Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-08-26 16:36, Fred J. McCall wrote:

You mean NASA with no budget for ISS. Nothing to do with space
shuttle.


As with most outsourcing contracts, ...


THERE IS NO MONEY FOR AN 'OUTSOURCING' CONTRACT!


... there is a lot of hocus and pocus accounting magic involved.


Bull. People go to federal prison for that sort of ****.


Spending for NASA operations would be
significantly cut, spending for outsourced operations would be
significantly increased.


THERE IS NO MONEY, YOU ****ING YAMMERHEAD! NO MONEY! ***NONE***. GET
IT?


But if congress is OK with NASA spending in
private enterprise they will approve the later if it allows reduced
internal NASA costs.


ANY money is more money. Funding for ISS support *ENDS*. No money.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

your all talkng of reusing the station, despite the fact its well beyond its design lifetime. mir should of made everyone aware of the risks with elderly equiptement.

just like a old car that devlops all sort of wierd issues

In article ,
says...

your all talkng of reusing the station, despite the fact its well beyond its design lifetime. mir should of made everyone aware of the risks with elderly equiptement.

just like a old car that devlops all sort of wierd issues

What are you babbling on about Bob? You're not making any sense.

Actually, the US helped extend Mir's life by quite a bit by bringing up
replacement equipment. Considering how many cargo vessels are flying
right now, I don't think ISS is in any huge danger due to lack of spare
parts.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:44:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

your all talkng of reusing the station, despite the fact its well beyond its design lifetime. mir should of made everyone aware of the risks with elderly equiptement.

just like a old car that devlops all sort of wierd issues

What are you babbling on about Bob? You're not making any sense.

Actually, the US helped extend Mir's life by quite a bit by bringing up
replacement equipment. Considering how many cargo vessels are flying
right now, I don't think ISS is in any huge danger due to lack of spare
parts.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

mir was a great example of what can go wrong at a aging station.

like the spacewalk that couldnt get back to safety when the outer door wouldnt shut to pressurize.

just like a old car things that never break do. the astronauts finally entered by another module but their suits overheated.

ISS is well beyond its expected lifetime. so nasa writes exceptions, but that doesnt change the age of the modules,


nasa wrote exceptions approving of o ring erosion and tiles damaged on launch from foam shedding......

many major parts were never designed to be replaced in orbit. the station was supposed to be deorbited before time and wear would be a issue

In article ,
says...

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:44:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

your all talkng of reusing the station, despite the fact its well beyond its design lifetime. mir should of made everyone aware of the risks with elderly equiptement.

just like a old car that devlops all sort of wierd issues

What are you babbling on about Bob? You're not making any sense.

Actually, the US helped extend Mir's life by quite a bit by bringing up
replacement equipment. Considering how many cargo vessels are flying
right now, I don't think ISS is in any huge danger due to lack of spare
parts.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

mir was a great example of what can go wrong at a aging station.

like the spacewalk that couldnt get back to safety when the outer door wouldnt shut to pressurize.

ISS has three separate airlocks (US joint airlock, Pirs, and Poisk), so
no need to keep using one that has issues. If need be, another airlock
could be launched to replace one that has gone bad. If the Russians can
launch more than one airlock, the US could too. There is no fundamental
reason to prevent this (just as there was no fundamental reason NASA
could not turn an MPLM into a PLM, which is exactly what they did with
one of them).

just like a old car things that never break do. the astronauts finally
entered by another module but their suits overheated.

In an emergency, you do what you have to do. They lived.

ISS is well beyond its expected lifetime. so nasa writes exceptions,
but that doesnt change the age of the modules,

The age of the aluminum cans isn't the issue. It's the equipment inside
that can need replacing. That has been ongoing. Again, there are
enough resupply spacecraft to handle this.

nasa wrote exceptions approving of o ring erosion and tiles damaged on
launch from foam shedding......

You're comparing apples to orangutans.

many major parts were never designed to be replaced in orbit.

What major parts Bob? Be specific. Provide a cite or two.

I just got rid of my 1991 Ford Crown Victoria. It still was running on
the original 302W and AOD transmission. The transmission seemed fine,
but the engine needed a rebuild after something like 160k miles. Even
the engine was running fine, but the 25+ year old seals were leaking
quite badly. So when the exhaust rusted out (again), I decided not to
fix it (again). I did all the work on that car for the 8 years I owned
it. It's not that hard to fix a late 1980's tech car.

I got rid of the car, not because it couldn't be repaired, but because I
simply did not want to put anymore money into it. That's the *real*
reason ISS funding will be cut. At some point, NASA will need to free
up the money being spent on ISS for other things.

the station was supposed to be deorbited before time and wear would
be a issue

And look at how many of your favorite "toasters" operated well past
their design lifetimes without *any* maintenance. And do note that
Hubble is still operating, thanks to the shuttle servicing missions
which replaced parts that either failed or were failing. ISS is more
like Hubble than your "toasters".

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

old anything well past its design lifetimes are more likely to fail.

in the case of ISS amajor failure can cause a disaster.

ISS was never designed to run forever. over time circuit boards devlop whiskers, that can cause malfunctions.

why bother certifying anything in space for a life expectancy? hey it ran once, so obviously its good forever.

i read the seals between modules had design lifetimes we are now well past....... rubber seals detoriate over time.

we just shouldnt run a station indefinetely.

In article ,
says...

old anything well past its design lifetimes are more likely to fail.

in the case of ISS amajor failure can cause a disaster.

ISS was never designed to run forever. over time circuit boards devlop whiskers, that can cause malfunctions.

why bother certifying anything in space for a life expectancy? hey it ran once, so obviously its good forever.

So you've got nothing but hand waving.

i read the seals between modules had design lifetimes we are now well past....... rubber seals detoriate over time.

Cite that this is actually becoming an issue?

we just shouldnt run a station indefinetely.

Meaningless statement. Clearly ISS won't be operational forever. But
you seem to be doing your usual "chicken little" squawk about safety,
without *any* cites to back up the assertion.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 6:30:19 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

old anything well past its design lifetimes are more likely to fail.

in the case of ISS amajor failure can cause a disaster.

ISS was never designed to run forever. over time circuit boards devlop whiskers, that can cause malfunctions.

why bother certifying anything in space for a life expectancy? hey it ran once, so obviously its good forever.

So you've got nothing but hand waving.

i read the seals between modules had design lifetimes we are now well past....... rubber seals detoriate over time.

Cite that this is actually becoming an issue?

we just shouldnt run a station indefinetely.

Meaningless statement. Clearly ISS won't be operational forever. But
you seem to be doing your usual "chicken little" squawk about safety,
without *any* cites to back up the assertion.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

nasa doesnt want to admit the station is becoming a hazard. deorbiting iss would cut more jobs from the agency

waivers for hardware now over twice its certified lifetimes , doesnt help.

so claim everything is fine.....just like before columbia..

In article ,
says...


nasa doesnt want to admit the station is becoming a hazard. deorbiting iss would cut more jobs from the agency

waivers for hardware now over twice its certified lifetimes , doesnt help.

so claim everything is fine.....just like before columbia..

You have no cites to back any of this up. Without any evidence to back
this up, it just sounds like more of your chicken little paranoia.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 6:04:41 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...


nasa doesnt want to admit the station is becoming a hazard. deorbiting iss would cut more jobs from the agency

waivers for hardware now over twice its certified lifetimes , doesnt help.

so claim everything is fine.....just like before columbia..

You have no cites to back any of this up. Without any evidence to back
this up, it just sounds like more of your chicken little paranoia.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

just a single question answered by you, should explain the answer,

why design the station and its modules to have a life expectancy? certified for X years in space.

then write safety waivers when the modules are reaching their end of life?


has anyone ever owned a car or other complex thing thats gets more reliable as it ages?

why was the station designedv for a limited life expectancy??


waivers did work well for o ring erosion and foam loss causing damage to shuttles.......

they are keeping ISS going to protect jobs.......