ISS Loses Orbit-Boosting Options 150
An anonymous reader writes "NewScientist reports is reporting that the International Space Station has lost some of its options when it comes to altitude-boosting due to several recent failures. From the article: 'The problems began on 19 April 2006, when the Russian Zvezda service module's main engines failed during a test. The failure may have been due to a sunshade cover that was not completely open, according to a station status report.'"
Sucesses? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sucesses? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, I'm sure there are political reasons why they couldn't NOT build it.
Thank God for the CEV program. It may seem like a step back, but it will actually be a huge step forward for the space program. Let's just hope that Griffin gets it finished before the next political fallout.
Re:Sucesses? (Score:5, Interesting)
It should never have been built in the first place. Using it as a staging area for moon missions? Did anyone believe that would actually save us any money? That's the only reason why it MIGHT be worthwhile. Which it isn't.
It's also too small to be a serious staging area for anything bigger than a toaster, anyway. They'd have had to add significant amounts of storage space, much of which will have to be pressurized, further increasing the demands upon the facility. By the same token, it's too small to do much of anything in, so it's not a useful scientific platform.
The ISS was guaranteed to be a boondoggle from the beginning. It's nothing but a colossal waste of time, aside from the research involved in building the thing and putting it up there. If we were smarter we'd have just built a big spaceship up there in the first place, and sent it to Mars. Of course, we'd still be building the thing, but at least it would be useful when we were done.
Re:Sucesses? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was very excited about the possibilities of the Centerfuge Accomidation Module. Finally they could put up some rodents or fish or other small-enough-to-work-on-the-centerfuge research animals and make them run through the entire reproductive cycle in space repeatedly at different levels of gravity, so if a few Blessed Events accidentally happen some day up there, they'll know what to do..... oops, but that got canned to.
It would be useful for on-orbit checkout of large spacecraft.... but the 51 degree inclanation orbit is going to cost you enough in payload and reduced opportunities for launch that there's no point... you might as well launch something sized like the FGB into the right orbit and you'll come out ahead.
It would be great for researching viruses and such because you can crystalize proteins in space easier than on the ground.... except that between the 1980s when they were going on about it and now, they instead developed improved analytical machines that don't require the sort of perfect large crystals that space is good for.
Oh! Right! We can test out space systems that would be useful for the real missions later on. Except that the station STILL relies on a bunch of Russian hardware that we already know is a smidge clunky.
The station makes perfect sense when you realize that it's a bunch of repackaged hardware built around assumptions from the 70s that we knew to be untrue around 85. The problem is that they didn't take a big step backwards at any point between 1985 and 2000 and really reassess things.
For example, the only time that the option of launching some of the American modules on an expendable booster was considered, they wanted to make the Shuttle-C, not just buy a quiver of Atlas or Titan rockets.
Russian Successes. (Score:2)
Last I checked, it was the American built modules that had most of the problems.
From TFA:
Re:Russian Successes. (Score:2)
Oh, and there's also the whole reaction wheel thing, that's bad on the US side.
Much of the hardware on the US side that would have been nice to use long-term in space so that future designs could rely on it hasn't been launched yet (like the US version of Elektron) or has been canceled altogther (like the US Propulsion module).
Really, the problem I see isn't that the R
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
There's a huge difference between bumping two modules together at a socket-recepticle connector and manuvering around a vehicle autonomously.
The US has been bumping socket-recepticle connectors together since the days of Gemini and the Russians have been mostly-automatically bumping androgynous connecto
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
"DART is the first thing out for the new exploration initiative, so the intention is, DART is a technology development program to enable the CEV to do one of the things we need, which is to autonomously rendezvous and dock in space."
DART was a docking technology demonstrator. It wasn't a final project, but it was
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
Fully autonomous docking is not necessary. The lightspeed delay to orbit is sufficently small that some people on the ground can bang them together just fine.
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
Agree w/ parent and GP.
IIRC, the general plan before it got modified by politicians was to place the ISS at a higher orbit and use a never-constructed Space Tug to transfer cargo from the low orbit that is all the Shuttle can manage to the ISS itself. Combined with fully recoverable/reuseable Shuttle boosters, this could have been an effective system (provided the technology of the day was up to constructing it without going too far over budget).
Too many cost overruns in the Shuttle's development, and t
Re: Sucesses? (Score:1)
The space station and shuttle have paralyzed NASA for decades and have set back space exploration and space science by at least 10-15 years.
While a noble concept, the space station has devolved to symbolize the politicization and popularization of science.
An
Re: Sucesses? (Score:2)
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
The CEV's going to be just as much of a clusterfuck as the shuttle. All of the same contractors are going to do to it the same thing they managed to do with the shuttle.
Look at the proposal. The SRB first stage on the CEV's booster.... so that Thikol doesn't complain to their congresscritter. The cargo vehicle with the external tank so that you don't lose that factory. No effort to make the CEV work on anybody else's launcher, like the EELV Atlas and Deltas or maybe let SpaceX try to undercut things.
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
Re:Sucesses? (Score:3, Insightful)
There aren't any alternatives funded for the CEV. It's about as competitive as the shuttle's procurement was. NASA was going to make the two leading teams do a fly-off, but that was removed from the plan. So, one CEV booster that's intended to last us all the way to the Mars shot, and no alternatives.
We don't need two new boosters. We don't even need two boosters at all. It would have been far cheaper to just source either Delta or Atlas EELV stages. (and leave open the option for SpaceX to sell a
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
As to the boosters, yes, we do need the large one. The smaller one could have been a delta. But none of the other boosters are in the same area WRT to capacity. Of course, that was based on the initial specs. It remains to be seen if they are really going to gut this one. If so, then it is better to go with what we have. But I suspect that griffin will put his foot down and insist on a larger booster, not a smaller one.
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
The heavy lift booster flies twice a year, the light booster flies maybe 6 times a year. It would be far cheaper to fly a single medium booster 12 flights a year. Same, if not more upmass will be flown. Remember, the more of the same thing you build, the cheaper it gets, because you can use more economical manufacturing techniques.
Also, think about the difference between sending two or three smaller earth departure stages into a parking orbi
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
Your argument about the timing is very incorrect. What is missing in your argument is that we need to then send multiple mission AND then join them. This leads to a timing issue. Keep in mind that the longer something is in orbit the longer the likeyhood of slow leaks, more fuel, etc. In fact, is the m
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
Plus, you forget about pad time vs. stacking time. If we are using LC-39, there are three mobile launch platforms, two pads, and four bays in the VAB without doing major modifications or construction. Without building extra pads in LC-39 (which, if NASA does manage to actually launch the new launch vehicles often, is almost required, given that there are two different types of launcher), that still lets you begin a launch cam
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
Look around the industry sometime. There aren't exactly many contractors to deal with. T/Space is about the only "new" company on the block, and they are working with NASA now. Albeit in a much reduced capacity from what they were originally attempting.
The SRB first stage on the CEV's booster.... so that Thikol doesn't complain to their congresscritter.
Actually, the reuse of technology lets them get the roc
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
Also, there's not even much incentive for the teams to deliver the actual cheapest system. They just have to write the best proposal. Were they to have flown demonstrators of the two designs, NASA wouldn't need to start a bidding and design process all over again to switch systems, they'd just need to give the other team a year or two of lead
Nobody cares (Score:2)
There is no national pride in an international space station. In fact it looks like the opposite. There's also nothing new and it all looks like been there, done that.
The only time most people will care is when it de-orbits and makes a nice firework display.
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
Re:Sucesses? (Score:5, Insightful)
For the sake of argument, presume that the spacestation had been designed to travel to mars. By adding high thrust ion engines and power plants, this could have been done. However an assembly as large as the space station and typical for the requirement, loses over a mile of altitude a day in earth orbit and will burn up in the atmosphere within 1 year of ceasing to re-adjust its orbit higher.
What has been really learned is that complex space ships of conventional design will age too soon to be of much use other than to learn how fast things wear out and wear down in a space environment.
Based on that, which had to be learned, the space station has served its intended purposes well.
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Sucesses? (Score:5, Informative)
closer to 2-3 km per month (Score:2)
Re:Sucesses? (Score:1)
It got rid of a bunch of poorly engineered tin cans?
KFG
Re:Sucesses? (Score:1)
Re:Sucesses? (Score:1)
But I like to take my scow down the Hudson. That's what I built it for.
Oh, wait, you mean . . . nevermind.
KFG
Re:Sucesses? (Score:1)
Re:Sucesses? (Score:1)
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
Why would you have expected it to do anything? It's *under construction*. One hardly expects an incomplete facility of any kind to accomplish anything.
Now, if one one want to make the arguement that the design and construction process is flawed - you are on firm ground. But complaining about it not having accomplished yet is like driving up to a fast food place before the walls are up - and complaining about the service or lack thereof.
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
Re:Sucesses? (Score:1, Insightful)
Boy.. aren't we the objective ones today. Did you believe in this conspiracy before the problems, or only after?
My take is that working on a massive internation project like this is very challenging. With all other joint international projects one nation owns the entire thing and accepts funding for new requirements from the others. ISS is completely different and it's teaching all nations a very good lesson. As a global society we need to lea
Re:Sucesses? (Score:2)
An effective prototype would be able to survive for several years between resupply missions.
Remember, the only "on orbit repair" work that's been done is swapping out parts. If the crew was able to take soldering iron and diagonal cutters to the hardware and fix things, or actually put on a spacesuit and check out why a thruster wasn't firing properly, then it would be a realistic prototype for a Mars mission.
Re:MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2, Interesting)
As to the standard answer (including my own), is that it allowed us to develop in space. We have learned a great deal about how to develop equipment and how to stay there for a long period of time. We have made choices that were related to working with Russia (such as a low orbit), but overall, the ISS has been more of a win rather than a lose. Just as we had a high failure rate when getting
Re:MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
um...what? I dissed the space shuttle once?
Re:MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
Re:MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
Not really any danger... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not really any danger... (Score:2)
Simply put, it is like saying your house is too old when it was a 1 year old and only half built.
Re:Not really any danger... (Score:4, Insightful)
The ISS can't be finished. it needs the shuttle to finish it and the shuttle will be phased out long before the ISS is finished.
What the ISS has taught us and no one has figured out is that we need a vaible method for getting small things up to orbit easily. Progress shuttles from Russia don't count. those haven't changed a lot since the 70's. And all the budgets for such craft keep getting cancled.
Re:Not really any danger... (Score:2)
If it works, use it.
I quite happily commute on subway trains that are older than colour television.
Re:Not really any danger... (Score:2)
Re:Not really any danger... (Score:2)
Re:Not really any danger... (Score:2)
But, in the long term, the ISS is now unable to push itself up to a higher orbit. Its orbit decays very slowly. So every so often when a space shuttle parked at it, the shuttle used its thruster to push the ISS to a higher orbit. It hasn't been able to do that, unfortunately.
Luck would have it, the solar maximum phase is behind us. At this point the atmosphere is fairly thin at the ISS's alti
Re:Not really any danger... (Score:2)
Actually, if I wanted to deliberately obstruct space exploration, I would encourage expensive and pointless projects like the Shuttle or the ISS. Given that the ISS is now in space, it may be that it is worth saving for some purpose. But I fail to see why the ISS is supposed to be a stepping stone to space. We are closer to having a real presence in space, but that
Re:Not really any danger... (Score:2)
Re:Not really any danger... (Score:2)
I propose renaming the station ... (Score:5, Funny)
Sitting in a tin can... (Score:1)
Re:I propose renaming the station ... (Score:2)
Re:I propose renaming the station ... (Score:2)
Surely if the kind of people in charge of such a policy were put in charge getting things into orbit, they'd be half way through digging to China by now?
Coke bottle hell..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Does anyone remember... (Score:1, Interesting)
and not a 30-year old Taco at that....
Re:Coke bottle hell..... (Score:2)
no worries (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Aim it at Iran ! (Score:2)
Obligatory Simpsons Reference (Score:1)
If they can't figure it out... (Score:1)
1 in 10,000 (Score:2)
Does this mean that every time they see an object that might hit they're prepared to gamble the entire ISS with 10,000 to 1 odds. So if they see 100 distinct objects with a less than 1 in 10,000 chance of hitting, over the ISS lifetime, there's a roughly 1% chance of one of them hitting? Are these reasonable odds when we're talking about something that cost of the order of $100,000,000,000 to build and carries people.
Re:1 in 10,000 (Score:1)
>Does this mean that every time they see an object that might hit they're prepared to
>gamble the entire ISS with 10,000 to 1 odds.
It's not as though every collision is expected to do catastrophic damage, and you're treating it like it's 10,000:1 odds against assurd destruction.
Re:1 in 10,000 (Score:5, Informative)
Probabilities of independent events are not cumulative...
Concider this:
What is the probability that the next coin-flip comes up heads? 50%...
After I flip heads, what is the next probability for getting heads? It is still 50%.
The next coin flip getting heads? 50% again.
Now, the probability of three consequtive coin flips getting all heads is 12.5%
Re:1 in 10,000 (Score:2)
Woah! I can't wait to hook up with you at Vegas. I hope you have lots of money to burn.
Re:1 in 10,000 (Score:2)
What is the probability that the next coin-flip comes up heads? 50%... After I flip heads, what is the next probability for getting heads? It is still 50%. The next coin flip getting heads? 50% again.
Now, the probability of three consequtive coin flips getting all heads is 12.5%
correct so far - but what you describe is the probability of getting into an accident on *every* commute. The probability of getting into at least one acciden
Re:1 in 10,000 (Score:3)
But computing the probability of being involved in an accident over a period of time is fiendishly difficult as the number of influencing factors increase expotentially.
You must agree that there is a limit as time increases as to the maximum probability of being involved in an automobile accident over the course of a lifetime (or as time --> infinity) and that probability cannot possibily equal or exceed 100%.
On the other end of the scale, there is a minimum probability that in any instant in time that y
Re:1 in 10,000 (Score:4, Informative)
Even with this low probability, the ISS could get whacked once every day.. and the probably would still be 1:10000 with the procedure they are using today. Assuming they are modelling probability properly.
Re:1 in 10,000 (Score:2)
What do you think the difference is?
Re:1 in 10,000 (Score:2)
Re:1 in 10,000 (Score:2)
Re:1 in 10,000 (Score:3, Insightful)
And carries volunteers - they all know what they may be in for when they sign up.
The real problem... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The real problem... (Score:2, Interesting)
Hold it, 99.9% of Space Junk is from Humans??? (Score:2)
Enquiring minds want to know!
myke
I didn't really RTFA (Score:1, Troll)
Progress control (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Progress control (Score:2)
I can't see a reason for there to be any electronic connection between the pressurised forward module and propulsion module of the progress spacecraft [wikipedia.org].
The astronaut would have to go EVA to rig up a way of controlling the engines (possibly as easy as starting a car from the engine compartment) while wearing a pressure suit.
Personally I can't see it happening.
Re:Progress control (Score:2)
This kind of situation would be that reason. The progress craft was launched knowing it would be used for boosting the station's orbit, so they could have rigged something up on the ground as a backup.
Much better coverage (Score:2)
Much better coverage can be found in Jim Oberg's essay [thespacereview.com] at The Space Review.
I saw it (Score:2)
Chart of ISS Height (Score:2, Informative)
Getting lower... [heavens-above.com]
Re:Chart of ISS Height (Score:2)
Now why can't they give it a nudge up again? I'm not a space or orbit engineer, why don't they boost it higher so it doesn't decay so rapidly?
Re:Chart of ISS Height (Score:3, Informative)
To answer the question, they could boost it somewhat higher, but have chosen not to. Lower orbits give leave more payload for visiting craft, although that must be weighed against extra fuel for reboosts. Reboosts also affect the launch windows for visiting craft. You might look at the graph the GP posted and think "OMG it's falling out of control" but that is not the case. It's at the current altitude because thats where they decided they wanted it. Reboosts are normally d
Re:Chart of ISS Height (Score:2)
Is it normal for all satellites to be boosted, or only larger things like ISS, Hubble, etc?
Re:Chart of ISS Height (Score:2)
Even where atmospheric drag isn't a big fac
Oh No (Score:2)
Re:Bring it back... (Score:3, Insightful)
Space is a pretty brutal enironment. Hard vacuum, only microgravity, extremes of cold and heat, etc.
Re:Bring it back... (Score:2)
Re:Bring it back... (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be way cheaper and easier to send up a bunch of "experts" to figure the sucker out rather than return it to Earth.
(Sorry if I'm a bit snippy. Rough day, and all that.)
Re:Bring it back... (Score:5, Insightful)
But bring it back for that? You have GOT to be kidding. Do you also bring your house to a plumber's shop when you have a clogged toilet?
Re:Bring it back... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bring it back... (Score:3, Informative)
Whilst if you take a peek at the Shuttle info page [seds.org] you'll find that the cargo bay is 60 ft long, 15 ft in diameter. so there's almost no way you could get that station anywhere inside the orbiter. The only pos
Re:Bring it back... (Score:2)
Re:Don't bring it back, crash it into the MOON! (Score:2)
Re:But the real question is.... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Just when I get done reading about the collection (1-4 and gaiden) coming over to the PSP, I see this comment.
Well done. Well done.
Re:But the real question is.... (Score:1, Offtopic)
!!! OMG Gradius !!!
That was a good post. AND you have just given me a reason to buy a PSP. cool Gradius on a PSP.
Do you know if Gradius 4 has 'removed' the original perfect combo of weapons? I was playing a PS2 version of the game somewhere (rented a system) and noticed that all the best stuff had been greyed-out and not available.