JF Mezei wrote on Sat, 13 Oct 2018
16:03:47 -0400:

On 2018-10-13 13:42, Fred J. McCall wrote:

We're a long way from having to decrew ISS. The current crew can stay
another six months and the Soyuz can be replaced by an unmanned flight
using the hardware originally scheduled to take crew up in December.


the "and" is the wrong word.


You're a stupid ****er.


Had you said we're a long way from decrew ISS *because* we can send
unmanned Soyuz, then I would aggree.


But that's not why, so 'because' is the wrong word.


But as it stands, Jan 4, one Soyuz comes back. If there is no other
Soyuz on station on that date, the remaining crew turns off the lights
and comes back. So we are NOT a long way from an empty ISS.


Want to bet? I bet they won't decrew.


If Russia is confident it has isolated the cause and can check the next
soyuz to ensure that flaw isn't present, then it can either launch
crewed or uncrewed.

But if it isn't so sure but decides to launch uncrewed, then it risks
losing another Soyuz and that can eat up in its budgets and image.


They lose three launchers a year. Which is the biggest hit to their
image, running the (small) risk and losing an unmanned vehicle,
running that same risk and losing a manned vehicle, or abandoning ISS
because of their inability to perform?



storage and see if they find anything wrong, even if they don't know
exactly what they're looking for.


But didn't you argue they already knew exactly what happened on this
last flight?


You really don't read simple declarative English, do you? They know
WHAT happened, but they don't know WHY it happened. And knowing WHY
is how you know how to prevent it from happening again.


They shouldn't fly, manned or unmanned if they don't know what happened
and thus can't check the next rocket for a defect.


You're an idiot.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine