Effect on ISS if soyuz is grounded for any reason

So whats the plan for ISS if the soyuz were grounded for any reason??

Could be a cant launch any more, or perhaps a worse the vehicles at
station have a problem preventing safe deorbit.

With the shuttle gone were totally dependent on just one vehicle.

I got wondering about this when I saw the 3 crew return safely to
earth today report..

what if the soyz could no longer be trusted?

On Sep 25, 7:25*pm, JF Mezei wrote:
bob haller safety advocate wrote:

what if the soyz could no longer be trusted?

Crew stays on ISS for a couple more months until a new Soyuz is built if
the previous one was found to have some manufacturing defect.

I was wondering more about a hard to diagnose harder to fix kinda
problem..

In addition could ISS be left unmanned for a peiod of time like months
if necessary?

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:03:05 -0700 (PDT), bob haller safety advocate
wrote:

what if the soyz could no longer be trusted?

Crew stays on ISS for a couple more months until a new Soyuz is built if
the previous one was found to have some manufacturing defect.

I was wondering more about a hard to diagnose harder to fix kinda
problem..

Russia doesn't work that way. They just fix whatever went wrong and
move along. Redesigns to remove the potential problem will be
implemented later, over time. When Soyuz T-10A blew up, Russia fixed
it and flew the next mission six months later.

The US might very well say "No, we're not flying our people on Soyuz"
if they don't like Russia's solution, but that won't stop the
Russians.

Brian

On Sep 26, 10:42*am, Brian Thorn wrote:

Russia doesn't work that way. They just fix whatever went wrong and
move along. Redesigns to remove the potential problem will be
implemented later, over time. When Soyuz T-10A blew up, Russia fixed
it and flew the next mission six months later.

The US might very well say "No, we're not flying our people on Soyuz"
if they don't like Russia's solution, but that won't stop the
Russians.

Sort of. The Soyuz spacecraft might be a different matter.The Soyuz 1
and 11 accidents each set the Soviets back by about two years apiece.
So depending on the nature of the accident, say where a crew cabin
does not break lose in time, or a paracute failure or other recovery
failure, there will be at least a one year delay in investigating and
implementing new safety related mods. The launcher will be different,
but that assumes the launch escape system works.
-Mike

On Sep 30, 2:18*am, Mike DiCenso wrote:
On Sep 26, 10:42*am, Brian Thorn wrote:



Russia doesn't work that way. They just fix whatever went wrong and
move along. Redesigns to remove the potential problem will be
implemented later, over time. When Soyuz T-10A blew up, Russia fixed
it and flew the next mission six months later.

The US might very well say "No, we're not flying our people on Soyuz"
if they don't like Russia's solution, but that won't stop the
Russians.

Sort of. The Soyuz spacecraft might be a different matter.The Soyuz 1
and 11 accidents each set the Soviets back by about two years apiece.
So depending on the nature of the accident, say where a crew cabin
does not break lose in time, or a paracute failure or other recovery
failure, there will be at least a one year delay in investigating and
implementing new safety related mods. The launcher will be different,
but that assumes the launch escape system works.
-Mike

a rentry failure would be bad news because the ISS crew would have no
way to return.

Probably for this reason alone the shuttle shouldnt be grounded till a
alternative is operational.

imagine a crew stuck at station with not even a emergency return
capability....

On Sep 30, 6:56*am, bob haller safety advocate
wrote:

Probably for this reason alone the shuttle shouldnt be grounded till a
alternative is operational.

Isn't it too late for that? If I remember correctly, the facilities
that make the big fuel tanks and solid rocket boosters have already
been shut down and most of the people involved either laid off or
reassigned to other positions.

bob haller safety advocate wrote:

Probably for this reason alone the shuttle shouldnt be grounded till a
alternative is operational.


Who are you and what have you done with Bob Haller?

You're the one that kept arguing the Shuttle was a death trap and shouldn't
be shut down.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
bob haller safety advocate wrote:

Probably for this reason alone the shuttle shouldnt be grounded till
a alternative is operational.


Who are you and what have you done with Bob Haller?

You're the one that kept arguing the Shuttle was a death trap and
shouldn't be shut down.

Err, correction, SHOULD be shut down.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Well whats nasas plan for a crew stuck at station?

They are there when a soyuz return fails somehow and its determined
the soyuz at station are not safe for return even in a emergency......

On Sep 30, 11:07*am, Bill C wrote:
On Sep 30, 6:56*am, bob haller safety advocate
wrote:

Probably for this reason alone the shuttle shouldnt be grounded till a
alternative is operational.

Isn't it too late for that? If I remember correctly, the facilities
that make the big fuel tanks and solid rocket boosters have already
been shut down and most of the people involved either laid off *or
reassigned to other positions.

It would be expensive, but not impossible, even at this point. There
are enough parts available at Michoud to assemble three more ETs
beyond STS-135 (got the go ahead yesterday when the House passed the
Senate's funding bill). The SRB segments are reusable, so
manufacturing is not as important as getting the facilities to make
the fuel and refill them. With the passage of the current funding
bill, the shuttle-derived HLV will be back on the table, and the SRBs
used for that vehicle are very similar to those on STS (basically a
five-segment version of the shuttle SRBs). So all is not lost until
the final shuttle flies in June or July of next year.
-Mike