Russian Cosmonauts Find New Cracks In ISS Module (livescience.com) 102
Mr.Fork shares a report from Live Science: Russian cosmonauts discovered cracks on the Zarya module of the International Space Station (ISS) and are concerned that the fissures could spread over time, a senior space official reported on Monday. "Superficial fissures have been found in some places on the Zarya module," Vladimir Solovyov, chief engineer of rocket and space corporation Energia, told RIA news agency, according to Reuters. "This is bad and suggests that the fissures will begin to spread over time." The Zarya module, also called the Functional Cargo Block, was the first component of the ISS ever launched, having blasted into orbit on Nov. 20, 1998, according to NASA. Solovyov recently stated that the ISS is beginning to show its age and warned that there could potentially be an "avalanche" of broken equipment after 2025, according to Reuters.
Re:Better camp out in the escape pod (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that.
Re: Better camp out in the escape pod (Score:1)
Planned obsolescence. (Score:2)
2025? Is that when the warranty expires.
Re: (Score:1)
2025? Is that when the warranty expires.
No, that was in 2008. The modules have a 10 year planned life.
Re: (Score:2)
The warranty is long expired. Russia is willing to sell an extended warranty, but only if we stop giving any launch contracts to SpaceX.
2025 is, indeed, the end of the last support contract.
Re: (Score:3)
Said a NASA official, "So that's why I keep getting phone calls saying that they've been trying to contact me about my space station's extended warranty."
Re: (Score:2)
how does that work? (Score:2)
So which is the expected failure? Sudden and catastrophic like a ballon bursting, or gradually accelerating, like a turtle running downhill?
Re: (Score:3)
Gradually accelerating. It's exactly what we're seeing. Thing is though, many of those modules have been over twice expected life span at this point. It's honestly very surprising how well they held up.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is Russian technology. It's noisy, it's uncomfortable, it's bulky, it's a PITA to work with - but it's sturdy and very likely can be MacGyvered back into shape with whatever tidbits you have lying around on the station.
Re: (Score:2)
but it's sturdy
Appently not, since it's prone to cracking.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends if the epoxy comes unstuck before 2025, or if they have to do it in software.
Aging (Score:5, Insightful)
Each of the modules had a planned lifetime of 10 years. It's been up for 20 years. NASA hopes to keep it going until 2024 or 2028. Structural and other issues mean it can't last forever. Reportedly, NASA is interested in one or more commercial stations. Hopefully, SpaceX will succeed with their Starship which will facilitate launch of massive components at cheaper rates than we've ever had before.
Re:Aging (Score:5, Interesting)
Reportedly, NASA is interested in one or more commercial stations. Hopefully, SpaceX will succeed with their Starship which will facilitate launch of massive components at cheaper rates than we've ever had before.
The current schedule has SpaceX launching the first two modules of Lunar Gateway in 2024, which is where a lot of the government-funded science will be taking place, and also in 2024 SpaceX will be launching a commercial crew module to the ISS for Axiom Space. I wouldn't be surprised if there is already a commercial replacement when the Russians unhook their module in 2025. What is now the ISS might end up becoming a commercial station, one module at a time, though it will eventually be made of all new parts.
Re: (Score:2)
What is now the ISS might end up becoming a commercial station, one module at a time, though it will eventually be made of all new parts.
The Space Station of Theseus.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect they'll rename it as soon as Lunar Gateway receives the science modules, thereby avoiding the paradox.
Same guy said self-driving across country by 2017 (Score:2)
The same guy said in January 2016 that by the end of 2017, he'd deliver cars that that could drive from New York to LA by themselves.
Based on the track record, we would translate "modules in orbit in 2024" to mean "sub-orbital flight in 2028".
But they've already done an orbital flight of something, so who the heck knows when or if they'll be able to deliver anything on Lunar Gateway. There's just no telling.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say the only thing holding back SpaceX being able to launch "modules" in 2024 is paperwork and Bezos's demand that NASA suck his cock for not being able to break out of the atmosphere. I expect to see some spectacular explosions in the upper atmosphere within the next 12 months as Starship is tested, then a few nominal test flights next year even with the current road blocks. Once they get orbital with Starship on a regular basis without failure, there's nothing on the current agenda that would be hel
Re: (Score:2)
Who is going to toss together a module that quickly that can be approved for launch by the red tape brigade before 2024 should be the real question. Our government approval process moves so glacially slow I don't know if that's even possible if the module were sitting in a giant warehouse somewhere complete and they submitted for approval today.
Thales Alenia will be doing the work. Is already doing the work. They've been cutting bulkheads already. They have previously built an ISS module, so they know what they're doing. They begin welding sometime in September and expect to be shipping the shell of the module to Houston by July of 2023. Final assembly and certification will happen in Houston, to be completed in time for launch in 2024.
There's some chance that certification goes smoothly. Axiom Space hired a former ISS program director who h
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on replicability from their previous module, yeah, that does seem like an awful tight window to hit. Or it's literally a parts pop and is half done the second the welding is started. Guess time will tell.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say the only thing holding back SpaceX being able to launch "modules" in 2024
SpaceX is the launch service. There is nothing holding back SpaceX commercial launches, they happen all the time. One customer is Axiom Space, the other is NASA.
Your perverted Bezos fellatio fantasy has nothing to do with any of it.
And you might want to note that the Amazon lawsuit is about a Lunar Lander that has nothing at all to do with the Lunar Gateway project, which will be a space station in lunar orbit.
Re: Same guy said self-driving across country by 2 (Score:1)
The same guy said in January 2016 that by the end of 2017, he'd deliver cars that that could drive from New York to LA by themselves.
To be fair, it will do that; just make sure there're no emergency vehicles in the way.
It also apparently helps if you're sleeping.
Re: (Score:2)
What "same guy?" I doubt anybody at NASA actually said anything like that.
You do know that SpaceX is a commercial launch service, that really launches stuff? And that they have actual customers? And that those customers sometimes have already agreed launch schedules? And that those customers are paying for the launch, so it has nothing to do with the word of some random. Even if he owns a bunch of stock and has some kind of title, he's not the scheduling department.
Re: (Score:2)
> You do know that SpaceX is a commercial launch service, that really launches stuff? And that they have actual customers?
You do know that Tesla is a commercial auto company, that really builds cars? And that they have actual customers?
> And that those customers are paying for the launch
Kinda like the people who paid for a Model 5 in January, were supposed to get it by June, and after several months of no communication from the company are now being told sometime in 2022.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's rename it the ISS Theseus.
Re: (Score:2)
You would already have avoided the paradox by doing that, so it would be a really lame name. Anybody who got the joke would call you an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
A billion dollar facility is still pretty going to be a billion dollar facility - even if launches were free. You'll save some money because you don't have to be as clever with weight... But all the other requirements are still going to be there.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you misunderestimate (sic) the work needed to keep the weight down, and conversely how many problems can be more simply solved just by adding weight.
Re: (Score:2)
A billion dollar facility is still pretty going to be a billion dollar facility - even if launches were free.
Axiom Space is spending 110 million Euros for their module. It's intentionally replicating as many aspects of existing ISS modules as is reasonably possible to keep costs and certification difficulties down.
We'll see if it actually gets built to budget...
Re: (Score:1)
Modular (Score:2)
Space Station of Theseus
Re:Modular (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire space station is modular. There's no reason any module can't be replaced and rotated on an ongoing basis (its really just a cost thing). We could keep maintaining the space station indefinitely, replacing things as we go along.
Space Station of Theseus
It was designed to be built in a modular fashion. That doesn't actually mean that it's also designed to be taken apart. Russia did recently toss off an old docking port. But most of the modules are too intertwined with cabling and stuff for it to be feasible to remove them. Design work on the ISS started in the 1980s. We've learned a lot since then. If we're going to send up tons of new stuff, we might as well build a new station with an updated architecture.
Re: (Score:2)
Having a few retrofitted connectors doesn't stop it from being modular.
Axiom Space is connecting their commercial crew quarters module in 2024, and the Russians are disconnecting their module in 2025. One of the reasons for those extra wires here and there is that Russian module; the Russians insist on providing the services to the station that it was agreed they would be allowed to provide. Axiom will need one launch in early 2025 to provide a replacement, and now everything can be updated with nobody stan
Re: (Score:2)
If we're going to send up tons of new stuff, we might as well build a new station with an updated architecture.
And Blackjack! And Hookers!
Re: (Score:2)
It was designed to be built in a modular fashion. That doesn't actually mean that it's also designed to be taken apart. Russia did recently toss off an old docking port. But most of the modules are too intertwined with cabling and stuff for it to be feasible to remove them. Design work on the ISS started in the 1980s. We've learned a lot since then. If we're going to send up tons of new stuff, we might as well build a new station with an updated architecture.
A major benefit of the space station is simply the amount of space. It's much cheaper to keep things up that are already up than it is to boost the same stuff to orbit. Even if there was a start on a new architecture, dividing the station in half and keeping some bits to re-connect to the new bits for a period of time could make real sense. Even if you got rid of those modules five years later, it would mean you can start your "new" space station with a large functional size from the beginning.
Stopping a crack (Score:5, Funny)
Simple. Just drill holes [slashdot.org] in the ends of one.
Re: (Score:2)
Just send up some Flex Seal [flexsealproducts.com] on the next supply mission.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Stress relief!
cheap fix (Score:1)
spray-on truck bed liner in an aerosol can.
Surely we already have the plans... (Score:2)
...for all these Russian modules. Same as they had the plans for the Space Shuttle.
Time to whip up some replacements. Maybe they can entice Bezos and his PeenRocket to start Amazon Prime Delivery of parts.
Russian cosmonaut made the cracks (Score:2)
So he could get a ride home early
Re: Russian cosmonaut made the cracks (Score:2)
My guess is the Russians actually did make the cracks when their errant new module set the station spinning a few weeks ago.
Thermal cycling (Score:5, Interesting)
I forget the exact ratios, but at the space station's inclination, something like half or two thirds of the time it will experience full eclipse on every orbit for something like 20 minutes before coming into full sunlight again. 14 times a day. For decades.
You try building something that gets whacked between full sunlight and cold space every two hours without cracking eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
It's incredible any kind of metal fittings survive that for any appreciable amount of time, nevermind 2 decades.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Thermal Stress.
Sadly, this is what took out the spacecraft that on which I'd first had equipment I'd worked on. ADEOS (launch 1997) had our NASA Scatterometer onboard. The solar panels were deployed on a long (40 m ?) aluminum boom that was extended from the frame. The solar panels themselves were hinged, like an accordion, and the hinges were a polymer. The stainless steel cable that pulled the folded panels out from the bus ran through the aluminum boom, and drew the panels taut. And therein lies the i
Re: Thermal cycling (Score:2)
I got told a story by a guy in the know re: Hubble's solar panels. There was some cte mismatch in the truss or the boom or something and the punchline is that a few minutes *after* entering or leaving eclipse, stuff would start scaping against other stuff and the nice steady pointing that let you have deep exposures was considerably more shaky than the specification called for.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not saying that preventing failure from thermal stress is an easy task, but it is certainly achievable at best, and at worst predictable, and certainly not a forgone eventuality.
Re: (Score:2)
Flex Seal (Score:2)
Nobody going to mention fixing it with Flex Seal?
Re: (Score:2)
I can just see it now. Astronauts and Cosmonauts examining cracks with concerned looks, then the Flex Seal guy floats onscreen...
Russian Cosmonauts? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, Cosmonauts Russian you!
Re: (Score:2)
Where are they rushin' you to?
Re: (Score:2)
The airlock!
Re: (Score:2)
If we are being pedantic then there were non-Russian cosmonauts. The USSR and then Russia had cosmonauts from several other countries join various missions. Not just communist countries either, the first space tourist was a Japanese journalist who visited Mir.
Re: (Score:2)
The Russians seem to want out of the ISS ASAP (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The recent tone of Russian communications relating to the ISS seems to indicate an increasing desire to exit from the ISS project. Given the recent Nauka module mishaps, the Auñón-Chancellor sabotage accusations, and the warming China/Russia relationship, one could be forgiven for suspecting an ulterior motive.
Russia's space program is one of their few sources of internationally recognized pride. If they exit the ISS, they can't go to the Chinese station - the Chinese station is in an orbit that can't be reached by by the rockets Russia launches. The Russians can launch to the ISS because the ISS was put in in an arguably suboptimal orbit so that the Russians can reach it. Russia has a much smaller economy than most people realize, so it seems unlikely they can build a new station on their own even if they
Re: (Score:2)
The other funny thing about Russia's recent behavior is that the ISS can easily keep going without Russian modules, but the Russian segment would have difficulty being self sufficient. They would immediately have power and cooling issues without the solar wings attached to the International segment. While they have some solar and cooling, it isn't very much.
vacuum (Score:2)
Re: vacuum (Score:2)
Looking at the situation from the outside...it blows.
Need multiple private space stations (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Naw. Much like their vaccines only the highest quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be surprised
When a crack in the ISS
Appears under your feet.
You slip out of your depth and out of your mind
With your fear flowing out behind you
As you claw the thin ice.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be like the scorpion and the frog story
Re:more sabotage? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Americans sure are busy up there sabotaging the Russian modules.
The arrival of the Nauka module with its subsequent misfiring of its rockets surely didn't do the Zarya module any good. After Nauka docked, it began firing its engine thrusters in error, causing the entire space station to make one and a half full rotations before the module ran out of fuel, enabling ground controllers to stop the rotation and the crew to get it back to its original position an hour later. No nefarious actions needed by any of the crew members.
--
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially on the space station.
Re: (Score:1)
if (you.nationality == "RU") {
you.receive("I know Russians hate it when you do that, no worries comrades, we now you are better than this")
you.soothe++
}
Re:Deorbit and replace (Score:5, Informative)
The sooner legacy systems are scrapped (along with all US cooperation with our NeoSoviet Putinist enemy) the better.
Well, this is silly. The USA has poured more than $150,000,000,000 into creating the ISS; scrapping it sooner than necessary would be akin to setting some large portion of that money on fire.
We'll do the obvious thing, which is to get as much use out of our expensive asset as we can, for as long as we can. Then, when it's no longer practical or economical to maintain it, that is the time to deorbit it. Not before.
Re: (Score:1)
In the meantime, let's send up some gum with the next load
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If those Flextape commercials are accurate it might be worth trying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And while you are still in the ISS, please don't make a as catastrophic exit from the ISS as you did at Afghanistan.
For example don't alienate your International allies. You know, that I in ISS.
Re: (Score:2)
And while you are still in the ISS, please don't make a as catastrophic exit from the ISS as you did at Afghanistan.
For example don't alienate your International allies. You know, that I in ISS.
Yeah - the Soviet Union really did screw things up when they left Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
People had a lot more freedom under the Soviets when they were running Afghanistan. The US just couldn't help getting involved because communism, and funded the mujahideen to fight against them.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, that funding is what created the Taliban in the first place.
You can learn all about it by watching the Pentagon's propaganda movie Rambo 3
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, you can always guarantee a troll mod when someone posts the unpalatable truth.
The United States, more than any other nation, is responsible for this mess due to decades of fucking with Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you can always guarantee a troll mod when someone posts the unpalatable truth.
The United States, more than any other nation, is responsible for this mess due to decades of fucking with Afghanistan.
Wouldn't you just love how the world would instantly be better if the USA were to just disappear? All problems would go away.
We get it - you hate the USA with a deep abiding passion.
Lend lease was one of the worst mistakes the USA ever made. After all, the United States, more than any other nation - is responsible for that. Wasn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't hate the US.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't hate the US.
You just play someone who does on TV?
But seriously - imagine just how much better the world would be if the USA never existed! JHere on Slashdot - it's pretty obvious that is the case. USA go away, and a new golden age of freedom and love among nations will emerge... 8^/
Re: Deorbit and replace (Score:1)
The US just couldn't help getting involved because communism
If you get any dumber, we're going to need a new system of measurement.
Re: (Score:2)
The US just couldn't help getting involved because communism
If you get any dumber, we're going to need a new system of measurement.
To put a perspective on the whole thing, without Amimojo's hatred of all things USA, the 20 years the US spent in Afghanistan was a real money drain. And yes, a mistake. Funding the mujahideen who then turned into the Taliban was a part of the late Cold war BS that Russia and the USA were involved in. The idea that the USA was somehow the only nation involved in the cold war is daft. It was a weird time of brinksmanship and proxy wars. Both nations.
The US should have cut bait early on, because the Cold w
Re: (Score:2)
People had a lot more freedom under the Soviets when they were running Afghanistan. The US just couldn't help getting involved because communism, and funded the mujahideen to fight against them.
You're arguing a point I'm not making - Freax is in great umbrage because of Biden's (actually Trump's) exit from Afghanistan - But turns out there was another group there too, who left, and not with the world proclaiming it a great victory.
I was just reminding him of that fact.
Re: Deorbit and replace (Score:1)
you did at Afghanistan
And which "who" would that be??
Re: (Score:2)
To which "who" are you referring? The OP didn't use the word "who".
Re: (Score:2)
If those uneconomical science experiments had cut and run at the first signs of failure there wouldn't be many (any?) of the scientific breakthroughs that we now have. Sure this ISS fault isn't the first sign of failure but it also isn't a reason to cut the mission short unless it is determined that the cracks are life threatening.
Re: (Score:2)
it also isn't a reason to cut the mission short
What do you mean by "cut the mission short"? Technical-lifetime-wise, the ISS is like five years overdue for a replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this is silly. The USA has poured more than $150,000,000,000 into creating the ISS; scrapping it sooner than necessary would be akin to setting some large portion of that money on fire.
That's a massive sunk cost fallacy, though. Perhaps one of the biggest ones ever made so far.
Its a module, its replaceable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be difficult to pull Zarya out because it's the connecting piece between the Russian segment and the rest of the ISS, right in the middle of the station. Undocking it at both ends would split the station in two, and then to replace it you'd be dealing with a rather complicated dance of multiple moving spacecraft in close proximity. I don't know if the separate parts of the station would even be able to maneuver independently; it's most likely not designed for this contingency.
Re: (Score:3)
Surely you'd dock a machine for replacing the segment with metal spars to keep the two sections connected whilst you removed the module and replaced it? You could then use (highly geared) electric motors to move the two bits of the space station apart and back together. There's no friction and no wind so it can be done very slowly with minimal force.
Re: (Score:2)
More seriously, yes it is something that can be dealt with and a part that can be replaced, but nowhere as simple and trite as you make it sound. The implementation (like all module manipulation) is risky and failure can mean destruction of the station and death to all aboard, leaving three larg
Re: (Score:2)
Since the ISS mission is already scheduled to be end in 2028 there may not be time to build, test, ship and assemble a replacement module. The module would probably only get a year or two of use if they did manage to get it installed. It would be better to see if there is some way to repair the cracks well enough to get another ~7 years out of the existing module.
Re: Its a module, its replaceable (Score:2)
. It would be better to see if there is some way to repair the cracks well enough to get another ~7 years out of the existing module.
Perhaps replacing the failing module would buy the station some additional time; regardless, repairing a [now brittle] structural component ain't happening.