Discovery News > Space News > Space Station Problem Shows How Shuttle Will Be Missed
SPACE STATION PROBLEM SHOWS HOW SHUTTLE WILL BE MISSED
After a cooling system breakdown, astronauts plan to hook up a critical spare part that can be delivered only by (the soon-to-be retired) space shuttle.
By Irene Klotz
Mon Aug 2, 2010 09:44 AM ET
(6) Comments | Leave a Comment
Print
Email
THE GIST
One of two cooling loops needed to dissipate heat from electronics on the space station shut down.
The station has two replacement pumps, but no more coming, since they can only be flown on the shuttles.
New spaceships may be on the way, but not in time to provide much help for space station operations.
enlarge
This Feb. 19. 2010 file photo shows the International Space Station with Earth's horizon as a backdrop. Several power systems were shut down aboard the space station after a cooling system malfunctioned. Click to enlarge this image.
AP Photo/NASA
RELATED CONTENT
See how toilets, beds and a fridge were installed in the ISS.
Space Station Cooling System Shuts Down
Space Station Realities Ground Moon Mission
RELATED TOPICS
Astronauts
Cooling
Disasters and Accidents
NASA is girding for a pair of unplanned spacewalks this week to fix a critical cooling system aboard the International Space Station, work that will whittle down the station's limited supply of spare parts that can only be delivered by space shuttle.
The six-member station crew is not in any danger, but the situation illustrates the station's vulnerability once the shuttles are retired next year. The suspect component in the cooling loop problem is a 780-pound pump module that can only be transported on the shuttle.
Currently the station has two spare pumps in storage, one of which would be used this week to repair the cooling system. That would leave just one backup unit for a station that is now expected to remain operational until at least 2020.
"The original task force on the space station envisioned that it would last for decades and that it would not only be built with the space shuttles but maintained using the shuttles as well," said Howard McCurdy, a professor of public affairs and space policy expert with American University.
That view changed after the 2003 Columbia accident. Investigators recommended NASA completely recertify the shuttles for flight -- an expensive and time-consuming task -- or stop flying the fleet after assembly of the station was complete.
What will follow the shuttles is not yet known. But what is certain is that maintaining the station without the shuttles will become more complicated.
"Will the station face greater risks when the last shuttle lands? Absolutely. Could it matter critically? It depends on how many and how quickly the robotic and crewed replacement (vehicles) become available," Frank Sietzen, a Washington, D.C. aerospace consultant, told Discovery News.
Long-time shuttle critic Alex Roland, a Duke University historian, says the station's dependence on the shuttle reveals a fundamental problem with the way NASA has gone about its human space program.
"The purpose of the space station was to give the shuttle someplace to go and the purpose of the shuttle was to resupply the station. They were both flawed concepts. Without the shuttle, it tends to reveal the problem with the space station, which is that it doesn't really have a mission other than to keep the astronauts alive," Roland told Discovery News.
"The problems they're having now suggest it's going to be more and more difficult and less and less justifiable to try to keep station going," he added.
There is a bright side to the situation, McCurdy points out.
"Not having the shuttles forces people to think about long-duration spaceflight. If we go to Mars, we're potentially taking a space station-like craft out of Earth orbit. Our approach now has been to send up a new module. That's not going to be possible in interplanetary flight," he said.
UPDATE: Following the publication of this article, NASA now says that the space station's cooling loop pumps can be flown on vehicles other than the shuttle, such as Japan's HTV and Space Exploration Technology's Falcon 9 rockets. Station program manager Mike Suffredini also notes that there are four spare pumps currently aboard the station, not two as officials previously stated.
Tags: Astronauts, Cooling, Disasters and Accidents, NASA, Space Shuttle
stumbleupon share
digg share
reddit share
NEXT STORY: MOONS OF JUPITER NEXT
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Starships Fueled on Antimatter from Space?
Making Antibubbles in Space
Exploring Antarctica's Ice Caves
Why 'Space Madness' Fears Haunted NASA's Past
Alaskan Monster Hunt: Hillstranded
Human Mutants: Mermaid Syndrome
MythBusters: They Told Him to Stop.
Sons of Guns: Stephanie's Fan Troubles
Powered by Vertical Acuity
COMMENTS (6)
This commenting widget will be discontinued on October 1st, 2012
Login
Login required, click here to begin
Share
This Page
Add images
Jesse Brown
What's on your mind...
January 4, 2011, 1:21:48 PM CST – Flag – Reply
Edward Wright
The space shuttle program costs about 6 G$/yr, so the base cost of each flight is about 1.2 to 1.5 G$.
Even in Beverly Hills a 1.5 G$ charge for HVAC service would be high!
The shuttle has a takeoff mass of about 2000 tonnes and takes about 110 tonnes into orbit which gives a very good mass ratio of better than 5%.
Unfortunately at most 24 tonnes of this mass is available payload -- the rest is the orbiter. And the payload to the highly inclined space station orbit is smaller -- about 15 tonnes. So the ratio of available payload to takeoff mass is about 1% which is poor, and the cost of putting material into orbit with the shuttle is about 100 $/gram. Replacing the shuttle with a more cost effective system is essential for the future of space exploration.
August 7, 2010, 10:39:09 AM CDT – Flag – Reply
Actuality Science
I wonder what the cost would be to keep the shuttles in flying shape with no planned flights unless needed for ISS servicing. I am guessing it would be very large.
Aaron - most space vehicles or project are designed with a time frame that they could easily outlast. They have a primary mission, which they must be designed to last through no matter what problems they might encounter. The ISS is not designed to fall apart in 2020, it is designed to last to 2020 no matter what, which means that unless everything goes wrong, it can and will continue to be used while there is still good reason for it. This happens with many NASA missions. The two rovers on Mars were designed for 90 days. One is operating still after 2300 days and the other seems dead now after 1800 days. The space shuttles themselves were only supposed to be used for 10-12 years, and the voyager probes are still active after over 30 years when they were built for about a 5 year mission.
August 4, 2010, 12:54:15 AM CDT – Flag – Reply
Joseph Smith
The ISS will still bw with us in 3000,,just another use slash configuration.
Presidents Come and Go.
If the Public votes in the correct person,We WILL go to Mars.
And establish presences wherever we wish,for since Columbus,We the People
have Explored.
One person can become one in a hundred or thousand or million..
Space,,,,the final frontier,,before Death of course.
We all know the problem,Let us work for Answers.
Joe in Texas
August 3, 2010, 10:12:43 PM CDT – Flag – Reply
Brian
The ISS has only been approved through 2020, but everyone bets that as long as it's operational, it will keep flying. Too much money in that hole.
What I don't understand is why a 780 lb pump can ONLY be carried by a shuttle, and not a Soyuz or ESA's ATV.
August 2, 2010, 2:50:07 PM CDT – Flag – Reply
Aaron Sarver
BTW, why is the space station only going to be operational until 2020? I thought it was a LONG TERM project? You can't just keep putting stuff on the thing and then say, "oh we're done with that in 2020..." They better get more bang for the buck out of it than just 10 more years. If that's public money flying around up there, I'm sure the public would like it to last quite a bit longer.
August 2, 2010, 10:05:32 AM CDT – Flag – Reply
No comments:
Post a Comment