Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ISS Loses Orbit-Boosting Options

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the sinking-feeling-that-everything-isn't-ok dept.

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.'"

27 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. Sucesses? by mboverload · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can someone lay out what the ISS has actually done for us? It seems to be a crowded bunch of poorly-engineered tin cans floating above us and sucking up money in the process.

    1. Re:Sucesses? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    2. Re:Sucesses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The true use of the space station is that is shows that a long term spaceship can't be built in small sections over a long period of time without the whole assembly obsoleting itself or wearing out before it starts its main mission.

      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.

    3. Re:Sucesses? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Sucesses? by cmowire · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, the storage room wouldn't be so expensive if they were to use some modules like the TransHab module..... oops, canceled that.

      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.

      --
      Gentoo Sucks
    5. Re:Sucesses? by cmowire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um.

      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 Falcon 9 when they get that one ready) Or, if they had wanted to build a new booster that bad, to make something that was somewhat bigger than the CEV's booster stage and then distribute the pieces of any lunar exploration missions into a series of launches. But, instead, NASA builds *two* new boosters at the same time and gets to deal with two sets of development problems with increasing amounts of divergence between the two designs.

      That NASA still cannot just source lift capability on the open market demonstrates just how they haven't learned their lessons.

      --
      Gentoo Sucks
    6. Re:Sucesses? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Funny

      With that point in mind, NASA has commissioned a new official poster for the ISS project.

    7. Re:Sucesses? by A+non-mouse+Cow+Herd · · Score: 4, Informative
      The true use of the space station is that is shows that a long term spaceship can't be built in small sections over a long period of time without the whole assembly obsoleting itself or wearing out before it starts its main mission.
      Even if that was true of ISS (which is a stretch at the very least), it doesn't prove it for the general case. In particular ISS is designed to be occupied and used while it is under construction, and designed to be serviced on orbit. If you were designing a deep space craft, you would make different choices.
      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.
      Only if you completely redesigned most of it. ISS is designed for LEO. To make it work in deep space would require major changes. The thermal control, power and navigation systems are designed for LEO.
      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.
      ISS loses ~100 meters/day when it is on the lower edge of it's nominal orbits. Maybe 200 meters if solar activity is really high. Incidentally, if it lost a mile per day, it would burn up in a matter of months or less, depending on the starting altitude.
      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.
      Not at all. Many of the original components are working fine, and the ones that have failed have definite, identifiable and fixable reasons for failing. Although ISS is an awfully expensive way of doing it, it does provide significant lessons in building long duration crewed spacecraft. Far better to learn these lessons in LEO rather than on the way to mars.
  2. Not really any danger... by ZSpade · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
    1. Re:Not really any danger... by peragrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No it's like saying my parents house was too old and out of date when it was 5 years old, and still not finished. (note they never did finish it even though we lived in it for almost 20 years)

      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.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  3. Re:Bring it back... by EQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do things fail? Well the real miracle is why do they work at all:

    Space is a pretty brutal enironment. Hard vacuum, only microgravity, extremes of cold and heat, etc.

    --
    Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
  4. Re:Bring it back... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How in the world do you plan to get 183 tonnes of mass back to Earth in one piece? The Shuttle has a maximum payload capacity of 25 tonnes. It's the ONLY option currently available for returning large objects to Earth.

    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.)

    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  5. I propose renaming the station ... by Luscious868 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's rename the station to something more appropriate: ICF: International Cluster Fuck

  6. Coke bottle hell..... by Roskolnikov · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1 in 10,000 something will hit it? what about it hitting something?

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  7. no worries by ezwip · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't worry they have a procedure for getting these things down. It's called cross your fingers and aim it at an underdeveloped country. ;)

    --
    "I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
  8. Re:Bring it back... by FurryFeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can tell you wht things fail. Quote Alan Shepard: "I was up there looking around, and suddenly I realized I was sitting on top of a rocket built by the lowest bidder".

    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?

  9. Re:Bring it back... by anzev · · Score: 3, Informative

    Great thoughts! I totally agree with you! However, the only problem is this station is huge! In fact, according to the NASA Mission Page it's 404,069 pounds with a width Across Solar Arrays of 240 feet. It's 146 feet long from Destiny Lab to Zvezda; 171 feet with a Progress docked and 90 feet high!

    Whilst if you take a peek at the Shuttle info page 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.

    I find 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 :). Hope this clears the question of why they let sattelites burn up there too ... In case it doesn't, it costs around 2000 USD per pound to send a sattelite to space. It costs twice as much to recover it (sending an empty shuttle, a space walk, operating the hand, bringing it down) and we're taking a serious risk here, I mean, sending it up requires no humans, so if something goes wrong, we just blew up a few millions, but hey, if a shuttle explodes -- all hell breaks lose. So I say, leave them to burn out!

  10. The real problem... by Bryansix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:The real problem... by Sordid+Euphemism · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Well, you know the old saying: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo". - $RANDOM
  11. Re:Bring it back... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, but the plumber doesn't have to reach orbital velocity to get to my toilet, either. I'm pretty sure roto-rooter would charge an awful lot to clear a drain on the ISS.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. Re:1 in 10,000 by Antony+T+Curtis · · Score: 4, Informative


    Probabilities of independent events are not cumulative... ...otherwise, a very large number of individuals who commute by car would have accumulated a probability of having an accident far in excess of 100% every year.

    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%

    --
    No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
  13. Re:1 in 10,000 by ScottLindner · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's how probability works. You *cannot* guarantee an accident will not happen. You can only reduce the odds. You can only get close to 100% guarantee, but not actually achieve 100% guarantee. As you get closer to 100% the costs go up enormously. If you wanted to knock it down to 1:100,000 odds you will pay more than 10x the cost. And then.. it's still only a probability, and not a frequency. You interpretted it as a frequency of problems, and not a probability.

    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.

    --
    Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
  14. Progress control by Tango42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

  15. Re:1 in 10,000 by solitas · · Score: 3, Insightful
    and carries people

    And carries volunteers - they all know what they may be in for when they sign up.

    --
    "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
  16. Re:1 in 10,000 by Antony+T+Curtis · · Score: 2


    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 you may be actively involved in an accident, which conversely, must be greater than 0% - but would be a very small figure.

    Then the probability of being in an accident generally lies between these two extremes and would depend upon what time of day you drive, what kind of car... and did you have breakfast this morning.

    But in no way is it a simple task of adding up the probabilities to reach a number. It is a falsehood to say that "I drive less frequently than my neighbour therefore he will be in an accident before me." as it is omitting a huge number of variables.

    And it is perfectly reasonable to do 100 coin flips on a fair coin, each time coming up heads. It is just an extraordinary combination of events, of which each individually has a 50:50 chance of occurring.

    --
    No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
  17. Chart of ISS Height by sam5550 · · Score: 2, Informative

    A chart of the height of the ISS:

    Getting lower...

    1. Re:Chart of ISS Height by A+non-mouse+Cow+Herd · · Score: 2, Informative
      You can see the full history here


      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