Author Topic: ISS aging  (Read 4623 times)

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 54421
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 90626
  • Likes Given: 41874
ISS aging
« on: 06/07/2024 02:38 pm »
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1799084208448836074

Quote
The cracking problem on the International Space Station is getting worse, but no one wants to talk about it.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/on-the-space-station-band-aid-fixes-for-systemic-problems/

Quote
As leaks on the space station worsen, there’s no clear plan to deal with them
"We heard that basically the program office had a runaway fire on their hands."

by Eric Berger - Jun 7, 2024 2:03pm GMT
20

NASA and the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, still have not solved a long-running and worsening problem with leaks on the International Space Station.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 54421
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 90626
  • Likes Given: 41874
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #1 on: 09/27/2024 05:27 am »
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1839423582163890636

Quote
A new report from NASA's IG confirms my reporting from June that the ISS program has escalated cracking in the Russian PrK module into its highest risk and consequence categories.

That story: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/on-the-space-station-band-aid-fixes-for-systemic-problems/

IG report: https://oig.nasa.gov/topics/space-operations/nasas-management-of-risks-to-sustaining-iss-operations-through-2030/

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7550
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2351
  • Likes Given: 2179
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #2 on: 09/27/2024 06:41 am »
Attached is a diagram from the Nov 30, 2021 NASA OIG report, showing (more precisely than in the 2024 report) the location of the transfer tunnel with the cracks that cause the leakage.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline jstrotha0975

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
  • United States
  • Liked: 372
  • Likes Given: 2961
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #3 on: 09/27/2024 03:48 pm »
Can't they seal the cracks with a Flex Seal type of stuff?

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12596
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 8491
  • Likes Given: 83685
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #4 on: 09/27/2024 11:26 pm »
Cross-post:
Pre-Launch News Conference highlights:
<snip>
 • ISS very unlikely to be extended beyond 2030, Russia unlikely to decide until as late as 2027.
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6711
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 5459
  • Likes Given: 2273
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #5 on: 09/27/2024 11:42 pm »
The discussion seems to be all about leaks. What about structural integrity? Any pressurized part of ISS is under quite a bit of tension. That tunnel in particular is also subject to stresses (wracking and compression) when a Progress does a reboost to ISS.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7550
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2351
  • Likes Given: 2179
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #6 on: 09/28/2024 10:51 am »
What about structural integrity?

Maybe Roscosmos has too much faith in the Russian design engineering of the Chelomei/Korolev era and haven't done the analysis, but it seems more likely they know with some certainty that the transfer tunnel of DOS-8 isn't going to break.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5295
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2638
  • Likes Given: 3005
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #7 on: 09/28/2024 12:24 pm »
Sounds like they should de-orbit the ISS sooner and devote the ISS money to the Artemis program to maybe speed up Artemis.  The Artemis station can be built with Falcon Heavy and maybe parts later launched using New Glenn with a 3rd stage, or stretched 2nd stage. 

Too bad the ISS has to be re-boosted using the docking port with cracks.  Could it not be re-boosted using the opposite end?

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6711
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 5459
  • Likes Given: 2273
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #8 on: 09/28/2024 12:38 pm »
Sounds like they should de-orbit the ISS sooner and devote the ISS money to the Artemis program to maybe speed up Artemis.  The Artemis station can be built with Falcon Heavy and maybe parts later launched using New Glenn with a 3rd stage, or stretched 2nd stage. 

Too bad the ISS has to be re-boosted using the docking port with cracks.  Could it not be re-boosted using the opposite end?
The other end is harmony forward. It has an IDSS port, so a reboosting spacecraft there needs an IDSS port. The USDV (derived from Cargo Dragon) will connect there and "boost" (i.e., de-orbit) ISS, but unmodified Dragons cannot do reboost. A Cygnus can so re-boost somehow, but not from Harmony forward.

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
  • Liked: 916
  • Likes Given: 145
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #9 on: 09/30/2024 02:44 pm »
Sounds like they should de-orbit the ISS sooner and devote the ISS money to the Artemis program to maybe speed up Artemis.  The Artemis station can be built with Falcon Heavy and maybe parts later launched using New Glenn with a 3rd stage, or stretched 2nd stage. 

Too bad the ISS has to be re-boosted using the docking port with cracks.  Could it not be re-boosted using the opposite end?
The other end is harmony forward. It has an IDSS port, so a reboosting spacecraft there needs an IDSS port. The USDV (derived from Cargo Dragon) will connect there and "boost" (i.e., de-orbit) ISS, but unmodified Dragons cannot do reboost. A Cygnus can so re-boost somehow, but not from Harmony forward.

Cygnus reboost happens at N1N, which is pretty close to the vehicle CG.

Offline mordroberon

  • Member
  • Posts: 27
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #10 on: 09/30/2024 04:22 pm »
Sounds like they should de-orbit the ISS sooner and devote the ISS money to the Artemis program to maybe speed up Artemis.  The Artemis station can be built with Falcon Heavy and maybe parts later launched using New Glenn with a 3rd stage, or stretched 2nd stage. 

Too bad the ISS has to be re-boosted using the docking port with cracks.  Could it not be re-boosted using the opposite end?

Makes me wonder about the fate of the successor plans of ISS. All proposals seem years away to implement. Maybe a permanently manned station just isn't "worth it", with the money better spent on moon and mars

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1635
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 717
  • Likes Given: 215
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #11 on: 09/30/2024 08:59 pm »
Sounds like they should de-orbit the ISS sooner and devote the ISS money to the Artemis program to maybe speed up Artemis.  The Artemis station can be built with Falcon Heavy and maybe parts later launched using New Glenn with a 3rd stage, or stretched 2nd stage. 

Too bad the ISS has to be re-boosted using the docking port with cracks.  Could it not be re-boosted using the opposite end?

Makes me wonder about the fate of the successor plans of ISS. All proposals seem years away to implement. Maybe a permanently manned station just isn't "worth it", with the money better spent on moon and mars
If NASA wouldn't waist billions (short scale: 10^9) annually on both SLS and Orion there would be plenty of funding for a ISS successor. Human spaceflight to the Moon and Mars is what's wasteful, the ISS successor isn't.
But politically the priorities are more towards exploration instead of scientific results.

In my opinion the ISS de-orbitation should be delayed. Possibly the Russian segment can be detached and deorbited earlier. Though this would require another deorbitation module. ? ESA barter element ?

SpaceNews posted this today: NASA cites progress in reducing ISS air leak

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13882
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 11771
  • Likes Given: 9342
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #12 on: 09/30/2024 09:32 pm »
Sounds like they should de-orbit the ISS sooner and devote the ISS money to the Artemis program to maybe speed up Artemis.  The Artemis station can be built with Falcon Heavy and maybe parts later launched using New Glenn with a 3rd stage, or stretched 2nd stage. 

Too bad the ISS has to be re-boosted using the docking port with cracks.  Could it not be re-boosted using the opposite end?

Makes me wonder about the fate of the successor plans of ISS. All proposals seem years away to implement. Maybe a permanently manned station just isn't "worth it", with the money better spent on moon and mars
Possibly the Russian segment can be detached and deorbited earlier.

The Russian segment is necessary to keep the ISS in orbit with periodic orbit rising.
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38003
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22341
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #13 on: 09/30/2024 09:37 pm »
Sounds like they should de-orbit the ISS sooner and devote the ISS money to the Artemis program to maybe speed up Artemis.  The Artemis station can be built with Falcon Heavy and maybe parts later launched using New Glenn with a 3rd stage, or stretched 2nd stage. 

Too bad the ISS has to be re-boosted using the docking port with cracks.  Could it not be re-boosted using the opposite end?

Makes me wonder about the fate of the successor plans of ISS. All proposals seem years away to implement. Maybe a permanently manned station just isn't "worth it", with the money better spent on moon and mars
there is no govt successor to the ISS

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7550
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2351
  • Likes Given: 2179
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #14 on: 09/30/2024 11:03 pm »
What I can't seem to understand is why the NASA PR people haven't spun this to their advantage. Something like, "This provides an invaluable opportunity to close a knowledge gap and gain a better understanding of how structures designed for human habitation of space age over long periods of time. This understanding will be critical in coming years for meeting the Artemis and the Moon to Mars objectives."

;)
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1080
  • UK
  • Liked: 1858
  • Likes Given: 218
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #15 on: 09/30/2024 11:05 pm »
there is no govt successor to the ISS

Just move Lunar Gateway to LEO, problem sorted.

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6560
  • Liked: 4699
  • Likes Given: 5589
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #16 on: 09/30/2024 11:44 pm »
Sounds like they should de-orbit the ISS sooner
The ISS is NASA's only ongoing effort in human spaceflight.
There is no successor.
Artemis might go once every two years for a week or two.
Quote
and devote the ISS money to the Artemis program to maybe speed up Artemis.
Artemis gets more money than requested every year and its schedule continues to slip.
Artemis cannot be "sped up".
Quote
  The Artemis station can be built with Falcon Heavy and maybe parts later launched using New Glenn with a 3rd stage, or stretched 2nd stage.
Artemis is designed to "retain the workforce" at legacy vendors.
There are other threads for fantasy lunar programs, but their likelihood is disconnected from any potential efficiency.
edit: The only "Artemis station" is Gateway, and it is being launched with Falcon Heavy.
Quote
  Too bad the ISS has to be re-boosted using the docking port with cracks.
It is what it is, and there is a lot more required functionality in that port than just reboosting, like propellant and cargo transfer.
Quote
  Could it not be re-boosted using the opposite end?
The ISS would have to be turned around, with the Russian section in the +V direction, and the NASA section trailing so that thrust through the Node 1 docking port would be in the +V direction.
A Dragon, or something between a stock Dragon and the Deorbit Vehicle, could then boost the ISS and provide the occasional Debris Avoidance Maneuver (DAM).  One would have to remain at the axial port at all times for DAMs, which would reduce the NASA section to a single docking port, the one now on the Zenith side, one complication among many.
Whether of not the Russians would or could continue to provide attitude control would be uncertain.
"Zero net momentum" operations might become mandatory.
« Last Edit: 09/30/2024 11:46 pm by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7550
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2351
  • Likes Given: 2179
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #17 on: 10/11/2024 10:00 pm »
In the hypothetical case where no commercial LEO destination becomes available, are there any possible ways a non-governmental agency could take control of both the US and Russian orbital segments, something like what happened with MirCorp? Clearly each ISS partner country would need to sign off on this, but is splashing ISS really the better choice for any of them?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline DrBob

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ISS aging
« Reply #18 on: 10/13/2024 10:19 am »
In the hypothetical case where no commercial LEO destination becomes available, are there any possible ways a non-governmental agency could take control of both the US and Russian orbital segments, something like what happened with MirCorp? Clearly each ISS partner country would need to sign off on this, but is splashing ISS really the better choice for any of them?

Theoretically, anything is possible.  Practicality, probably not.  Just some issues:
- Ground infrastructure to support both segments:  you would need to either develop your own or work out agreements with NASA and Russians to use theirs.  Would NASA want to invest money to keep their networks "backward compatible" for ISS?  Russia's is very old and balky.
- External repairs repairs require EVA - you would need to be able to train and perform spacewalks.
- Reboost - you would need to develop infrastructure to launch prop.  Either contract with Russia to keep sending progress, other companies if a non-Russian system is developed (e.g., a prop module for the USOS)
- Resupply - same as above for supplies essentially
- Engineering - you would need ability to be able to provide continuous engineering support, e.g., when items reach design end of life and you need to extend, or repair.  While some areas are documented and you could "buy" the documents etc., there is a LOT that you need the people for.  A lot of the Russian systems are documented in the heads of old engineers.  Keep in mind many of the systems are degrading and you will need a lot of repair/replace/extend.
- Operations - ISS is an awesome and flexible vehicle, but not very autonomous.  You would need to pay a small army over many countries to keep it going.
- Market - not at all clear there would be a market to utilize it.  Look at the companies working to replace it - they are struggling to show a enough tourists, research or whatever to utilize finely tuned/targeted commercial stations.  ISS is huge and complicated in comparison so I strongly suspect the cost/benefit ratio is not at all viable commercially.

And there is more but to give a few hurdles.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1