|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
July 19th 04, 02:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Iss fuel reserve
I've gathered the ISS On-Orbit Status reports for the past couple
of years, and it appears as if the total on-board fuel supply has been kept between 3500 and 4000 kg, once or twice going under or over (there also were a couple of reports that seem to be in error). Is there a formal requirement for maintaining such a reserve, or does it just happen as a result of normal operations? FWIW, here are the figures: Reported total fuel availabl to ISS propulsion systems. Values which appear questionable are marked with ???. 2002-09-19 3639 kg [SM FGB PRO M] 2002-10-17 4118 kg [SM FGB PRO M1] 2002-10-24 3903 kg [SM FGB PRO M1] 2002-11-07 3805 kg [SM FGB PRO M1] 2002-11-14 3793 kg [SM FGB PRO M1] 2002-11-21 3808 kg [SM FGB PRO M1] 2002-11-28 3802 kg [SM FGB PRO M1] 2002-12-05 3792 kg [SM FGB PRO M1] 2002-12-12 3792 kg [SM FGB PRO M1] 2002-12-19 3781 kg [SM FGB PRO M1] 2003-01-02 3703 kg [SM FGB PRO M1] 2003-01-09 3689 kg [SM FGB PRO M1] 2003-01-16 3689 kg [SM FGB PRO M1] 2003-01-23 3669 kg [SM FGB PRO M1] 2003-01-30 3718 kg [SM(820) FGB(2898) PRO(0)] 2003-02-06 4492 kg [SM(820) FGB(2804) PRO M(868)] 2003-02-14 4164 kg [SM(811) FGB(2777) PRO M(576)] 2003-02-14 4032 kg [SM(811) FGB(2777) PRO M(444)] 2003-02-27 4149 kg [SM(820) FGB(2753) PRO M(576)] 2003-03-06 4142 kg [SM(820) FGB(2746) PRO M(576)] 2003-03-13 4022 kg [SM(786) FGB(2746) PRO M(490)] 2003-03-20 3994 kg [SM(774) FGB(2746) PRO M(474)] 2003-03-27 3994 kg [SM(774) FGB(2746) PRO M(474)] 2003-04-03 3994 kg [SM(774) FGB(2746) PRO M(474)] 2003-04-10 3798 kg [SM(774) FGB(2670) PRO M(354)] 2003-04-17 3668 kg [SM(774) FGB(2642) PRO M(252)] 2003-04-24 3663 kg [SM(774) FGB(2637) PRO M(252)] 2003-05-01 3607 kg [SM(774) FGB(2581) PRO M(252)] 2003-05-08 3588 kg [SM(774) FGB(2562) PRO M(252)] 2003-05-15 3576 kg [SM(774) FGB(2550) PRO M(252)] 2003-05-22 3573 kg [SM(774) FGB(2547) PRO M(252)] 2003-05-29 3573 kg [SM(774) FGB(2547) PRO M(252)] 2003-06-05 3478 kg [SM(774) FGB(2547) PRO M(182)] 2003-06-12 3832 kg [SM(774) FGB(2476) PRO M(182) PRO M1(400)] 2003-06-19 3803 kg [SM(774) FGB(2447) PRO M(182) PRO M1(400)] 2003-06-26 3803 kg [SM(774) FGB(2447) PRO M(182) PRO M1(400)] 2003-07-10 3721 kg [SM(774) FGB(2765) PRO M(182) PRO M1(0)] 2003-07-31 3646 kg [SM(774) FGB(2872) PRO M(0) PRO M1(0)] 2003-08-07 3616 kg [SM(774) FGB(2842) PRO M(0) PRO M1(0)] 2003-08-21 3657 kg [SM(755) FGB(2902) PRO M(0) PRO M1(0)] 2003-08-28 3657 kg [SM(755) FGB(2902) PRO M(0) PRO M1(0)] 2003-09-04 3998 kg [SM(755) FGB(2891) PRO M(352) PRO M1(0)] 2003-09-11 5000 kg [SM(755) FGB(3685) PRO M(560) PRO M1(0)] (???) 2003-09-12 4434 kg [SM(755) FGB(2815) PRO M(864) PRO M1(0)] (???) 2003-09-18 3922 kg [SM(755) FGB(2815) PRO M(352) PRO M1(0)] 2003-10-02 3899 kg [SM(755) FGB(2792) PRO M(352) PRO M1(0)] 2003-10-09 3891 kg [SM(755) FGB(2784) PRO M(352) PRO M1(0)] 2003-10-16 3891 kg [SM(755) FGB(2784) PRO M(352) PRO M1(0)] 2003-10-23 3856 kg [SM(755) FGB(2749) PRO M(352) PRO M1(0)] 2003-11-06 3734 kg [SM(755) FGB(2627) PRO M(352) PRO M1(0)] 2003-11-13 3704 kg [SM(755) FGB(2597) PRO M(352) PRO M1(0)] 2003-12-04 3703 kg [SM(755) FGB(2596) PRO M(352) PRO M1(0)] 2003-12-11 3680 kg [SM(755) FGB(2573) PRO M(352) PRO M1(0)] 2004-01-01 3637 kg [SM(755) FGB(2530) PRO M(352) PRO M1(0)] 2004-01-29 3482 kg [SM(755) FGB(2727) PRO M(0) PRO M1(0)] 2004-02-05 4115 kg [SM(755) FGB(2701) PRO M(0) PRO M1(659)] 2004-02-12 4070 kg [SM(755) FGB(2656) PRO M(0) PRO M1(659)] 2004-02-27 4036 kg [SM(755) FGB(2622) PRO M(0) PRO M1(659)] 2004-03-05 3948 kg [SM(755) FGB(2534) PRO M(0) PRO M1(659)] 2004-03-18 3926 kg [SM(755) FGB(2512) PRO M1(659)] 2004-03-26 3926 kg [SM(755) FGB(2512) PRO M1(659)] 2004-04-08 3884 kg [SM(755) FGB(2470) PRO M1(659)] 2004-04-15 3875 kg [SM(755) FGB(2461) PRO M1(659)] 2004-04-23 3787 kg [SM(755) FGB(2373) PRO M1(659)] 2004-05-05 3725 kg [SM(693) FGB(2373) PRO M1(659)] 2004-05-13 3689 kg [SM(755) FGB(2934) PRO M1(0)] 2004-05-20 3436 kg [SM(552) FGB(2884) PRO M1(0)] 2004-06-03 3372 kg [SM(552) FGB(2820) PRO M1(0)] (???) 2004-06-10 4002 kg [SM(552) FGB(2811) PRO M(639)] 2004-06-24 3963 kg [SM(552) FGB(2772) PRO M(639)] 2004-07-01 3928 kg [SM(552) FGB(2772) PRO M(639)] 
|
|
#2
July 22nd 04, 02:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Iss fuel reserve
|
|
#3
July 22nd 04, 05:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Iss fuel reserve
"Explorer8939" wrote in message om... There is indeed a formal requirement, expressed in the number of days left before would ISS drift down to 250 km, which would be the point of no return. The requirement increases after Flight 12A. In both cases, the propellant requirement is actually an orbital maintainence requirement, from which prop can be derived. Because of the impending solar minimium, prop is not really an issue, water is the problem. Thanks. Plus some new low-drag techniques such as night-glider have helped. Can you share with us any insights into 'drop-dead' redlines for water?
|
|
#5
July 22nd 04, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Iss fuel reserve
(Allen Thomson) wrote in
: (Explorer8939) wrote There is indeed a formal requirement, expressed in the number of days left before would ISS drift down to 250 km, which would be the point of no return. The requirement increases after Flight 12A. In both cases, the propellant requirement is actually an orbital maintainence requirement, from which prop can be derived. Thanks much. The actual number is wrong, though - it's 150 n.mi., or 277.8 km (usually rounded to 280 km). Because of the impending solar minimium, prop is not really an issue, water is the problem. It seems ironic that water, which a naive person (e.g., I) would think to be the poster child for a recoverable/renewable resource, should be the long pole in the tent. Is it planned to develop closed-cycle life support systems as part of the post-completion ISS science plan? Lots of proposals kicking around, AFAIK nothing funded yet. Speaking of the upcoming solar minimum, one notes from the somewhat gaudy http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sola..._predict_l.gif that the following maximum is due at the end of the decade, right around the planned Shuttle retirement date -- presumably the last Shuttle flights will leave ISS at 400 km altitude and fully tanked up? Most likely. They can't go much higher - the rendezvous ceiling for Soyuz/Progress is 410 km. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM.
|
|
#6
July 22nd 04, 09:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Iss fuel reserve
Since the ISS Program Office and HQ do not release information about
ISS reserves any more, its a little hard to know the details of ISS water supply, but loss of any one Progress would clearly be problematic for the crew. I would suspect that loss of a Progress would result in an acceleration of the launch of next one (depending on the failure mode of the prior Progress), and that the Progress would be loaded down with water containers. Reportedly, the crew is doing well on water consumption, but there is likely less than a 90 day supply of water on hand at any one time at ISS. The big pressure is for the Russians to trade water supply for delivered science cargo to ISS, since that's where the money is, for any one Progress mission. "Jim Oberg" wrote in message ... "Explorer8939" wrote in message om... There is indeed a formal requirement, expressed in the number of days left before would ISS drift down to 250 km, which would be the point of no return. The requirement increases after Flight 12A. In both cases, the propellant requirement is actually an orbital maintainence requirement, from which prop can be derived. Because of the impending solar minimium, prop is not really an issue, water is the problem. Thanks. Plus some new low-drag techniques such as night-glider have helped. Can you share with us any insights into 'drop-dead' redlines for water?
|
|
#7
July 22nd 04, 10:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Iss fuel reserve
thanks...
"Explorer8939" wrote in message om... Since the ISS Program Office and HQ do not release information about ISS reserves any more, its a little hard to know the details of ISS water supply, but loss of any one Progress would clearly be problematic for the crew. I would suspect that loss of a Progress would result in an acceleration of the launch of next one (depending on the failure mode of the prior Progress), and that the Progress would be loaded down with water containers. Reportedly, the crew is doing well on water consumption, but there is likely less than a 90 day supply of water on hand at any one time at ISS. The big pressure is for the Russians to trade water supply for delivered science cargo to ISS, since that's where the money is, for any one Progress mission.
|
|
#8
July 22nd 04, 10:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Iss fuel reserve
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote
(Allen Thomson) wrote Is it planned to develop closed-cycle life support systems as part of the post-completion ISS science plan? Lots of proposals kicking around, AFAIK nothing funded yet. Can we Go To Mars(C) and get back without a closed-cycle, or close- to-closed-cycle life support system?
|
|
#9
July 23rd 04, 03:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Iss fuel reserve
Can we Go To Mars(C) and get back without a closed-cycle, or close-
to-closed-cycle life support system? I don't have a reference handy for this other than dim memory of a usenet post (probably by Henry Spencer), but I think the answer is yes. Especially if you need a lot of mass for radiation shielding, water (and human waste) is one likely form for it to take. Now, the various tradeoffs involved probably make it hard to give a black and white answer even if you have studies and facts lying around (which I don't).
|
|
#10
July 23rd 04, 04:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Iss fuel reserve
"Allen Thomson" wrote in message om... Can we Go To Mars(C) and get back without a closed-cycle, or close- to-closed-cycle life support system? Sure, you just launch with enough oxygen, water, and food to last the duration of the flight. How much food, water, and oxygen is needed per person day is something that is well understood by NASA. They've been researching life support systems for decades (literally). Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Shuttle fuel pump technology helps children's hearts | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 1 | April 4th 04 01:02 PM |
| Fuel Cell question | Alan Erskine | Space Shuttle | 8 | February 17th 04 07:43 PM |
| African-American engineer gets "cool" fuel to Shuttle | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 6 | February 4th 04 03:35 PM |
| Bush's plan, future of ISS and lunar transit | Peter Altschuler | Space Station | 3 | January 16th 04 01:02 AM |
| NEWS: NASA manager who oversaw shuttle fuel tank is removed | Rusty B | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 27th 03 10:02 PM |
Linear Mode
