ISS Woes & To-Mars

Palomar · 2005-07-16 11:29:53

http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2005/1 … p1.jpg]ISS over Germany

*Taken by S. Seip on July 14 with a 10-inch telescope. What's that whitish-blue triangle? Added to show the http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … 292]Summer Triangle.

Fuel sensors permitting, the ISS will be joined by the space shuttle Discovery later this month, and they will appear as a bright pair over many US and European cities.

Photo and info courtesy spaceweather.com.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-07-18 21:20:11

Well I guess better late than never. Boeing Team Brainstorming List Of ISS Exploration Experiments and what was the list from the beginning?

International Space Station prime contractor Boeing is brainstorming a list of possible experiments for astronauts to perform onboard the station that will help NASA plan for long-duration space voyages to the moon and Mars.
"A big thrust on the station right now is to make it a testbed for exploration

SpaceNut · 2005-08-01 06:28:33

Current discovery mission replacing gyroscope that has been inop since last spacewalk to replace control circuit.
Hope they brought up extras.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-01 13:35:12

In more news as related to the partner investment in this project.

Europeans Weigh Space Station Options

Though troubling that the scenarios in which the shuttle is capable of launching 20 times, 15 times and 10 times between now and its intended 2010 retirement date to our partners. I find that there is so much cost in just storage of ready to go pieces for completing the station.

ESA has spent some 300 million euros ($362 million) in charges directly related to the delay in the launch of the Columbus lab, which is completed and in storage at EADS Space Transportation’s Bremen, Germany, plant. Those delay-related costs are certain to rise, as the estimates assumed a Columbus launch by the U.S. shuttle in 2006. A 2007 date is more likely — assuming no further delays.
Like a similar laboratory built by Japan, Europe’s Columbus facility was designed for launch only on the shuttle.

As it would seem no shuttle big bucks would need to be returned and or invested in order to launch these modules by other means.

Grypd · 2005-08-01 14:10:55

I brought this up in a previous post that the columbus science module was initially designed to have its own power supply and life support. This was removed by pressure by NASA which also stopped the columbus module from being launched by the Ariane.

So now this means that ESA is worried that the Shuttle will not launch the Module and frankly the ISS will have little or no interest to ESA and so the countries that have put the money in have wasted Billions to get nothing back. This is not good for interAgency relations.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-01 15:19:37

I brought this up in a previous post that the columbus science module was initially designed to have its own power supply and life support. This was removed by pressure by NASA which also stopped the columbus module from being launched by the Ariane.
So now this means that ESA is worried that the Shuttle will not launch the Module and frankly the ISS will have little or no interest to ESA and so the countries that have put the money in have wasted Billions to get nothing back. This is not good for interAgency relations.

Seperate power and life support systems or not, Columbus couldn't be added to the station without engines, attitude sensors, and docking allignment/remote control hardware.

John Creighton · 2005-08-01 15:22:40

In more news as related to the partner investment in this project.
http://space.com/spacenews/businessmond … ]Europeans Weigh Space Station Options
Though troubling that the scenarios in which the shuttle is capable of launching 20 times, 15 times and 10 times between now and its intended 2010 retirement date to our partners. I find that there is so much cost in just storage of ready to go pieces for completing the station.
ESA has spent some 300 million euros ($362 million) in charges directly related to the delay in the launch of the Columbus lab, which is completed and in storage at EADS Space Transportation’s Bremen, Germany, plant. Those delay-related costs are certain to rise, as the estimates assumed a Columbus launch by the U.S. shuttle in 2006. A 2007 date is more likely — assuming no further delays.
Like a similar laboratory built by Japan, Europe’s Columbus facility was designed for launch only on the shuttle.
As it would seem no shuttle big bucks would need to be returned and or invested in order to launch these modules by other means.

From my reading I would say that the Columbus module is a necessary module to launch for the US to fulfill it's commitments.

Grypd · 2005-08-02 11:22:16

I brought this up in a previous post that the columbus science module was initially designed to have its own power supply and life support. This was removed by pressure by NASA which also stopped the columbus module from being launched by the Ariane.
So now this means that ESA is worried that the Shuttle will not launch the Module and frankly the ISS will have little or no interest to ESA and so the countries that have put the money in have wasted Billions to get nothing back. This is not good for interAgency relations.
Seperate power and life support systems or not, Columbus couldn't be added to the station without engines, attitude sensors, and docking allignment/remote control hardware.

All of which could have been put into the module at creation certainly a modified version of the ATVs would have been used. But since NASA insisted that Columbus be launched by the shuttle it was removed. And the plan was also to use the upgraded Ariane V to launch the system that also launches the ATV. Actually the Columbus module as it is now is only 13500 kg.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-02 11:44:59

Except that the ATV's docking system only works on specially fitted docking ports, and not the ISS node ports... And if you were to add extensive power systems, engines/thrusters/etc, and life support then it would probobly be too heavy for Ariane to deliver to the highly inclined ISS orbit.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-08-02 12:43:29

Here GCNRevenger is very right, what he writes is very correct the Shuttle is really the only truck for lifting the big designs and crew up and down to ISS. Jules Verne Atv is a new addition, but it can only do rendezvous and docking on a single part of the station. I remember reading about this and wondering why didn't NASA, Europe or Russia send up these before - Outstanding hardware needed before arrival of the Automated Transfer Vehicle was only installed March/April 2005 and they can only dock it with one-single port while final parts of Proximity Communication Equipment was only put in a few weeks ago.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/SEM462V … l#subhead3
Here is a pic of ex-NASA admin O'Keefe watching the ESA ATV tests.
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/spce/stor … y=spce]ATV - the first new auto-freighter
http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/H … ss/5/3.cfm
http://www.sitnews.us/0305news/032505/0 … uttle.html

Grypd · 2005-08-02 14:18:01

Still all of this could have been done to allow the original concept of the columbus module to dock. If there is a propulsion, Guidance system it can use and it has attitude thrusters and the only difference is the werewithal to dock at a different port, then a solution would have been found. Actually as the module would be able to get close what is to stop the likes of the canadaarm from assisting in its integration onto the ISS. I know it is spilt milk but as ESA's original concept was to actually launch its own elements to the ISS they certainly had planned to sort this minor problem.

Even the Arianne 5GS that is to launch the ATV was design concept was thought of when they believed that they where to launch there own modules to the ISS and certainly there have been concepts for much heavier lift Ariannes that just have never come to fruitition as there has been no need for them.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-08-02 14:47:13

Even the Arianne 5GS that is to launch the ATV was design concept was thought of when they believed that they where to launch there own modules to the ISS and certainly there have been concepts for much heavier lift Ariannes that just have never come to fruitition as there has been no need for them.

Another reason they haven't launched is that they had not tested their launch engines fully, for Ariane-5EA, future Ariane-M plans and Ariane-ESCB. The Vinci ESC-B cryogenic upper-stage engine was successfully the other day.
http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspComunic … 8638&src=0
The ESCB is said to be 12,000 Kg to GTO while the Ariane 5 ES ATV will have a Payload mass up to 21 tonnes. Shuttle is really the only way right now to get the big payloads into Space and manned missions, although Russians with Soyuz did a good job at keeping the ISS going while NASA was grounded for the past 2 and a half years. Recently NASA has been doing a review that looks at expendable launch vehicles derived from STS components to launch and complete the Station following the end of Shuttle.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-03 05:01:45

You would have thought that all ports would have been designed to a common means and that all partner nations would have been designing there ships with that in mind.
Shame, shame, shame... shakes head at non conformity...

SpaceNut · 2005-08-15 20:26:32

Well we have been hearing of the science as being stopped for animal research on the ISS and usually that is just the start of things. Then you follow it up with a change of managers and that usually spells doom.
NASA Names International Space Station Program Manager

Recently named William H. Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for Space Operations, has named Michael T. Suffredini as manager, International Space Station (ISS) Program.

Suffredini has served as deputy International Space Station program manager since August 2004.

John Creighton · 2005-08-15 20:34:41

Well we have been hearing of the science as being stopped for animal research on the ISS and usually that is just the start of things. Then you follow it up with a change of managers and that usually spells doom.
NASA Names International Space Station Program Manager
Recently named William H. Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for Space Operations, has named Michael T. Suffredini as manager, International Space Station (ISS) Program.
Suffredini has served as deputy International Space Station program manager since August 2004.

I don’t know if ISS space station science is a good use of dollars but it would seem to me that if they don’t do it the ISS is completely worthless.

Commodore · 2005-08-15 21:18:13

Considering that the animal science on the ISS was limited to things like mice and snails, this is no major loss.

The ISS is always going to place to do obscure 0g molecular stuff that has no immediate application. That kind of science is like puzzle peices. The results will sit around for a long time but you can't finish the picutre without it. And the ISS is the only place to do it for a good long time.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-16 05:06:25

Hence comes the question of Immediacy of need, cost incurred now and the justification for when is it need along with its new cost in the future.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-17 12:10:39

Spacewalkers to leave space station empty

The pair are tasked with retrieving science experiments and installing a camera.

Only a small amount of time appromately 6 hours.

They will be retrieving the Russian Biorisk experiment, which houses bacteria.
Another will be the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency's Micro-Particles Capture and Space Environment Exposure Device. They will also remove the Matroshka experiment – a human-like torso with layers of dosimeters intended to measure the radiation astronauts are exposed to in space.

Rxke · 2005-08-17 14:32:08

Not the first time iss was left empty during a spacewalk.

As long as they don't slam the door in the lock behind them...

Commodore · 2005-08-17 14:49:00

As long as they don't slam the door in the lock behind them...

Or lock the keys inside.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-17 15:50:25

It is a somewhat worrisome situation... two cosmonauts nearly died on Mir when the airlock hatch got stuck. I do hope that the way the airlocks are arranged that either one of them can be operated from the outside or at least by mission control.

Rxke · 2005-08-17 16:48:40

Didn't they have a problem shutting it, fairly recently? Would be equally bad, unable to repressurize the lock...
And I don't think it's much fun, donning/doffing these suits w/o an extra pair of hands around. These things aren't exactly jumpsuits...

SpaceNut · 2005-08-18 13:25:15

In previous notes on russia playing hardball on the flights going to the ISS aboard a soyuz. Nasa had worked on a barter system but that seems to be going with the rest of failed concepts that nasa has had lately.

Soyuz spacecraft to cost NASA $65 million

Well that sure is up from the proported 20 million that was charge for a tourist.

Russia's commitments on American astronauts' delivery to the International Space Station would expire in spring 2006, meaning that in April 2006, two seats in the Soyuz would be given to Russian cosmonauts and one would go to either a space tourist, a European Space Agency astronaut or any other candidate who can pay for the flight.

Of course we all know of the little problem:

The United States cannot currently buy the craft because of a U.S. law banning airspace equipment purchases from certain countries.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-30 11:24:52

Japan to Develop New Rocket for Station

Japan is planning to develop a new rocket that will carry nearly double the payload of its troubled H-2A booster and carry cargo to the International Space Station, a news report said Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
The new rocket, to be called the H-2B, will be launched in 2008 and carry a payload of up to 8 tons, compared with the payload of 4 to 6 tons for the H-2A, Kyodo News Agency said, citing unidentified officials at Japan's science and technology ministry.
The main mission will be to carry the H-2 Transfer Vehicle, or HTV, to the International Space Station without relying on the U.S. space shuttle, the report said. The HTV will carry food, clothes and scientific equipment to the ISS.
The H-2B will have two engines, instead of the H-2A's one, and four booster rockets.

So then why can we not do the same with shuttle to shuttle c?

The government's Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. have been developing the new launch vehicle since 2004 on a budget of around 20 billion yen (US$180 million; euro147.77 million), Kyodo said.

Palomar · 2005-08-30 15:44:24

SpaceNut wrote:

Japan to Develop New Rocket for Station
Japan is planning to develop a new rocket that will carry nearly double the payload of its troubled H-2A booster and carry cargo to the International Space Station, a news report said Tuesday.
The new rocket, to be called the H-2B, will be launched in 2008 and carry a payload of up to 8 tons, compared with the payload of 4 to 6 tons for the H-2A, Kyodo News Agency said, citing unidentified officials at Japan's science and technology ministry.
The main mission will be to carry the H-2 Transfer Vehicle, or HTV, to the International Space Station without relying on the U.S. space shuttle, the report said. The HTV will carry food, clothes and scientific equipment to the ISS.
The H-2B will have two engines, instead of the H-2A's one, and four booster rockets.
*Saw this at space.com's "Astronotes." I haven't kept up to speed with Japan's space aspirations. So Japan is taking this measure solely because of our Shuttle troubles? Or had they hoped to develop a rocket with this sort of payload and capabilities regardless, i.e. would they have sought to compete with Russia's Soyuz? The article mentions previous spy satellite issues; I take it that was the main/original purpose of their rocket program or this class of rockets(?).
:?:
--Cindy

We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2005-07-16 11:29:53

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#227 2005-07-18 21:20:11

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#228 2005-08-01 06:28:33

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#229 2005-08-01 13:35:12

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#230 2005-08-01 14:10:55

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#231 2005-08-01 15:19:37

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#232 2005-08-01 15:22:40

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#233 2005-08-02 11:22:16

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#234 2005-08-02 11:44:59

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#235 2005-08-02 12:43:29

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#236 2005-08-02 14:18:01

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#237 2005-08-02 14:47:13

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#238 2005-08-03 05:01:45

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#239 2005-08-15 20:26:32

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#240 2005-08-15 20:34:41

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#241 2005-08-15 21:18:13

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#242 2005-08-16 05:06:25

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#243 2005-08-17 12:10:39

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#244 2005-08-17 14:32:08

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#245 2005-08-17 14:49:00

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#246 2005-08-17 15:50:25

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#247 2005-08-17 16:48:40

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#248 2005-08-18 13:25:15

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#249 2005-08-30 11:24:52

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

#250 2005-08-30 15:44:24

Re: ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer