Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Zvezda Module Is Go For Launch 85

Posted by emmett from the but-not-from-the-backyard dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Zvezda Module Is Go For Launch More

Zvezda Module Is Go For Launch

Comments Filter:
  • 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

  • Re:Astro/Cosmo naughts (Score:4)

    by Dreamweaver ( 36364 ) on Wednesday June 28, 2000 @12:32AM (#971857)
    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?

    Boy, i gotta stop reading /. at 5:30 am...


    Dreamweaver
  • 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.
  • 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.
    Yes, i agree that the Russian scientists are extremely able. The main problem is resourcing. All throughout the USSR, the fallout from its breakup is a disaster for scientific institutes. I have seen first hand huge once-prolific scientific centres destroyed by lack of funds. It's tragic. Have you ever wondered why there are so many Russian academics in the USA?

    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 :)
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

    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.

  • Regardless of the Service Module, ICM will probably still go up. The ISS needs all the attitude control and reboost it can get.

    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.

  • Zvezda produces 1.5% of station power (Score:3)

    by DHartung ( 13689 ) on Wednesday June 28, 2000 @08:45AM (#971871) Homepage
    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 [nasa.gov], 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 [boeing.com] 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.
    ----
  • Frodo writes, incredibly:
    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 ... hardly the "early 40s".

    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 [friends-partners.org] and has launched successfully with that new design a couple of times now, which is why Zvezda is finally scheduled to go up.
    ----
  • 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.

  • Re:Russians have no clue? (Score:4)

    by Oddbits ( 81652 ) on Wednesday June 28, 2000 @12:47AM (#971876)
    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.
    Check this:
    http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/assembly/fli ghts/2000/4a.html

  • 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.
  • Mir is testament to the fact that Russians making something on a small budget does not work

    So true, as it was designed to work for 5 years and is still going after 13. Very shoddy work

    -----------------------------

  • For the record:

    • The US is providing launch and crew tranfer services for most of the non-Russian partners in ISS, and will be building many of the key components of the ISS (including the main solar panel / truss structure, the main Laboratory and Habitation modules, the crew return vehicle, lots more stuff).
    • Italy is building (/has built) the MPLM "cargo transfer containers" modules that will be used for transfering large amounts of equipment to and from the station.
    • The ESA (European Space Agency) will be building / funding it's own lab module. In exchange for the US providing launch services for the module, the ESA will build and fund a node (Node-3) for the ISS.
    • NASDA (The Japanese space agency) will also be building / funding a quite sophisticated lab module. I believe they're trading a significant amount of lab usage for launch services on the Shuttle.
    • Russia will be responsible for several key components of the ISS (most notably the Zvezda "Service Module") including regular resuply with their unmanned Progress cargo vehicles. Additionally, the Russian Soyuz spacecraft will serve as the ISS's "lifeboat(s)" until the CRV (X-38) is ready for service.
    • Canada will be building the advanced robot arm for the ISS (actually, it's really one of many robot arms, though it is the main one).
    • Several other nations (notably Brazil) will also be participating in ISS, though as minor partners.
  • 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.

  • 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?

  • Help! Module dependencies! (Score:4)

    by tjwhaynes ( 114792 ) on Wednesday June 28, 2000 @03:40AM (#971883)
    Damn. I must have messed up my install somewhere.

    [root@localhost]>modprobe zvezda
    [root@localhost]>insmod zvezda
    [root@localhost]>depmod zvezda
    depmod: not an NASA file
    depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in /lib/modules/0.0.1/construct/left-bit.o
    depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in /lib/modules/0.0.1/construct/right-bit.o
    depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in /lib/modules/0.0.1/systems/life-sup.o
    depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in /lib/modules/0.0.1/constants/gravity.o

    Any one got a clue? It looks like it still needs some work?

    Cheers,
    Toby Haynes
  • It was later reveiled, due to Russian cutbacks, the space station component was actually swiped from the back yard rocket man [slashdot.org]
  • I agree. Sometime in the past year or so, there was a show on PBS (might have been Frontline) about the disasters aboard Mir. They detailed the differences in philosophy between US astronauts and their Russian counterparts. Particularly in the area of safety. They showed pictures of fouled hatches (bulkheads that could not be sealed due to extension cords and cables that ran through the opening) and other insanely unsafe conditions that would never ever be tolerated.


    I predict that the only way they will avoid an accident is to not use it...Rather like NT...."Stable while idle"

  • Hey, maybe they are using the new Transmeta Crusoe CPU? (hint, hint, hint)

  • 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."

  • Russians have no clue? (Score:3)

    by eellis ( 112890 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2000 @10:55PM (#971888)
    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.

    From the press release:

    The 42,000-pound Zvezda is 43 feet long (13 meters) and has a solar array wingspan of 97.5 feet (30 meters).
    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?

  • No. There's no point trying to expand into the rest of solar system until we have proper orbital facilities for science, manufacturing and other operations. We need a permanent large scale presence outside the gravity well. Once that's done, we can get elsewhere with much less effort than launching everything out of atmosphere.

  • 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?
  • Way off topic, but it's time for a history (and current events) lesson.

    1. After WWI, Germany got squat. In fact, Germany was forced to pay other countries for starting WWI. The high cost of reperations were one of the root causes of WWII (and indirectly responsible for the Great Depression, but I don't have time for that right now).

    2. After WWII, Germany was OCCUPIED by the Allies. The Soviets royally screwed up East Germany (isn't it the most poluted country in the world?) and the reunified Germany is having a devil of a time trying to get eastern Germany up to western Germany's standard of living. Should the US, UK, and France occupy Russia for 10-15 years to teach them how to run a country?

    3. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has been given TONS of money by the US and tons of loans by the IMF and World Bank. The problem is that the economy is a low-trust system, where government officials are stealing big chunks of the money and mismanaging the rest.

    -jon

  • About time...

  • 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.

  • Re:Let's get totally offtopic. (Score:4)

    by non ( 130182 ) on Wednesday June 28, 2000 @12:01AM (#971897) Homepage Journal
    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!
    --
  • 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!!!

  • Several others to launch as well... (Score:4)

    by krystal_blade ( 188089 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2000 @11:13PM (#971899)
    I remember reading that quite a few folks were involved in this...: I think the ESA is a wee bit behind too...

    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

  • Come on, give them some credit for being able to spot the obvious; I suppose they'll ad more powersupplies/arrays as the project grows module by module. The russians are justifiably proud of their space programe, for all its faults and inefficiencies, Mir was an engineering miracle despite its obvious limitations. I commend Bryan Burroughs "Dragonfly", a boook on American involvement in the Mir programme, for a look at how it hung together. Don't think NASA comes across all that well. From your use of the antiquated measure "feet" I suppose you might be American. In which case, be sure to check that you have properly converted between feet and metres in your calculations, or you might miss the target, so to speak. ;)
  • 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..
  • 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?
  • Mir is also testament to the fact that the Russians can build something that can still be used way beyond its originally planned lifespan.
  • 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.
  • >they can, no MUST, not fail. If they do fail then the ISS project will be doomed

    No. In fact, NASA has a US built backup module ready to go, which they are planning on launching if the Russians don't get theirs up, or if it doesn't work. They have threatened to launch it as soon as this fall if Russia didn't hurry up.

  • Nice to see this news on Slashdot (Score:3)

    by Kartoffel ( 30238 ) on Wednesday June 28, 2000 @04:30AM (#971910)
    In order to get approval for the Zvezda/Service Module launch, Russia has had to jump through hoops. Last year their Proton rockets blew up a few times, causing Kazakhstan to ban further launches until they could fix the problem.

    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).

  • >Mir is testament to the fact that Russians making something on a small budget does not work too well.

    The fact that you could make a statement like this just exposes your complete ignorance. Mir was designed to run for only a few years, and it's now been up, what, 12 years? Do you know how much the Russians have learned from something like that?

    Personally I think the Russians are the world experts at designing and maintaining space stations, not the US.

    LL

  • Re:Russians have no clue? (Score:3)

    by Kartoffel ( 30238 ) on Wednesday June 28, 2000 @04:49AM (#971912)
    In fact, NASA has a US built backup module ready to go.

    Yes, but that module, the Interim Control Module (ICM), does not provide any power. It will provide attitude control and reboost for the station until a more permanent solution is available.

    "A more permanent solution" means a successful Service Module or perhaps the US Propulsion Module in a few years.

    The US Prop Module is a planned addition to the station that will be coming up on flight 10A.1 sometime in mid 2003. Originally designed to use off-the-shelf space shuttle hardware, the PM turned out to be much more complicated.

    The attitude control thrusters on the PM are mounted on the end of arms, but those arms get in the way when the Shuttle is trying to transfer cargo robotically. As a fix, they're designing the arms so they fold out of the way, but get this--the arm joints are only designed for 50 stow/unstow cycles in their operational life.

    The PM used to have the ability to keep itself refuelled indefinately by siphoning off a little extra OMS propellant from every visting Shuttle. The prop transfer system "cost too much", so the current PM design "saves money" by not having it. Instead, the only way to refuel the damn thing is to fly a dedicated Shuttle mission to bring the old PM home and replace it with a brand new one full of propellant.

    "Whenever possible, the Program shall strive to be penny-wise and pound-foolish" -- the ISS motto.

  • They shod just take bits and pieces from mir and use that old thing (like the solar
    panels!) Russians just got the shaft. After WWI and WWII we gave Germany
    money to rebuild. So after the cold war Russia just got Crap!!!

  • Noise problems resolved? (Score:3)

    by theonetruekeebler ( 60888 ) on Wednesday June 28, 2000 @04:52AM (#971914) Homepage Journal
    Last I heard there were still some serious concerns about noise levels onboard. I wish I could cite the CNN [cnn.com] article discussing this, but I failed to search it up successfully. Here's the gist, though: The noise levels in the powered-up module exceed OSHA's levels for two hours of intermittent daily exposure. It's as loud as a running vacuum cleaner, yet the module is intended to be inhabited for weeks or months at a time. The concerns are that (a) long term exposure could result in permanent hearing damage to astronauts, and (b) earplugs are not an option.

    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.

    --

  • FYI: You can get NASA News by using finger:

    finger nasanews@space.mit.edu

    To ``subscribe'' (well, sort of), put it in your crontab:

    0 0 * * 1,4 finger nasanews@space.mit.edu 2>&1 | /usr/bin/mailx -s "NASA Space News" your-email-address-here

    will send retrieve it on Mondays and Thursdays (Twice a week should be enough unless you like getting a lot of duplicate stories.)
    --

  • Oops! (Score:2)

    by rnturn ( 11092 )
    ``...will send retrieve it on...''

    should read

    ``...will retrieve it on...''

    Management apologizes for any inconvenience.
    --

  • 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
  • That is so nasty. what is wrong with you.
  • Look for this guy in next year's Darwin Awards [officialdarwinawards.com].

  • Re:About time (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It would be cheaper just to launch a new space station than adapt, configure, and maintain old Rusian hardware from MIR. Anyways, the solar panels are most likely considered very inefficient to todays standards.

  • Astro/Cosmo naughts (Score:3)

    by TekPolitik ( 147802 ) on Wednesday June 28, 2000 @12:18AM (#971921) Journal
    If we're crossing astronaughts and cosmonaughts, does that mean we get Castronaughts?

    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?

  • Quit bitching.

    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.
  • yes, but this space station isn't it. this is the greatest of all white elephants, the last pyramid project, a folly of astronomical cost. because of the engineering specs demanded, it's already outta date and because its so integrated it can never be updated. In twenty years it'll be a pile of expensive junk, that is until they crash it into the pacific. they should develop a utility platform in orbit, while they trash/update the space shuttle so we have a truly cost effective, modern, environmentally friendly system of getting out of the gravity well when we like. Then we can build Castles in the Air.
  • hmm. Kazakhstan use their leverage over Baikonur to push the Russians around for all sorts of reasons.. I don't suppose there was all that much concern that one would fall on anyone nearby, that's why it's out in the boonies after all. No doubt the russian rockets are suffering from the sort of funding starvation that's evident in all russian affairs these days. remember the international space programme is really about poltitics, one way of keeping the injured Bear stable for a while. But this political game of demanding they front up to comercial space contracts when they can't keep their population fed is a tiresome diversion, and one of the reasons this ISS programme is doomed to be a long and expensive albatross around the neck of the world's space industry for a long time.
  • Differentiating ordinary background noises from Very Bad Noises is a tricky task for an active filter to handle, and Very Bad Noises are something you absolutely must be able to hear.

    Passive devices like earplugs or cans are good at reducing noise levels uniformly, which lets you stay attuned to changes in overall noise level and transient sounds. There are some sophisticated custom-fitted models that can be worn for extended periods of time, but for the most part, eight to twelve hours is the limit before you start risking infection. This period is longer for cans, but bacteria-friendly moisture can still build up inside them.

    In any case the steady roar of overly noisy air handlers could mask out all sorts of Very Bad Noises, such as the futile clicking of a relay trying to latch open, if you can't hear that, you can't tell that the relay is about to fail and take with it something you need in order to live. It's always nice to fix the problem before all the pretty red lights start flashing.

    But as Ig0r [slashdot.org] pointed out above, the real problem isn't Zvezda but the temporary equipment Zvezda will replace.

    --


  • 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.
  • It's odd that you would criticize... doesn't your "edge of technology browser" do ftp?
  • I think the noise they were experiencing was from the air circulating gear (which would be literally as loud as a vacuum cleaner) that were there temporarily too keep the air circulating until the Zvezda module arrives with perminant air scrubbing/circulating gear.

    --
  • "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?"

    Neither. It means that NASA is concerned enough about the potential for zero-gee hanky-panky that they've decided to put an end to the possibility once and for all.

    Look at the bright side... 100% aggression-free astronauts.
  • >> they still see the USA as the "old enemy".

    As well as US still sees the Russia as "old enemy". Or do you think all guys that were there at times of Cold War left? They are still over there. They think they can do anything they like on Balcans, but Russians can't do nothing in Chechnya without asking US first. That even while Chechnya is part of Russia, and Balcans weren't part of US last time I checked. US politicans and military need The Enemy not less than Russian ones. OK, Russia is less dangerous because it's in breakup - so US is using supplemental Lesser Enemies (like China, Serbia or whatever). Maybe some of them even are promoted to First Range Enemy (like China), and Russia is demoted to Lesser Enemy. But the "Enemies" concept stays.
  • 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.
  • How come earplugs are not an option?
    What about big active noise filter flight headsets?
  • Please remind me again what your claim to being an expert was?

    I didn't claim that I'm an expert (my field is optics / astronomy) - if you'd read what i wrote you might have seen that the information i was passing on was from one of the original engineers on the project. His name is Yuri Samarkin. He used to work for this guy [iki.rssi.ru]. He's not there now. I think he rattled too many cages.

  • Do we care? Why the fsck was that moderated to 2??? I don't want to read it while i'm on slashdot!

    Gfunk
  • Yes, and let's not forget that Mir computers were running that long on 4 megs of RAM (core memory rather). The fact that Mir lived after a fire and a crash (and who knows what else) speaks only for its great ruggedness.
  • 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/
  • Huh? The tank isn't suitable for habitation, it could make a nice ballistic shield maybe for space debris. But a habitat it isn't.


  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Can you program?" "Well, I'm literate, if that's what you mean!"

Close