ISS Loses Orbit-Boosting Options

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.'"

Not really any danger...

[ZSpade]

As the article itself states, they move the ISS when there is a 1 in 10,000 chance something will hit it, and they know well in advance if that's the case. The ISS is getting so old that I think it's starting to get ridiculous to report all of it's little breakdowns here and there. Personally I think at this point it's a money hole that's outlived it's usefulness.

Re:Sucesses?

[AKAImBatman]

The parent is effectively correct, even if he is a bit abrasive about it. The Space Station, just like the Space Shuttle, was a victim of politics. What was originally going to be a staging point for a moon colony became an international piece of junk that should have been scrapped as soon as its stated purpose was lost. Instead, NASA went ahead and built a station in the wrong orbit that wasn't useful for anything other than showing the flag. Construction has been long behind schedule, over budget, and the poor station has been falling apart at the seams from day 1.

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.

Does anyone remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone remember the Taco Bell bulls-eye and the MIR? Maybe they will have another contest and I can try and win some free tacos.

and not a 30-year old Taco at that....

Re:Sucesses?

[drinkypoo]

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.

The real problem...

[Bryansix]

is that there is so much space junk. And 99.9% of it is from humans. We need some sort of space junk collection device to be deployed.

Progress control

[Tango42]

If the ISS can't control the Progress rockets, but Russian ground control can, it sounds like the problem is simply with the ISS, so why can't they just go through the airlock and control it from inside the Progress craft? I know Progress is an unmanned craft, so probably doesn't have a pilot's seat, but it shouldn't be too hard to rig something up, just in case. They're meant to have some of the best engineers around, surely one of them knows how to splice an extra interface into the system...

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[WindBourne]

Yes it is. Mboverload has spoken out against ISS on a number of occaisions. Basically, his question is a pure troll.

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 to orbit, and then landing on a planet (moon, venus, mars, etc), staying in space is a hard thing to do. Now, we have learned how to survive close, we are ready to move on. It is time to go to the moon, or better to Mars. Only this time, with a station.

Re:The real problem...

[Sordid Euphemism]

The problem with trying to reduce space-junk is that any ablative system will simply create -more- space-junk. Aerogel may be a semisolution for the smaller pieces, but the larget bits of junk will demolish most platforms put up for restraint. Let's put it this way: The easiest way to utterly destroy access to space is to put up a few satellites full of 1-2cm steel ball bearings, and have them explode. Say goodbye to space exploration, even through telescope, for a few decades.