Slashdot Mirror
Zvezda Module Is Go For Launch
Dr. DSP writes: "One of the primary Russian components of the International Space Station, the Zvezda module, is being scheduled for launch on July 12, and rendevous with the station on the 26th. The Zvezda module will serve as early living quarters for astro/cosmonauts. It contains the life support, electrical power distribution, data processing, flight control, and propulsion systems. The fact that the Russians have been late to launch this module is one of the largest problems NASA, and the space agencies of the other partner nations, has had to deal with since the project started. The fact that Zvezda is launching will be a sigh of relief for the international aerospace community. Read the press release at NASA's website."
I am surprised that the Russians have managed to build this. I am also worried about the quality of the component. Mir is testament to the fact that Russians making something on a small budget does not work too well. I am sure that NASA would have given a thorough test before launch
And if the space station is run by castronauts, how long until we have a custody battle over little Alien Gonzalez who came 53,000 light years to live in america?
/. at 5:30 am...
Boy, i gotta stop reading
Dreamweaver
"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.
And it means Zee Vehicle Eventually Dives Apocolyptically in English.
-- iCEBaLM
Blah, thats Zee Vehicle Eventually Zoom Dives Apocolyptically
-- iCEBaLM
The length of panels alone doesn't matter, area does. Maybe they are wider too? More efficient? Module modified to use less power? Mistakes happen, but probably not such a basic one.
Russian politicians simply don't care about the safety of their cosmonauts - they still see the USA as the "old enemy". All they want is to see the spacecraft up there - adequate electrical supply or no.
With all these modules, they're probably trying to build a new lego, only much bigger.
:)
Imagine all the things we can create with this new lego: GIANT SPACE ROBOTS!!!
Looks like Goldorak is going to come back
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
Does anyone else agree that building the IIS is a complete waste of time? Talk about a vision impaired, boring, and uninspired project.
Wasnt the last 13 years of MIR enough research in SpaceStations?
Why arent we building a station on the moon? or going to Mars? What is the hold up?
What happened to the need to explore? our sense of adventure?
It wouldn't even work very well for that, either. The main tank is built like a balloon. It's made of millions of little interlocking pieces, and it only has structural integrity when their is positive pressure on the inside.
I can't wait for the catastrophe that will inevitabley lead to the destruction of the International Space Station. I am counting on a compatability issue between the American and Russian sofware. Sit back and watch the fireworks folks.
Never believe in anything until it has been officially denied. -Otto von Bismarck
The External Tank is made of spacecraft craft aluminum and lithium, and certified for pressures much higher than an earth normal atmosphere (because of the nature of the cryogenic fuel it carries).
The walls are thicker then the walls on Skylab, and stronger too, and Skylab kicked ass as a space station (until it personally kicked the ass of some shepherders when it came down over Australia).
Also, there are 10-15 tons of liquid oxygen and hydrogen leftover after MECO, and that stuff could be drained and used for life support and propellent, and to make water.
Interestingly, the Zvezda module was originally built for Mir-2, the intended followup to Mir. So in effect, that's exactly what they did.
I think it's more likely that Zvezda isn't supposed to provide power for the entire station. It's the bootstrap module. Once it's up and connected to the frame, they can hook up the big solar panels.
Besides, unless you've kept something in orbit and (mostly) functional for three times its expected lifespan, I don't think you should be talking trash about the Russians.
Teach your kids: "C++ made baby Jesus cry."
As for the Science Power Platform (SPP), NASA is still bookkeeping it in their plans but no one really expects it to be there in real life.
You're thinking of the Atlas, Deltas and other boosters. Those structures require pressurization to keep integrity, but the shuttle external tank doesn't. It doesn't even have a helium re-pressurization system like other boosters.
Plus, if it's in orbit and pressurized to an atmosphere, that would more then take care of the pressurization problem right there. If there was one.
eellis speculates wildly:
On reading the press release, it seems that the Russians still haven't got a clue about generating the power required for a space station. [...] One of the designers of the solar array [told] me that the then planned array size of 60 feet was too small by a factor of 2. It seems that they've added some extra capacity, but nowhere near enough. So, this mission is doomed to fail. They'll run out of power.
What the bleep do you mean "doomed" and "fail"? Is it going to flicker on and off until something catches fire and the entire space station veers off course and crashes and burns spectacularly in Central Park? Or is it (worst case scenario) going to simply be chronically short of the expected power requirements, meaning the crews have to reroute the systems it supports, and perhaps give up some luxuries? I guess the second scenario isn't as ominous sounding.
Perhaps there is some truth to this -- there are always engineering disagreements on projects this big -- but the Russians aren't doing this alone, and there has been ample consideration given to the ISS power requirements.
The Service Module is only responsible for a small percentage of station power. When complete, the entire ISS power system will consist of four US-built arrays connected to the US Node 1 via the Z1 Truss, each with four 112x39' wings, as well as the solar arrays on the Zarya and Zvezda modules, and possibly (if the Russians meet their commitments) a separate array to power the Russian science modules (which are themselves not guaranteed). The aggregate power systems will produce 110 kW, of which 98 kW will come from the US-built main arrays. (By comparison, all of Mir's solar panels, including the US-built-and-delivered MCSA, produce a mere 30 kW.)
The first of the main arrays will be installed by ISS Crew 1 around November, so they won't be dependent on the Zvezda arrays for very long at all. Each PANEL on the array has more power capacity than BOTH the Zvezda wings, and there will be four panels.
In short, for the completed ISS, Zvezda will be providing about 1.5% of the power requirements.
In any case, the Mir power problems weren't related directly to the power-generation abilities of the solar arrays; they were related to the lousy Russian batteries that couldn't keep the station running when Mir lost the ability to stay pointed at the sun. Fortunately, ISS has better batteries and more of them. We'll see how this goes.
For the "mission" (whatever you meant by that) to be "doomed", the American-built main arrays would have to be so badly designed that they generate less than half the expected power. Anywhere in between that, and they will simply have to modify the science expectations until they can supplement the power systems.
----
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
Frodo writes, incredibly:
... hardly the "early 40s".
Russians are dealing with lauching spacecrafts since early 40's at least (even earilier, but in 40's they had results). So they probably have couple of clues. I don't know how much spacecraft did you launch, but they did launch a couple successfully, didn't they?
While I certainly would agree that in fact the Russians probably know a little more about space stations than we do, you should check your facts once in a while.
The first Russian spacecraft was Sputnik, which was launched in 1957
Anyway, the question eellis asked was a little uninformed but it was a good question. The power requirements for a space station are a critical factor and should not be overlooked. The Russians do have some issues with the Proton launch vehicles. Despite the basic design being in use for four decades (though upgraded frequently), Proton vehicles have been blowing up or detonated by range safety at a disturbing rate the last couple of years.
Kazakhstan even required the Russians (whose Baikonur space complex ended up in another country after the USSR broke up) to halt launches until they could solve the safety problems. Meanwhile, the Zvezda -- which was much delayed in building -- was also delayed due to US concerns that launching it on a Proton was too risky.
The Proton got a hasty upgrade to a new propulsion system design and has launched successfully with that new design a couple of times now, which is why Zvezda is finally scheduled to go up.
----
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
Last year, two Proton rockets blew up, both the same way - during the second stage burn. These launches were not in sequence - there were two good ones (Sept. 6, Sept. 26) between bad ones (July 5, Oct. 27). Since then, five launches were successful (Feb. 12, Mar. 11, Apr. 17, June 5, June 23). June 23 launch used a modified Proton version, which counts towards the NASA requirement. There are two more planned launches between now and July 12.
The latest launch schedule from http://www.flatoday.com/space/next/sked.htm June 30: Lockheed Martin Atlas 2A on AC-139 with NASA's Tracking and Data Relay Satellite-H (TDRS-H) from pad 36A at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla. Launch window 8:38 to 9:18 AM EDT (1238 to 1318 GMT). (Launch delayed 24 hours).
June 30: International Launch Services Proton (Block DM) with first Sirius Satellite Radio spacecraft (formerly known as CD Radio) from Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. Launch time 6:08:47 PM EDT (2208:47 GMT).
No earlier than June: Ukranian Zenit-2 with a Russian Kosmos military spacecraft from Complex 45 at Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. Launch time TBA.
July 4: Russian Proton with a Geyser data relay satellite for the Russian Ministry of Defense from Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. Launch time 7:40 PM EDT (2340 GMT).
July 12: Starsem Soyuz-Fregat with two Cluster-2 satellites (FM6 and FM7) from Complex 31 at Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. Launch Time TBD.
July 12: Russian Proton on ISS flight 1R with the Zvezda Service Module for the International Space Station from Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. Launch time approximately 1:02 AM EDT (0502 GMT).
Some more statistics:
Total planned Proton launches between last failure and Zvezda flight: 7
Number of launches this year:
Proton: 5
Soyuz: 6
Ariane: 4
Atlas: 4
Delta: 3
Did he mean a factor of 2 by length or by area?
I guess I'm mostly uninformed on this besides the press release, but it seems that all they've given in it is the wingspan. Is there a reason that the solar array couldn't have also have been made wider than originally planned?
So, we have the people responsible for actually testing and launching this thing, versus "a guy I met at a conference two years ago".
Perhaps, just perhaps, just maybe, it's a wild possibility but we owe it to ourselves to consider that there may be some small chance, that your interlocutor was talking shit.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Don't forget that one of the four main solar arrays will be installed on the Z-truss shortly after Zvesda is launched. Zvesda's power generation capability is similar to the FGB's - just there to keep the station running until the main truss is installed.i ghts/2000/4a.html
Check this:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/assembly/fl
And happily belonging to none of the mentioned countries but likely to benefit lots all the same, I'm proud to be providing moral support.
Yeah! Go ISS! =P
I guess that NASA will have checked the specs as well. This mission is too important for them to fail. If this mission fails they will get less funding themselves.. besides.. Russia knows that they can, no MUST, not fail. If they do fail then the ISS project will be doomed.
Ok, we have the worlds most expensive meccano set gradually being built and bolted together.
Do we know what we're going to do with it once it's in place? Nope.
It's just a case of meccano envy. The Russians have a large meccano set in space (gradually falling apart but there) and the Americans want one too except they can't afford it and got the Russians and everyone else to help build it.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
For a first post! Heh, just kidding. I am surprised the Russians were able to get their act together. I thought they had basically dropped out of the program. It is good to see the space station is starting to be a little more "international" now. Of course, being years behind schedule is not good, but better late than never, right?
/. is a commercial entity. goto slashdot.com
Damn. I must have messed up my install somewhere.
/lib/modules/0.0.1/construct/left-bit.o /lib/modules/0.0.1/construct/right-bit.o /lib/modules/0.0.1/systems/life-sup.o /lib/modules/0.0.1/constants/gravity.o
[root@localhost]>modprobe zvezda
[root@localhost]>insmod zvezda
[root@localhost]>depmod zvezda
depmod: not an NASA file
depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in
depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in
depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in
depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in
Any one got a clue? It looks like it still needs some work?
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
It was later reveiled, due to Russian cutbacks, the space station component was actually swiped from the back yard rocket man
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Hey, maybe they are using the new Transmeta Crusoe CPU? (hint, hint, hint)
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Didn't we just go through this with Daikatana?
I can see the reviews now:
"Zvezda module lacking in the multiplayer dept., though multiplayer co-op does have some potential..."
"...I can't believe we waited this long for a module full of annoying frogs with weak AI."
"You can't make it to the end of the module if any of your fellow crew members die...and unfortunately, they can't seem to do anything else!"
"I heard the Russians had to close down Looking Glass Studios because they'd already thrown all their money into the Zvezda module."
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
From the press release:
Last time I was in Moscow, as part of an international conference (1998), I had some interesting discussions with one of the designers of the solar array. He voiced his concerns to me that the then planned array size of 60 feet was too small by a factor of 2. It seems that they've added some extra capacity, but nowhere near enough.So, this mission is doomed to fail. They'll run out of power.
.. so that congresscritters could indefinitely continue funneling $$$ to their favorite cold-war era aerospace defense contractors. This is also known as "Corporate Wellfare". Wasn't this thing supposed to be done 13 years ago or so?
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Wait a minute here...
We have one slashdot article of some guy building a rocket in his backyard...
Then we have an article on the russians sending a module into space..
Coincidence?
About time...
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Okay. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm basing that statement on a presentation I attended by a NASA engineer. The gist of it was that the external tank is made of millions of these ~1 foot long interlocking metal bars. When the empty tank falls away for reentry, the shock breaks up the bonds between the bars, and they all reenter seperately, and since they are small they vaporize easily (much more easily than a solid ~150-foot long tank, for sure). Now that I think about it, I do remember the engineer mentioning that there was enough rigidity in an empty tank to support it's own weight + the weight of the shuttle but not much more. It had to have pressure to withstand any extra force.
Wow, that's so wrong for so many reasons...
No. The external tanks are not made up of thousands of puzzle pieces that magically turn to dust the moment they aren't needed anymore.
It's two large metal tanks with a skirt around their juncture and a point in the front. That's all.
It's not Jenga. If you bother to visit the link in my first message, you can actually see pictures of the insides of the ET as well as lots of technical data.
The reason the ET is dropped in the pacific is because it is a huge single object. On disconnect from the shuttle, open valves make it start tumbling slowly so that it will break up faster and more completely.
I think Australia is supplying beer. 1 carton.
In old days, maybe we send you to gulag. I have better idea for you comrade; we have you write control code for Zvezda module, yes? You work in Zvezda module, yes? Nothing but cosmonauts to look at, surely you have no problems concentrating. As for being fired; no fired, ejected!
--
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
people up there? ...and how about this guy (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/shepherd.ht ml)...an astronaut/MS from NASA who is a Mission Commander for an international mission launched from Russia (okay, Kazakhstan)...AND the guy is a SEAL...I can't wait to see the posts from the Black Helicaopter and Militia geeks!!!
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
Canada is providing a 55-foot-long robotic arm to be used for assembly and maintenance tasks on the Space Station.
The European Space Agency is building a pressurized laboratory to be launched on the Space Shuttle and logistics transport vehicles to be launched on the Ariane 5 launch vehicle.
Japan is building a laboratory with an attached exposed exterior platform for experiments as well as logistics transport vehicles.
In addition, Brazil and Italy are contributing some equipment to the station through agreements with the United States.
I think Italy plans to launch one or two modules this year, and early next year.
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
...
I thought it said "Zvezda Module is Out to Lunch." I guess it was just from reading that last article about the Backyard Rocket.
Yes
Good thing foreign policy isn't run by university students I think. "We can't trust the Russians" is the most lucid thought you came up with in two years? It might have escaped your notice that Russia has a few funding problems these days, and they don't have the only space programme plagued by cost overuns and missed deadlines. Me, I don't think the ISS will be worth the money (it will be the most expensive object in human history once completed, and cost up of 30 billion a year to run, is my understanding) and I think a better idea would be to shunt the shuttle fuel tanks up and knock together a workable utility platform: that way it could evolve as needed, instead of being ten years out of date by the time its launched. But anyway, what do I know about Manifest Destiny..
I just love the "edge of technology agency NASA" who releases press releases on FTP - Way to go NASA .. Let me fire up the old FTP client and read some press releases :-)
iss has already russian build parts on it + that russians and americans are not only ones contributing to ISS. ESA (14 european countries + canada) is also participating.
-- http://electronicintifada.net --
NASA also has imposed restriction that Russia successfully launch 2 other Protons before they go ahead with the Service Module.
The 12 June date is not solid. If all goes well that is the earliest window for launch. Note that the listed window runs from July 8-14. If they can't get the SM up by the 14th of July, the next launch opportunity won't be until early August. Here's a breakdown of near term Russian launches:
June 23: Russian Proton K-DM with the Intersputnik Express-3A communications satellite from Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. Launch Time 8:28 PM EDT (0028 GMT June 24).
No earlier than June: Ukranian Zenit-2 with a Russian Kosmos military spacecraft from Complex 45 at Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. Launch time TBA.
June 28: Russian Cosmos-3M with the Russian Nadezhda COSPAS-SARSAT military navigation satellite, the Tsinghua-1 satellite for China and the SNAP-1 nano-satellite for Great Britain from Plesetsk Cosmodrome, Russia. Launch Time TBA.
June 30: International Launch Services Proton (Block DM) with first Sirius communications satellite (formerly known as CD Radio) from Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. Launch time 6:08:47 PM EDT (2208:47 GMT).
No earlier than July 1: Russian Proton with a Geyser data relay satellite for the Russian Ministry of Defense from Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. Launch Time TBA.
July 12: Starsem Soyuz-Fregat with two Cluster-2 satellites (FM6 and FM7) from Complex 31 at Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. Launch Time TBD.
July 12: Russian Proton on ISS flight 1R with the Zvezda Service Module for the International Space Station from Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. Launch Time TBD. (Launch is scheduled between July 8 - 14).
Does anyone have something further on this? I'm sure some AC can respond, but for unfortunate reasons I've been reading this thread at threshold=1.
--
This is not my sandwich.
FYI: You can get NASA News by using finger:
To ``subscribe'' (well, sort of), put it in your crontab:
will send retrieve it on Mondays and Thursdays (Twice a week should be enough unless you like getting a lot of duplicate stories.)
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
should read
Management apologizes for any inconvenience.
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I'm in the midst of a three-year project on US involvement in the ISS. At the end of the second school year, the one that just ended, I wrote a paper against US involvement, which contradicts everything I believe. Anyway, one of my main arguments was that we can't trust the Russians.
Now, I have nothing against the Russians. I practically am one. But they have held this project up for several years at least (Zvezda should've gone up in 1998). We have had to divert funding to construction of replacement parts for the Zvezda and other modules (primarily, NASA created the Interim Control Module to take Zvezda's place). And with the recent news about Mir being turned into a "space hotel," Russian commitment has been more and more doubtful.
But with Zvezda up there, all will be relatively well and good. The systems it offers make many other additions now possible.
One thing still worries me: Zvezda is being launched on a Proton rocket, the standard Russian launch vehicle. If memory serves, the last two Proton launches exploded soon after take-off. Now, all this has gone a bit fuzzy in my mind since the start of summer break, so I don't know if "modified" means that they've fixed this or not. But maybe the US shouldn't put the ICM into storage just yet.
PS: I just went and checked my research paper and found that the Russians still haven't delivered on the Science Power Platform, which NASA now has to construct. *sigh*...
===
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Look for this guy in next year's Darwin Awards.
If we end up with Castronaughts, does this mean the space station will become the world's most expensive cigar shop, or that our old friend Fidel will sue for trademark infringement?
There are blind people who wish they could both program in a normal office environment and see a beautiful girl every day. Count your blessings, and buckle down and get to work.
I get as easily distracted as the next hormonally-balanced male, but when push comes to shove, I know my paycheck doesn't come from ogling some hottie, it comes from making those electrons do their magic dance.
I agree totally. What's needed, somehow, is a new approach to space development, and I don't think the current space programmes are creative enough. rather than a incomprehensibly expensive, wholly integrated space station, at this stage they should have concentrated on forming a utility platform in space, maybe a backbone superstructure. much smaller modules for limited life support, power supplies, and motors for maintaining orbit could be added as needed, in the back of a space shuttle or by cheap rocket. both the US and Russia have a lot of experience in the sort of dockiing work required (among mixed results). I imagine a few domed greenhouses, a spehrical observatory, robots nearby reprocess spacejunk for spares... wow, it'd be just like an Arthur C. Clarke story.
I am not sure, but are FTP servers subject to less exploits than a HTTP server because they do much less?
But I would agree that it add an anoying delay......
It wasn't moderated to 2, he's go so much karma, it starts like that.
But solar technology has been advancing a lot recently. Thanks to events like Sunrayce, World Solar Challenge, etc, people have been getting interested in that, and thus companies pumping more money, and then better chips. The difference on our college's solar car was vast between the 1998 panels/arrays and the 2000 panels/arrays. We did great in the rayces we were in, and better with the new equipment. Just consider this: You can be pretty sure the government went for top of the line. If moving from decent to new decent did us well, what would top to new best top of the line do?? As a PR person for our team, I don't know the specs of the improvement, but I do know that it has been considerable.
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
Do we care? Why the fsck was that moderated to 2??? I don't want to read it while i'm on slashdot!
Gfunk
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
It's a damn shame the ISS isn't based around using the space shuttle's external tanks instead. Each shuttle launch boosts the external tank 95% of the way to orbit. All they would need to do is hold onto the tank through the OMS 1 burn (with a minimal cargo impact), and it would be in orbit. Once it was in orbit, it could be outfitted as a space station.
To make it easier, it could have the wiring ducts and hatchways installed before launch and launch wet, like Skylab was originally supposed to do.
The only American space station so far, Skylab, was also built in a fuel tank, a S-IV stage, so it's not a new precedent. A station built out of shuttle external tanks would have more internal volume in one launch then the ISS will after 30-40 shuttle launches.
For more information on this, check out the following website:
http://www.orbit6.com/et/
What about flying 3000 Hamsters, in tredmills and hook em up to that sucker. ok and to the smarty who is going to say there is no gravity in space for a tread mill, bite me.