One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected • Hacker News Board

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#101

Post by VWWHFSfQ » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 1:58 AM UTC

calibas wrote: post #64

snoshy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Largely because it's a fantastically expensive undertaking, and hasn't quite borne out the fruits that were speculated about over the years. USA provides a huge bulk of the funding, expertise, and personnel required to keep the program running. That's not to say that Russia, Canada, Japan, etc. don't do their part, but it's really not as much of a truly global joint effort as you might be led to believe. Then there's…

>Then there's a genuine question of what this enormous expenditure truly buys us. It helps to answer the question of whether or not humans can even survive long term away from Earth. Sure, if you judge it purely by the price tag, it's not doing very well. If you judge it by the scientific, societal and philosophical implications, we're not spending nearly enough.

> if you judge it purely by the price tag, it's not doing very well.

This is a bad time for the ISS program to ask for more money. The USA Congress is not going to give NASA and the ISS program more money when they've already committed to print an enormous amount of dollars for COVID stimulus and various other COVID-related bailouts. NASA and the ISS is going to be on a budget for awhile. Even moreso than they were before.

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#102

Post by Something1234 » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 2:01 AM UTC

NortySpock wrote: post #80

ska wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but how do we multiply & speed up that effort? I think it's pretty much politically impossible. The first big space push was mostly a political pissing match (i.e. not really driven by doing it for its own sake). It's pretty easy to come up with other major challenges that most people will consider more important that also aren't getting funding ... so private industry looks more likely to get some traction. States…

China's public plans include a semi-permanent base on the Moon. That oughta ruffle some feathers in Congress. Chinese paper on plant-based life support systems for extended crew stays. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.12.426282v1

Did the Chinese build their own biosphere 2 (Arizona)?

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#103

Post by waheoo » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 2:03 AM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #35

sailingparrot wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My bet is the issue is most likely stresses due to vibrations under pressure and pressure changes. So you are saying it's degrading?

These discussions about materials are often difficult, because there are meaningfully different processes that are lumped together in everyday language. Mechanical stresses leading to failure at a particular point are certainly a form of degradation, but I believe they mean degradation in the sense where the entire body of the material is undergoing some change (like a plastic bottle fogging or such). I think seeking…

> "gotcha" game is tedious

I agree but you can say the same thing in reverse. This is a public forums, you don't need to claim something isn't right because it doesn't fit the technical description.

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#104

Post by merpnderp » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 2:04 AM UTC

lsllc wrote: post #42

ChuckMcM wrote: post #2

Materials aging in space is a pretty deep subject. That it is the Russian Zvevda module that is leaking/cracking is likely related to the fact that it is also the oldest module in the ISS. The ISS is/was scheduled to be retired in 2024 (aka 3 years from now) but there are calls to keep it going. My fantasy would be to have SpaceX move it into the Lunar L1 Lagrange point which would keep it in use but it would have to…

I think we need a "Space New Deal", I'm honestly saddened by the lack of progress in space in my lifetime. I mean we've done some great work, but we haven't made any giant leaps since getting to the moon 51.5 years ago. Thankfully, we do have SpaceX et. al. who really are making some big strides -- but how do we multiply & speed up that effort? ... sorry, I'm being selfish, but I really want to go to Mars.

Look at the SLS, how much money was spent, and how unlikely it is to ever do anything, and it looks like we aren't even capable of a Space New Deal if we wanted to.

Luckily we have SpaceX.

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#105

Post by jjcon » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 2:06 AM UTC

snoshy wrote: post #51

spike021 wrote: post #32

Not a big space person, but this makes me wonder: why have we not planned for a new ISS? We must have better tech nowadays from all the working countries/groups currently involved, plus SpaceX and other space companies' backing that would not have existed as it does now back when this ISS was first designed/created.

Largely because it's a fantastically expensive undertaking, and hasn't quite borne out the fruits that were speculated about over the years. USA provides a huge bulk of the funding, expertise, and personnel required to keep the program running. That's not to say that Russia, Canada, Japan, etc. don't do their part, but it's really not as much of a truly global joint effort as you might be led to believe. Then there's…

> NASA's budget has been strangled for decades now

It’s higher than it was in the 70s and has remained pretty constant since then trending upward (when adjusting for inflation)

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/500caca8e4b0e4a25027aa...

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#106

Post by kiba » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 2:09 AM UTC

qayxc wrote: post #79

enraged_camel wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It's not just the getting things into space that's the hard and costly part. Modules take years to design, build, and test. Using the traditional approach, yes. But SpaceX is proving that there are other approaches that yield fruit far faster and also for drastically less money.

Well, how many space stations have SpaceX designed so far? And what, pray tell, is the "traditional approach" in designing space stations compared to magical "approaches that yield results faster"? Are you aware that Skylab was designed, built, and launched in under 4 years and consisted of a converted Saturn-IVB rocket stage? The total program cost was $275M per year over 8 years (including design, 4 stations, 4 Sky…

So BA built and deployed two prototypes in 2 years and a crewed fully functional module in 16 months with just $17.8M. Yet you assume that SpaceX, who never built a space station before, can somehow do it even faster and cheaper? Why? On what factual basis and on which historical examples do you base this assumption on?

Why not? The ISS is a spacecraft in all but name. It wouldn't be strange if they decided to use starship as a space station development platform, since they already planned for starship to carry humans to Mars.

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#107

Post by lolc » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 2:10 AM UTC

keyle wrote: post #60

I burst into laughter reading the Russian's quotes. I love how casual the astronaut is about it! I'm no astronaut but I wouldn't be sleeping with crack in my hull, leaking air.

After fixing that leak they can go back to sleeping among uncharted fragments that can collide with no warning but catastrophic impact.

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#108

Post by fuoqi » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 2:12 AM UTC

spiritplumber wrote: post #34

spike021 wrote: post #32

Not a big space person, but this makes me wonder: why have we not planned for a new ISS? We must have better tech nowadays from all the working countries/groups currently involved, plus SpaceX and other space companies' backing that would not have existed as it does now back when this ISS was first designed/created.

The ISS mostly happened because it was a way to keep ex-Soviet aerospace scientists and engineers doing aerospace things rather than, say, go build ICBMs for third world countries. Same as Arecibo happened because the USAF wanted a big radar and the Hubble happened because (I forgot which spy agency it was) had a spare satellite. Sad when you think about it...

>The ISS mostly happened because it was a way to keep ex-Soviet aerospace scientists and engineers doing aerospace things rather than, say, go build ICBMs for third world countries.

Nope. It's funny you seriously consider it being true. Building space stations and ICBMs are two VERY different fields for one thing. And number of launches to ISS is significantly smaller than number of satellite launches.

One of the main reasons for the US was a chance to buy space station building technology and transfer relevant expertise for a relatively cheap price tag. Russian/USSR scientists and engineers were far ahead in this field thanks to the Mir station. Creating a demand for the Space Shuttle was a good bonus as well.

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#109

Post by ChuckMcM » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 2:14 AM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #85

ChuckMcM wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, I expect the zero-g sex market to be a pretty big draw for the folks with more money than sense.

I can only guess that it would be much harder to accomplish than one would imagine. Definitely want a padded room so you dont bang your head, or other parts slamming into sharp objects.

I note that the Bigelow Aerospace semi-inflatable module[1] that is attached currently to the ISS has no windows and padded walls.

[1] https://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/b330/

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#110

Post by coryrc » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 2:15 AM UTC

HenryKissinger wrote: post #89

HPsquared wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are the cause of the stress cycles. Components don't expand/contact uniformly, resulting in deformation and therefore stress. This process goes through cycles, causing stress cycles which eventually cause the growth of cracks (fatigue).

Have we invented a material that is resistant to these thermal cycles indefinitely, or at least within a range of temperatures of several thousand degrees? I'm never going to have my own Star Destroyer if we continue to use subpar materials.

Steel, below a certain loading (err, ~20% of max fatigue?) does have indefinite life.