More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

Euler · 2005-02-13 17:33:31

Russia has continued to make improvements to Soyuz so it is the best expendable spacecraft ever built.

What about Shenzhou?

I found a US government web site that stated the cost of Soyuz-T/TM: 95 million Rubbles in 1992. Today's exchange rate is 28.075 Rubbles = 1 US Dollar, so that makes the spacecraft $3.38 million plus 13 years of inflation. Try to match the reliability, mass per astronaut, or price.

The plus 13 years of inflation is a pretty big factor here. With the hyperinflation of the mid 90s, the Russian ruble decreased in value by a factor of more than 10,000. This was partially corrected on Jan 1, 1998 when the Russian government increased the value of currency by a factor of 1000. However, 95 million rubles from 1992 should still equate to well over $100 million of today’s dollars.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-15 07:13:56

Anyone review whats left to make the station complete lately. The old article Partners Agree to ISS Crews of "More than Three;" Details Sketchy
and side bar reference diagrams

are quite interesting in how some of the existing modules must be uncoupled inorder to get others in there proper place. Seems sort of hazardous to me.

Grypd · 2005-02-15 11:31:08

Still seems a lot to do.

I wonder wether this thing will ever be built. That is a lot of modules to have to launch and integrate and with the ISS showing signs of wear and tear and actually failing in parts (oxygen generator, The denting and strange noises).

The ISS was a make up design so that certain countries would not have there modules close to other countries for pure political reasons. I wish I was joking but this is true. Anyway there will be a lot more money needed to invest in the ISS to get it complete. And this is only if it stays on track and nothing goes wrong. So it has cost 100billion $us so far. I expect that it will certainly cost about the same to make it complete. This is all money that could have been spent on the more useful Moon and Mars and CEV programme.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-15 14:08:26

That much money could have completed a Mars mission and several trips or a dozen-person Lunar base.

I HATE the ISS!

Grypd · 2005-02-15 14:58:34

Dont appreciate it much myself. :angry:

But the space organisations are locked in by treaty to finish it and with that we will have to just deal with it. It does mean that any Moon return and future Mars missions will be just that future. Nasa will just have to get the ISS done :angry:

The worst thing is that after it is complete we will still have it about as it just cant be abandoned :angry:

SpaceNut · 2005-02-16 05:17:04

Which means providing if the partners still need it a shuttle sized cargo bay for transfer of items still to the station that would be to large or heavy for any of there existing rockets.

These Partners still can continue to invest even if the US pulls out after it is complete by treaty in a way forcing the US to not moth ball the shuttles to a museum or some theme park.

As we go forward with any vehicle design we must figure out why a shuttle sized army is needed to build, maintain the launch infrastructure and if reusuable a refurbishment center and how best to utlize there time when a rocket is not at any step of the process.

We really should design the new cev with the least number of people required to do the job from start to finish. With no down time between cycles.

Grypd · 2005-02-16 15:04:34

When the ISS was being planned ESA had plans for its module to have been equipped with its own atmosphere and supply of power. This was stopped by NASA probably as it was thought by administrators that ESA was trying to get real experience in designing and building its own station and in sending man rated modules up in an Arianne.

Also what the ESA scientists actually then designed was a much larger Module than will now be deployed and was a lot more useful as a science station.

So though there are other nations involved in its creation what is a definite is that the ISS is an American station which would really have trouble being sold on the open market. Who would want something that costs so much and is certainly not value for money.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-17 06:39:55

Nasa Iss remaining modules This one list which modules are american and others that still are needed to complete the station. About half are american.

[url=http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/future/index.html]Consolidated Launch Manifest
Space Shuttle Flights and ISS Assembly Sequence[/url]
Of those remaining one is the european ATV, one for the Russians and the remaining 25 are shuttle carried items.

John Creighton · 2005-02-17 11:53:12

When the ISS was being planned ESA had plans for its module to have been equipped with its own atmosphere and supply of power. This was stopped by NASA probably as it was thought by administrators that ESA was trying to get real experience in designing and building its own station and in sending man rated modules up in an Arianne.
Also what the ESA scientists actually then designed was a much larger Module than will now be deployed and was a lot more useful as a science station.
So though there are other nations involved in its creation what is a definite is that the ISS is an American station which would really have trouble being sold on the open market. Who would want something that costs so much and is certainly not value for money.

If this is true it is a real shame. Having a station where each module can provide its own life support creates a much safer and more robust space station. More over, if one module could provide back up life support for other modules the life of the station would be considerably greater.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-17 12:46:42

No, not really

Having multiple LSS systems doesn't make alot of sense (the ISS will have four, the Russian and American oxygen generators, bottled O2, and Russian oxygen candles). Adding one more just adds weight, cost, and complexity.

If the station gets too heavy, then there will be no way to safely control its attitude without overloading the gyros or the structure of the modules.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-18 05:42:28

True GCNRevenger an engineering design can go overboard with redundancy and that yes it would be heavier. But also would you not recompute the difference and make structural changes to the design to compensate.
The station in its current form of or status shows many of the concerns that you have voice on the noises, dents and such. IMO to the none linear progression of assembly (view previous reference for juggling of modules) have cause this condition. The pieces where not designed for where they are now in many cases.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-18 18:45:46

Change the structural configuration of the ISS? How? Weld metal beams to the outsides of the modules and docking collars?

Also, the heavier the station is, the harder it is to maintain attitude. The US gyros are already under-powerd for the task most likly.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-21 05:37:18

I agree with you there that the

"US gyros are already under-powerd for the task most likely."

for we have already seen the outcome of a few real hairy repair and logistics space walks. Where the gyro's have kicked in to correct for the torque of the astronauts moving around on the outside of the ISS.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-03 14:42:47

The latest progress in addition to bringing some snails has also brought the hardware need for the european ATV to be able to dock with the station.
ISS GETS EQUIPMENT FOR DOCKING WITH JULES VERNE

more details available on the European communication equipment for the ATV and the Eneide mission reaches the ISS

SpaceNut · 2005-04-04 10:55:06

Well the Russians are up to there old pressure tricks of pulling the plug on flight training on the soyuz and then putting back on again.
The longer it take to get the shuttle going the more the partners are going to become frustrated with the financial arrangements that they currently have with the US.

Thinking the unthinkable about the ISS

The Russians are making it very clear that they do not want to keep providing Soyuz taxi services to and from the ISS for NASA astronauts unless the US pays up.

Other options:

It looks like Russia will reject this deal, again, for its own reasons. So what are the US alternatives? If the US were to decide to wind up its ISS operations early, without bothering to complete ISS assembly, the Russians would have the current station effectively all to themselves. They would, of course, have to maintain and support it, which would cost them considerably more than they are spending on it now but it would at least be all theirs.

The final we want out:

Alternatively, the US could get really nasty and insist that all US elements be detached and deorbited. This is a possible “nuclear option” which, for many reasons, is highly improbable.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-04 15:53:03

The Russians should go to H**L for not coughing up a measly few tens of millions when it us, the United States, that has shoulderd the majority burden for the wild ISS cost overruns.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-04 16:36:34

Yes, but aren't we, for the most part, responsible for those cost overruns?

dicktice · 2005-04-04 18:09:45

Congress, with their short attention span, must take most of the blame ... for design dithering ... budget cuts requiring configuration change after change ... no crew transport. The budget got balanced perhaps, but at what cost to the space programme. In view of your horrific deficit now, was balancing the budget back in the '90's worth the loss of so much space initiative? Okay, okay--that was then, and this is now. So, a pulling-up of socks is called for, as we stagger on into the future, eh?

SpaceNut · 2005-09-29 09:23:34

The news of the House passing a bill to allow for Russian seats to be purchase was a first step to resolving to meet the need for US astronauts to continue manning the station while the shuttle is taking another sleep period. The thread
Ichabod has captured some of our thoughts towards doing so. While another thread Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-* has been capturing our thoughts for getting out of the ISS and killing all further shuttle flights.
The next soyuz flight will becoming soon and even the crew containing an american astronaut is wondering if his seat will be paid for to come back once his tour of duty is done. Political snag blocks astronaut's trip back

Astronaut Bill McArthur has been wondering about his return ticket for his next spaceflight, but he isn't worried as he prepares for his mission to the International Space Station.
"I have a lot of confidence that once I get on orbit, [NASA's] going to get me home when I need to get back," he said.

Lots more contained in the article about responsibility...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2005-02-13 17:33:31

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

#152 2005-02-15 07:13:56

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

#153 2005-02-15 11:31:08

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

#154 2005-02-15 14:08:26

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

#155 2005-02-15 14:58:34

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

#156 2005-02-16 05:17:04

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

#157 2005-02-16 15:04:34

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

#158 2005-02-17 06:39:55

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

#159 2005-02-17 11:53:12

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

#160 2005-02-17 12:46:42

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

#161 2005-02-18 05:42:28

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

#162 2005-02-18 18:45:46

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

#163 2005-02-21 05:37:18

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

#164 2005-03-03 14:42:47

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

#165 2005-04-04 10:55:06

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

#166 2005-04-04 15:53:03

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

#167 2005-04-04 16:36:34

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

#168 2005-04-04 18:09:45

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

#169 2005-09-29 09:23:34

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

Board footer