Ok, if it is too cold to bring Soyuz down in Russia after November, use Nebraska. I under stand Nebraska is considered a back-up emergency landing site for Soyuz.
Even in January, it beats Siberia. It is much more densly populated even though sparse by American standards and has Airports and Air Forces Bases that make it much easier to conduct SAR operations from.
I reach for the stars but sometimes hit Omaha.
Some great alternatives there.
Even in January, it beats Siberia. It is much more densly populated
Being densely populated is not an advantage when you’re trying to find a place to land a cannon ball.
so the last shuttle can’t be used anymore?
It ain’t that dense Ed, I am just sayin’ in comparison to Siberia…which almost anyplace this side of the Antarctic beats.
Ed…more dense does not = densly populated. Put away the strawman for a minute
more dense does not = densly populated
Uh, true. I assumed you meant “more densely populated.”
I really have no idea what “more densly” means. đ
How about Australia, it’s a big enough target with nothing too valuable to splatter?
I’m surprised you didn’t include that supply is not an issue because other systems exist.
Is it really such a problem that a ride home becomes stale? If it didn’t exist at all they would stay and we would supply them.
SpaceX is ready now to provide a less perishable ride home. They just need to stay at the station over the winter.
This is not a crisis.
They did crew rotation for years in a vehicle that didn’t have a launch escape system and actually killed two crews. SpaceX could even send up the same capsule they’ve already used if they had to. It’s good to go. Cheese optional.
It ainât that dense Ed, I am just sayinâ in comparison to SiberiaâŚ
Don’t forget to account for the debris fields of the Soyuz orbital module and service module. Even Nebraska may be too densely populated for it to be acceptable to rain debris down on them.
Cargo Dragon is unsuitable for the CRV role because it uses the CBM interface. The active CBM is on the station side and the SSRMS is required for unberthing. That means that 1) you can’t escape from an unpowered ISS (which is one of the scenarios a CRV is required to protect) and 2) you need a human on the ISS side to operate the arm.
Crew Dragon will use the LIDS docking interface, as will all the other Commercial Crew vehicles.
G’day,
There is no reason why Soyuz has to land in Siberia. Its a lifeboat. The astronauts can abandon the ISS in a matter of minutes. There are already designated emergency sites for it, including the USA. I blogged about such an option here: http://www.discovery-enterprise.com/2011/08/earthbound.html
That NASA doesn’t seem to be considering such a modest adjust says a lot about modern day NASA.
ta
Ralph
PS. Woomera is still in operation and was the landing site for the Japanese Hayabusa probe last year. We would be happy to have the astronauts pay a visit.
Damn, now I have the “Titanic” song stuck in my head.
AFAIK, the LIDS docking interface is ready to go. Whether anyone is trained to use it?…
The point is they don’t have a supply problem so they do not have the crisis they seem to be making it out to be.
Worst case they can EVA to a capsule whether it can dock or not. I read somewhere they had trouble with the first EVA because the inflated suit had difficulty leaving the Gemini? We should be past such things now.
A few Bigelow stations in orbit would be nice as another backup.
so the last shuttle canât be used anymore?
There might be an Orbiter that hasn’t gone to far down the road for decommissioning. But between now and January, you’d have to somehow get 2 SRBs ready, 3 SSMEs, and retool and build an external tank, which hasn’t been built in several years.
Today’s NASA would never do it, but you’d have a better chance putting life support on Dragon than you would getting a space shuttle up and ready by January.
The best option is launching the Soyuz unmanned with supplies, remote docking, and keeping the station manned.
There is the GM/NASA Robonaut2 that could operate things inside the ISS without a crew!
Hey, why you laughing like that?
How about this for an idea? All the current crew come home in their Soyuz capsules when the sell-by date on those capsules is reached. Then SpaceX outfit a Dragon with the rudimentary life support system you mention, fly out to the ISS and claim salvage rights đ
As far as I’m aware there’s no law of salvage in space but earthbound salvage allows for the people who take control of an abandoned vessel to claim ownership. The US has enough lawyers that I’m sure you could find a few willing to argue that in the absence of a crew the ISS has been abandoned and that in the absence of a law, the Earthly one should apply.
SpaceX could use the buy-back costs to fund their own development (perhaps in collaboration with Bigelow Aerospace) and NASA, buried in embarrassment, would be forced to find itself a sensible goal to reinvigorate public opinion or close.
The best option is launching the Soyuz unmanned with supplies, remote docking, and keeping the station manned.
That was done with Salyut 6 station. Soyuz 33, the replacement for 32, failed to dock so when 32 expired, 34 was sent up as a replacement.
@WillS: ” The US has enough lawyers that Iâm sure you could find a few willing to argue that in the absence of a crew the ISS has been abandoned and that in the absence of a law, the Earthly one should apply.”
You’re describing squatting, not salvage. I don’t think you’ll find a lawyer you can make a reasonable case that an unmanned ISS is in peril.
Why is it that Soyuz has a 6-month shelf life in space while satellites, probes and the ISS FGB have lifetimes measured in years to decades?
“Ok, if it is too cold to bring Soyuz down in Russia after November, use Nebraska.”
Okay, but is that going to be politically acceptable? (Primarily to the Russians)
“so the last shuttle canât be used anymore?”
Um…no.
“How about Australia, itâs a big enough target with nothing too valuable to splatter?”
Still has political issues (e.g. it still isn’t Russia), but at least Skylab has already proven you essentially correct…
“A few Bigelow stations in orbit would be nice as another backup.”
If the means to reach Bigelow stations (which could well be in orbital planes/altitudes that would be inaccessible to/from ISS) were operational today (and that can’t come soon enough), this problem wouldn’t exist anyway.
Unlike trying to resurrect the Shuttle, it would be much easier to get a CCDev-derived vehicle, coming from a steady production pipeline (or already being refurbished for re-flight, for those that can) re-directed from its planned use for an unexpected, sufficiently critical need on ISS or other platform…
Why is it that Soyuz has a 6-month shelf life in space while satellites, probes and the ISS FGB have lifetimes measured in years to decades?
None of those things have parachutes and ordnance that have to deploy.
@ MPM: I understand that long-term vacuum exposure degrades the Soyuz heat shield material. Eventually to the point that they no longer trust it for re-entry. Thus the shelf-life issue, and the need to rotate them.
I personally suspect that exploring similar issues (even though using a different TPS) was one of the purposes of the X-37b…
None of those things have parachutes and ordnance that have to deploy.
Ah, that makes sense. Does that mean that a propulsive landing version of Dragon could have a longer shelf life?
As an aside: some probes do in fact have pyrovalves I think, especially to promote reliability.
I understand that long-term vacuum exposure degrades the Soyuz heat shield material.
Interesting, another reason that applies only to return vehicles. And since PICA has been proven to have a longer shelf life, that too might not be a problem with Dragon!
As far as Iâm aware thereâs no law of salvage in space but earthbound salvage allows for the people who take control of an abandoned vessel to claim ownership.
No, that’s a myth. Salvage is the maritime equivalent of towing. Salvaging a vessel does not confer ownership. A vessel is salvaged on behalf of the owners. The salvage company can hold onto the vessel until it receives payment for services. That is all.
Many people confuse salvage with “the law of finds,” which applies in cases where the owner is no longer around (such as Spanish treasure galleons) or has expressly abandoned title.
NASA and the international partners are not about to abandon title to ISS. It isn’t even obvious that they could, under the Outer Space Treaty.
Since they can’t use a cargo Dragon, can’t use a Soyuz, can’t use a Progress, can’t use a Shuttle, and can’t just keep a Soyuz from going stale with Fabreeze or Glade air fresheners, they need to fall back to plan F, letting the Chinese send up a Shenzhou and become full partners in the ISS, if not claiming it entirely.
Actually, that may be Obama’s plan A.
How about a mechanics lien? They are obligated to pay SpaceX $1.6b for resupply. So SpaceX does and puts a lien on the station until they pay.
Why is it that Soyuz has a 6-month shelf life in space while satellites, probes and the ISS FGB have lifetimes measured in years to decades?
“Why someone asks ‘Why don’t they…?’ the answer is almost always, ‘Money.'” — Robert A. Heinlein
It doesn’t make sense to develop long-life parts for a system that’s designed for short-term missions.
I was told, once upon a time, that the limiting factor is deterioration in the hydrazine system.
they need to fall back to plan F, letting the Chinese send up a Shenzhou and become full partners in the ISS, if not claiming it entirely.
Ah, the Sinophiles. Predictable as clockwork. đ
Too bad the Chinese program is also grounded after their Long March II rocket failed in July.
Ah, those safe, reliable ELVs! đ
Why is it that Soyuz has a 6-month shelf life in space while satellites, probes and the ISS FGB have lifetimes measured in years to decades?
âWhy someone asks âWhy donât theyâŚ?â the answer is almost always, âMoney.ââ â Robert A. Heinlein
It doesnât make sense to develop long-life parts for a system thatâs designed for short-term missions.
I was told, once upon a time, that the limiting factor is deterioration in the hydrazine system.
According to this article on NASA Spaceflight, the Soyuz capsule uses peroxide instead of hydrazine for the thrusters. Peroxide is much safer to handle than hydrazine but has a much more limited shelflife.
The first issue is the orbital lifetime of the Soyuz spacecraft , which is limited to around 200 days. The limited lifetime is driven by the Soyuz peroxide thruster system, which degrades over time and so is limited in how long it can spend in space.
NASA is currently discussing with Roscosmos whether or not it is worth pursuing the effort of re-certifying Soyuz to remain in space longer, although the current notional schedule shows that there is little rationale for doing so. NASA says that keeping crews in space for 210 days is âacceptable from both the NASA Crew Office and NASA medical perspectivesâ.
The limited lifetime is driven by the Soyuz peroxide thruster system, which degrades over time and so is limited in how long it can spend in space.
Their Soyuz TMA-5 spacecraft is the first with two new features that are welcome improvements of the reliable old crew transport: two additional forward-pointing braking thrusters (#27, #28) besides the two engines (#17, #18) already near the Orbital Moduleâs docking ring; and a thermo-electric cooler for the Descent Moduleâs Hydrogen Peroxide tankage, to extend the life of the H2O2 which tends to deteriorate in time to H2O and O. (H2O2 is one of the most powerful oxidizers known â stronger than chlorine, chlorine dioxide, and potassium permanganate, but it has been [and still is, until certification] limiting Soyuzâ orbital stay time).
So, it sounds like the peroxide might be good for longer missions but has not yet been certified as such.
I wonder if it would be possible to manufacture and replenish H2O2 on orbit? Probably not practical.
“…they need to fall back to plan F, letting the Chinese send up a Shenzhou and become full partners in the ISS…”
With a docking mechanism they don’t use?
“… if not claiming it entirely.”
Which Ed has addressed.
So, it sounds like the peroxide might be good for longer missions but has not yet been certified as such.
I wonder if it would be possible to manufacture and replenish H2O2 on orbit? Probably not practical.
I’m sure the hydrogen peroxide is good for longer than 210 days but there’s bound to be an ample safety margin built in. That peroxide is extremely concentrated and loses strength over time. Below a certain strength, the thrusters won’t fire. So, while it could be good to go for a few additional months, you’d be eating into your safety margins, something you wouldn’t want to do except in an emergency.
As for making peroxide in orbit and replenishing the system, I suspect that’d be too dangerous. Like your article said, it’s an extremely powerful oxidizer. One speck of contamination could cause an unpleasant reaction and you’d be dealing with a fair amount of the stuff under pressure.
There is no reason why Soyuz has to land in Siberia. Its a lifeboat. The astronauts can abandon the ISS in a matter of minutes. There are already designated emergency sites for it, including the USA. I blogged about such an option here: http://www.discovery-enterprise.com/2011/08/earthbound.html
That NASA doesnât seem to be considering such a modest adjust says a lot about modern day NASA.
That you don’t seem to be aware that Russia owns Soyuz, not NASA, and Russia will make the decisions on Soyuz landing sites, says even more about you.
Regarding Soyuz, NASA will follow Russia’s lead. Period. Russia didn’t tell NASA where to land the shuttle, and NASA will not tell Russia where to land Soyuz.
AFAIK, the LIDS docking interface is ready to go. Whether anyone is trained to use it?
There are no LIDS interfaces currently on ISS. They are scheduled to be delivered in the 2013-14 timeframe, by two Cargo Dragon flights. Until then, USOS docking vehicles must use the APAS interface.
How about this for an idea? All the current crew come home in their Soyuz capsules when the sell-by date on those capsules is reached. Then SpaceX outfit a Dragon with the rudimentary life support system you mention, fly out to the ISS and claim salvage rights đ
As far as Iâm aware thereâs no law of salvage in space but earthbound salvage allows for the people who take control of an abandoned vessel to claim ownership. The US has enough lawyers that Iâm sure you could find a few willing to argue that in the absence of a crew the ISS has been abandoned and that in the absence of a law, the Earthly one should apply.
SpaceX could use the buy-back costs to fund their own development (perhaps in collaboration with Bigelow Aerospace) and NASA, buried in embarrassment, would be forced to find itself a sensible goal to reinvigorate public opinion or close.
Salvage law does not apply in space (and as Ed pointed out, you do not understand Earthly salvage law anyway). See Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty:
A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth.
If SpaceX were to attempt to seize ISS under such a flimsy pretext, the US government would nullify SpaceX’s lucrative contracts, seize their property, and arrest their leadership. SpaceX is not nearly stupid enough to attempt that.
How about a mechanics lien? They are obligated to pay SpaceX $1.6b for resupply. So SpaceX does and puts a lien on the station until they pay.
The US government is not obligated to pay for the cargo until it is delivered. SpaceX has no grounds for a lien. CRS is IDIQ.
Clearly, this is why we need ITAR. If SpaceX could sell launches to anyone, they might launch pirates! They could take over the ISS.. even with astronauts on-board, they’d be no match for blood thirsty pirates!!
SpaceX does
Perhaps I was too terse. ‘Does’ means they deliver the cargo required to satisfy the minimum quantity limits specified in the contract. Terms in the contract may or may not prevent that. I would think NASA would have to pay something if a delivery is made. I doubt a mechanics lien could apply, but I don’t know.
Then again, I think Trent is on to something. Arrrg.
Thanks for the info Nemo. So what prevents Dragon from being fitted with APAS? What are they using for cargo? I’m still looking…
@Trent,
I’m haven’t seen any progress reports on the Somali launch system, but if they hijack a Chinese vessel shipping rocket parts to Iran or Syria it would bump up their schedule. Sadly, at this point NASA doesn’t even have the ability to launch a suitcase full of cash, so I’m not sure how pirates on the ISS would get their money delivered.
In any even, we should pay the pirates in $100 dollar bills instead of $20’s, as $1 million dollars worth of $100’s weighs 22 pounds ($45,000 per pound) whereas $20’s are only worth $2250 per pound, so it would cost more to launch $20’s than the money is worth.
Arithmetic, George, arithmetic. If $100’s are worth $45,000/lb., then $20’s are worth $9,000/lb. You worked an extra division by four in there somehow.
Damned five dollar bills.
Good catch, Dick Eagleson. ^_^
I screwed that up.
I wonder if launch systems could be graded on which denomination they can place into orbit at equal cost to the currency?
All US bills weigh one gram, so 1000 bills weigh 22 pounds.
As if anyone wants US currency.
Yeah, like they’d want your down under 95 cent currency. :p
Aaaaaagh! George, repeat after me! A U.S. bill weighs one gram, so 1,000 bills weighs one kilogram – that’s 2.2 lbs., not 22 lbs!
Ok, if it is too cold to bring Soyuz down in Russia after November, use Nebraska. I under stand Nebraska is considered a back-up emergency landing site for Soyuz.
Even in January, it beats Siberia. It is much more densly populated even though sparse by American standards and has Airports and Air Forces Bases that make it much easier to conduct SAR operations from.
I reach for the stars but sometimes hit Omaha.
Some great alternatives there.
Even in January, it beats Siberia. It is much more densly populated
Being densely populated is not an advantage when you’re trying to find a place to land a cannon ball.
so the last shuttle can’t be used anymore?
It ain’t that dense Ed, I am just sayin’ in comparison to Siberia…which almost anyplace this side of the Antarctic beats.
Ed…more dense does not = densly populated. Put away the strawman for a minute
more dense does not = densly populated
Uh, true. I assumed you meant “more densely populated.”
I really have no idea what “more densly” means. đ
How about Australia, it’s a big enough target with nothing too valuable to splatter?
I’m surprised you didn’t include that supply is not an issue because other systems exist.
Is it really such a problem that a ride home becomes stale? If it didn’t exist at all they would stay and we would supply them.
SpaceX is ready now to provide a less perishable ride home. They just need to stay at the station over the winter.
This is not a crisis.
They did crew rotation for years in a vehicle that didn’t have a launch escape system and actually killed two crews. SpaceX could even send up the same capsule they’ve already used if they had to. It’s good to go. Cheese optional.
Don’t forget to account for the debris fields of the Soyuz orbital module and service module. Even Nebraska may be too densely populated for it to be acceptable to rain debris down on them.
Cargo Dragon is unsuitable for the CRV role because it uses the CBM interface. The active CBM is on the station side and the SSRMS is required for unberthing. That means that 1) you can’t escape from an unpowered ISS (which is one of the scenarios a CRV is required to protect) and 2) you need a human on the ISS side to operate the arm.
Crew Dragon will use the LIDS docking interface, as will all the other Commercial Crew vehicles.
G’day,
There is no reason why Soyuz has to land in Siberia. Its a lifeboat. The astronauts can abandon the ISS in a matter of minutes. There are already designated emergency sites for it, including the USA. I blogged about such an option here: http://www.discovery-enterprise.com/2011/08/earthbound.html
That NASA doesn’t seem to be considering such a modest adjust says a lot about modern day NASA.
ta
Ralph
PS. Woomera is still in operation and was the landing site for the Japanese Hayabusa probe last year. We would be happy to have the astronauts pay a visit.
Damn, now I have the “Titanic” song stuck in my head.
AFAIK, the LIDS docking interface is ready to go. Whether anyone is trained to use it?…
The point is they don’t have a supply problem so they do not have the crisis they seem to be making it out to be.
Worst case they can EVA to a capsule whether it can dock or not. I read somewhere they had trouble with the first EVA because the inflated suit had difficulty leaving the Gemini? We should be past such things now.
A few Bigelow stations in orbit would be nice as another backup.
so the last shuttle canât be used anymore?
There might be an Orbiter that hasn’t gone to far down the road for decommissioning. But between now and January, you’d have to somehow get 2 SRBs ready, 3 SSMEs, and retool and build an external tank, which hasn’t been built in several years.
Today’s NASA would never do it, but you’d have a better chance putting life support on Dragon than you would getting a space shuttle up and ready by January.
The best option is launching the Soyuz unmanned with supplies, remote docking, and keeping the station manned.
There is the GM/NASA Robonaut2 that could operate things inside the ISS without a crew!
Hey, why you laughing like that?
How about this for an idea? All the current crew come home in their Soyuz capsules when the sell-by date on those capsules is reached. Then SpaceX outfit a Dragon with the rudimentary life support system you mention, fly out to the ISS and claim salvage rights đ
As far as I’m aware there’s no law of salvage in space but earthbound salvage allows for the people who take control of an abandoned vessel to claim ownership. The US has enough lawyers that I’m sure you could find a few willing to argue that in the absence of a crew the ISS has been abandoned and that in the absence of a law, the Earthly one should apply.
SpaceX could use the buy-back costs to fund their own development (perhaps in collaboration with Bigelow Aerospace) and NASA, buried in embarrassment, would be forced to find itself a sensible goal to reinvigorate public opinion or close.
The best option is launching the Soyuz unmanned with supplies, remote docking, and keeping the station manned.
That was done with Salyut 6 station. Soyuz 33, the replacement for 32, failed to dock so when 32 expired, 34 was sent up as a replacement.
@WillS: ” The US has enough lawyers that Iâm sure you could find a few willing to argue that in the absence of a crew the ISS has been abandoned and that in the absence of a law, the Earthly one should apply.”
You’re describing squatting, not salvage. I don’t think you’ll find a lawyer you can make a reasonable case that an unmanned ISS is in peril.
Why is it that Soyuz has a 6-month shelf life in space while satellites, probes and the ISS FGB have lifetimes measured in years to decades?
“Ok, if it is too cold to bring Soyuz down in Russia after November, use Nebraska.”
Okay, but is that going to be politically acceptable? (Primarily to the Russians)
“so the last shuttle canât be used anymore?”
Um…no.
“How about Australia, itâs a big enough target with nothing too valuable to splatter?”
Still has political issues (e.g. it still isn’t Russia), but at least Skylab has already proven you essentially correct…
“A few Bigelow stations in orbit would be nice as another backup.”
If the means to reach Bigelow stations (which could well be in orbital planes/altitudes that would be inaccessible to/from ISS) were operational today (and that can’t come soon enough), this problem wouldn’t exist anyway.
Unlike trying to resurrect the Shuttle, it would be much easier to get a CCDev-derived vehicle, coming from a steady production pipeline (or already being refurbished for re-flight, for those that can) re-directed from its planned use for an unexpected, sufficiently critical need on ISS or other platform…
Why is it that Soyuz has a 6-month shelf life in space while satellites, probes and the ISS FGB have lifetimes measured in years to decades?
None of those things have parachutes and ordnance that have to deploy.
@ MPM: I understand that long-term vacuum exposure degrades the Soyuz heat shield material. Eventually to the point that they no longer trust it for re-entry. Thus the shelf-life issue, and the need to rotate them.
I personally suspect that exploring similar issues (even though using a different TPS) was one of the purposes of the X-37b…
None of those things have parachutes and ordnance that have to deploy.
Ah, that makes sense. Does that mean that a propulsive landing version of Dragon could have a longer shelf life?
As an aside: some probes do in fact have pyrovalves I think, especially to promote reliability.
I understand that long-term vacuum exposure degrades the Soyuz heat shield material.
Interesting, another reason that applies only to return vehicles. And since PICA has been proven to have a longer shelf life, that too might not be a problem with Dragon!
As far as Iâm aware thereâs no law of salvage in space but earthbound salvage allows for the people who take control of an abandoned vessel to claim ownership.
No, that’s a myth. Salvage is the maritime equivalent of towing. Salvaging a vessel does not confer ownership. A vessel is salvaged on behalf of the owners. The salvage company can hold onto the vessel until it receives payment for services. That is all.
Many people confuse salvage with “the law of finds,” which applies in cases where the owner is no longer around (such as Spanish treasure galleons) or has expressly abandoned title.
NASA and the international partners are not about to abandon title to ISS. It isn’t even obvious that they could, under the Outer Space Treaty.
Since they can’t use a cargo Dragon, can’t use a Soyuz, can’t use a Progress, can’t use a Shuttle, and can’t just keep a Soyuz from going stale with Fabreeze or Glade air fresheners, they need to fall back to plan F, letting the Chinese send up a Shenzhou and become full partners in the ISS, if not claiming it entirely.
Actually, that may be Obama’s plan A.
How about a mechanics lien? They are obligated to pay SpaceX $1.6b for resupply. So SpaceX does and puts a lien on the station until they pay.
Why is it that Soyuz has a 6-month shelf life in space while satellites, probes and the ISS FGB have lifetimes measured in years to decades?
“Why someone asks ‘Why don’t they…?’ the answer is almost always, ‘Money.'” — Robert A. Heinlein
It doesn’t make sense to develop long-life parts for a system that’s designed for short-term missions.
I was told, once upon a time, that the limiting factor is deterioration in the hydrazine system.
they need to fall back to plan F, letting the Chinese send up a Shenzhou and become full partners in the ISS, if not claiming it entirely.
Ah, the Sinophiles. Predictable as clockwork. đ
Too bad the Chinese program is also grounded after their Long March II rocket failed in July.
Ah, those safe, reliable ELVs! đ
Why is it that Soyuz has a 6-month shelf life in space while satellites, probes and the ISS FGB have lifetimes measured in years to decades?
âWhy someone asks âWhy donât theyâŚ?â the answer is almost always, âMoney.ââ â Robert A. Heinlein
It doesnât make sense to develop long-life parts for a system thatâs designed for short-term missions.
I was told, once upon a time, that the limiting factor is deterioration in the hydrazine system.
According to this article on NASA Spaceflight, the Soyuz capsule uses peroxide instead of hydrazine for the thrusters. Peroxide is much safer to handle than hydrazine but has a much more limited shelflife.
The first issue is the orbital lifetime of the Soyuz spacecraft , which is limited to around 200 days. The limited lifetime is driven by the Soyuz peroxide thruster system, which degrades over time and so is limited in how long it can spend in space.
NASA is currently discussing with Roscosmos whether or not it is worth pursuing the effort of re-certifying Soyuz to remain in space longer, although the current notional schedule shows that there is little rationale for doing so. NASA says that keeping crews in space for 210 days is âacceptable from both the NASA Crew Office and NASA medical perspectivesâ.
The limited lifetime is driven by the Soyuz peroxide thruster system, which degrades over time and so is limited in how long it can spend in space.
That is confirmed by this website:
http://suzymchale.com/ruspace/soymod.html
Their Soyuz TMA-5 spacecraft is the first with two new features that are welcome improvements of the reliable old crew transport: two additional forward-pointing braking thrusters (#27, #28) besides the two engines (#17, #18) already near the Orbital Moduleâs docking ring; and a thermo-electric cooler for the Descent Moduleâs Hydrogen Peroxide tankage, to extend the life of the H2O2 which tends to deteriorate in time to H2O and O. (H2O2 is one of the most powerful oxidizers known â stronger than chlorine, chlorine dioxide, and potassium permanganate, but it has been [and still is, until certification] limiting Soyuzâ orbital stay time).
So, it sounds like the peroxide might be good for longer missions but has not yet been certified as such.
I wonder if it would be possible to manufacture and replenish H2O2 on orbit? Probably not practical.
“…they need to fall back to plan F, letting the Chinese send up a Shenzhou and become full partners in the ISS…”
With a docking mechanism they don’t use?
“… if not claiming it entirely.”
Which Ed has addressed.
So, it sounds like the peroxide might be good for longer missions but has not yet been certified as such.
I wonder if it would be possible to manufacture and replenish H2O2 on orbit? Probably not practical.
I’m sure the hydrogen peroxide is good for longer than 210 days but there’s bound to be an ample safety margin built in. That peroxide is extremely concentrated and loses strength over time. Below a certain strength, the thrusters won’t fire. So, while it could be good to go for a few additional months, you’d be eating into your safety margins, something you wouldn’t want to do except in an emergency.
As for making peroxide in orbit and replenishing the system, I suspect that’d be too dangerous. Like your article said, it’s an extremely powerful oxidizer. One speck of contamination could cause an unpleasant reaction and you’d be dealing with a fair amount of the stuff under pressure.
That you don’t seem to be aware that Russia owns Soyuz, not NASA, and Russia will make the decisions on Soyuz landing sites, says even more about you.
Regarding Soyuz, NASA will follow Russia’s lead. Period. Russia didn’t tell NASA where to land the shuttle, and NASA will not tell Russia where to land Soyuz.
There are no LIDS interfaces currently on ISS. They are scheduled to be delivered in the 2013-14 timeframe, by two Cargo Dragon flights. Until then, USOS docking vehicles must use the APAS interface.
Salvage law does not apply in space (and as Ed pointed out, you do not understand Earthly salvage law anyway). See Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty:
If SpaceX were to attempt to seize ISS under such a flimsy pretext, the US government would nullify SpaceX’s lucrative contracts, seize their property, and arrest their leadership. SpaceX is not nearly stupid enough to attempt that.
The US government is not obligated to pay for the cargo until it is delivered. SpaceX has no grounds for a lien. CRS is IDIQ.
Clearly, this is why we need ITAR. If SpaceX could sell launches to anyone, they might launch pirates! They could take over the ISS.. even with astronauts on-board, they’d be no match for blood thirsty pirates!!
SpaceX does
Perhaps I was too terse. ‘Does’ means they deliver the cargo required to satisfy the minimum quantity limits specified in the contract. Terms in the contract may or may not prevent that. I would think NASA would have to pay something if a delivery is made. I doubt a mechanics lien could apply, but I don’t know.
Then again, I think Trent is on to something. Arrrg.
Thanks for the info Nemo. So what prevents Dragon from being fitted with APAS? What are they using for cargo? I’m still looking…
@Trent,
I’m haven’t seen any progress reports on the Somali launch system, but if they hijack a Chinese vessel shipping rocket parts to Iran or Syria it would bump up their schedule. Sadly, at this point NASA doesn’t even have the ability to launch a suitcase full of cash, so I’m not sure how pirates on the ISS would get their money delivered.
In any even, we should pay the pirates in $100 dollar bills instead of $20’s, as $1 million dollars worth of $100’s weighs 22 pounds ($45,000 per pound) whereas $20’s are only worth $2250 per pound, so it would cost more to launch $20’s than the money is worth.
Arithmetic, George, arithmetic. If $100’s are worth $45,000/lb., then $20’s are worth $9,000/lb. You worked an extra division by four in there somehow.
Damned five dollar bills.
Good catch, Dick Eagleson. ^_^
I screwed that up.
I wonder if launch systems could be graded on which denomination they can place into orbit at equal cost to the currency?
All US bills weigh one gram, so 1000 bills weigh 22 pounds.
As if anyone wants US currency.
Yeah, like they’d want your down under 95 cent currency. :p
Aaaaaagh! George, repeat after me! A U.S. bill weighs one gram, so 1,000 bills weighs one kilogram – that’s 2.2 lbs., not 22 lbs!