When the batteries wear out on the ISS?

[ksaves2]

Was watching some of the online feed from NASA on the ISS and think it's nice they have a Russian to English translator when the Russian cosmonauts are communicating.

I was wondering, it was said in the "early" days nickel-hydrogen batteries were used on the ISS when orbiting the "dark side" of the earth and then I guess resupply missions brought up lithium ion ones. Probably the nickel-hydrogen ones were sent to burn up in some re-entry vehicle after replacement?

I remember reading where it's advantageous to just charge up lithium ion batteries to 80% capacity to preserve the longest life for long term use.

For some of my small R/C helicopters, I don't care. Charge to 100%, fly the heck out of them and when they crap out, they're cheap enough to buy new packs!

Wonder how NASA and the Russian space agency handles Lithium Ion battery charging on the ISS and if the current cells reach end of life, is that the end of the station? Or are they constantly flying up new packs with the resupply missions to keep the storage capacity up to spec? Ditch the old cells in space to re-enter and burn up? I don't know, but inquiring minds are interested!!! Kurt

 

[lr64]

Are you sure they would use regular lithium ion? There are some other choices, some of which I think will withstand more cycles, maybe be a bit safer, etc. There isn't really any place to go in a hurry if batteries catch fire. I guess maybe they keep them outside?

 

[ksaves2]

I looked online and that's what was posted. Might be an outdated link but on top. Lithiums are pretty light hence their use in R/C stuff. Could project some
sort of lithium packs used on the ISS. Kurt

 

[neil_w]

I remember reading where it's advantageous to just charge up lithium ion batteries to 80% capacity to preserve the longest life for long term use.

For some of my small R/C helicopters, I don't care. Charge to 100%, fly the heck out of them and when they crap out, they're cheap enough to buy new packs!

Those are presumably Lithium Polymer, not Lithium Ion.

I could imagine Lithium Iron Phosphate might be good for applications like this where long-term durability is required... they're heavier but once you get them up there it doesn't matter anymore (admittedly, getting up there is no small thing).

Disclaimer: I am not a battery expert

 

[ksaves2]

Those are presumably Lithium Polymer, not Lithium Ion.

I could imagine Lithium Iron Phosphate might be good for applications like this where long-term durability is required... they're heavier but once you get them up there it doesn't matter anymore (admittedly, getting up there is no small thing).

Disclaimer: I am not a battery expert

That sounds like a good explanation to me. The stuff I'm using in the lightweight R/C use are probably Lithium polymer.
But...... Those Russian and Elon Musks' rocket can be so big!

 

[Art Upton]

Li Iron Phosphate would be my guess, that is what I use for stuff other then RC.

 

[manixFan]

Those are presumably Lithium Polymer, not Lithium Ion.

I could imagine Lithium Iron Phosphate might be good for applications like this where long-term durability is required... they're heavier but once you get them up there it doesn't matter anymore (admittedly, getting up there is no small thing).

Disclaimer: I am not a battery expert

Not to be too pedantic, but those are all lithium ion batteries. Any battery that uses lithium in the electrolyte is basically a Li-ion battery, the other materials help stabilize or modify the electrolyte’s storage, cycling, or other attributes.


Tony

 

[neil_w]

Not to be too pedantic, but those are all lithium ion batteries. Any battery that uses lithium in the electrolyte is basically a Li-ion battery, the other materials help stabilize or modify the electrolyte’s storage, cycling, or other attributes.

Not pedantic at all. I thought twice before I hit the "Post reply" button, probably should have thought three times. My impression is that, in common parlance, the generic term "Lithium ion" lately has come to signify NCM chemistry; even if that's true (and I'm not sure it is), it's sloppy and I will not make this assumption in the future.

 

[MClark]

I hope they can "Eject the warp core" if the batteries catch fire.

 

[Art Upton]

I hope they can "Eject the warp core" if the batteries catch fire.

If I recall correctly, that has only been done once in the "star trek" stories

 

[MClark]

 

[SDramstad]

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/...national-space-station-hurtles-back-to-earth/

 

[Art Upton]

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/...national-space-station-hurtles-back-to-earth/

Thanks for this post

 

[manixFan]

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/...national-space-station-hurtles-back-to-earth/

Hmm, some differing opinions how what probably happened during reentry:

"Sandra Jones, a NASA spokesperson, said the agency "conducted a thorough debris analysis assessment on the pallet and has determined it will harmlessly reenter the Earth’s atmosphere."..... "We do not expect any portion to have survived reentry," Jones told Ars.

But then:

Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist who closely tracks spaceflight activity, estimated about 500 kilograms (1,100 pounds) of debris would hit the Earth's surface. "The general rule of thumb is that 20 to 40 percent of the mass of a large object will reach the ground, though it depends on the design of the object," the Aerospace Corporation says.

500 kilos is a lot more than nothing! Of course the reentry into the atmosphere is harmless, it's hitting the earth part that causes the problems. I agree with @Art Upton – thanks for posting that. I thought the article did a great job explaining what happened with the resupply ships and the inability to dispose of the batteries in the usual fashion.


Tony

 

[SDramstad]

An updated story. https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/...pace-station-may-have-hit-a-house-in-florida/