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.'"
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 possible way to get it down, is the same way we got it up there in the first place. Which means dismantling it ! I found a nice array of photos showing the process here [nasa.gov].
I find [spaceprojects.com] the station has cost billions already and is a decade behind schedule. Here's a summary:
INITIAL DESIGN PAPERWORK -- $10 billion
HARDWARE -- $25 billion
SHUTTLE SERVICING COSTS -- $20 billion
MAINTENANCE -- $41 billion
YEAR 2001 COST OVERRUN (disclosed immediately AFTER the presidential election of 2000): $5 billion.
So, multiply this by two and you get the cost of bringing it down. Are you a tax payer? If so, I'm guessing you don't want to pay that
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: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.
Chart of ISS Height (Score:2, Informative)
Getting lower... [heavens-above.com]
Re:Sucesses? (Score:5, Informative)
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 done with Progress and Shuttle engines, not the SM engines that failed.
They can't put it too high or it would be out of reach of the spacecraft that are supposed to service it. Even if they could reach it, you reduce the payload they can get there. Also, if you go too much higher you start hitting the lower edges of the Van Allen belts, which is bad for both the equipment and crew.
BTW: another good description of the recent failure can be found at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/619/1 [thespacereview.com]