View Single Post
  #49  
Old September 21st 04, 03:03 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

Bbo allerH posts on how we should replace all US systems with Russian
ones on a weekly basis, and he's not alone.


Bob Haller isn't an engineer, nor has he worked on the space program. His
opinions are based on how he "feels" and how potential failure will appear
to the press, not on any sort of rational thought process.

Nearly every slashdot
discussion on space brings the 'Russian Stuff is Perfect' crowd out of
the woodwork.


I steer clear of slashdot. From what I remember of the discussions there,
Bob H. would fit in quite well.

Google back during the period right after the Soyuz
TMA-1 incident, and notice the vast number of folks trying to downplay
and handwave away the significance of the incident. Google back right
after Columbia, and you see the same thing.


TMA-1 was a serious problem, but the backup landing mode worked just fine.
Unfortunately, there isn't much of a backup when an impact creates a huge
hole in your TPS prior to re-entry. This would be a problem for Soyuz as
well, but the particular cause of the debris doesn't exist for Soyuz. A
hole in the TPS would have to be caused by something other than falling
debris, especially considering Soyuz is protected by an aerodynamic shell
during launch.

And every damm one of them convinced that Russian hardware is utterly
safe, and utterly proven.


Nothing is 100% safe. But the Russians clearly have more experience with
space staions than the US. That's an undisputable fact. This experience
was gained while the US was either doing little to nothing in space (post
Skylab, but pre Shuttle), or while the US was occupied with short duration
shuttle flights. The US began to regain some experience during shuttle-Mir,
and it's no doubt that the shuttle greatly contributed to the ability of the
Russians to keep Mir operational during (and after) Shuttle-Mir.

But I recall many exagerating the russians problems and making each small
problems looks like the end of the world.


Near complete failure of an important life support system after a
lengthy series of significant problems is hardly a small matter.


No it's not. Unfortunately the US doesn't have much in the way of ECLSS
hardware on ISS that's able to help with this situation. The hardware that
is there either requires constant shuttle resupply (O2) or is also prone to
breakdowns (CO2 removal).

In hindsight, clearly it is a failure of the US space program to rely so
highly on Russian ECLSS.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.