User:Craigboy/info

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
STS-127 group picture 03.jpg
STS-131 and Expedition 23 Group Portrait.jpg
STS-128 ISS-20 Crew Photo.jpg

As of November 23rd 2012
1/35 cosmonauts have been a woman, the last one they launched was in 1994. 1/6 of American astronauts have been women, the last one was launched in 2012.

http://www.worldspaceflight.com/bios/stats1.php


Flexible path program[edit]

Missions[edit]

List only includes relatively near missions, more missions are planned than are listed below.

Acronym Mission name Launch Date Rocket Uncrewed or crewed Duration Remarks
EFT-1 Exploration Flight Test-1 Early 2014 Delta IV Heavy Uncrewed Test of Orion crew module
EM-1 Exploration Mission-1 2017 Space Launch System Block 1 Uncrewed 7-10 days Un-crewed circumlunar flight – free return trajectory
EM-2 Exploration Mission-2 2019-2021 Space Launch System Block 1 Crewed 10-14 days Crewed lunar orbit mission

General Info:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/02/acronyms-ascent-sls-managers-create-developmental-milestone-roadmap/

EM-1:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/02/exploration-mission-1-sls-orion-debut-mission-moon-outlined/

EM-2:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Singer_4-25-12/Singer_4-25-12.pdf

ISS related[edit]

Increase to seven crew members[edit]

2011-05
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/AS-Interview-Mike-Suffredini.html


2012-06-20
“We would definitely increase the crew size on ISS to seven crew members,” William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, said June 20 during a hearing before the Senate Commerce science and space subcommittee. “We think that will increase the research capability onboard station and allow us to do more national lab research and be more effective in utilizing space station.”
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120620-nasa-commercial-crew-grow-iss-pop.html


2013-04-16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHQFpYHmbOE&t=18m0s

Crew exchange once CCP comes online[edit]

2012-07-05
A Soyuz will dock holding three Russian astronauts, another Soyuz will then dock with three more Russian astronauts and then the original Soyuz would leave. A CCP vehicle would dock holding four USOS astronauts (American, Japanese, Canadian, European) another CCP vehicle will then dock with four more USOS astronauts and then the original CCP vehicle would leave. The ISS will always have both a Soyuz and a CCP vehicle docked.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29357.msg926325#msg926325


2013-01-01
"The USCV (US Crew Vehicle) will carry four crewmembers, meaning that once it docks to the ISS, the crew of the station will be boosted to seven – allowing significant extra research activities to be performed. However, one of the crewmembers on the USCV will be Russian – just as one American crewmember will continue to be rotated on the Soyuz."

"Crew rotations using the USCVs will be done using the indirect handover method – meaning one USCV will return to Earth with its four crewmembers after six months on-orbit, prior to another USCV launching with another four crewmembers for another six month stay."

"This means only one USCV will ever be docked to the ISS at any one time, and will make for two USCV fights to the ISS per year. However, if the one year ISS Expeditions are successful and become a permanent arrangement, this will likely reduce to just one USCV flight per year."

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/yir-part4-iss-new-year-successful-2012/

Info on tourists on CCP vehicles[edit]

2012-02-14
Question 36: To what extent will NASA enable the emergence/sustenance of a commercial market by allowing non-NASA (i.e. private citizen) visitation to the ISS-US element? (e.g. emulate the Russian’s position with commercial flyers aboard Soyuz taxi flights?

Answer: The current NASA crew transportation plans do not allow for commercial spaceflight participants to visit the International Space Station. NASA is focused on working with its international partners to support the Expedition crews on orbit and to maximize the science and research activities aboard the Station. Even though NASA’s current plans do not allow for commercial spaceflight participant transportation to the International Space Station, NASA is investigating the regulations and requirements that would apply if commercial spaceflight participants were to visit the International Space Station.

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/149848-OTHER-001-001.pdf


2012-04-05
Additionally, Boeing is partnered with space tourism provider Space Adventures. Space Adventures intends to sell unused seats on the CST-100 for flights to low-Earth orbit.

http://www.space.com/15173-boeing-cst100-spaceship-update.html


2012-05-17
Will NASA allow the commercial carriers to bring private passengers and/or their own employees?
- Garver - priority is crew transport to the ISS.
- The vehicle capacity is larger than needed for that.
- Still working out arrangements for how those other seats will be used.
- Hoping there will also be other destinations for the CCP companies such as Bigelow stations
- NASA has evolved their policy regarding private visitors to the station.
- Have allowed private participants to do training at JSC
- Will need to work out details
- Greason - it's NASA's station but the vehicles belong to the firms.
- Expect private passengers will go to the other modules on the station if there is a problem with using the America modules.

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=37924 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=28699.0;attach=397868 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29161.msg919900#msg919900


2013-02
When CST-100 is in full-scale development, Space Adventures will market trips to LEO in the vehicle to private citizens, according to an agreement with Boeing from 2010.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/The_Annual_Compendium_of_Commercial_Space_Transporation_2012.pdf


2013-04-18
These vehicles are not just transportation; they also serve as the escape. The providers will determine the number of crew, which NASA has not dictated despite wanting at least four. This should not be a problem, as all three companies are designing with the capacity for seven. NASA is now determining how well the companies’ designs meet NASA safety and performance requirements. The Phase 2 certification contract will be based on Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs). For most part, NASA is letting the companies decide how they will meet the top level requirements. NASA is also trying to leave the design and development decisions up to them. The Agency has specified what it would provide. While NASA does not want to be in the critical path, it might be necessary to be involved in the docking system and communications. There is also discussion about global crew rescue services using Department of Defense (DoD) assets. When the vehicles are docked, NASA will provide services. The Agency hopes there will be flights without NASA crew. NASA wants industry to own the program, preferably at a fixed price. The customers should be NASA and other entities. NASA will provide investment via milestones. If NASA is the only customer, a cost-plus charge is appropriate.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/HEOC_2013_April18_Minutes.pdf


2013-08-05
Another item of interest in the draft RFP that could impact the price of a post certification missions is the presence of commercial passengers or of non-NASA cargo or payloads. According to the draft RFP, a commercial crew provider can propose to manifest a commercial passenger on a post certification mission. It can also propose non-NASA cargo or payload. The draft RFP indicates that NASA maintains the right to approve or disapprove the passenger(s), the non-NASA cargo or the payload proposed to be manifested on a post certification mission. The commercial crew provider must address the post-certification mission price adjustment or other in-kind consideration for NASA in exchange for allowing the commercial passenger or the non-NASA cargo or payload onboard.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/nasa-outlines-plans-commercial-crew-certification/

2013-12-05
FAA regulations do not preclude NASA establishing additional requirements under contract for non-NASA passengers or Cargo.

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=693


2013-12-05
If NASA determines that its requirements can be met without using the full capacity of the Crew Transportation System (CTS), NASA may notify the Contractor of the opportunity to propose to manifest a Passenger or Non-NASA Cargo/Payloads in the request for a task order proposal for a Post Certification Mission (PCM). NASA retains the right to revoke its prior approval of a Passenger(s) or non-NASA Cargo or Payload at any time prior to launch of the PCMs. NASA shall not be responsible for any costs, liabilities or obligations incurred by the Contractor should NASA revoke its prior approval

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=692

Future ISS configuration[edit]

2012-04-07
PMA-3 will eventually be moved to Node 3 Nadir, which means the Cupola will move to Node 1 Nadir, which means the PMM will move to Node 3 Aft. This however probably won't occur for a few years.

2012-06-11
Possibly alternative.
PMA-3 will eventually be moved to Node 2 Zenith, which means the Cupola will move to Node 1 Nadir, which means the PMM will move to Node 3 Aft. Node 2 Forward and Node 2 Zenith will be for USOS docking vehicles. Node 2 nadir and Node 3 nadir for berthing vehicles.

2012-8-19
Should all be decided by March 2013.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29693.msg944357#msg944357

2013-7-31
BEAM will be on Node 3 Aft, PMM will go to Node 3 Forward (in 2015) and PMA-3 will be moved to Node 2 Zenith. Node 2 Forward (primary) and Node 2 Zenith (backup) will be for USOS docking vehicles. Node 2 nadir (primary) and Node 1 nadir (backup) for berthing vehicles.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/07/nasa-planning-module-relocations-future-vehicles/

Possible future ISS members[edit]

2012-03-01
Vladimir Popovkin, the head of the Russian Space agency: "We are not a closed club, our doors are wide open". Popovkin ventured that the day will come when China and India will work together with the five ISS partners — Canada, the United States, Russia, Japan and the European Space Agency.

Jean-Jacques Dordain, head of the European body, said he hopes the International Space Station partnership would be open, adding it would benefit from co-operation with China. "I am in favour of seeing how we can work together with China," he told reporters after the meeting in Quebec City. "It will take some steps, but it will come, I am sure. "This is not a closed partnership, it is an open partnership and anyone who can help support this partnership is more than welcome." Dordain noted it took almost 40 years to bring together and build the current partnership. "It will take some time for China to join us and it will take some time to have India, South Korea, Brazil," he added.

NASA administrator Charles Bolden pointed out that the five partners are reaching out to other non-traditional nations. "We have encouraged each other to go out and try to find people who would not have an opportunity to enjoy this incredible facility that we have and bring them in as best we can," he said. Bolden has told The Canadian Press that NASA is an organization that looks at international co-operation, but it's prohibited by Congressional action from any bilateral activities with China. But he adds that he hopes the space partners will continue their conversations with the Chinese — and if a relationship does develop, it's a peaceful one.

http://www.globalmontreal.com/canada/some+space+station+partners+appear+ready+to+welcome+china+into+the+group/6442592395/story.html

Longer long-duration missions aboard ISS[edit]

2012-03-20
Q: Reflight of Mars 500 mission on ISS
Mike Suffredini (ISS Program Manager): “Clearly in order to be able explore beyond low earth orbit we are going to stay in orbit a little longer than six months and so one of things we have been talking about for some time, in fact since the advent of the low earth orbiting platform, is its benefit for human research and how long the human system can survive in a microgravity and can it survive in a microgravity environment for a extended period of time and then land on a foreign planet and expect the human to be able to do his or her tasks while they’re there and then return home and again experience the same microgravity environment for an extended period of time. That’s a long winded way of saying, yes, we’re considering that, we’re talking to our partners about that.

In-fact it was a bit of a discussion at our heads of agencies in Quebec about what kind of steps do we need to take to put in a position to extend the crew ‘s time on orbit as part of the human research study on the human system’s ability to with-stand long duration spaceflight. Absolutely that’s part of what we’re looking at but Dina will tell about in just a second is really the beginning of a set of simulations that were to also include an extension of crew on-orbit, as so you said that’s not an activity that’s going to occur tomorrow but we’re taking step and we will evolve to this point over a number of years so that we can get all the data we need before the end of the ISS’ lifetime.”

Dina Contella (Expd 32 Lead Flight Director): Talks about simulated com delay plans and more mission control independent flight procedures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16rfcTbU_D4&t=31m25s

Also some interesting stuff one hour in.


2012-08-27
NASA gets set for yearlong stints on space station http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48807002/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.UEAzs6NmNlD


2012-10-02
Mission will see one American (Peggy Whitson) and one Russian astronaut spending a year on the ISS. This mission would be called Expedition 42S and expected to start in March 2015. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18052.msg960275#msg960275


2012-10-05
NASA and International Partners Approve Year-Long Space Station Stay http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/oct/HQ_12-354_1-yr_Increment.html


2012-11
Not a lot info but would still make a solid ref if anyone requests a primary reference.(Slide 25) http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/707197main_Suffredini_ISS_NAC_20121114.pdf


2012-11-26
Astronauts have been selected. They will be Scott Kelly and Mikhail Korniyenko. No official confirmation on the mission name.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/nov/HQ_12-406_ISS_1-Year_Crew.html


2012-12-05
@4:00 - Sufferendi says "The Exploration suit that has been in development for some time, it is our hope to get that developed and on ISS and operate on ISS long enough to have the reliability confidence to be able to use it beyond beyond low earth orbit."

He than talks about making ISS procedures more automated and more independent from Mission Control.

@6:00 - He says this will be the first of several missions longer than year.

@9:00 - Russia approached NASA about the mission. NASA had intended to do longer duration missions but had intended to wait a little longer (i.e. past 2015).

@12:00 - The results of this mission may determine the length of future missions.

@18:00 - Its talked about how crew rotations would work.

Possible ISS to 2028 or beyond[edit]

Editor's note: The NDS will also reduce stress the station (especially the Russian side) because less Soyuz level impacts would occur (there would be less Soyuz flights because CCP will be online). Berthing vehicles also reduce stress on structure, these vehicles include HTV, Dragon and Cygnus.

2012-02-29
Summery: Covers what needs to be looked at to allow the ISS to last until 2028
Engineers are also looking at the feasibility of another life extension until 2028, the 30th anniversary of the launch of the outpost's first module. Mark Mulqueen, ISS vehicle director for Boeing Co., said keeping the station's environmental control and life support systems, or ECLSS, functioning over the next decade will likely be engineers' toughest challenge. "I don't think it's sparing or the structure to get to 2020," Mulqueen said. "It's probably continued refinement of how we successfully operate our ECLSS system on-orbit. There has been a lot of effort going into understanding that." That space station's structural strength is also being studied, with engineers first looking at the lab's oldest components launched before 2001. But a first-look analysis on the station's U.S. segment showed a few areas needing more attention, according to Mike Suffredini, NASA's space station program manager. If problems are discovered and engineers are unable to clear them, NASA can adjust the station's operating regime, add thermal blankets, structural stiffeners or other mitigators to address the issue. Calling them "areas of interest" rather than problems, Suffredini said engineers are focusing on the zenith, or space-facing, port on the station's Unity module, the connecting adapter between Unity and the Russian Zarya module, and the interface between the outpost's truss backbone and the station's Destiny laboratory.

Russia is conducting its own review of its modules. The station's oldest piece, the Russian-built, U.S.-funded Zarya module, is already cleared through 2030. "What you do is you do very specific analysis then to clear it, and I don't believe today that we'll have any issue when we do the specific analysis of clearing those areas for 2020, but then we'll have to look closer at 2028," Suffredini said. Dockings of visiting spacecraft, thermal cycles during each orbit of Earth, reboost maneuvers and crew exercise can affect the space station's structural health. Without the ability to inspect the shell of the craft, like airplane engineers would do on Earth, NASA must use computer models to predict how cracks and deformities propagate in space. "We're counting every orbit, all the docking cycles, and any plume cycles that affect our structure, so we're doing that same cycle-count and understanding if we're using up life faster than what we planned because we increased the cycle-count for some reason, whether it be we're in a different orbit, we're seeing higher dynamic loads going on from the crew, whatever the reason may be," Mulqueen said. "We're counting those cycles and we're tracking them against what the cycle-count was projected to be, then we talk impacts to overall life or we look at operational concerns, but right now there's no operational concerns on the table that we're recommending to NASA to reduce anything."

A Government Accountability Office report in December said 15 areas of the station's port-side P6 solar array truss section no longer meet their 60-year design life. Launched in 2000, the P6 truss segment and its 240-foot solar arrays were mounted on another truss section on the Unity module's zenith port for nearly seven years, twice as long as designed. The interim location subjected the structure to more extreme hot and cold temperatures than planned. Astronauts moved the P6 truss to a permanent location in 2007. "According to program officials, the P6 truss may require mitigation to remain sound through 2020 and potentially beyond," the GAO report said. "NASA is evaluating mitigation processes, such as adding thermal insulation blankets and changing how and where vehicles dock to the ISS, to slow down the rate at which the locations on the P6 truss, as well as the other locations, are expending structural life." In an interview with Spaceflight Now, Mulqueen said the P6 truss issue has been resolved, but analysis continues on the Unity, or Node 1, module. Unity is located near the station's center-of-mass, putting additional stress on the module. "We have been looking at that quite in-depth to make sure we've got adequate life on that module and on that joint where the whole stack stood above station for those number of years, seven years or so," Mulqueen said. "The P6 structure is very robust. It's been in a different thermal environment, and with more radiators deployed, but it's a rather robust structure." The station's structural components were designed to survive for up 60 years, four times their expected operating life. It is an example of the vehicle's conservative design, which account for significant margins to ensure the station remains safe during many unforeseen events, according to Mulqueen.

But the phase-out of the shuttle presents a challenge for managers trying to ensure there are enough spare parts aboard the space station to deal with breakdowns. Mulqueen believes there are enough spares aboard the complex through 2015, and most spare parts needed through 2020 are already on the station.

Another life extension beyond 2020 would likely require launches of more spares, Mulqueen said.

"There's no more shuttle in the future, and the U.S. vehicles aren't coming up yet, so we have to get high-pressure gas into our recharge system," Mulqueen said. "That's probably a challenge in the future, getting up our spare gases. We're working that right now with NASA, so future resupply is probably going to be a challenge."

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1202/29station/


2012-03-01
Bolden said it would be premature to talk about its life being extended beyond 2020, but added that, from an engineering standpoint, it can probably last until 2028.

http://www.globalmontreal.com/canada/some+space+station+partners+appear+ready+to+welcome+china+into+the+group/6442592395/story.html


2012-03-29
“The international partners … the European Space Agency, Japan, Canada, the U.S., and Roscosmos in Russia, have all been engaged in engineering estimates of … how long can we fly the international space station and we have all agreed that the international space station can be flown to at least 2028,” Bolden said. “Most of them are on the record saying they would like to utilize it beyond that.”

http://www.spacenews.com/policy/120329-mikulski-questions-commercial-priority.html


2013-08-08
“Within a couple of years, we have to start making contract decisions about what to buy, what not to buy,” Scimemi said. “We’re having discussions now [within NASA].” Scimemi was not specific, but William Gerstenmaier, NASA’s top human spaceflight official, said one example is the photovoltaic panels that provide power to the orbital outpost. These panels have absorbed many hits from space debris and micrometeoroids, and would definitely need to be replaced for an extended mission, he said. “Yeah, there’s quite a few hits to the solar panels,” Gerstenmaier told the committee. “They look like a west Texas stop sign.”

For Europe and Japan, the future is less certain. Japan is struggling with its own fiscal problems, and its space budget, like those of other Japanese government agencies, has been tapped to pay for ongoing cleanup efforts related to nuclear contamination caused when a tsunami struck a power plant back in 2011, Scimemi said. Europe, meanwhile, is weighing its options. The 20-member European Space Agency built the station’s Columbus laboratory module, and has kept ISS supplied with cargo using the Automated Transfer Vehicle. That spacecraft has made four flights since 2008 and is scheduled to make a fifth, and final, delivery to ISS in 2014. Compared with pure science missions, such as the ExoMars sample collection project the agency is conducting with Russia, ISS utilization is a low priority within the European Space Agency."

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36719nasa-station-managers-want-decision-on-mission-extension

ISS De-orbit vehicle[edit]

2010-10
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/578543main_asap_eol_plan_2010_101020.pdf


2012-05
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/responses/nasa/2012-05-09_NASA_Response.pdf


2013-08-06
“NASA now has a plan so that in the event the Station must be evacuated, there will be a 14-day period in which to make a decision on whether or not to bring the ISS down. The Program is setting the contingency plan in place, although there is still a lot of work to be done,” noted the minutes from the meeting. Previous plans have noted that NASA’s initial response would be to plan to raise the Station’s orbit, buying them potentially years to work out what to do with the abandoned spacecraft – hypothetically allowing for a potential repair or some form of orbital salvage operation. However, based on the scenario where the ISS was dying, a controlled deborbit plan is preferred, aided by two final Visiting Vehicles. “They will have 180 days to get down to deorbit altitude. This would give them time to get two Russian Progress vehicles launched to autonomously dock, autonomously transfer propellant to the Service Module, and to provide propulsion to deorbit. This would provide a good, safe, controlled deorbit.”

Although the disposal corridor over an uninhabited ocean expanse would be refined nearer the time, the deorbit and destructive re-entry of the Station would be by far the largest man-made object to make the fiery plunge back to Earth. A large amount of hardware would likely survive re-entry.

The use of two Progress vehicles is also the current method of execution for the Station per its natural EOL. “In the past, proposals for using Progress to provide impulse to de-orbit had been discussed,” noted a previous ISS Program overview to the ASAP. “The Program is developing plans for a single Progress, which would be used for off-nominal EOL; for the planned EOL, there would be two Progress vehicles that would provide more impulse and better targeting to hit the impact point.”

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/bringing-down-iss-plans-stations-demise-updated/

SpaceX[edit]

Removing payloads from trunk[edit]

"Depends on the cargo, but if it is a large item with a grapple fixture, they would use the robot arm, or if it's a smaller payload of FRAM-interface type, and thus has a micro-grapple fixture, they would use Dextre."

# of flights in 2012[edit]

Elon Musk Wired interview

Gwynne said something @ 23 minutes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_xvzwPni5I

Launches
2012-05-22 COTS 2+
2012-05-22


Misc[edit]

2012-10-01
Crew seats are “pretty close to the flight design,” he says, with individually molded liners able to accommodate astronauts as tall as 6 ft. 6 in. While docking will be autonomous using the NASA system in development at Johnson Space Center, pilots in the seven-member crews will be able to take control in emergencies or for special-purpose maneuvers such as inspection flyarounds, says Musk.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_01_2012_p47-498016.xml&p=2


2012-10-03
How long does docking take? Elon: Several hours. Working to tighten timeline in the future. Bolden: Progress had same day rendezvous. Want that for commercial flights. Biological samples, quicker the better. Same day is ideal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ogJee-ys5Bw


2012-10-04
"He’s also planned upgrades to the landing system. Version 1, which is on the Dragon capsules now, uses parachutes to achieve a water landing. Version 1.5, which he hopes to achieve by next year, would use parachutes to bring down the Dragon for a soft touchdown on land. Version 2 will use the escape thrusters to decelerate towards the earth, like a moon landing."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J_af0ow1__E?t=12m35s

http://www.popularmechanics.com/how-to/blog/elon-musk-on-spacex-tesla-and-why-space-solar-power-must-die-13386162?click=pm_latest

Dragon powered landing with parachutes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q3hHvdEqYE?t=34m

Dragon powered landing - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZJk4CrxctQ&t=1m30s


2013-02-25

Dragon thruster coverings

"The Dracos are covered with rain covers that come off on ascent. The gold colored plate is one of the locations where 2nd stage and the trunk bolt together."

NRO gives NASA two spy satellites[edit]

The two optical telescope assemblies were built in the late 1990/early 2000s as part of the National Reconnaissance Office's now canceled Future Imagery Architecture.(source1) They were built by a division of Eastman Kodak (this division is now a part of ITT Exelis) under a sub-contract for the Boeing Corporation.(source1) The mirror diameter of these telescope assemblies is 2.4 metres (7 ft 10 in), the same as that of the Hubble Space Telescope.(source1)

  • Not named, currently called NRO-1 and NRO-2
  • Late 1990s/early 2000s hardware.
  • Mirror size: 2.4 m
  • Location : ITT Excelis in Rochester, NY. Formerly Kodak.
  • Intended to operate at ~300K - so limited IR, like Hubble
  • Geosynchronous orbit (tilted pretty sharply out of the ecliptic) "allows continuous view of [astronomical target] search field and continuous data data downlink to a dedicated ground station" (not final that it will be geosync, though)
  • Launch in 2024 is possible
  • Downlink to a dedicated ground station in White Sands, New Mexico.
  • Second telescope probably will never be used.

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=BPA_069877&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29081.0

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/06/nasa-gets-two-unneeded-hubble-sized-spy-telescopes/

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/NRO_Meeting/Kruk_NRO_TelWkshp_final.pdf

Dragon capable of loitering several months in theory

audio press conference

Plutonium-238[edit]

2008-03-6
Russia has advised the United States “that they are down to their last 10 kilograms of plutonium.”
http://www.space.com/5054-plutonium-shortage-thwart-future-nasa-missions-outer-planets.html

International Docking System Standard[edit]

The International Docking System Standard (IDSS).

  • NASA Docking System (NDS) or international Low Impact Docking System (iLIDS) - NASA's implementation of the standard. To be installed on PMA-2 and PMA-3. Will be used by all future American manned vehicles (Commercial crew, Orion...).
  • International Berthing and Docking Mechanism (IBDM) - ESA's implementation of the standard. Unsure what they would use it with, since the ATV program is ending around 2015 and the Advanced Return Vehicle development project has allegedly been abandoned.
  • Russia apparently has a design for their implementation of the standard but I don't have any further information on it.
  • China apparently has shown interest in adopting the new standard.

IDSS Misc.[edit]

2012-08
International Berthing and Docking Mechanism (IBDM) dynamic testing was completed at SIRRIS in Leuven, Belgium. The results confirmed the feasibility of a design compatible with both NASA and Russian designs.

International Docking System Standard (IDSS) Docking standardization discussions continued with representatives of the Chinese Manned Space Engineering Office (CMSEO) at ESTEC in May. The Chinese have shown interest in discussing possible adaptations of their docking system to an international standard and to the joint definition of a new large-diameter mechanism, capable (like the IBDM) of docking and berthing, for the permanent connection of major modules of their Space Station. The exchanges on the development of docking systems with the Chinese showed that also China identified the need for a docking system that could work for space vehicles of various masses and deliver moderate impact loads. An International Docking Systems Workshop at ESTEC in May involved about 30 experts (from USA, Europe, Canada, Russia, China and Japan), bringing together for the first time the IDSS partners from the ISS countries and new participants, offering an opportunity to enlarge the docking standardization discussions to a new set of international partners (for example, China). The need for a standard docking interface was reconfirmed and the design of ESA’s IBDM system appeared as a very promising candidate for such a standard. ESA was asked to organize a follow-up workshop at the IAF Conference in October. Discussions with NASA and the Canadian Space Agency looked at the possible joint development of a new docking system based on the IBDM.

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia/publications/ESA-Bulletin-151/offline/download.pdf

Shenzhou[edit]

http://hadukino.littlestar.jp/folder/china_space/file0001.pdf

McDonnell Douglas 'Docking and Berthing Mechanism'[edit]

McDonnell Douglas Space Systems was the lead contractor in the space station project; Rockwell's Rocketdyne had the space station power system contract, and Boeing Aerospace, had the space station module contract.

The program to design, fabricate, and test docking/berthing mechanisms was a 3-year program (May 1985 to April 1988) that was conducted by McDonnell Douglas under a NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) research and development contract.[1] The 'docking and berthing mechanism' was being developed during the 1980s to enable the Space Shuttle Orbiter to dock to Space Station Freedom. NASA awarded the contract to McDonnell Douglas; it was being developed under the 'Space Station Berthing Mechanisms Program'(1). It was mostly androgynous and had a four petal design. Some tests occurred in 1988 at Marshall Space Flight Center's 6-DOF Motion Simulation Facility(1). A poor quality picture taken during one of those tests can be found on page 21 of 'Berthing Mechanism Final Test Report and Program Assessment' along with a good diagram on page 81. The same picture appears on page 40, in the 1990 book 'Space In the 21st Century'.

Space Station Freedom evolves into the International Space Station.

in 1992, Rockwell International Corporation and NPO Energiya agree to work together on a docking mechanism. In 1997, McDonnell Douglas is consumed by Boeing.

1.'Berthing Mechanism Final Test Report and Program Assessment'

Miscellaneous[edit]

2011-09
Bigelow Space Complex at 225 nm at 35° inclination. Doc also has a lot of good info on CST-100.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ccts/docs/Space_2011_Boeing.pdf


2012-05-9
Crew return capability from the ISS currently is totally dependent on docked Soyuz spacecraft. The Russians have determined that such an extension is feasible, but are not currently pursuing it. An extended Soyuz lifetime could double the crew's potential dwell time and greatly reduce problems if there is a Soyuz launch delay. NASA should actively pursue with the Russians the plan to extend the Soyuz on-orbit lifetime from six months to twelve months. Roscosmos cited several technical issues that would have to be overcome (e.g., batteries, seals, and the hydrogen peroxide system), some of which would entail an entire redesign of the subsystem, and deemed the expenditure of resources and technical challenges to be more significant than the potential benefits gained through a life extension effort. A definitive timeframe has not been identified in which system improvements, full life extension testing, and vehicle certification could be completed, if properly supported and funded. It is estimated that two years would be required in order to assess individual systems, design improvements, and implement necessary changes. Furthennore, there is an existing crew on-orbit stay constraint of 220-days, which is independent of the Soyuz certified life. Although NASA recognizes Roscosmos' position on the life extension, the manageable risk associated with the Soyuz 200-day on-orbit life, and the future availability of a commercial crew vehicle, NASA will continue to work with Roscosmos in pursuit of a Soyuz life extension in order to increase the robustness of our ability to support contingency cases.

http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/responses/nasa/2012-05-09_NASA_Response.pdf


2012-05-10

  • Bigelow is looking at 3-month rotations
  • CST-100 is being designed for 10 re-flights
  • CST-100 will use NDS
  • Discuses what Atlas-V variant CST-100 will use
  • Plan two commercial cargo flights before the end of the year. First one would be three or four months after the COTS test flight. The second one toward the end of the year.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/05/10/spacecraft-technology-expo-commercial-crew-panel/


2012-06-25
CST is now baselined for NDS.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29223.msg921468#msg921468


2012-09-14
"If the costs go entirely high, which we don't think they will, we think we have a good chance to get the cost less than Soyuz." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pc2MM_Ahsd4 @ 47:18


2013
The Green Propellant Infusion Mission (GPIM) is scheduled to launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket in late 2015. The GPIM project will demonstrate the practical capabilities of a Hydroxyl Ammonium Nitrate fuel/oxidizer blend, known as “AF-M315E.” This propellant was developed by U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Green-Propellant-Infusion-Mission-Project_-Fact-Sheet.pdf

History of COTS[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHQFpYHmbOE&t=38m0s