ISS Woes & To-Mars

SpaceNut · 2005-06-01 05:32:20

Report finds fault with NASA over shuttle alternatives

Government auditors faulted NASA on Tuesday for failing to adequately investigate cheaper, safer alternatives to the space shuttle for delivering parts and supplies to the International Space Station.
With just five years until the three remaining shuttles retire, NASA has 28 flights scheduled to complete work on the orbiting research laboratory. That's a flight rate of more than five shuttle missions per year, which even agency leaders acknowledge could prove to be too many.
The breakdown on remaining shuttle flights:
18 missions to complete construction of the space station.
10 missions to deliver crew members and supplies to space station.
Possibly one extra flight to repair Hubble Space Telescope.

The agency is currently evaluating 26 proposals from companies interested in ferrying cargo to and from the space station.

idiom · 2005-06-02 01:18:45

If the problem of boosting extra cargo on current expendable vehicles to the ISS is last mile guidance, why not boost several payloads into the vicinity of the ISS while the shuttle is in residence. After the shuttle installs its payload if could quite easily ferry the blind payloads into position also?

SpaceNut · 2005-06-02 05:36:19

Leaving the shuttle in permanent orbit for just the purpose of cargo capture and transition to the station might be just the ticket for not putting them in the museum once retired.
But that means modifying them once in orbit for there new function.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-02 07:49:51

One problem is orbital drift, that unless you can launch the payloads soon before Shuttle arrives (which is very delay prone) then the slight differences in orbital velocity may cause the payloads to move away from the station too far, requiring stationkeeping hardware. Shuttle also has a two-week power supply limit which can't really be extended, if it takes a week to get up there, dock/unpack, and get back down then that only leaves you enough time to safely go capture only one payload and dock it.

The payload itself would -still- need a signifigant amount of hardware that isn't available off the shelf. Attitude control jets/wheels to keep from spinning, attitude sensors to know where you are pointing, computers to control them, docking beacons, and solar/battery or fuel cell generators to run them. This is just to keep from naturally spinning in orbit... there is no such thing as a completly "dumb" payload. Cargo that consits of loose pieces that would be clamped to Shuttle's cargo bay would need a sort of "scaffold" to carry them up too, which would have to resist the stress of launch (Shuttle weighs 80 tons for a reason), that would be so heavy that you couldn't carry many pieces that way on any available rocket.

Like it or not, major componets of the ISS will just have to be deleted... thirty flights in five years isn't going to happen.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-02 13:23:04

one module that was not to use the shuttle will be launched some time in 2007. Russia to launch ISS multi-purpose lab module in 2007
News article proports 70 % complete at this time.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-08 06:32:09

I have placed the last mars colonization thoughts here since is more to the point of the ISS than of mars colonization:

GCNRevenger first you say:

It is too late for the ISS, there is nothing - nothing - that it could possibly do for us to justify spending one more cent on it. Nothing at all whatsoever. Even its parts left over in orbit aren't worth much of anything versus just building copies with the old blueprints.

Then you say:

And suppose Russia does build Klipper, and Europes' ATV? Worthless without a destination, and if they and Japan wanted to do science on the ISS for some reason, it would be too far away.

Here is the question, how long do the partner nations plan on using the ISS?

Ours if we bail in 2010 would be just under 5 years but I do not see that as the stop date for the US involvement in the station.

So how long after the shuttle is retired before something major needs a shuttle bay lift capability that the partners then scream and say you must?

Shuttle may be retired and in moth balls but it will still need to be kept operational for just that reason.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-08 07:27:29

Well here is what the Russian's think of the US and the ISS.
If U.S. leaves ISS program, Russia to take over with a new ship

Article states that the Buran was ahead of it's time and that it can be revived if need be.

Palomar · 2005-06-08 15:14:59

Well here is what the Russian's think of the US and the ISS.
http://en.rian.ru/science/20050607/40486661.html]If U.S. leaves ISS program, Russia to take over with a new ship
Article states that the Buran was ahead of it's time and that it can be revived if need be.

*They're willing to let us off the hook? Good. Then let's do. Adios ISS.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-08 21:31:12

Amen to that...

...traditional Russian bluster to claim they can get Buran to fly again though.

RobertDyck · 2005-06-08 23:38:02

Well, that would require rebuilding the Building of Assembly and Test, which in Russian is the acronym MIK. There is one for each model of rocket, for Energia it is building #112. Images of inside of building http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipe … jpg]before accident and http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipe … .jpg]after accident. The external tanks were made at the same place that makes tanks for Soyuz, so that could be re-activated. However you'll notice the Buran orbiter was in the building before the accident. There were 5 orbiters ordered, but the last 2 were literally scrapped. Of the 3 constructed only one had seats, dashboard, life support, etc. The other two had autopilot only. Orbiter #101 flew once, that's the one that was in the building when the roof collapsed on it. Another one was stored outside, pictures from April 1997: http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipe … 2.jpg]left side, http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipe … .jpg]right side, http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipe … .jpg]under wing, and http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipe … 5.jpg]nose. From this year: http://www.rusadventures.com/images/tour2big.jpg]front. Notice the under wing image shows most of the heat shield tiles missing, the nose shows deformed tiles with gaps, and the picture from this year shows patches of the carbon-carbon nose cap missing. It's not in good shape. I don't know where the 3rd orbiter is.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-09 05:41:03

Well apparently Nasa is still going full speed ahead with build of modules that the US is responsible for inorder to complete the station.
NASA Exercises Two Space Station Contract Options

SpaceNut · 2005-06-10 13:20:50

Hearing Live from Space: The International Space Station

ASTRONAUTS TO TESTIFY FROM SPACE TO U.S. CONGRESS

ace testimony is scheduled for Wednesday, July 25, at noon.

Date from hearing page: Tuesday, June 14, 2005, so the other must be wrong in the article.

Palomar · 2005-06-10 13:33:30

http://www.house.gov/science/committeeinfo/schedule.htm Hearing Live from Space: The International Space Station
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ … 1293343776 ASTRONAUTS TO TESTIFY FROM SPACE TO U.S. CONGRESS
ace testimony is scheduled for Wednesday, July 25, at noon.
Date from hearing page: Tuesday, June 14, 2005, so the other must be wrong in the article.

*Oh good.

Any science news back from ISS?

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-10 14:20:44

"Such an invaluble asset not just to NASA and Americans, but to the entire world, with huge potential (*bzzzt, light fixture shorts out*).. and, uh.. vital to the Vision for Space Exploration becausSSSSSS- (camera mic too close to pinhole leak) -ssssnd to America's future in space with our pa-aa-CHOO! (sneezing from oxygen candle dust).. Yes, *sniffles, rubs eyes,* our partnership with our international (*BUMP* "what was that?" in the background) ...al-allies in the greatest of human endeav- (*screen goes blank from comm computer failure, or worse*)"

clark · 2005-06-10 14:22:59

:laugh:

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-10 14:30:56

You get the idea. They are going to get all flowery and sugar-coat the dismal situation that the ISS probobly isn't going to be worth much, and its advancing deterioration will probobly make it unsafe or at least unuseable not too long after an alternate method for delivering serious scientific payloads other then Shuttle is available.

clark · 2005-06-10 14:34:01

I for one can't think of a better use of their time.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-13 10:09:31

This article wraps up the topic of the ISS nicely: Twenty-five gigabucks of steel: the objectives of the International Space Station

While it has been labeled a sink hole it is only been put into that catagory from the perspective of being overly costly to build and to maintain.

But any such mission to space will also fit into that same problem when cash starving the build and engineering of any such efforts.

The thoughts of a space port for construction sort of was killed in the 80's and has not been given a chance to prove its worth for the future.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-14 05:25:01

I was not sure whether this was a shuttle problem or an ISS one but here is the stance from the top.
Griffin Firm on Shuttle Retirement Date
no matter what the status of the station’s assembly is by 2010.
He feels that the shuttles can only complete 15 more flights within this time frame. So these better be the most important ones for the stations completion and no extra wasted ones for resupply or for experiment up and down transportation.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-15 06:02:24

While this article talks of klipper and theESA to help produce Russian shuttle it however does talk to the help need for other ISS modules as well.

ESA could help Russia complete construction of the laboratory module FGB-2, an operational cargo unit, for the International Space Station.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-15 07:07:45

Here is a story with the details of the hearing from space aboard the ISS and the congress subcomittee.

ISS Astronaut Testifies Before Congressional Panel From Orbit

Commodore · 2005-06-15 22:20:36

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iss-05zzs.html]Griffen pondering more changes to ISS configuration?

Griffin said: "It is our intention to launch the Columbus (science) module and all the international partner modules. We have obligations to the space station partnership and we take that seriously."
Asked as to what the revised launch and construction program would look like, he said, "We are looking at other possibilities, other launch vehicles, delays, various possibilities."

It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

If I were running things, which of course I'm not, I'd discontinue the shuttle, and suspend ISS construction for the time being. Let the Russians have free reign over it for a while, host all the tourists they want.

I'd focus all our funding on the a reusable CEV (launched via EELV), SDV (Its the quickest choice at this point), and Lunar Transit stage (reusable, launched via SDV, stored permanently in the most appropriate parking orbit). These should be operational by 2010-2012.

Now since we still have all these ISS modules floating and sitting around, and partner countries wanting their moneys worth, we take the ISS by the grapes and make it work for us. By 2010-2012, the core modules (Zarya, Zvezda, Unity) will probably be on their last legs without Shuttle support. We build and launch a big single new core module on SDV at the most useful LEO location. And were going to make this one right, as in not designed to be babysat by anything on a regular basis. Then we use a pair Lunar transit stages, one equipped with a HAB and a Shuttle like arm, and one with just the propulsion unit, and disassemble useful pieces, primarily the Destiny Lab, whatever truss pieces, mechanical arms, and solar panels engineers think are still use full, and send them to the new core. The rest still in orbit is disassembled into safe sized pieces and sunk.

This new core will accommodate all the remaining ISS pieces to be launched via SDV, and be the cornerstone of an "ISS 2.0". This station will be designed as a test bed and launch point of VSE based missions. It will be designed from the outset to support numerous new modules, even rows of converted SDV ET's that sure as hell better not be thrown out. This acreage will be used as a growing test bed for the closed loop life support systems needed in transit and on the surface of whatever bodies we land on, and should be able to produce foodstuffs to be freeze dried and used on lunar and other missions. It will also be open to commercial interests.

Without the shuttle and immediate ISS duties gone, there’s no reason a reusable CEV, and SD HLLV can't be completely operational by 2012.

The lunar transit stage should also be ready by then, although the name is a bit deceiving. Its really intended to be a all purpose craft for a full range of missions, from long term LEO missions, to space construction platform, to propulsion for a lunar cycler and cargo delivery, manned lunar expeditions, even trips to Near Earth Asteroids and Venus Orbit. At its core is the propulsion unit, including an extremely reliable chemical rocket, and a series of power systems, and a couple solar arrays. In the front there will be support structures for HAB, ports for a CEV, Fuel, and a Lunar Access Module, and mechanical arms similar to those on the shuttle or ISS. The HAB version will be the basis for a Mars transit ship. It will require a series of them put together.

A series of these will be built and launched once the SDV is online. Their first tasks include the ISS 2.0. Once that’s done they can switch roles, ditching unneeded equipment and weight, at the ISS for later pickup.

None of that requires any new technologies, just applying it in the right way.

Palomar · 2005-06-16 07:37:53

*I scrolled back and searched; doesn't seem this has yet been posted:

June 15
Old Spacesuit, New Satellite
In a space-saving move on the International Space Station (ISS), surplus Russian spacesuits may be turned into satellites.
Plans are being drawn up to shove off from the ISS an old Russian Orlan spacesuit. Tagged as a “SuitSat”, this Amateur Radio on the International Space Station (ARISS) project might be the most unusual Amateur Radio satellite ever orbited.
SuitSat is to be tossed overboard during a spacewalk and would carry a multi-language Amateur Radio transmitter, as well as a compact disk containing images of school artwork. A School Spacewalk effort is being promoted by the Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT) of Silver Spring, Maryland to gather art for the disk from around the globe.
The disk would be sent to Russia in late June. It would be sent to the ISS via a Progress supply vehicle being readied for liftoff this August.
With stowage space aboard the ISS at a premium, several Russian Orlan spacesuits used for spacewalks have been declared ready for an out-the-airlock launch. A second Orlan space suit is expected to become available for possible deployment as a temporary satellite in 2007.
A SuitSat would orbit for weeks before reentering the Earth’s atmosphere. Alas, another space collectible gone for good.
[Leonard David]

Is from space.com's "Astronotes."

--Cindy

P.S.: A way should be found to bring back some of the refuse and old spacesuits via the Earth-return capsules. A pity to be continually discarding stuff out of the airlock; is simply more orbiting space junk. :-\

SpaceNut · 2005-06-16 07:40:17

Even though the dream of a new station is grand it just would not be a financial possibility to find another 90 billion or so to make the modifications or to make all the new pieces that it would require. IMO it is the sticker shock of the dreams that we can not afford that goes along with the timeframes of execution, methods of creation and such.

Testimony from the Astronauts request better gear for the future does not really surprise me all that much being easier to repair or to replace.

edit
Cindy, neat notes on the suitsat idea.
As noted the last progress has just undocked and is full of garbage to be dumped into the sea.
Even the progress ship could be better utilized than that.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-16 09:27:34

It will be interesting to see what they come up with.
If I were running things, which of course I'm not, I'd discontinue the shuttle, and suspend ISS construction for the time being. Let the Russians have free reign over it for a while, host all the tourists they want.
I'd focus all our funding on the a reusable CEV (launched via EELV), SDV (Its the quickest choice at this point), and Lunar Transit stage (reusable, launched via SDV, stored permanently in the most appropriate parking orbit). These should be operational by 2010-2012.
Now since we still have all these ISS modules floating and sitting around, and partner countries wanting their moneys worth, we take the ISS by the grapes and make it work for us. By 2010-2012, the core modules (Zarya, Zvezda, Unity) will probably be on their last legs without Shuttle support. We build and launch a big single new core module on SDV at the most useful LEO location. And were going to make this one right, as in not designed to be babysat by anything on a regular basis. Then we use a pair Lunar transit stages, one equipped with a HAB and a Shuttle like arm, and one with just the propulsion unit, and disassemble useful pieces, primarily the Destiny Lab, whatever truss pieces, mechanical arms, and solar panels engineers think are still use full, and send them to the new core. The rest still in orbit is disassembled into safe sized pieces and sunk.
This new core will accommodate all the remaining ISS pieces to be launched via SDV, and be the cornerstone of an "ISS 2.0". This station will be designed as a test bed and launch point of VSE based missions. It will be designed from the outset to support numerous new modules, even rows of converted SDV ET's that sure as hell better not be thrown out. This acreage will be used as a growing test bed for the closed loop life support systems needed in transit and on the surface of whatever bodies we land on, and should be able to produce foodstuffs to be freeze dried and used on lunar and other missions. It will also be open to commercial interests.
Without the shuttle and immediate ISS duties gone, there’s no reason a reusable CEV, and SD HLLV can't be completely operational by 2012.
The lunar transit stage should also be ready by then, although the name is a bit deceiving. Its really intended to be a all purpose craft for a full range of missions, from long term LEO missions, to space construction platform, to propulsion for a lunar cycler and cargo delivery, manned lunar expeditions, even trips to Near Earth Asteroids and Venus Orbit. At its core is the propulsion unit, including an extremely reliable chemical rocket, and a series of power systems, and a couple solar arrays. In the front there will be support structures for HAB, ports for a CEV, Fuel, and a Lunar Access Module, and mechanical arms similar to those on the shuttle or ISS. The HAB version will be the basis for a Mars transit ship. It will require a series of them put together.
A series of these will be built and launched once the SDV is online. Their first tasks include the ISS 2.0. Once that’s done they can switch roles, ditching unneeded equipment and weight, at the ISS for later pickup.
None of that requires any new technologies, just applying it in the right way.

No space station! Don't build a space station at all! There isn't enough worth doing up there to justify the billions of dollars you would throw away in building and maintaining the thing. The old mantra of "microgravity research station" was, is, and continues to be an equally big lie as Shuttle flying dozens of times a year for $60M a pop. You especially don't go trying to salvage bits of the accursed ISS! There isn't anything there worth saving... the solar cells, batteries, gyros, robot arm, cooling system, oxygen generator, and all that junk will be worn out by then, not just the Russian modules. It really would just be easier to start over from scratch with the same blueprints.

And why on or above the Earth would you want to go and try to salvage Shuttle external tanks? They're worthless! Having to drag all their weight to orbit will obliterate most of youryour payload which pretty much defeats the purpose. And even if you did get them up there, why would you want to? They aren't insulated or shielded enough for people to live in or even to store fuel, and modifying them so they are would make the whole thing too heavy to even get off the ground.

Second, a reuseable propulsion stage makes no sense. Why? The rocket stage itself doesn't weigh nor cost all that much (RL-10 engines sell for $3M a copy or so) compared to the cost of actually putting them and their fuel into space. Since the biggest cost is still going to be launching fuel for propulsion, spending even more propellant to bring the rocket back to Earth makes no sense, the whole idea will radically undercut your payload. Thats not even counting the large cost of making the thing reuseable... just take a "Centaur-II" stage with 1-2 RL-60's, switch to composite instead of metal tankage, and use the boiloff to operate a fuel cell to power the thing... and throw it away when you're done. A reuseable transit vehicle makes no sense at all until we have either:
A: A real, honest, no-kidding Earth RLV, or
B: Lunar LOX and a real, honest, no-kidding Lunar RLV

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2005-06-01 05:32:20

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#177 2005-06-02 01:18:45

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#178 2005-06-02 05:36:19

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#179 2005-06-02 07:49:51

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#180 2005-06-02 13:23:04

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#181 2005-06-08 06:32:09

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#182 2005-06-08 07:27:29

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#183 2005-06-08 15:14:59

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#184 2005-06-08 21:31:12

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#185 2005-06-08 23:38:02

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#186 2005-06-09 05:41:03

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#187 2005-06-10 13:20:50

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#188 2005-06-10 13:33:30

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#189 2005-06-10 14:20:44

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#190 2005-06-10 14:22:59

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#191 2005-06-10 14:30:56

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#192 2005-06-10 14:34:01

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#193 2005-06-13 10:09:31

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#194 2005-06-14 05:25:01

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#195 2005-06-15 06:02:24

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#196 2005-06-15 07:07:45

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#197 2005-06-15 22:20:36

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#198 2005-06-16 07:37:53

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#199 2005-06-16 07:40:17

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#200 2005-06-16 09:27:34

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer