Whither the ISS?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-06 14:17:12

So what happens to the ISS now? How do we get our astronauts up to it, and how do we bring them down, since we rely on the Russians to provide transportation, and the United States may slap sanctions on Russia for what's going on in Crimea, Ukraine? Do we end up abandoning the ISS?

RobertDyck · 2014-03-06 17:26:01

Good question. Bureaucrats have created obstacles for DragonRider. They weren't allowed a single test flight until after Orion. Perhaps they can now expedite DragonRider.

SpaceNut · 2014-03-06 21:01:43

Russian Commander Mikhail Tyurin and flight engineers Rick Mastracchio of NASA and Koichi Wakata of Japan on Nov. 7, 2013. What I have also notice is that the crews on the ISS have decided to stay out of the politics even through the crew make up right now is just two American astronauts Mike Hopkins and Rick Mastracchio. If necessary, the Chinese have the capability of taking humans to and from a space station. This issue goes beyond that of sending American taxpayer dollars at an ever-rising cost, now over $70M a seat as of last August only 2 1/2 years since the shuttle flights ended to the Russian space establishment that could instead be purchasing lower-cost American flights from American providers and creating a new high-tech American industry. Russian cosmonaut Oleg Kotov hands over command of the ISS to Japan’s Koichi Wakata, officially ending Expedition 38 and kicking off Expedition 39. For the next two months, Wakata will become the first of his countrymen to take charge of the space station. On board is also Russian Sergei Ryazansky.

http://www.americaspace.com/?p=53987

The International Space Station (ISS) is currently staffed by the Expedition 38 crew. In command is Oleg Kotov (seated right). Seated left is Koichi Wakata, with (from left) Mikhail Tyurin, Rick Mastracchio, Sergei Ryazansky, and Mike Hopkins standing. On Sunday, Kotov will transfer command over to Wakata and Expedition 39 will begin.

Terraformer · 2014-03-07 08:21:27

Well, Europe isn't planning to impose sanctions, as far as I'm aware. Perhaps the US will be willing to lease their modules for a couple of years (maybe only a year) whilst Dragon development is accelerated?

Or maybe, Musk is waiting for sanctions to be declared, before stepping forward and revealing that DragonRider is ready at the moment...

RobertDyck · 2014-03-07 08:45:24

Europe doesn't have a vehicle for humans. Ironic considering they built Ariane 5 specifically to lift a capsule to ISS. ESA kept proposing a capsule, but politicians who pay the bills cancelled them all. They did build an unmanned cargo ship: ATV. It has a docking system, and a good service module, but no heat shield, no parachute, and the aluminum hull would melt during re-entry. No abort capability much less return. The Orion team has proposed using Europe's service module with the Orion capsule. That says a lot about Boeing's ability to finish Orion. But Orion has completed a drop from an aircraft, and test of the launch escape system. So how quick could get an Orion capsule with ATV service module launched on an Ariane 5?

RobertDyck · 2014-03-07 10:00:25

Orion is scheduled to launch this year. On a Delta IV Heavy. The service module is ready, and 2 of the 3 core modules.

GW Johnson · 2014-03-07 10:19:09

Musk is no fool. He won't fly a manned Dragon until he gets paid for all the work he has done, plus what there still is to do, plus a premium for being the only game in town ready-to-go. But once he gets paid, he will fly one manned so fast it will make your head spin.

The tough part of the engineering was done some time ago: figuring out how to actually do it as an integral part of the capsule's basic design. That was integral to Dragon's design from the beginning. He's been paid to scale up the Draco thrusters into the Super Dracos that provide abort thrust. That's now final shakedown work that has been proceeding for a while now, on the contract that he has.

There is only integration and demonstration of a Super Draco-equipped Dragon left to do, before flying manned. That's what NASA has scheduled to dribble-out funds for, until 2017, in order to protect Boeing (and by extension ULA), their favorite contractor these days. It's not about technological readiness, it's about super-high-dollar corporate political influence (something Musk does not yet have).

If the politics gets ditched, money thrown at Musk quickly could have Dragon flying manned in at most a year, perhaps as short as 6 months. Just an educated guess on my part, but I think he could do it. That's faster than Boeing can make its CST fly, and certainly faster than Dreamchaser could be ready. It was the same pattern with cargo to ISS: Musk could have had cargo Dragon working even earlier, but even limited by NASA's schedule as it was, he beat Orbital Sciences by a year.

What you are seeing over Ukraine is the start of Cold War 2, which will gradually end US-Russian cooperation on a lot of things, including space. It will take the idiot politicians a while to recognize that we cannot tolerate the post-shuttle gap any longer, and even longer for the bone-headed un-elected bureaucrats. But, eventually, this geopolitical problem will accelerate Musk's manned Dragon.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-07 11:23:50

I prefer to think of it as a Cold War between the West and Vladimir Putin. I think with Putin's removal, the Cold War will end. After all, there is no ideological reason to have a Cold War, Russians know that it will just make them less secure and endanger their cities. Putin has his "1936 Olympics" he had his "Ansluss" with North Georgia and Eastern Ukraine, now all that remains for him to do in Hitler's footsteps is to start World War III. The problem is he can't do so without destroying most of the World, and destroying most of the World brings no advantages for him, he might not even survive. Even Adolf wanted to conquer the World not destroy most of it. A Cold War is just stupid, and it brings no advantages for the Russians.

Terraformer · 2014-03-07 11:54:03

Europe can use Soyuz, since they are unlikely to impose sanctions - especially if this drags out until winter.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-08 15:00:00

The question then becomes, how much can Russia take before Europe imposes sanctions? If it can forcibly take Ukraine and no sanctions are imposed, what if it invades Poland? If it can take Poland with no sanctions from Europe, what if it invades Germany. How far is Europe willing to let Russia go before it imposes sanctions? This is very much a test for Europe, does Europe want to fail? Your part of Europe, Terraformer, what do you think?

Terraformer · 2014-03-08 16:59:14

Reply is here.

JoshNH4H · 2014-03-08 21:14:53

I would further advise that all political discussion not directly related to space activities is off topic in this thread.

Excelsior · 2014-03-26 17:48:52

Considering the price of a handful of Ba330 modules and the vastly enhanced capabilities, a logistics module or two, commercial crew transport and orbital resupply, and the Falcon Heavy launcher, why would we keep using the ISS?

The only question is whether to sink it before or after the Russians detach their modules.

Quaoar · 2014-03-27 05:09:09

Excelsior wrote:

Considering the price of a handful of Ba330 modules and the vastly enhanced capabilities, a logistics module or two, commercial crew transport and orbital resupply, and the Falcon Heavy launcher, why would we keep using the ISS?
The only question is whether to sink it before or after the Russians detach their modules.

ISS has an orbit too inclined to be useful. I think in a future we will need three bases, even smaller (just one or two BA330) but with manutencion and assembly capability: one in low equatorial orbit to support Moon missions, one in EML1 or EML2 for the Moon landers, and one in a LEO on the plane of ecliptic for interplanetary missions

tahanson43206 · 2021-02-20 13:44:16

This topic has been idle since 2014 .... here is an update to bring it back into view:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/northrop-gru … 40891.html

William Harwood
Sat, February 20, 2021, 1:18 PM
A Northrop Grumman Antares rocket boosted a Cygnus cargo ship into orbit Saturday after a picture-perfect launch from Virginia's Eastern Shore, carrying more than 8,000 pounds of supplies and equipment bound for the International Space Station.
The rocket's two Russian-built RD-181 first stage engines ignited at 12:36 p.m., throttled up to full thrust and pushed the booster skyward from pad 0A at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport - MARS - at NASA's Wallops Island, Virginia, flight facility.
<snip>
A few minutes before launch, the International Space Station flew directly over NASA's Wallops Island, Virginia, launch facility where the Antares rocket and Cygnus cargo ship were awaiting liftoff. <snip>
If all goes well, the Cygnus spacecraft will reach the station early Monday. Japanese astronaut Soichi Noguchi and crewmate Mike Hopkins will capture the cargo ship using the lab's robot arm. Flight controllers at the Johnson Space Center in Houston then will take over by remote control to pull the ship in for berthing.
"This vehicle is carrying over 8,000 pounds of cargo to the International Space Station," said Joel Montalbano, manager of the station program in Houston. "We've been talking to the crew onboard (and) they're eagerly awaiting the Cygnus arrival, and look forward to opening the hatch and getting inside and continuing the science and research program we have scheduled."

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-02-20 14:02:22

6 plus years down the road we are still using the station after thr Russians wanted to take there ball and go away...currently they want nothing to do with the moon's deep space gateway...

tahanson43206 · 2022-03-12 10:01:28

A relative sent this link ... I couldn't believe it at first, but eventually decided it is for real ...

The ISS has been approved as an archeological "dig" site, according to the article. Extensive documentation of the site has been under way.

I'm not convinced the ISS will end up in the ocean, but it sure might, so the ongoing study will (hopefully) preserve memory of the actual station, as compared to original blue prints or random snapshots by astronauts.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/11/world/sp … index.html

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-03-12 14:19:00

End of life for all things circling the Earth is crash into land hopefully missing a population center and deep six-ing it into the ocean which has been the overall practice.

Some of the modules have been said to have an end of life past 2028 so these are targeted by Axiom space to add to and create the modules for addition. One needs to focus currently on propulsion which is being provide by the Russian's.

The topic starts out in 2014 when the question of Russia as a sustainable partner was questioned and the about face on the use of the RD-180 engines started the work for replacement.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-03-13 08:48:45

'Sanctions could cause space station to crash: Roscosmos'
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Sanc … s_999.html

Rogozin fought in the Transnistria war against the Moldovan forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org
In 1988, he graduated at the University of Marxism–Leninism under the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU.

On 23 December 2011, Rogozin was appointed as Deputy Prime Minister, in charge of the defense and space industries.

SpaceNut · 2022-03-13 12:46:33

The cygnus has already perform a past boost of orbit so its not going to be a problem if the Russians want to leave. But purposely crashing what they do not own could be seen as an act of war by the other partners as well as the US....

SpaceNut · 2022-03-13 20:54:19

Here is the first 2018 and follow up test February 21, 2022 Cygnus cargo craft will test ability to boost and deorbit the International Space Station

Cygnus has 32 monopropellant maneuvering thrusters, and one large bipropellant, hydrazine and oxidizer-powered engine that delivers 100 pounds of thrust.
The burn should increase the station's velocity by about a tenth of a meter per second. A typical Progress orbital boost burn can last 15 minutes, and change the velocity by about 1.5 meters per second.

Northrop Grumman delivers cargo and new reboost capability to space station

Did not find anything for a dragon as of yet.

GW Johnson · 2022-03-14 08:14:44

Just ratioing from the numbers in the quoted article, and knowing from physics that impulse equals change in momentum: Progress burns 15 minutes and gets 1.5 m/s change in station speed. Cygnus can change the station by 0.1 m/s. That means the Cygnus thruster impulse is 15 times smaller than Progress thruster impulse. That's proportional to the propellant load at equal Isp.

There is this to consider. Cygnus is supposed to be disposed-of by reentry. If it uses its propellant to reboost the station, it would have to be refilled on orbit in order to safely dispose of the non-reusable vehicle.

Cargo Dragon has some 1200 kg of MMH-NTO propellants. I think crew Dragon has more, about 50% more, but I could be wrong. I have no way to compare, because I do not have a propellant quantity for Cygnus or Progress. The Isp's should be similar, and total impulse is Isp times propellant mass. Dragon also needs to have some propellant to deorbit for reuse. That 1200+ kg covers rendezvous as well as deorbit. There is a circularization burn in there before the little thrusters are used for rendezvous and docking. Both the big and little thrusters draw from the same supply.

To use Cygnus or Dragon for reboost really says more propellant needs to be hauled up as cargo that Cygnus or Dragon are carrying. The missing piece is how to get that propellant-as-cargo into the spacecraft tanks where it can be used in the spacecraft engines. THAT missing piece is the real critical item here! Made critical by Russia trying to start WW3 the same way Hitler started WW2.

NASA let the Russians do the reboost thing with Progress for years, without ever actually learning how to do it for itself. Watching and understanding something IS NOT THE SAME as actually being able to do it. Knowledge IS NOT skill. No amount of wishful thinking will ever change that ugly little reality.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2022-03-14 08:20:13)

Calliban · 2022-03-14 09:07:48

Would it not be possible to mount some of the ion engines used to propel Dawn?

kbd512 · 2022-03-14 09:46:04

GW,

Zvezda has a pair of 3.07kN engines fed from 4 propellant tanks with 860kg of total propellant capacity. Each engine can be gimballed up to 5°.

Each SuperDraco engine supplies 71kN, but consists of 2 separate chambers so that a single SuperDraco, when throttled down, should be able to supply the thrust required. These engines are capable of deep-throttling because they were intended to be used for precision landings on the ground. We could mount a single SuperDraco engine on a gimbal mount, Cargo Dragon has 6,000kg of payload capacity, which can be any mix of pressurized or unpressurized cargo, so we'd leave one of these little guys attached to the ISS until its propellant is about to run out, send it back to Earth, and then send up the next one with a full load of propellant.

We can afford to devote 2 to 4 Cargo Dragon and/or Cygnus autonomous spacecraft to station keeping operations and bring up the consumables with our Crew Dragon and Starliner capsules. This may not be ideal, but no "perfect solution" is required to run operations aboard ISS, which has been a never-ending series of kluges and compromises that happen to work well enough to get the job done.

We have the engines required, we have the propellant capacity required, and we have the technical know-how to do the job, as evidenced by the fact that Cygnus has already been used or will be used on the current mission to perform a partial re-boost of the ISS.

We made a mistake by trusting that the Russians would honor their agreements. We won't make that mistake again. Any mission-critical hardware should be American technology that requires no "international partners" of questionable devotion to the partnership. Partnership only works when all partners are equally committed to the project or task at hand.

kbd512 · 2022-03-14 09:55:55

Calliban,

It's possible and vastly more efficient to use solar electric propulsion, such as VASIMR, to re-boost the ISS. Rather than dumping the H2 gas from the onboard O2 generators into space, that H2 could be used as propellant to supply the thrust required to keep the ISS in its assigned orbit by continuously firing. This has the added benefit of less disturbance to the microgravity environment of the ISS. VASIMR's specific impulse with H2 propellant is in the 10,000s range. More importantly, NASA can choose between VASIMR and Aerojet-Rocketdyne's X-200 nested hall thruster designs, or evaluate both. Both thrusters have been extensively ground-tested here on Earth over many years and many extended duration firings. While power-hungry, these engines would form the basis of future high-Isp missions to Mars. As I understand it, both have been test-fired with Hydrogen, Argon, and Xenon propellants, so we have multiple propellant options as well. Argon would be a low-cost high-thrust option, but Hydrogen could supply continuous thrust for months to years.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2014-03-06 14:17:12

Whither the ISS?

#2 2014-03-06 17:26:01

Re: Whither the ISS?

#3 2014-03-06 21:01:43

Re: Whither the ISS?

#4 2014-03-07 08:21:27

Re: Whither the ISS?

#5 2014-03-07 08:45:24

Re: Whither the ISS?

#6 2014-03-07 10:00:25

Re: Whither the ISS?

#7 2014-03-07 10:19:09

Re: Whither the ISS?

#8 2014-03-07 11:23:50

Re: Whither the ISS?

#9 2014-03-07 11:54:03

Re: Whither the ISS?

#10 2014-03-08 15:00:00

Re: Whither the ISS?

#11 2014-03-08 16:59:14

Re: Whither the ISS?

#12 2014-03-08 21:14:53

Re: Whither the ISS?

#13 2014-03-26 17:48:52

Re: Whither the ISS?

#14 2014-03-27 05:09:09

Re: Whither the ISS?

#15 2021-02-20 13:44:16

Re: Whither the ISS?

#16 2021-02-20 14:02:22

Re: Whither the ISS?

#17 2022-03-12 10:01:28

Re: Whither the ISS?

#18 2022-03-12 14:19:00

Re: Whither the ISS?

#19 2022-03-13 08:48:45

Re: Whither the ISS?

#20 2022-03-13 12:46:33

Re: Whither the ISS?

#21 2022-03-13 20:54:19

Re: Whither the ISS?

#22 2022-03-14 08:14:44

Re: Whither the ISS?

#23 2022-03-14 09:07:48

Re: Whither the ISS?

#24 2022-03-14 09:46:04

Re: Whither the ISS?

#25 2022-03-14 09:55:55

Re: Whither the ISS?

Board footer