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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
ISS NASA Space

ISS Crew Install Cables For 2017 Arrival of Commercial Capsules 106

Posted by timothy from the in-meters-they're-even-longer dept.
The Associated Press, as carried by the San Francisco Chronicle, reports that NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Terry Virts have attached more than 300 feet of cable to the exterior of the International Space Station in a series of three planned spacewalks; in total, the wiring job they're undertaking will involve 764 feet of power and data cables. The extensive rewiring is needed to prepare for NASA’s next phase 260 miles up: the 2017 arrival of the first commercial spacecraft capable of transporting astronauts to the orbiting lab. NASA is paying Boeing and SpaceX to build the capsules and fly them from Cape Canaveral, which hasn’t seen a manned launch since the shuttles retired in 2011. Instead, Russia is doing all the taxi work — for a steep price. The first of two docking ports for the Boeing and SpaceX vessels — still under development — is due to arrive in June. Even more spacewalks will be needed to set everything up. Mission Control left two cables — or about 24 feet worth — for the next spacewalk coming up Wednesday. Four hundred feet of additional cable will be installed next Sunday on spacewalk No. 3.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ISS Crew Install Cables For 2017 Arrival of Commercial Capsules More

ISS Crew Install Cables For 2017 Arrival of Commercial Capsules

Comments Filter:

  • So how about the core Russian module? (Score:3)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Saturday February 21, 2015 @08:02PM (#49102905)
    I've read rumors that Russia is getting antsy to reuse the core block for ISS for its own station some day, and that they don't allow non-Russians into the Russian parts of the station without escort. If there's substance to this rumor, is there a plan in the works to have a replacement module so that humanity's most expensive construct ever doesn't become so much floating orbital debris?

    • Re:So how about the core Russian module? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Hadlock ( 143607 ) on Saturday February 21, 2015 @09:02PM (#49103097) Homepage Journal

      They made a formal announcement that they'll be disconnecting from the US half of the ISS at the end of 2013 after approximately 10 years of talking about it. And now they're courting the Chinese, the Japanese and the ESA to go in with them on their own ISS, leaving the ISS with... The US and South Korea.
       
      It's not a rumor, it's "when". They have a webcam setup showing construction of their new spaceport built to support the "new" spacestation in it's new orbit. They plan on doing their first launch by the end of the year.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by wiggles ( 30088 )

        Yeah, I don't see this project moving forward. For one, Russia is broke. Their economy is in tatters. For two, I don't see the Japanese or Europeans siding with the Russians on much of anything; there's too much bad blood there. The Russians have burned just about every diplomatic bridge they have right now - they're stuck being buddies with thugs and failed states because nobody else will return Putin's phone call.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Hadlock ( 143607 )

          Russia was broke through the entire Cold War and was more than happy to let their citizens starve to push their space and millitary programs and they still beat the US in the space race in every respect (excluding landing a man on the moon). They saw the price tag and said "forget that", we already have First Sattelite, First Man/Woman in space, first Man/Woman in orbit, first manned space station, furthest distance driven on the moon/mars (until VERY RECENTLY actually, only in the last two years were those

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            and they still beat the US in the space race in every respect (excluding landing a man on the moon).

            This is quite a stretch. The USSR (not Russia) launched the first satellite and the first man in space, but in terms of meaningful achievements, they a bit behind. Some examples:

            * USSR did sent the first satellite (Sputnik), but the first satellite to make important scientific discovery (Van Allen belts) was American.
            * While USSR basked in the media limelight of the 1st satellite, the US quietly did the following: first solar observatory, first weather satellite, first navsat, first commercial satellite,

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by TWX ( 665546 )
            It doesn't hurt (the Russians, that is) that they sent all of their defective NK-33 engines to us, instead using an entirely different engine for manned spaceflight.

            To this point, it appears that SpaceX is the only rocket supplier that has managed to build engines that both can be shutdown instantly when an at-ignition problem is discovered, and can selectively shutdown during the launch sequence to deactivate a problematic engine without destroying the craft. It's only a matter of time before someone o

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by Hadlock ( 143607 )

              The NK-33 rockets are fully tested before they're flown, I don't want to sound like a Russian apologist, but NASA's preliminary report says that the Orbital flight is their own fault, finding evidence of dessicant and spare parts(!!!) in the fuel tank that were later ingested by the turbopump. If you stick metal action figures in the cylinders of your car how many miles do you expect the engine to last running at 80,000 rpm?

              • Well, there have been two different incidents with the NK-33 in 2014. Explaining away the other incident (on a test stand - ironically, the Antares-flown unit was probably a spare for the tested one) might require some mental gymnastics.

          • You had me until you said Russia had the most reliable manned launches. The USA has put over 700 people into orbit Russia is barely above 200. The numbers are public.

            The last time I did the math Russia and the USA both had a 1.5 deaths for every 100 people flown into space ratio. So no Russia isn't more reliable or less risky.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by stooo ( 2202012 )

              Russian spaceflights (people/flight) : 293 (including the currently in space Soyuz TMA-15M)
              USA : 892

              Russian : 4 in flight fatalities (1,3%)
              USA : 14 in flight fatalities (1,56%)

              Russian : 120 manned launches, 2 fatal failures in flight (1,66%)
              USA : 161 manned launches, 2 fatal failures in flight (1,24%)

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          China is eager to build a space station with Russia. And, they have money.

      • They made a formal announcement that they'll be disconnecting from the US half of the ISS at the end of 2013 after approximately 10 years of talking about it.

        So this "formal announcement" joins the last dozen or so "formal announcements"?

        Seriously, how can anyone watch the Russian space program over any span of time and remain credulous enough to take their "formal announcements" at face value? They haven't even been able to build and launch 90% of the ISS modules they've "formally announced".

  • Sumarry says:

    Russia is doing all the taxi work — for a steep price

    How much is it more expensive than private industry? Boeing and SpaceX are not philanthropists, they will do the job for profit.

    • That was pretty much the question I was going to ask.

      By definition the private sector has to be more expensive at achieving a goal than the public one. When the public sector want to achieve a goal, it has to spend the money necessary to achieve that goal. If the private sector does so, it has to achieve the secondary goal of turning a profit. And sadly, that secondary goal usually becomes the primary one, with the original primary goal taking a back seat and becoming the necessary evil to achieve the actua

      • You forgot to take into account the private sector efficiency, which is usually obtained through negative externalities: crushing workers, polluting...

        Of course someone will tell me that public sector pollute as much because laws allow it, and has lazy and unproductive workers...

        • Re:Russian steep price (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Saturday February 21, 2015 @08:52PM (#49103067)

          Everyone has lazy and unproductive workers. Why should any worker give half a fuck about his company if he can clearly see that even the CEOs are trying their best to milk it for all it's worth and then move on to the next corporation to pump and dump?

          There is no work ethic left. On no level of the work force. What I see today in our economy reminds me in a stunningly way of what went down in the former communist countries. Same shit. Same mismanagement with the same disillusioned workforce, with everyone trying his best to waste as little energy as possible doing work, knowing that if he put in more all that would be his reward is more workload shifted onto him. Mostly because it just doesn't friggin' matter whether you try to work hard or whether you slack. Your chances for promotion are zero, your chances to get fired are not influenced at all by how you work. So why bother with anything?

          There is simply no identification with your workplace anymore, and no faith in the ones steering the company's course.

          And bluntly, whether you think your politicians are greedy, selfish idiots with zero qualification for their job and no well being in their mind aside of their own, or whether you think your boss is like this, where exactly is the difference between public and private sector?

          • And bluntly, whether you think your politicians are greedy, selfish idiots with zero qualification for their job and no well being in their mind aside of their own, or whether you think your boss is like this, where exactly is the difference between public and private sector?

            There are huge parts of public sector that operate far enough from unqualified politicians to maintain the ability to actually work. But I guess the situation depends on the countries.

          • Awesome, another one who thinks clearly and sees reality for what it is. How do you avoid depression?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by itzly ( 3699663 )

            What about we motivate you by giving you a promotion, and put as many as four people right underneath you ?

            • That may work for some, but only shifts and multiplies the problem. Now you motivate one person by demotivating 4 others.

          • Everyone has lazy and unproductive workers. Why should any worker give half a fuck about his company if he can clearly see that even the CEOs are trying their best to milk it for all it's worth and then move on to the next corporation to pump and dump?

            There is no work ethic left. On no level of the work force. What I see today in our economy reminds me in a stunningly way of what went down in the former communist countries. Same shit. Same mismanagement with the same disillusioned workforce, with everyone trying his best to waste as little energy as possible doing work, knowing that if he put in more all that would be his reward is more workload shifted onto him. Mostly because it just doesn't friggin' matter whether you try to work hard or whether you slack. Your chances for promotion are zero, your chances to get fired are not influenced at all by how you work. So why bother with anything?

            There is simply no identification with your workplace anymore, and no faith in the ones steering the company's course.

            And bluntly, whether you think your politicians are greedy, selfish idiots with zero qualification for their job and no well being in their mind aside of their own, or whether you think your boss is like this, where exactly is the difference between public and private sector?

            can you find a good reason to bother treating your employees well? what's to say they won't just do what you're doing right now?

      • By definition the private sector has to be more expensive at achieving a goal than the public one.

        Exactly. This is why capitalism collapsed in 1989, when in the "Moscow Consensus", the world decided that the Soviets and Cubans had a better economic model, and, gosh darn-it, central planning was just so much more efficient.

        • The soviet system had many problems, and I am glad I did not live in it, but central planning have some merit. Spatial projects could never come true without it.

        • The communist system faltered before the capitalist will because it's easier to see through. Behind the smokes and mirrors, it's the same system, the promise is just a different one and it's easier to debunk.

          The communist promise is "if we all work hard today, we'll all be living in paradise tomorrow". The problem is that people are lazy and they immediately go "hmm. If I don't work hard, it won't matter since everyone else is and we'll all profit from it". Of course this falls flat on the face if everyone

      • By definition the private sector has to be more expensive at achieving a goal than the public one.

        Not at all. The public sector tends not to care about costs, since they take the money more or less by force (implied force, if nothing else), and they have little to no threat of competition to force overheads to remain low. And of course one government providing a service for money to another government also has the motive of profit, making this situation more or less the worst of all possible worlds. In a theoretical optimum world, public sector would be by definition cheaper. Unfortunately, we live in t

      • Do you think the US government builds all its own equipment? Private companies build NASA's equipment, from spacesuits to rockets. A company like SpaceX or Boeing or Lockheed-Martin don't just sell this equipment at cost, they certainly make a profit on it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )

        When the public sector want to achieve a goal, it has to spend the money necessary to achieve that goal. If the private sector does so, it has to achieve the secondary goal of turning a profit.

        See this is where you're wrong, it's not the public sector that wants it. The politicians want it, so they write a check for the FBI or IRS or EPA and give them tasks like "prevent crime", "collect taxes" or "protect the environment". Nobody wants to downsize their own job, that's true both in the private and public sector. But in the public sector your boss and his boss typically isn't looking to downsize your job either, why would anyone from the smallest branch office manager all the way to the head of t

      • Governments and corporations have different motivations (assuming competence on both sides). As you point out, private industry has a profit motive, but that isn't necessarily their only or highest motivation. Government isn't usually looking to profit, but they usually require higher levels of accountability and consultation with the general public, which takes a long time and isn't always cheap.

      • By definition the private sector has to be more expensive at achieving a goal than the public one.

        Then explain the cost difference between the Senate-mandated SLS design and the SpaceX-developed Falcon Heavy.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      Russia is doing all the taxi work — for a steep price

      How much is it more expensive than private industry?

      "Price" in this case may be an imprecise word. The monetary cost may not be all that bad compared to SpaceX or Boeing. (It may even be favorable, for all I know.) However, it does carry serious risk to have only one supplier that can get you to the ISS. Sometimes the public and private sector properly take the (potential) costs of risk into account. This is what the insurance industry does

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Hadlock ( 143607 )

      Russia charges NASA about $73 million per astronaut, that includes Soyuz training, russian lessons, splashdown survival training, and of course the actual launch. That's per astronaut. We typically rotate through six astronauts a year on a staggered schedule.

      SpaceX is going to be capable of sending seven astronauts for under $100 million. That's about $15 million per seat or 20% of what the Russians are charging. It could potentially get as low as $60 million per launch which comes out to 8.5 millio

      • SpaceX is going to be capable of sending seven astronauts for under $100 million. That's about $15 million per seat or 20% of what the Russians are charging.

        Last numbers I saw, the Commercial Crew program was expecting to cost the government ~$58M per astronaut (plus assorted cargo), with a payload of five astronauts plus cargo per launch.

  • What is the billable rate for an [Astro|Cosmo]naut? I would think well over $1k/hr, what with enormous over head e.g. mission control. Who is paying for the time? The private companies or is the private sectort yet again getting a free ride on the back of the taxpayer?

  • Can anyone explain why this is needed? why are more connections/a different type of docking port needed to support crewed pods than cargo pods? why can't they use the same docking ports the shuttle used?

    • I don't understand it either especially since one of the capsules being used to ferry astronauts will be the Dragon which already connects fine with the ISS.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Because the old ports use a mechanical capture mechanism that will soon exceed its planned lifetime. The new ports will use an electromagnetic soft capture mechanism which is much more durable.

        http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/02/astronauts-spacewalk-re-wire-iss-commercial-crew/ [nasaspaceflight.com]

        • Thanks for the link.

          So as usual /. links to a crappy news article rather than a source with real information.........

          • It's not just that. To my understanding, the cargo versions also don't use docking ports since none of the docking ports is large enough (max. 0.8m) to transfer really large cargo items. The drawback is that none of the berthing ports (which have a much more useful 1.27 m diameter) can be connected to or disconnected from with an uncooperating and/or unmanned station, so it's lousy for people stuff (lifeboat escape, connecting to station without crew etc.).

    • The shuttle ports (PMAs) have mechanical docking (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      latches, that need something massing close to the mass of the shuttle to engage properly.
      They are also in inconvenient locations, and they need to be able to dock two crew capable vehicles at the station at all times to serve as life boats.
      There are currently always 2 Soyuz capsules docked to the Station except during crew change. Each Soyuz can carry three crew members, and 2 docked Soyuz give them the ability to evacuate the entire 6 man crew in an emergency.

      The new crew capsules are capable of carrying

  • Yeah, we need cable TV in every suite for those high paying commercial customers.

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close