EMPTY STATION?: Sunlight glints off the International Space Station with the blue limb of Earth providing a dramatic backdrop in this photo taken by an astronaut on the shuttle Endeavour just before it docked after midnight on Feb. 10, 2010 during the STS-130 mission.
Image: NASA
The International Space Station may have to start operating without a crew in November if Russian engineers don't figure out soon what caused a recent rocket failure, NASA officials announced today (Aug. 29).
The unmanned Russian cargo ship Progress 44 crashed just after its Aug. 24 launch to deliver 2.9 tons of supplies to the orbiting lab. The failure was caused by a problem with the Progress' Soyuz rocket, which is similar to the one Russia uses to launch its crew-carrying vehicle — also called Soyuz — to the station.
Currently, six astronauts reside on the space station. They shouldn't be unduly affected by the Progress crash, NASA officials said, because they have enough supplies to last a while on orbit.
But three of these astronauts are due to return to Earth next month, and the rest are scheduled to come back in mid-November. At the moment, the Soyuz is the only way to get astronauts to and from the station. So if the rocket anomaly isn't identified and fixed soon, a fresh crew won't be able to reach the orbiting lab before the last three spaceflyers head for home. [Photos: Building the International Space Station]
Unmanned for the first time in a decade?
That situation would leave the $100 billion orbiting lab unmanned for the first time since 2001. Still, it wouldn't be a disaster, according to NASA officials.
"We know how to do this," NASA's space station program manager Mike Suffredini told reporters today. "Assuming the systems keep operating, like I've said, we can command the vehicle from the ground and operate it fine, and remain on orbit indefinitely."
NASA would of course prefer to keep some crew aboard the orbiting lab, Suffredini added. Leaving the station unmanned would cut back significantly on the scientific research being done 240 miles (386 kilometers) above the Earth. In the wake of the space shuttle's retirement last month, NASA has repeatedly stressed the importance of that research, and the scientific potential of the station.
But the timing just might not work out. Two Soyuz spacecraft are currently docked to the station to take its six astronauts home. The vehicles are only rated to spend about 200 days in space, so they'll have to depart soon. [How Russia's Progress Spaceships Work (Infographic)]
Light at the landing site
Lighting conditions at the Soyuz's Kazakhstan landing site are also an issue. NASA and the Russian space agency mandate that landings must occur at least one hour after dawn and one hour before dusk, to facilitate better search and rescue operations should any be required.
The lighting window closes for about five weeks on Sept. 19 for the first crew and around Nov. 19 for the second. Waiting for a new window to open would stretch the Soyuz spacecraft beyond their 200-day ratings in both cases, Suffredini said.
So all six astronauts on the space station will almost certainly have left the orbiting lab by mid-November. Russian engineers are working hard to give crewed Soyuz launches the best chance to meet that deadline; the next one is slated to blast off Sept. 21, but that's almost certainly not going to happen, Suffredini said.
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add CommentThis is one of the many reasons why we should have kept one shuttle for backup.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe just had a successful shuttle mission a couple of months ago. If needed by an emergency situation, why can't we get at least one shuttle put back into flying shape and ready to go up to get our astronauts?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne Shuttle for backkup? Good grief. the Shuttle infrastructure is about 8 billion dollars and about 1.6 Billion for a launch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat money that would be NOT available for other Nasa projects.
So exactly what science are we going to miss out on if we are grounded for 12 months?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can build and launch a lot of disposable robots for $1.6B
I know this sounds irrational, but we need a manned space program for the imagery. It keeps up the public interest in a way that unmanned missions cannot, and thus the manned program--grossly expensive as it is--is needed to support all the other useful research NASA does and hosts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not an argument for a manned Mars mission, however, unless we can figure out some way to protect the astronauts better from deep space radiation. That's the Achilles' heel for such missions. The Moon, though, is quite doable, if the "lunanauts" put most of their living facilities under 20 feet of rock, that should suffice, even when there are solar flares.
So I guess six lives are not worth $1.6B.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo more space shuttle, Russian rocket program in disarray, perhaps we reached our peak and now we are rolling backward?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvasbinde: "So I guess six lives are not worth $1.6B'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a silly comment. There's no need for those 6 to be there. Of the three americans that's over 533 MILLION each a Shuttle rescue mission. An American soldier's cost of protection is 245 thousand or less than 1/1000 the cost of an astronaut.
Common sense needs to reign in the cost. Manned space flight is very expensive and ludicrous for any backup system.
"Currently, six astronauts reside on the space station. They shouldn't be unduly affected by the Progress crash, NASA officials said, because they have enough supplies to last a while on orbit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut three of these astronauts are due to return to Earth next month, and the rest are scheduled to come back in mid-November."
The astronauts are not in any danger. The article is explaining why they would not be able to stay longer. The question is, is it worth spending 1.6 billion to have the space station manned 24/7?
Again that's 1.6 billion for a Shuttle flight. It's 8 billion to maintain the Shuttle infrastructure to launch a Shuttle mission...this would all be on top of the costs to run the space swttion (which is more billions).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisManned space flight inspires? I bet 95% of Americans couldn't name any Shuttle astronaut in the last 30 years. This Scientific American 'comment section' isn't exactly crammed with postings from budding astronauts. The Shuttle has done zip 'to inspire'.
The ISS requires crewmen 24/7 just for station-keeping + routine maintenance/repair/replacement of stuff that geys out of kilter or breaks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaking sure the panels always face the sun is pretty much a full-time task. Pull the crewmen out and a few weeks later the ISS, the size of 3 (three) football fields, WILL come out of orbit and crash into -xxx-. With the departure of the final 3 crewmen (lack of food & supplies) there is little chance to re-populate the ISS prior to its destruction into the planet.
Can any of you tell me the purpose of the Space Station,what has it achieved or produced?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only thing I know is that it showed seeds can sprout in micro gravity.
It may be doing something , I hope so as $100 Billion is a lot of money .If the cost of each Rocket/Shuttle flight is added the costs will be truly astronomical
It makes me sad to think that the costs of a US manned spaceflight program should have to be justified to those who could not possibly understand the scope of such a justification for large and complex engineering projects and why it is important to strain our abilities to their limits in order to expand the limits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rule for congress seems to be:
"If scientists and engineers can't give me an exact cost
for doing something that has never been done before then there must be something fishy and my constituents would rather see funding go to a program that will benefit them directly. Accumulating more knowledge is not as important to my constituents as cutting wasteful spending. Anything as complex and expensive as these science projects must be wasteful."
Hence we shall abandon science and engineering because we as a nation do not understand our science and engineering.
We will increasingly import our scientists and engineers from other nations under the H visa programs because we can do so at a lower cost than hiring Americans and there will be no real incentive for the young pursue the difficult paths of STEM.
I see in this topic people people upset about spending
"billions" on the shuttle and though I don't question the magnitude I do question some of the figures bandied about.
A billion used to be a lot of money, but in perspective the national budget is over 3.5 trillion, the national average home price is around $272,000 and a new car is averaging around $28,000. NASA is funded at 18b, around half a percent of the national budget.
(18e9/3.5e12=5.1e-3)
It's too late for the shuttle. It can't be ramped back up. Tens of thousands of workers that were required to support it have been let go. Like the partially completed SSC, the partially completed Tokamac in Livermore, soon to be dead Webb it's gone, the knowledge is gone and passes like beautiful youth stolen by a drunk driver. Senseless.
We will never again have anything like it.
Indeed we as a nation may never have a manned space program again, and if you do not understand why a manned space program is important then you are an average American and would not understand the explanation because I cannot draw cartoons in this forum.
"The wise rule by weakening minds and stuffing bellies."
-Lao Tzu
The ISS is controlled from the ground my friend. No worries. The orbit does decay over time and from time to time the ISS receives "boosts" to lift it back to a higher altitude. There are lots of good NASA educational pubs for junior high students that will help you determine how long it will take for the orbit to decay from a given altitude. Do the arithmetic, it's fun and the answers are given so you can check your work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, if this is someone trolling or are you a modern scientific American who can't do the arithmetic I'll bite on your post and simply reply:)
Yeah,
Without pilots the station is doomed, just as all other satellites and space junk would be doomed to crash if it
weren't for the tiny little squirrel pilots in tiny spacesuits steadfastly keeping their orbital habitats in stable orbits. 'Course the ISS is bigger so it needs people pilots instead of squirrel pilots right?
'course you gotta feel sorry for the people pilots on the ISS because they have to keep those solar arrays lined up with cross hairs on the sun and that's why all visitors to the ISS have little squinty eyes when they get back home and can't be trusted anymore. They're radioactive too.
And they don't laugh anymore because nothing is funny to them ever again after being weightless in space. And because they don't pay their bills when they are in space they're a bad credit risk so don't loan them any money. But they're handy to have around if the lights go out (because they glow in the dark because they're radioactive and we all know that all radioactive things glow in the dark)...
Jarvan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations, you are the project manager. Your budget is 1.8 billion. This includes engineering cost for robotics development, science team cost for experimental development, payload development and manufacture cost and launch vehicle cost. You must use any proven existing launch vehicle technology, you cannot develop a new technology or buy unproven rockets on the black board.
You have 18 months to engineer a robotic fleet to duplicate the current experiments on board the ISS.
For a list of experiments on the ISS visit the ISS web site and find some of the answers.
Okay, you've done that so you know:
How many experiments are on board the ISS right now.
Exactly HOW MUCH does a "space robot" cost?
I would suggest using any number of existing NASA programs
that have launched to date and used robotic space craft for experimental data collection. Perhaps you could find an average cost or a similar technology. Look for anything that might save you some money in design cost.
How many is A LOT?
It's better if you can combine experiments for similar types of data collection. Payload mass is the biggest factor! Another very important consideration is whether or not samples have to be returned to earth.
If you want to take this challenge on you will learn some basic principles of technical project management and I will give you guidance in finding out what it will take for a "Robots in Space" project. We will base our estimates on historical costs of robots mankind has already put in space.
The head of NASA said the ISS is the modern Great Pyramid of Egypt. Why was the pyramid built?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess the ISS is supposed to showcase man's engineering marvel. Probably driven more by technology and pride than by science.
"That's a silly comment. There's no need for those 6 to be there. Of the three americans that's over 533 MILLION each a Shuttle rescue mission. An American soldier's cost of protection is 245 thousand or less than 1/1000 the cost of an astronaut."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure which leaves me more breathless and intrigued, your logic or your arithmetic.
Are you speaking of body value of the gov't investment in training and equipping a soldier verses gov't training and equipping an Astronaut and some kind of (government investment * risk)/(cost of rescue shuttle) ratio?
Such ratios are legitimate if even from an analytical perspective.
If you were speaking of the cost of keeping a shuttle online for space station rescue no doubt the
above calculation didn't have to be performed because it's obviously cost prohibitive and that's one of the reasons we dumped the shuttle. The shuttle was sucking money from the mars program which was cancelled, then the moon program which was cancelled and the the James Webb telescope (soon to be if not already cancelled).
Given that we both understand that a shuttle rescue mission is an impossibility and that we both understand that all six occupants of the ISS can ride home in the two Soyuz craft currently docked to the ISS.
Please expound upon the soldier/astronaut "cost of protection" ratio. I didn't really get any relevant hits when I googled "soldier cost of protection."
Although from the hits on that search I did find that it costs around 2.1k per day to keep a soldier deployed in Iraq, or 775k per year, that according to one estimate that I didn't verify.
Please clarify and elaborate "cost of protection."
Yes, Elderlybloke I can tell you what the value of the space station is, what it has achieved and what experimental scientific data it has produced. However you will get more information in a more succinct format if you google NASA ISS and read the 17,200,000 hits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-zampaz
"Google is your friend if you want to know something and your enemy if someone wants to prove that you don't."
-Sean K. Lynch
Thank you, I have been reading up on it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCost/benefit of it is still uncertain to me.
Again that's 1.6 billion for a Shuttle flight. It's 8 billion to maintain the Shuttle infrastructure to launch a Shuttle mission...this would all be on top of the costs to run the space swttion (which is more billions).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisManned space flight inspires? I bet 95% of Americans couldn't name any Shuttle astronaut in the last 30 years. This Scientific American 'comment section' isn't exactly crammed with postings from budding astronauts. The Shuttle has done zip 'to inspire'.
Obviously you've never been present at a Shuttle launch, otherwise you'd realize just how wrong your statement truly is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this