New Mars

If you can find the development money then by all means. But nothing I've seen indicates we can just park the shuttles in a hanger untill the CaLV is ready to fly.

Oh and I intended the cradle to be disposable. They are custom built for the modules.

Hi everyone,
This is further compounded by the work on the ET not having been thugh sufficient wind tunnel testing to even justify its use on the next shuttle mission.

Uncertainties cloud shuttle schedule Despite official plans, some sources say May launch is iffy at best

With this there is the ‘Ankle-biters’ pile up on shuttle to-do list including Windows, sensors, seals and scrapings spark concerns at NASA

Top this all off with Nasa still thinking rescue mission if per chance there are major issues.

NASA plans ambitious STS/ISS finale

Here is what is going and on what shuttle... maybe...


Another reference to the scheduel NASA Flight Assignment Working Group (FAWG) Space Shuttle Planning Manifest 24 Feb 2006

Yup Gound well tread on.

Does the goal justify the means being ISS complete by continued shuttle flights IMO if the next few shuttle flights go off without a hitch maybe but does the means to complete the goal by using just the shuttles upon possible failure mean a cancellation of the goal to complete the ISS IMO we need to change the plan and definitely the means to get it done. If the goal of the use of the ISS is ever to be of use.

Now I have read that the launch vehicles of Lockheed and of Boeing have the potential to loft such payload weights but they lack the shuttles protective cargo hold (payload cradle) and the final mile guidance.

How can this stailmate ever change if the same companies can not even get the basics of the CEV to a completed unit for operations without billions of dollars to do so....

Now that the ISS, shuttle missions are out in the open Station partners discuss schedule; Agencies eager to finish outpost

Of course each nation is lobbying for its specific modules to be launched...



Seems like that magical number is still not really set in stone...

"Now I have read that the launch vehicles of Lockheed and of Boeing have the potential to loft such payload weights but they lack the shuttles protective cargo hold (payload cradle) and the final mile guidance.

How can this stailmate ever change if the same companies can not even get the basics of the CEV to a completed unit for operations without billions of dollars to do so...."

The big Delta-IV heavy does have the power to lift most modules, but there are two fatal problems with this, first off most modules aren't able to be pushed from the end like a rocket does, but are built to be pulled from the side by the Shuttle cargo bay clamps. To make a frame around the payload to hold it like the Shuttle does would make it too heavy to lift all the modules.

The last mile guidence is probobly the bigger problem; that no modern upper stage can do any better then get the payload on an orbit that intersects the station within several kilometers. You need a tug to brake the payload to match orbits with the ISS, able to maneuver those last few kilometers to the stations' vicinity, and finally to (SAFELY) aproach the station and stop so it can be captured by the robot arm. And do this while being smart enough to abort the maneuver by itself if something goes wrong.

Oh, and the mass of such a tug combined with the payload would probobly be too heavy for the big Delta-IV, and if you leave the payload free-floating for any length of time, it will go into a spin due to gravitational perturbations and be un-dockable forever, so you really can't send them up seperatly.

ISS a money pit that was sold as the means to future science but with the eggs all in the shuttle basket it has been tough for Nasa to show just how it will be used if it can not be completed.
The partners that were pulled into this do feel that they are in the cold if what they have built can not be delivered for use. A recent meeting has put forth the desire to complete the ISS and to then worry about the science to use it. With this Nasa has put forth the con of needing a comercial ability to resupply the station in the future. Nasa Joint Statement by International Space Station Heads of Agency news release



Alot of what happens depends on what goes up when and to the other partners continuing use of soyuz progress tag team and the coming soon ESA ATV. Of course this all falls on the heels that Atlantis is to be retired early in 2008 to reduce shuttle costs. But if the shuttles are to continue in the rescue mission mode of one nearly ready to launch at any time then how can we heap more work on to the other remaining ships.

This has been caused by a decision to keep the budget increases small and to tighten the belt. NASA's Budget Blunder
All of which has lead to a decrease in the efforts of science and associated missions probes.

Lots of commotion on capitol hill on the issue of science being cut as well.
[url=http://www.house.gov/science/press/109/109-199.htm]SCIENCE LEADERS ARGUE FOR DIFFERENT PRIORITIES IN NASA’S SCIENCE BUDGET FOR FY07
NASA Agrees to Reexamine Allocation[/url]

NASA Budget Puts Key Science Priorities at Risk

Here is a graphical representation of where we are with the ISS construction, the 16 flights to call the station complete and what is not going up by a shuttle flight.
NASA Exploration Systems Architecture Study: 28 Flight (Rev. G) ISS Assembly Sequence vs. 16 Flight Assembly Sequence

WTF??? no CAM? it would be the single most worthwile addition to the ISS...

Less ISS componets = Less reason to prop up the wreched piece of junk which will slow down Mars

Too me it just sounds like there is not enough money for NASA to do everything people want it to do.

I think it is worthwhile to start at least thinking about the possibility of a Inter-orbit tug. We are eventualy going to need such a vehicle. Transport bettwen various orbits is a common enough task (that will hopefully become more common) that it will probably make sense to eventualy develop some sort of dedicated vehicle (probably robotic) to perform these tasks. High impluse ion engines are fairly reusable (need to be stocked up with Argon/Xeon periodicly) and so it makes sense to consildate the engines need for changing orbits into one craft with higher efficency and reusability.

Currently I do not think the design costs are worth it. Especialy as we begin to focus our space program on Moon/Mars and away from Earth orbit. However, if we did have such a vehicle, building constructs such as the ISS would be much easier, AND it would allow us to have easier access to higher energy orbits (like GEO). Furthermore, this project is of small enough scope that a smaller space program like that of Japan or the ESA could focus on it. It would eventualy pay enormous dividends to sucha group who continued to focus on operations in Earth orbit.

It is interesting to note that of the modules going to the ISS the Russian Zvezda module which was to be launched as a shuttle payload is now to go up on a Soyuz. Why is it interesting well the Russians originally designed the Zvezda as a russian only module to be launched then moved into position by the Zarya tug.

The Soyuz cannot launch enough to be able to send the power module as well so NASA has promised to power the Science module. This is a major change as NASA and the US goverment had been extremely forceful in ensuring that only the Shuttle would provide the transport for the ISS elements. Supply would be provided by the various space agencies.

So Russia will get a space tug and NASA will essentially allow its use at the ISS.

While the possibility of the ISS Zarya tug would fit the bill for last mile guidance so would a modified progress. But the iss module issue seem to be with the module designs that were meant to be in the protective cargo hold of the shuttle. Now if the Russian could indicate what would need to altered on the modules waiting for shuttle transport and a little bit of cooperation be extended to get the modules to orbit then lets move on. Other wise we have little choice.

Lots of whining lately on the Low fuel tank sensor and old SRB boosters.

Did Nasa forget that the ET that was removed from Discovery after fueling test was the one that had this problem and before the mating process for its flight had the same SRB's that were just now tested done as well since they were 4 plus years old.
Just how many SRB's in stock does Nasa have that are reaching this 4 year old status?????

NASA: No canisters -- no spacewalks

CO2 filters missing and handrails falling off. Wonderfull.

*groans*

U.S. spacewalks halted while ISS handrails tested



Does not seem all that bad but this does bother

I would rather like to know which idiot gave the order to build with defective units?

It would appear that Nasa has a work around for the hand hold issue..
[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11981400/]Good news gets lost in space station shuffle
Orbital achievements obscured by tiny tempest over spacewalk[/url]



Sounds like they need a specialize storage pantry rather than just placing things in any empty location that is available.

While the article does mention some problems in finding canisters for the Russian space suits it does go on to tell what science is being preformed on the station towards the end of the first page.

Science is not measured in hours, science is measured in progress. What progress are the ISS crews achieveing?

Well, to play Devils advocate--MIT didn't do much science either--before the builders finished bricking it up and putting the roof on.

But MIT did not take Hundreds of Billions just to build the place and years and years of doing nothing.

You got me there.

Russia To Double Spacecraft Production By 2009 in response to a decision to increase crew members of the International Space Station (ISS) from two to six.