Other Russian modules
Eric Paillet
particular their two science modules? If they barely have enough money for
the SM, is there much hope the others will arrive in time? Also, does anyone
know the cost of the SM in comparison with the other Russian contributions?
Jorge R. Frank
AFAIK, the ones that are farthest along are the Universal Docking Module
(UDM) and the Docking Compartment (DC). The UDM was originally built as
a backup FGB, so the pressure hull was already done. The DC is very
simple - just an airlock and two docking ports, and it can be launched
by a Soyuz launcher instead of a Proton.
The Ukrainians have taken over one of the Research Modules (RMs) so that
one might actually show up. Without the UDM, there's no place to put
it, though.
The SM is the most expensive of the Russian modules (about $500 million,
IIRC: I don't think any of the others are more than half of that).
Nonetheless, I wouldn't put very good odds on *any* of the other modules
being launched, especially if Mir stays up. The Russians don't have the
money to build them, and a US bailout is less likely than with the SM
because these modules aren't on the "critical path." Here's the impact
of the loss of each one:
SM - no attitude control after FGB expiration, no life support (i.e.
man-tended only) until US life support capability developed. Obviously
very critical.
Science Power Platform (SPP) - no power for the Russian segment; Russian
modules will have to borrow US power. US segment has a power surplus so
this is not an issue. Moot if none of these modules show up in the
first place. However, the SPP also provides roll thrusters, without
which attitude control will require more propellant, requiring more
Progress flights.
DC - provides a second Soyuz CRV port. Without at least two ports, crew
capacity will be limited to 3 until the US CRV/X-38 is operational.
UDM - no place to dock the Research Modules or DC2, also provides a
third Soyuz CRV port.
RM - loss of Russian/Ukrainian science capability.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" and think one step ahead of IBM.
Graham Nelson
<URL:mailto:epai...@mail.dma.be> wrote:
> Does anyone know what the status of the other Russian modules is, in
> particular their two science modules? If they barely have enough money for
> the SM, is there much hope the others will arrive in time? Also, does anyone
> know the cost of the SM in comparison with the other Russian contributions?
I note that Tom Hancock ("Bitflip" as was) has published an
article at www.spacepolicy.org suggesting that he and his
colleagues (who are ISS contractors) do not even believe that
the Service Module will ever launch. I find this a little hard
to credit, myself, and Tom has a strong track record of
enthusiasm for internal NASA solutions to problems, but it's
interesting that people on the inside should be thinking such
things even at the eleventh hour.
I don't think anybody expects the rest of the Russian modules
to appear at all, and there's some doubt even that a Soyuz
will be available, beyond the first one. Things are not looking
too cheerful, but it ought also to be said that they look more
cheerful than they did twelve months ago.
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
space...@startrekmail.com
mircal to be completed and launched, it almost sounds
as if the whole Russian segment could be a seperate
space station to itself! If they really got pissed off
they could detach the SM from Zarya and drift off.
But of course this isn't going to happen.
About the RM could an adaptor be made and attach it at another
point?
Just my $0.02
Space Cadet
In article <37936BD9...@ibm-pc.org>,
jrf...@ibm-pc.org wrote:
> Eric Paillet wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know what the status of the other Russian modules is, in
> > particular their two science modules? If they barely have enough
money for
> > the SM, is there much hope the others will arrive in time? Also,
does anyone
> > know the cost of the SM in comparison with the other Russian
contributions?
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
space...@startrekmail.com
Graham Nelson <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <7mv5p8$re$1...@news0.skynet.be>, Eric Paillet
> > Does anyone know what the status of the other Russian modules is, in
> > particular their two science modules? If they barely have enough
money for
> > the SM, is there much hope the others will arrive in time? Also,
does anyone
> > know the cost of the SM in comparison with the other Russian
contributions?
>
> article at www.spacepolicy.org suggesting that he and his
> colleagues (who are ISS contractors) do not even believe that
> the Service Module will ever launch. I find this a little hard
> to credit, myself, and Tom has a strong track record of
> enthusiasm for internal NASA solutions to problems, but it's
> interesting that people on the inside should be thinking such
> things even at the eleventh hour.
>
> I don't think anybody expects the rest of the Russian modules
> to appear at all, and there's some doubt even that a Soyuz
> will be available, beyond the first one. Things are not looking
> too cheerful, but it ought also to be said that they look more
> cheerful than they did twelve months ago.
>
limited to three people and since the Soyuz is only good for 6months
then the station will haft to be unmanned until the ACRV/X-38 comes
online?
Does NASA have any other contingency plans for Emergency Crew Return
or Transfer if the Soyuz become unavailable before the X-38 is?
I wonder how long a Shuttle can stay docked to ISS?
Just my $0.02
Space Cadet
> --
> Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
>
>
Jorge R. Frank
>
> So after the first (and only) Soyuz goes up the station will only be
> limited to three people and since the Soyuz is only good for 6months
> then the station will haft to be unmanned until the ACRV/X-38 comes
> online?
> Does NASA have any other contingency plans for Emergency Crew Return
> or Transfer if the Soyuz become unavailable before the X-38 is?
I was about to say, "buy more Soyuzes," but that's probably not how it
will work. More like, "ship the Russians the equivalent price of a
Soyuz, for some other purpose, in the hopes that they will divert the
funds internally towards building Soyuzes." That was the basic strategy
NASA used with the SM. You can see how well it's working.
> I wonder how long a Shuttle can stay docked to ISS?
Right now, the shuttle has to provide attitude control during the docked
phase, and that's the limiting factor on duration. Call it 6 days, 7 at
the outside. Once ISS is capable of controlling the orbiter-ISS stack
using CMGs (post 5A), the limiting factor becomes cryo for the fuel
cells. I'm not sure what the limits are there. Whatever the limit is,
you can use an EDO pallet to extend it, but the EDO pallet would take up
quite a bit of payload bay space. Definitely out for assembly flights;
for utilization flights, you may be able to squeeze an MPLM and an EDO
pallet, but I'm not sure.
Jorge R. Frank
>
> About the RM could an adaptor be made and attach it at another
> point?
AFAIK, the RMs use the same hybrid probe & drogue as the UDM, so a
single RM could be docked to the SM nadir port. Of course, once it's
there, you can't put anything else there.
pi...@shore.net.death.to.spam
>confidentiality on this. It really makes one wonder how much
>has changed since the bad old days of Apollo and Skylab...
Some of us are a little young to remember, and don't have insider info
anyway. :) What were the bad old days?
--
pixelATshoreDOTnet - http://www.shore.net/~pixel
An it harm none, do as thou wilt. Mind your mind or it will surely spoil
Assistant Forum Manager, MSN IE forums
Graham Nelson
<URL:mailto:jrf...@ibm-pc.org> wrote:
> > I wonder how long a Shuttle can stay docked to ISS?
>
> Right now, the shuttle has to provide attitude control during the docked
> phase, and that's the limiting factor on duration. Call it 6 days, 7 at
> the outside. Once ISS is capable of controlling the orbiter-ISS stack
> using CMGs (post 5A), the limiting factor becomes cryo for the fuel
> cells.
I wonder if it's quite as good as that, because the Shuttle would
also have to provide a substantial portion of life support for
the stack (having just raised the number of people aboard from
3 to 10), just as it did during the Shuttle/Mir missions.
That's if they can fix the current CO2/CO buildup problems.
Did you notice the somewhat unusual reproof to the astronauts
in the leaked "tiger team" report on this, for failing to report
their nausea, headaches and so forth during their actual flight,
when samples could have been taken? And the very careful way
that it is not revealed which astronaut actually suffered
vomiting, and the note that the crew were insisting on total
confidentiality on this. It really makes one wonder how much
has changed since the bad old days of Apollo and Skylab...
--
Jorge R. Frank
>
> I wonder if it's quite as good as that, because the Shuttle would
> also have to provide a substantial portion of life support for
> the stack (having just raised the number of people aboard from
> 3 to 10), just as it did during the Shuttle/Mir missions.
Until the SM is up, the shuttle is providing *all* the life support.
That was probably the underlying cause behind the CO2 buildup on STS-96
(which you discuss below).
> That's if they can fix the current CO2/CO buildup problems.
> Did you notice the somewhat unusual reproof to the astronauts
> in the leaked "tiger team" report on this, for failing to report
> their nausea, headaches and so forth during their actual flight,
> when samples could have been taken? And the very careful way
> that it is not revealed which astronaut actually suffered
> vomiting, and the note that the crew were insisting on total
> confidentiality on this. It really makes one wonder how much
> has changed since the bad old days of Apollo and Skylab...
I saw the report, and it really irked me that it was leaked in the first
place. Crews are insisting on confidentiality because they don't want
to wind up reading all the intimate details on the net. The report had
one conclusion that went like this:
We must continue to foster an atmosphere of free exchange of
information from the crew to the ground and reinforce the
awareness of the significance of potential down stream impacts
of an event or action in a continuously operated spacecraft.
I wonder how willing crews will be to disclose health information now
that they know that the reports are being leaked?