Backdropped by rugged Earth terrain, the International Space Station is featured in this image photographed by an STS-130 crew member on space shuttle Endeavour after the station and shuttle began their post-undocking relative separation.
Image: NASA
The International Space Station likely won't have to be evacuated despite the recent failure of a Russian rocket launched toward the orbiting lab, a panel told U.S. lawmakers today (Oct. 12) on Capitol Hill.
On Aug. 24, Russia's Progress 44 cargo vessel crashed in Siberia after the third stage of its Soyuz rocket failed. That rocket is similar to the one NASA and other space agencies depend on to loft astronauts, raising doubts about whether the issue could be fixed in time for a new crew to get to the station before its three remaining residents depart for Earth on Nov. 22.
A Russian commission recently pinpointed the Soyuz problem as a quality-control issue, not a major design flaw. And an independent NASA team agrees with that assessment, officials announced today, meaning the next manned Soyuz launch should take place as planned on Nov. 14. [Photos: Russia's Lost Cargo Ship Progress 44]
That time frame would keep the orbiting outpost staffed, giving the new three-person crew about five days to learn the ropes from the departing space flyers.
"NASA's confident that our Russian partners identified the most likely failure cause and has a sound return-to-flight plan," Bill Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for NASA's human exploration and operations directorate, told members of the House of Representatives' Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Fixing the problem
The Russian investigation determined that low fuel feed to the gas generator in the Soyuz's third-stage engine likely caused the Progress 44 crash. The fuel feed issue may have been caused by contamination in the fuel line or a valve.
After consulting in depth with the Russians, NASA formed its own team to look into the Soyuz problem, Gerstenmaier said.
"They did kind of a background check to make sure that the conclusions the Russians were drawing were reasonable," Gerstenmaier said. "We completed that review today within the agency, and we agree with the basic Russian findings."
Since the Progress 44 incident, the Russians have boosted their quality-control efforts, Gerstenmaier added. For example, they've increased the number of people inspecting Soyuz rockets and are videotaping some key assembly operations at the factory.
The engines for the next two Soyuz launches — the unmanned Progress 45 cargo mission on Oct. 30 and the Nov. 14 crewed mission — were built under the newer, stricter oversight, Gerstenmaier said. [Vote Now! The Best Spaceships of All Time]
So the problem that doomed Progress 44 shouldn't crop up again, the panelists said.
"We're confident that the two launches anticipated — one of Progress and the Soyuz launch, hopefully, in mid-November — will put the current issues to rest and return us to a steady-state operation," said Joseph Dyer, chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel.
Station could operate without a crew
When it's fully crewed, the International Space Station (ISS) harbors six astronauts, who each stay aboard for five- or six-month stints. It currently hosts just three space flyers, and the next Soyuz launch would basically replenish this number rather than increase it.
If that launch gets delayed, the station would be completely de-staffed for the first time in more than a decade. But that wouldn't spell disaster for the orbiting lab, the panelists said.
See what we're tweeting about
3 Comments
Add CommentNASA's problem, as of now, it that they have no where to go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLEO is a waste land.
The Moon is a dream.
Mars is science fiction.
The box NASA is in is of its own making. Now they have to live in it.
.
Space travel is man's future, but our leaders are only interested in tax cuts for the rich. If they win, America will become a third world nation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe original idea for the ISS was to gather knowledge needed to be able to plant a base on the moon and start the slow process of outward expansion. LEO is not a wasteland because of GPS and telecom. The moon has mineral resources and microgravity fabrication potential. Mars is not science fiction because we have planted equipment there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMars would have to be extensively terraformed to be truely habitable but fully enclosed subterranean colonies may be possible in the short term depending on the presence of exploitable minerals and the ability of plants to grow in an artificial environment.