New Mars

Well I think it is time to end the old ISS Woes & To-Mars thread since it has reached the 300 mark. As well as it is sort of time to combine a few threads back together in that while Nasa still is struggling with the shuttle and budget shortfalls the Russian part of the ISS partnership has continued on its way to putting forth efforts to make the station worth while for there investment.

A major stumbling block for Nasa in the INA act seems to have been resolved but as of this time no information has been released as to how many flights on a soyuz will be booked or if Nasa will use this cheaper ride as a way to save money out of the shuttle missions to further hasten the developement of the CEV.

Shuttle currently is expected to have a short fall of anywhere from 3 to 6 billion though 2010. The number of construction flights has also inched down from 28 to 19 and maybe on its way towards as low as 15. Some partners that have built there respective modules are as well disatisfied with the mission curtailment in that there modules are slated to not be flown.

As mentioned before it would seem that Russia is still in a sort of hardball playing position with the only ride in town with this jab directed at Nasa while proceeding to place modules on there list of deliveries to the ISS.

Russia to add two modules to ISS



All while Russia set to launch six spacecraft in 2006



This is all while Nasa Aims to Stimulate Commercial ISS resupply services



Of course we know Griffin's stance on handing out funds just because a company says that they can do it with these in the running to provide such service.



Of course the amount of service depends on how much as well as how often with this as a goal.



To top this all off Nasa has had to not only deal with the loss of life and a shuttle. It has also had to deal with a couple of years that have had terrific damage done by the Atlantic sponed Huricane seasons. This being finally toped off with the continued effort to return shuttles to flight with again more External tank foam issues.

The number of Newmars threads of topic are numerous but we all know that in the end it comes down to funding and making sure that you are fugal with the funds that you are given. Not asking for more and say that projects have cost overruns.
Nasa is being battered from many sides and just plain needs to get its ship in order or there will be no more Nasa sooner or later.

While Nasa hopes to entice the private sector to build rockets for the resupply of the ISS. The Russians have been able to succeed where Nasa has faultered but of the rest of the ISS partners it has been a rough go with japan having troubles and ESA's not really ever getting the full funding that it really needed. Slow but surely thou they have kept with it and are close to getting the first ATV ready for flight.

Technical Challenges Push The Launch Of The ATV To 2007



The new vehicle was to have been scheduled for a maiden flight in September 2004 but has yet to fly. The ship is capable of docking with the Station's Zvezda Service Module. Other facts about the Atv are its ability to carry at least 7.4 tons of payload. That would include water, oxygen and propellant. Four tonnes of the propellant will be used to reboost the Station at regular intervals; another 860 kg will be transferred to the Station for attitude and orbit control. Sure would take a burden off the progress ships that have faultered recently to do so. Hopefully they can meet there scheduel.

In the other thread on the ISS and mars woes a question of Nasa budget being cut was indicated. but in reallity it is not a budget cut but rather a statement of insufficient funding though the funding issue really revolves around the developement funding for the CEV and CLV being indicated as a shuttle ISS funding short fall. Since the CEV and CLV are Shuttle derived rockets one can draw the lines I hope to this same conclusion.

Once the INA amendment is signed into law, NASA will be able to pay Russia’s Federal Space Agency for Soyuz launches to transport ISS crews and have the capsule continue to act as an emergency vehicle.

NASA is also expected to have to pay Russia for future resupply flights as uncertainty over the number of Space Shuttle flights remaining means the US agency’s responsibilities for ISS logistics are also in doubt.

Granted both actions are needed while shuttle does not fly but long after it is retired we will still need both capabilities until the CEV and CLV are ready for flight.

As it stands NASA is soliciting proposals for demonstrator flights of cargo from private industry. The agency plans on one or more of these flights with either an external unpressurised or internal pressurised cargo delivery method. Thus culminating in a rendezvous and docking with the ISS and either disposal or reentry and recovery of such vehicles is optional.

Assuming a successful demonstration by 2010, NASA says it may issue a request for proposals for commercial services to resupply the ISS until at least 2015. Thus taking a big burden out of the launch cycle of the CEV and CLV.

Nasa plans on a final solicitation in early December, with a responses due by late January as to a possible agreement and scheduled to be signed in May next year for such ISS resupply cargo capability.

Locked the old one, thanks SpaceNut, let's keep the reset cycle going even though phpBB presumbably can handle many thousand posts per thread. It keeps discussion active... although... no one is responding to you! Hah!

Erm.

Is it a sad testiment to NASA that Russia seems to be doing all the work on ISS now?

Thanks

Ya there are those that feel that ISS and Shuttle should die a quick death so as to losen the rope from Nasa neck so as to allow the exploration vision to begin. Thou it may be a sad day when Nasa must do this, maybe it has been a wake up call that they have been needing for quite some time.

Hope you do not mind pulling this forward:




What I am wondering is if we are capable of creating gravitaional tractor can we do the reverse and create a repulsor that would allow use to move our ships though space more effectively than with chemical or nuclear power?

If tspace can get there act together than it may be possible for nasa to get its wish for a cargo hauler that is in the private sector.

NASA seeks private space-ferries



But what is the carrot that will get the private industry interested.



Looks like Nasa is asking again to funnel funds in order to get to the end goal and in later years asking for more to make up the short fall.

You post seems out of place but anyway the method of towing asteroids just uses the natural gravitational attraction. It is nothing from startreck.

My thoughts on the Space tractor:

http://www.spacefellowship.com/Forum/about1510.html
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... post598527

Gravity tractor? Uh, did you know that it actually DOES use rocket fuel, right?

The tractor has to expend fuel to maintain its hover over the target asteroid, or else it doesn't work.

There is nothing magical or especially clever about the idea of the gravity tractor, it has to burn the same amount of fuel to pull the rock gently as it does to push it gently.

And no, you can't use gravity to push anything.

Sorry should have posted about the use of gravitons in the propulsion thread instead.

On the not of the ISS the already docked progress 19 that had previously failed while firing has had a successful burn this time raising the station approximately 8 km or 4.5 miles. This still is not all that great seing that it is only 220 miles up. A far cry from where the station started it build at.

The INA act has been modified and the us of the soyuz as a means to transport US astronauts has all but gone though as well. To ensure that the US has representation on board the station for the forseeable future. NASA is planning to order two Soyuz manned spacecraft and two Progress cargo ships from the Russian Federal Space Agency on a commercial basis for missions to the International Space Station.

Russia is continuing to do it part to aid with the completion of the station and possibly has future thoughts for it use. Russian space official reveals projected Moon spending

Though the article leads off with work to use the Energia Rocket for a projected 2 billion lunar program, it was further do that caught my eye.



This allows for smaller rockets to bring up the pieces to build a much larger rocket in orbit with there much cheaper launchers than one large expesive one as currently proposed by the US.

"Russia is continuing to do it part to aid with the completion of the station"

Yep, by kicking us in the ribs when we're down to score cheap political points and a measly $100M. Way to go, back-stabbing Ruskies! Its not like you wouldn't be flying those Soyuz capsules anyway... what a way to show your gratitude for us footing ~90% of the ISS costs, helping to prop up Mir for years, and keeping you in the space business. Particularly after defrauding us by dragging your heels and holding your modules hostage to NASA back at the beginning of construction (to the tune of $600M). Gee I'm glad that we've got the Russians on board...

As far as a Russian Lunar program, thats not too far from being a complete joke. You can't build anything really big at the ISS since that would make it impossible to turn the station without the torque putting undue stress on modules. And this is on top of the payload penalty that you pay getting to the ISS at all.

The "ISS way of building things" has, by and large, proven to be a failure with todays' technology. Piecemeal construction with small rockets will greatly increase complexity, cost, and risk of an already difficult proposition. And frankly, Russia has built a pretty good reputation of announcing space projects to garner PR, but not actually carrying through.

The Science Power Platform was originally part of the design for Mir-2. When US space station Alpha and Russian space station Mir-2 were merged to form ISS, this was one of the original design components. The ISS construction plan was to deliver it with 6 Proton launches. It is critical to provide power to Russian laboratory modules, but later proposals cancelled it in favour of using power from one of the 4 American solar arrays. Many documents on the web claim that since it doesn't provide power to the American side, "it is not crucial to the success of the whole ISS project." Ah hah! And now there's a proposal to reduce Shuttle flights to ISS by cancelling the 4th American solar array. With comments like that why would you be surprised by this response from Russia? Frankly, I hope they do launch SPP themselves. After all, it was originally going to be launched by Russian rockets anyway.

As for a new module, remember Russia de-orbited Mir in favour of ISS. They also merged their next space station, Mir-2, with American station Alpha to form ISS. Since they lost the race to the Moon, Russia has been the leader with space stations. They built Salyut-1 before Skylab, and followed that with Salyut-2 through -7, then with Mir. Yes, Salyut-2 was an utter failure, but they didn't give up. Now Russian Mir-2 is fully integrated with American Alpha to form ISS. They're now committed and dependant on America to fulfill its contribution.

What is not said with the reference to the purchase is when will they be used which could be after the shuttles retirement, how much will they costs the US and does this discourage private industry from developing the cargo capability that Nasa does want for the ISS.

In an effort to lower future cost needs from current budget use many science experiments and more are being either cut out totally, delayed for there need or down right cancelled.

The project cost savings for this action is a mere $344 million which is not all that much of a savings when compared to 3 to 5 billion for shuttle and almost the same for the ISS.

Space station research faces axe as Nasa cuts $344m to save Moon and Mars quest

Do I have to remind you of all the failed projects NASA has attempted in the last decade? X-33, DC-X, a proposal to abandon Hubble, and now ISS as well? They were going to abandon the X-43 program after the first failure of X-43A, but persevered, the last 2 tests were successful. Now there's an announcement that a contract has been awarded to continue the X-43 program. They finally got something right. Now you're asking them to abandon ISS? Why would congress trust NASA with a Moon/Mars program if they can't finish any major undertaking? The fits and starts of the X-43 program were only overcome because it's a small, inexpensive UAV. Any Moon/Mars program will have as many set-backs as ISS, if NASA can't overcome them then Moon/Mars will be just as doomed. Why spend billions of dollars on the project when the agency in charge has demonstrated repeatedly that it can't complete a project that large. Yes, the ISS is a test of NASA's ability to do its job. It's time to stop trying to slash ISS and just get the damn thing finished quickly.

Here in lays the problem is in how to off load the 15 plus shuttle flights without the use of a shuttle .. which is the only means to bring modules to the station in order to complete its assembly. It sure does seem that Nasa can do no right at this time...

While many programs far term in the science arena are being cut by Nasa on a recent trourist first class some science did get preformed in the areas being cut.

Dr Greg Olsen Speaks To ESA's ISS Business Club



So I guess another question would be of how much would Nasa pay for the data of this experiment since it seems to be not willing to pay direct funding of such programs or simply does Nasa already have that answer....

Unfortunately along with learning the science and engineering you must also learn where to spend the science and engineering dollars. Often this can only be done by trial and error. If we throw away this knowledge and continue to pour money into past mistakes we are condemned to repeat them and will hinder the future science and engineering developments.