladly pay the higher price to "buy American."

Standardization does not work both ways if one company can offer a useable product at a small fraction of the cost. If Russia were permitted to pit Zenit-II versus Atlas-V, or Angara versus Delta-IV, and Congress demanded that NASA save money... what do you think would happen? The American launchers would be, as the USAF puts it, "down selected." Government procurement regulations are choc full of policies that require it to use the lowest cost provider. If the Government wouldn't eliminate the US rockets, then the rocket builders would eliminate themselves since there would be unable to compete.

The Russian space agency is sneaky like that... and since they would be making our rockets, then they could say if they want them to fly or not.

Nor would competition make it easier for smaller companies to enter the market, due to the extreme barrier of entry.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-16 05:39:29

Protectionism does reduce the total global wealth, but not nessesarrily national wealth. If the aim is to maximize national wealth then it is a nessarry measure. Especially in cases where foreign governments conspire against American companies (see EADS vs Boeing tanker deal).

The sad part of this is that we may have already seen just this type of action with in the Electronics manufacturing industry.

Standardization does not work both ways if one company can offer a useable product at a small fraction of the cost. If Russia were permitted to pit Zenit-II versus Atlas-V, or Angara versus Delta-IV, and Congress demanded that NASA save money... what do you think would happen?

Very good question definitely would force the pork barreling to stop.

The American launchers would be, as the USAF puts it, "down selected." Government procurement regulations are choc full of policies that require it to use the lowest cost provider. If the Government wouldn't eliminate the US rockets, then the rocket builders would eliminate themselves since there would be unable to compete.

Down sizing is not a bad thing if there are dozens to select from but when the only games in town can not provide the needed equipment. Then we are in the state that we are in with the shuttle problem an area with nothing to do the job..

Then the worst is we must now pay for the ride by some means or simply no ride.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-16 10:00:36

Very good question definitely would force the pork barreling to stop.
Down sizing is not a bad thing if there are dozens to select from but when the only games in town can not provide the needed equipment. Then we are in the state that we are in with the shuttle problem an area with nothing to do the job.

If the choice is between pork barreling and buying Russian, I think I know which on Congress would choose. I think that "outsourcing" half the American space program to Russia would be a horrible mistake anyway.

I also think you misunderstand a little bit about the history of the Space Shuttle... NASA is in this neverending debacle because it WANTED to be. Extremely expensive, impossible to cancel, and incredibly effective at doing what it was really intended to do: keep a maximum of engineers employed at any price.

If you permit the Russians to enter our contract bids, there won't be any "competition" at all, there is no way any American company could undercut the Russians, so the American rocket companies would fold and exit the market. Then we'd be stuck with Russia being the sole provider of launch vehicles for NASA. And idea I don't relish.

John Creighton · 2004-12-16 10:26:05

Anyway, I think that the US shouldn’t try to hard too protect 1960’s technology. The money they save by buying cheaper boosters could be invested in technologies like scram jet which the would have the patient to and would be able to sell to the world. Obviously they don’t want the American booster industry to fold so as an alternative how about selling quotas for the right to sell foreign launch services in America. As long as the quotes are kept small American companies should be able to compete. Moreover the competition should force them to tighten their belt a little. As for NASA I hope it gets out of the launch buisness soon. It should be a purcheser not a producer.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-16 12:17:25

The technology isn't the issue, its the industry and national control of national launch capability that would be destroyed if we permitted outsourcing to the Russians. As for a quota system, the low price of Russian hardware would be a de facto guarantee that no American company could possibly compete for, which Congress would summerly reject as well.

NASA already is to large extent a purchaser... Lockheed makes Atlas and STS tankage, Boeing makes Delta and with Lockheed partially maintains Shuttle, Thiokol makes the SRBs. The only issue is that NASA requires hardware that no company needs and uses government-owned infrastructure to mitigate costs. If you mean that NASA should only be a purchaser of commertial civilian rockets or a derivitive thereof, that bascially eliminates the possibility of HLLV rockets needed for a Mars program.

As for a Scramjet vehicle or an advanced TSTO spaceplane, that would be an invesment on the order of $25Bn for a launcher that NASA wouldn't have much use for, since the extremely high flight rate would go essentially unused and the lack of orbital infrastructure for assembly would be prohibitively expensive.

John Creighton · 2004-12-16 12:49:10

As for a quota system, the low price of Russian hardware would be a de facto guarantee that no American company could possibly compete for, which Congress would summerly reject as well.

No, the quota restricts the supply so the prices are kept high enough (supply and demand). If it is
a US person that owns the quota's then the majority of the profits could stay in the US. If NASA
contracted HLLV out perhaps they would be cheaper. NASA is not allowed to compete with the
private sector for commercial launches. A private company could spread the cost of the HLLV
over government and private launches.

Anyway from a competition standpoint doesn’t the US have some superior products it could sell
back. For instance the shuttle solid rocket boosters to augment a foreign heavy lift vehicle. Also remember some components are big and may be expensive to ship.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-16 13:51:06

That makes little sense though, since Russia would be the one owning the quota. Since Russian rockets are so much less expensive then ours, aproximatly half the price, then it stands to reason that the quota would be maxed out on every opportunity.

The fact that the price that Russia can afford to charge is so much lower then our rockets will serve to gurantee that the quota number of rockets would be built. Since the price is so low, no American or even European company could hope to undercut it, so it would indeed be a gurantee. Russia could out-bid anybody, and they could easily afford to drop their price below what any other rocket builder could.

No, the US doesn't really have any space product any other country needs that they can't buy from another country like France or Japan. The US is only a user of spaceflight technology, not a provider really.

John Creighton · 2004-12-16 14:04:44

Well if the US does not have any competitive products then the system is not working that well. I
don’t see why a country with the biggest GDP, one quarter the population of china, having one of
the larger land masses, and many of the top schools in the wold cannot make a competitive
rocket product. Perhaps more money should be spent improving local technologies or
manufacturing techniques and less money spent protecting 1960's technology. This is not the
way to lead the world. And if the Russian use up the quota so what? As long as the supply of
Russian rockets is kept to 1% or less of the local demand the US aerospace companies should
still be able to stay afloat. The money saved can be reinvented in research to help the US gain a
competitive edge in this industry.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-16 14:16:47

What industry? The industry for commertial spaceflight is extremely small, hardly a dozen launches per year. The high cost of space satelites and the exsistance of trans-oceanic and trans-contenental fiber optic lines will continue to keep this "industry" small. Boeing has even stopped offering its Delta-IV rocket commertially because nobody wanted it.

The technology has reached a fundimental limitation: fuel. Rocket fuel has not signifigantly improved since the 70's, and so neither has the calculus of rockets. This situation is not going to improve much because rocket fuels have reached the limitations of their molecular weights and practical handling conditions. It isn't a question a "better" rocket really, its just who can make a rocket of given size cheaper. In this case, Russia can, because of the almost non-exsistant labor costs in both manufacturing and launch preperation. Even Elon's Falcon-V will have difficulty competing with Starsem's R-7 (Soyuz).

Modern rocket engines operate at over 80% of the theoretical maximum of practical fuels, the tradeoff of materials weight versus its cost has reached a plauteu due to the need to carry cryogenic fuels that require metal, and that sort of thing.

America could build a true RLV which would be able to "corner the market" so to speak while other countries would have difficulty, but without a pressing need for such a vehicle then it will not be built.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-16 16:28:06

Actually, metal is being replaced. DC-XA used a graphite fibre/epoxy cryogenic hydrogen tank. Today we can build a LOX compatible tank by either lining it with a fluoropolymer (Teflon FEP or Kel-F) or making a carbon overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) starting with a fluoropolymer bladder instead of aluminum. Kel-F is lighter, stronger, and more impermeable to oxygen than FEP. FEP is made by DuPont, Kel-F used to be made by 3M but now is made by Daikin Industries of Japan and Honeywell. As for engines, the Glenn Research Center is working on carbon/silicon carbide composite for fuel pump turbines and the exhaust bell cone. Other composites are being studied, but these are the ones I know of.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-16 16:31:30

But Kel-F is not capable of handling the structural loads on its own. Large composit tanks, like big 5m Delta-IV sized ones, are impractical. the DC-X was a fairly small vehicle too if you'll recall.

Metal isn't going anywhere for a while... Engines made from carbides will only marginally improve maximum operating temperatures too.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-16 16:35:43

But what's the weight of carbon/silicon carbide composite vs. titanium?

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-16 16:40:40

Doesn't matter much. The engine mass is such a small componet of total vehicle mass that even a signifigant improvement wouldn't be a huge deal.

The only big forseeable advance is to stop throwing the rocket away. Reuseability is the next step, not trying to strangle another few kilos here and there with expensive polymers.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-16 16:48:24

Engine mass is a significant factor for a reusable vehicle. My calculations for the mini-MAKS/HL-20 showed engine greatly affected mass of the airframe, heatshield, etc. for the orbiter. That affected total launch mass. With a reusable orbiter but expendable external tank, engine mass is very important. You could also use composites for OMS propellant tanks, life support oxygen tank, and ribs inside the pressure hull.

Of course the ultimate is hypersonic air-breathing SSTO RLV, but that'll take some work.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-16 16:52:32

The engine mass isn't such a huge deal for an RLV big enough to carry substantial cargo, and not a "space taxi" mini-MAKS type vehicle.

You don't wanna use composits for Hypergolic propellants I bet.

Or half-air breathing TSTO spaceplane. Either way, if it can't carry 25MT, its not worth bothering with.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-16 17:07:02

A space taxi can't carry substantial cargo, but it can carry astronauts and science drawers to ISS. It could also carry astronauts to an on-orbit assembled vehicle for the Moon or Mars. But, no, it can't carry heavy cargo.

Hypergolic propellants are stored a room temperature so they don't need a fluoropolymer tank, you could make a composite tank from less expensive material. MMH could be stored in simple graphite/epoxy. N2O4 requires something non-reactive with an oxidizer, but there are several polymers even more imperable to oxygen than Kel-F. They can't handle cryogenic temperatures, or even Mars night-time temperature, but good quality nylon and polycarbonate can handle -60°C. Even Saran wrap is more oxygen impereable than any fluoropolymer, but the only temperature data I have said a two material composite with Saran can only handle -7°C.

You know, I still don't see how to apply any of this to a launch vehicle with significant lift. You'll probably always see metal for big dumb boosters.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-09-21 09:52:54

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

#77 2004-09-21 11:02:57

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

#78 2004-09-21 11:21:49

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

#79 2004-10-05 08:07:14

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

#80 2004-12-15 11:42:07

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

#81 2004-12-15 11:50:39

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

#82 2004-12-15 12:33:13

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

#83 2004-12-15 12:53:17

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

#84 2004-12-15 13:25:13

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

#85 2004-12-15 14:48:17

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

#86 2004-12-16 05:39:29

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

#87 2004-12-16 10:00:36

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

#88 2004-12-16 10:26:05

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

#89 2004-12-16 12:17:25

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

#90 2004-12-16 12:49:10

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

#91 2004-12-16 13:51:06

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

#92 2004-12-16 14:04:44

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

#93 2004-12-16 14:16:47

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

#94 2004-12-16 16:28:06

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

#95 2004-12-16 16:31:30

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

#96 2004-12-16 16:35:43

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

#97 2004-12-16 16:40:40

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

#98 2004-12-16 16:48:24

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

#99 2004-12-16 16:52:32

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

#100 2004-12-16 17:07:02

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

Board footer