NASA may have to evacuate ISS if Russian rocket mission fails

NASA may have to evacuate ISS if Russian rocket mission fails

BY JOHN KELLY AND TODD HALVORSON
FLORIDA TODAY

CAPE CANAVERAL -- The two men living on the International Space
Station are running out of food and water. And they may have to
evacuate by early July if a Russian supply ship fails to reach the
outpost this week.
Station water tanks would be drained by June 17 to a level that would
force NASA and its international partners to consider ordering Russian
cosmonaut Gennady Padalka and U.S. astronaut Michael Fincke to return
to Earth. If so, that would likely happen by July 2 -- if not sooner.

"That's something we would have to look at," said Kylie Moritz, a
spokeswoman at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston.

The Russian Progress supply ship is scheduled to blast off from
Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan at 8:34 a.m. Eastern Time on
Tuesday. It's slated to dock at the station at 9:55 a.m. Thursday.

The stakes are high. NASA studies show that there is a 10 percent
chance of losing the $100 billion station in a six-month period if no
crew is on board to handle problems as they crop up. And the food and
water shortage is dire.

If the Progress fails to reach the outpost, NASA projects station
water tanks would be empty by Aug. 1. That is one day after the next
supply craft is due to arrive. Food would run out by Aug. 5.

The July 2 date represents the day engineers estimate the station
would have about 30 days of water left. That is how much engineers say
an evacuating crew would need to leave behind so that the outpost
could be re-staffed at a later date.



Russian support

The crisis stems from the February 2003 Columbia accident, which
grounded NASA's three remaining shuttles and cut off a critical supply
line to the orbiting outpost. Space station crews have relied solely
on Russian rocket launches for transportation and supplies.

The shuttles, which will not fly until at least next March, routinely
delivered bountiful amounts of water to pad station reserves. The
Russian ships are much smaller.

NASA and its partners decided shortly after the accident to cut
station crews from three to two people, a move made to conserve
diminishing provisions. The partners also agreed to start evacuation
talks if food or water stores dipped below a 45-day supply.

Senior NASA managers say they stand ready to order the crew to abandon
the station if the situation on board becomes too dangerous.

But William Gerstenmaier, the NASA manager of the station program,
doubts that will be necessary. He said the food and water projections
are conservative. Also, he said crews could take measures to stretch
supplies for days or even weeks to wait out another cargo ship.

In addition, Russians might be able to move up another supply flight
now scheduled to lift off July 28. The freighters haven't been flying
on schedule. Three were scheduled to arrive between November and
March. Only one launched due to Russian financial problems.

Progress freighters are designed to haul up to 300 liters of water --
or the equivalent of about 25 cases of store-bought bottled water.
NASA has been working with Russia to increase the amount of water the
ships can take up.

Station engineers are carefully tracking every drop of water and every
container of food on board. They estimate each station crewman needs
two liters of water per day to drink, bathe and prepare dehydrated
U.S. space food.

Gerstenmaier said station tenants actually are consuming 1.67 liters
of water per day.


Crews also are finding creative ways to ration, such as eating already
hydrated Russian food instead of the just-add-water items off the U.S.
menu.

To conserve water, NASA astronaut Ed Lu even hung wet clothing and
towels near a condenser in a bid to recycle as much water as possible
during his six-month stay in 2003.

This week's shipment would only temporarily alleviate the shortage.
Food and water will remain in short supply until the shuttles fly
again.

Another Progress is slated to dock at the station on July 30. If that
ship is lost, engineers project the crew would run out of food on Oct.
26 and water on Nov. 13. The next supply flight is not scheduled to
reach the outpost until Nov. 28, the day after Thanksgiving.

In that case, it's likely that NASA and its partners would bring
Padalka and Fincke home on schedule in October, but might not launch a
fresh crew until supplies are replenished.

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...23ISSWATER.htm

Rusty Barton wrote:

NASA may have to evacuate ISS if Russian rocket mission fails

Woopty doo. Another example of sensationalistic journalism. Of course the
station would have to be evacuated if they can no longer get supplies up.

Funny how they mention that 3 progresses were scheduled but only one went up
due to financial difficulties. Seems to me that Progresses have been going up
at pretty regular intervals since Columbia, about 3 months apart or less.
There has been some shuffling in the past (one progress delayed a few months
so that another one would be fitted before it).

Also, Progress launched on Soyuz rockets seem to be very reliable. Don't
understand why USA media would make such a sensationalistic article the day
before the launch. Perhaps they know that by tomrorow, the research they did
on how long they can survive should a progress fail to launch would become
worthless after the progress has launched succesfully. So they figured they'd
publish it the day before.

That article would have been more respectable if it had provided on-time
launch rates for Progress, and provided an idea if since Columbia, the
Progress vehicles had been able to keep the station's supplies more or less
stable (e.g. sustainable indefinitely) or if there is a deficit of water/food/clothing.

NASA may have to evacuate ISS if Russian rocket mission fails

Well the 10% chance of loosing ISS is a rather large number.

ISS is scraping along, I wonder if the shuttles RTF is delayed till late 2005
how that would impact continious iSS operations
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

"NASA"? Of course, the evacuation would be carried out using safe, reliable Russian
vehicles.

John Doe wrote in
s.com:

Woopty doo. Another example of sensationalistic journalism. Of course
the station would have to be evacuated if they can no longer get
supplies up.

Funny how they mention that 3 progresses were scheduled but only one
went up due to financial difficulties. Seems to me that Progresses
have been going up at pretty regular intervals since Columbia, about 3
months apart or less.

It would certainly seem that way since the Russians do not publicize their
launch schedule very far in advance. The fact is, they *have* been reducing
their Progress support.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

John Doe writes:

Don't
understand why USA media would make such a sensationalistic article the day
before the launch.

Because the article is by Florida Today. They're obviously biased
since the shuttle is launched from Florida! You'd better believe that
when the shuttle starts flying again, they'll write other articles
saying how essential the shuttle is to ISS.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

(bob haller) writes:

NASA may have to evacuate ISS if Russian rocket mission fails

Well the 10% chance of loosing ISS is a rather large number.

As usual, you snip the most important bits:

NASA studies show that there is a 10 percent chance of losing the
$100 billion station in a six-month period if no crew is on board to
handle problems as they crop up.

Note that's only if the station is unmanned for at least six months.
One Progress failure does NOT directly lead to ISS being unmanned for
six months.

You'd not only have to loose the first Progress (unlikely given it's
track record), but you'd have to loose the next Progress as well,
since it's scheduled to arrive before the water would run out. Even
if this were the case, you'd also have to postpone all further
Progress flights (note they have docked with unmanned stations in the
past) AND you'd have to postpone a replacement crew on a Soyuz as
well.

All in all, it's exceedingly unlikely that you'll find ISS unmanned
for six months, even with the water shortage.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Richard Schumacher writes:

"NASA"? Of course, the evacuation would be carried out using safe, reliable Russian
vehicles.

The bias of Florida Today is clear, is it not?

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Because the article is by Florida Today. They're obviously biased
since the shuttle is launched from Florida! You'd better believe that
when the shuttle starts flying again, they'll write other articles
saying how essential the shuttle is to ISS.

Ahh if you read all their stories their main concern is anything bad occuring
that will shutter both programs. Shuttle and ISS are one, operational wise.
Loose either loose both
HAVE A GREAT DAY!