The cracking problem on the International Space Station is getting worse, but no one wants to talk about it.
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 GMT20NASA and the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, still have not solved a long-running and worsening problem with leaks on the International Space Station.
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/
Pre-Launch News Conference highlights:<snip> • ISS very unlikely to be extended beyond 2030, Russia unlikely to decide until as late as 2027.
What about structural integrity?
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?
Quote from: spacenut on 09/28/2024 12:24 pmSounds 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.
Quote from: spacenut on 09/28/2024 12:24 pmSounds 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
Quote from: mordroberon on 09/30/2024 04:22 pmQuote from: spacenut on 09/28/2024 12:24 pmSounds 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 marsPossibly the Russian segment can be detached and deorbited earlier.
there is no govt successor to the ISS
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?
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?