Slashdot Mirror
Zvezda ISS Service Module Launches
fence writes: "The Russian Aviation and Space agency successfully launched the International Space Station's Zvezda service module. The Zvezda module was launched from the Baikonur launch facility in Kazakhstan aboard a Proton rocket. Check out NASA Spaceflight web for live updates on Zvezda's progress."
ISS construction: Two out of three ISS modules currently up there are Russian made (Unity[USA],Zarja[Russia],Zvezda[Russia]). NASA never had a space station in operation (Skylab was a flop), while USSR and, then, Russia were running two (Saljut and, then, Mir) and for a very long time. Result is that Russia is the only one of all ISS partners that has all "know-how", and it should not come as a surprise that the most important modules are made by Russia.
Trolling: Russian airspace engineers are the best, just consider work conditions they had to put up with all those years.
Damn I'd really liked to have seen a penguin on the side of that puppy instead.
-C
--
All opinions presented here aren't mine.
It would be nice to know how many failures the Russian rockets have had, compared to the western (USA and Europe) rockets. Some of the Russian failures were apparently covered by the Soviet government, so it may be difficult to find reliable figures.
Interestingly, despite the perception that Russian space tech is backwards (it's more advanced then the US, cheaper, and actually happens), the Zvezda is an example of how this isn't true.
In some ways . . . but the biggest problem with Zvezda is the acoustical environment. You're supposed to build hardware to fit the NC40 curve (in other words, about what you'd hear if you had a normal office and not a cube =) for sustained noise patterns . . . and they haven't. It wouldn't seem loud to us, maybe, but we won't be up there 24/7 like the 'stronauts will.
Zvezda has a Sparc station running it, much more advanced then the 80386s that the US modules use.
NASA's computer policy is a bit weird (insert your own Mac bash here), but I don't know that they're totally off-base; you want something that's stable and is not prone to bit-flipping because of the various radiation environments seen by the ISS.
It also has multiple advanced environmental systems that the US doesn't have, including the infamous oxygen candles (redesigned) that started the fire on Mir.
I will happily admit that long-term environmental stuff is something the Russians are good at. It's not the best living environment, but it won't kill you, either. They understand "good enough".
It is much more air-tight then any US spacecraft ever built, too. The shuttle leaks air like a sieve compared to Mir, a station with the same basic design for it's main module.
That's simply a cost-benefit analysis. It's easier to carry on-board oxygen than it is to design hardware that has a certain leak rate. STS is designed for an on-orbit time of 28 days at maximum . . . Mir had a five-year life plan IIRC to begin with. STS carries its own atmosphere up with them; Mir/ISS/Salyut/Skylab had to be built more tightly to ensure that they weren't leaking atmosphere like crazed men.
What, you want STS to be more expensive?
The Russians were first in space, have spent more time in space then the US, and have cheaper manned access to space by a couple orders of magnitude (less then $10 to launch a Soyuz versus $500 million to launch the shuttle), but the US press has indoctrinated us into thinking they are less safe and backwards.
Much of that is due to the various roles of the spacecraft, though. It's not a great comparison; Soyuz is primarily a crew ingress/egress vehicle that has limited cargo capacity; the Russians use a Progress module, a modified Soyuz, to launch cargo. That lowers the launch costs, because the Progress launches can be done with more risk, etc.
The Russians do have superior heavy-lift capability. However, that heavy-lift isn't used for launching manned spacecraft. NASA, in its infinite wisdom, hasn't entered the unmanned cargo-ferrying realm . . . but then, we haven't had a space station since Skylab.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but as long as the cold-war press machine is remembered, with its fabricated stories of Soviet space hoaxes (all disproven) and implied safety problems, most people will improperly assume the US is number one in this regard.
The US is still the premier space power; more great scientific research has happened because of NASA efforts than of Russians. We've been to the moon; they haven't. The Russians are better in doing some things; overall, I'd rather fly up on American hardware than Russian hardware, although I'd rather use their rockets.
Side note: there is talk about hiring Russian rocket scientists and bringing them to the U.S. Many of the guys and gals at RSC Energiya work second jobs so that they can stay in their chosen field; some of the upper engineers drive taxis. Yeesh, but man, they can build 'em some rockets.
--
<><
-- Geof F. Morris
Wow, this is a great example of how we've been brainwashed about this.
During the last 5 years, Russia has had an almost constant presence in space. NASA has occasional Shuttle missions, but the Russians had ROUTINE space freighter launches that re-supplied Mir. This invalidates your 'trying to get something, ANYTHING into earth orbit' statement.
And in regards to the costs of NASA being higher because they were 'making sure astronauts come back in one piece', consider the numbers. 4 Cosmonauts have died (3 on Salyut 1 and 1 on Soyuz 1) but 7 american astronauts have died. Yet the Russians launch more often then we do.
Funny how your argument crumbles in the face of facts...
He said more or less none. If I were to count Skylab, it would probably be in the "more" category (as in more than 0) but "less" is a close option (as in so far less than Russia as to almost count for nothing?)
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
> but the biggest problem with Zvezda is the acoustical environment.
Yeah, heard this on Discovery last night as well. They are sending the first crew up there with earplugs to avoid damaging their hearing. They are going to try to fit some noise-reducing things like fan muffles to try and reduce the noise level, but they said that they basically missed the operating noise-level targets. It was likend to being on a busy freeway 24/7. Not an ideal environment for an extended misson.
The other thing I saw they were lacking was micro-meteroid sheilding. I would think this is a far more severe problem? Imagine that sparc station getting hit with an object the size of a b-b travelling at, what, about 30,000 mph? (yeah, I know... I need more coffee, ok?)
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Is anyone else concerned they named a life support and docking module after the word for Star? I mean, they're great things, but I wouldn't want to live inside one. Do they know something we don't about it's likelihood of erupting in nuclear fusion driven flame ? ...
You're right, Russia has had over a decade of experience with space stations, whereas Nasa has more or less none. This is one of the critical reasons Russia has to play a large part in ISS. They actually know how to make a space station work. The problem is, they're broke.
I've seen some suggestions that the project would go a lot better if Russia was put into a contractor position (Which is what happened to get the first Russian module up there), where they're doing the work, but the US is financing it. That way you get Russian experience without worrying about them scrounging up the cash. Unfortunately that isn't a very viable option because of politics and pride.
The international teamwork is a nice ideal, but in the end, the US is funding the vast majority of ISS. Other countries such as the EU members, Canada, and so forth are putting in pieces here and there, but it doesn't add up to much, I'm afraid. What would be nice is to see the burden spread evenly, but it just doesn't work that way, because most countries don't have the space program the US does. Perhaps that will change in the future. China is working ardently on getting a man into space, iirc, and the UK has designs on putting a probe on Mars. So, who knows.
One way or another, it should be an interesting decade.
Pizza Hut apparently paid 1 Million $ for their logo to appear on the side of the rocket. The image is here: It seems like corporate sponsorship of space programs is going to be on the increase. In the current issue of the New Scientist, there is an interview with one of the head honchos for MirCorp, who seems to suggest that it won't be long before each of the Mir modules is corporately sponsored. Suggestions anyone. Perhaps Hoover should sponsor the module that lost pressure ? I should think it's a pretty good vacuum in there.... :-) M.
Interestingly, despite the perception that Russian space tech is backwards (it's more advanced then the US, cheaper, and actually happens), the Zvezda is an example of how this isn't true.
Zvezda has a Sparc station running it, much more advanced then the 80386s that the US modules use. It also has multiple advanced environmental systems that the US doesn't have, including the infamous oxygen candles (redesigned) that started the fire on Mir. It is much more air-tight then any US spacecraft ever built, too. The shuttle leaks air like a sieve compared to Mir, a station with the same basic design for it's main module.
The Russians were first in space, have spent more time in space then the US, and have cheaper manned access to space by a couple orders of magnitude (less then $10 to launch a Soyuz versus $500 million to launch the shuttle), but the US press has indoctrinated us into thinking they are less safe and backwards.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but as long as the cold-war press machine is remembered, with its fabricated stories of Soviet space hoaxes (all disproven) and implied safety problems, most people will improperly assume the US is number one in this regard.
Everything you wanted to know on Russian space program, but were afraid to ask :)
I think i've heard of that country in Risk before...
moox. for a new generation.
But if that holding tank was any indication of general design practices, Skylab was incapable of indefinite occupation.
Thats not really a strike against it, though. Skylab was not built to be replenished. It was built on a very tight budget out of left over Apollo hardware.
Given the facts that it was: a) NASA's first space station, b) built with a very small budget, c) made heavy use of old hardware (for instance, the EVA hatch was an old Gemini hatch), and they built TWO flight-worthy vehicles, it was one of NASA's most impressive achievements.
The russians didn't match it until Mir in 1981.
ISS won't match it for total habitable volume for quite some time.
And at the end of Skylab 4 (the last mission) there were supplies for another 60 days of operations.
It's too bad nasa has forgotten all they learned from the building and operation of skylab...they've managed to make almost all of the same mistakes all over again with ISS...Lets see if it takes another on-orbit mutiny to remind them of the final Skylab lession...
*ducks to stop moderators from knocking his teeth out*
Free music from Jack Merlot.
Russia pays a lease for the launching facility. The location of the facility can sometimes cause problems. In recent months, two protons were lost during launch because of manufacturing irregularities in the engine (nozzles I believe). The proton doesn't use a very environmentally safe fuel, so Kazakhstan threatened to cut Russia off from Baikanur unless they assessed the environmental damage and performed cleanup of their lost rockets.
I was happy to see that the launch went smoothly this time.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
The Nasa Spaceflight Web link you give commits this sin.
/.ed..?
Or are you trying to get their administrator's email box
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Tairan, you're absolutely right. Baikonur is now in another country - Kazakhstan, and is leased to Russia. We have our own launching facilities at Plesetsk and Kapustin Yar, which have been used quite heavily, even in Soviet era, when Baikonur was in the same country. I can't tell you exactly why Zvezda was launched from Kazakhstan, but very probably this is because Baikonur is much better located for the orbit Zvezda has to be put on.
Now that all 3 modules are up there, we can relax and oppress the other countries. We have plenty of time before 2020 to finish the rest of the ship and launch for Alpha Centauri...
We must respect evil, and we must make evil respect us.
I thought everybody knows this. The closer to equator is the launch place - the less fuel you need. Kazakhstan is to the south from Russia. Russia has its own launchpad at Plesetck
This is too late, anyway: On this page http://www.mcc.rsa.ru/smtv.htm you may have been watching Zvezda launch live using Real Player format. Regrettably this /. story has appeared after the module was put in orbit.
When they they can't feed their population, do you think that the same people are going to be putting all their attention into their work?
A lot of the money is coming from the west. They know paid work is hard to find, so they will probably put quite a lot into it.
They purposely made their rockets big and fast,
Rather than slow with a low payload. Gosh what idiots. But um...... you may not realise this, but Russia was sending rockets up before the US. It is possible that the US went for a different design from the Russians to be contrary, or maybe even they had different design aims because they don't need to be compatible.
They chose SECAM to our NTSC so we would be incompatible
SECAM makes more sense when you have 50Hz supply. Don't know why they didn't use PAL though.
Comrade, am not using Capitalist pig-dog Unix system
Why should they? That would involve buying computers that can run UNIX or porting UNIX to their machines. They might as well write their own OS.
"I hesitate to point it out, but no Russian space engineers have yet to completely fsck up a simple metric conversion function"
If anything, the chances are that this will happen as the United States is the only country in the world (besides a couple in S. America) which still uses the archaic Imperal system.. the Russians must thunk down to the US level of measurement to make their components interoperable, thus opening the possibility of a metric conversion problem.
If the US had converted to Metric with Canada in the 1950s and 1960s, NASA would've directly saved a few hundred million on their probes, not to mention other benefits (mainly in the sciences).
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
This is why ESA launches are from Guiana.
This severely limits the number of possible locations for the launch facility, and when you consider that they already have one in Kazakhstan, it's not going to be worthwile building a new one, even if they do have somewhere suitable.
If, maybe, could have. The Russians did. It's not bygone possibilities that matter, it's accomplishment. The simple fact is that they are way ahead of us in space-station knowhow.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
One thing that you forgot the mention is durability. When MIR was launched in 1986 it was supposed to have a 5 year life time, about what the ISS is supposed to have, and the damned thing is still around.
Although the Russians are sound technically and scientifically, they lack one major component. They aren't sound economically. This prevents them from being completely on par, if not ahead of us, scientifically and technically.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
After the 3 manned skylab missions, it actually exceeded the experimental goals, 60% more earth observation passes, and 27% more solar viewing time, but then it was shut down, waiting on the completion of the shuttle, but due to the almost inevitable delays in a big project could not get it completed in time. They'd already given up on Saturn launchers, so when the increased solar activity caused the orbit to decay, they could not get anyone up there to correct the orbit.
If they'd decided to keep on building Apollo/Saturn 1B's, then probably Skylab would be like Mir, and exceed it's design life in orbit, instead of the 6 it actually did.
OT, I don't know about where you live but all of the pizza huts here in colorado have been merged with taco bell. So I would be saying that I am going to the pizza bell, or the taco hut.
And, no I haven't seen Gorbichov there yet.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
mikerich has quite a bit more info but one thing that he forgot that is quite important to the design of the proton rocket. Most rockets designed by US companies has been one engine, multiple stages, no failure. This idea is fine, but if there is a failure in that one engine then the rocket is hosed. Russian designed rockets are multiple engines per stage, little failure. That way if one of the many engines happens to fail, and not blow up, the rocket still has the ability to succeed.
Imagine taking many smaller rockets and strapping them together and placing an outer coating on it, and that is the Russian design. We are starting to do that, the Space Shuttle has three engines in the rear so if one fails then the shuttle isn't lost. This design also allows for higher payloads because it is much easier to expand the design, unlike US rockets where we redesign the entire rocket instead of just adding more smaller ones.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Skylab 4 resupplied Skylab, the first time that an oribiting platform was resupplied from the ground.
Very interesting comment. I do think you are spot on with the choice of the Russians for the living quarters of the station. They've definitely shown that Mir's life support systems have been very resiliant. Haven't they operated 10 years beyond their expected lifetime of 4 years?
The ISS will not fail. We've got 85% of the hardware sitting around the assembly building waiting to be stuck on the shuttle. Our politicians wouldn't allow it.
NASA even had their own version of the living quarters already built and ready to launch in case the Russians failed to launch Zvezda.
And I disagree that the Russians should not have been allowed to participate. How else were we going to get the experience necessary to operate the station effectively and efficiently. Sure, we could have figured it out for ourselves, but that's stupid. It's the NIH syndrome. Even though the Russians were two years late, I can bet you it would have taken us a hellava lot longer to figure out what they already know. We are stronger with the Russians than without them. NASA knows this, and that's why they have been so patient.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I've seen some documentaries about the Zvezda module and the technology that went into it. The module itself is the main service module for the International Space Station. this means that it handles all the life support and waste-recycling responsibilities for the entire station--among other responsibilities.
:)
The most interesting thing though is that despite the fact that the Russian space program is apparently years behind the US in terms of technology, Zvezda actually represents a level of accomplishment that NASA engineers have yet to acchieve.
The Russians have been perfecting life support and environmental systems for decades; meanwhile NASA has been busy pushing the envelope in computers and flight systems.
Most of the reports I've seen detailing technical specs for Zvezda report it as if the Russian tech is backwards. I disagree. Zvezda isn't low tech, but simply an area NASA and the US hasn't developed as well as the Russians. I don't agree with the belief that the world threw Russia a bone with the comissioning of Zvezda--we simply used the know-how that their scientists have.
For all its flaws, what I really like about ISS is the international teamwork that's at work here.
Wish I was up there
Beware the Whyte Wolf.
With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels...
LOL!
The Russian economy has never been stronger, owing greatly to the recovery of lost natural resources in areas experiencing seditious activities (most notably Chechnya, which you seem to know a little about). It was the Russians who opened the door to space, as you might recall. Both Sputnik and Yuri Gargalin beat the US by years, proving how embarassingly bad the US space system was (and in many ways, still is). I hesitate to point it out, but no Russian space engineers have yet to completely fsck up a simple metric conversion function.
This being said, inclusion of the Russians is seen as a must by all reasonable men, and I applaud those in charge who managed to overcome their fears of "Sovietism" -- and the supposed violence it entails -- and chose rather to develop a truly International space station. It was a lesson learned by the UN and it's predeccesor, the League of Nations: you cannot spurn Russia in any attempt at internationalism. Though it is coldly regarded by the Westerners who know Russians only as villians in cheap spy movies, Russia has shown time and again that it has more than ample strength, intelligence, and most of all Freedom, to compete with any nation, on this planet or beyond.
-- Floyd
-- Floyd
I'm sure this will interest someone
This article is all about using Linux on the ISS.
A link from that page goes to LEAP - The linux equiped astronaut project. Essentially aiming to save the poor astronauts from Windows, by porting all the useful applications. (The OS has since changed to Solaris, but there's still no reason not to push an open OS)
There is more information on Zvezda here on Spaceref.com.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
I could practically hear him; "Now that, son, is how my pappy used to launch rockets."
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
...and have a shot of vodka to celebrate.
great job!
BTW, is this unmanned? russia is the leader in unmanned spaceflight methinks.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.