Rescue shuttle planning update

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...3004rescue.htm

Anyone know why they decided that returning 3 crew aboard soyuz early on is a
bad idea? That fascinates me. No matter what the crew is stranded. Better to
get the life support load dropped ASAP.

Beyond which it appears they have given up all thoughts of salvaging the
shuttle prefering to ditch it in the pacific. A irreplaceable orbiter.

Does soyuz have auto dock capacity like progress?

What they really need are a couple soyuz always ready for launch within a month
or less waiting in inventory.

Send 3 crew back onboard the at station soyuz, and launch two adfditional
unmanned soyuz to return the others.

Thuis news story raises lots of new questions
Hey this is my opinion

Rescue shuttle planning update

Another question. If we ditch one of the remaining orbiters intentially in the
ocean should we really be concerned with long term station operations?

Can a fleet of TWO still support ISS?


Hey this is my opinion

From: (bob haller)

Beyond which it appears they have given up all thoughts of salvaging the
shuttle prefering to ditch it in the pacific. A irreplaceable orbiter.

This statement makes me laugh because it zeroes in on just how clueless and
hypocritical you really are.

You spend months and months whining about "irreplaceable" the astronauts are
(even though you seem to know none, and have no idea what risks they are
willing to assume, or to not assume), and how they should launch the shuttle
unmanned instead, etc., and other hairbrained ideas.

Now suddenly, the shuttle is the irreplaceable one.... (Big Hmmm) I accept that
your opinions are crap. I just wish you'd decide which version of crap they
are.

DF

You spend months and months whining about "irreplaceable" the astronauts are
(even though you seem to know none, and have no idea what risks they are
willing to assume, or to not assume), and how they should launch the

Hey, Save the crew first! But avoid destroying a orbiter unnecessarily.

They should be upgraded to full unmanned landings.

Then if theres a bad failure you fix it as best possible and send it home
unmanned.

I accept that
your opinions are crap. I just wish you'd decide which version of crap they
are.

DF



Same back to you. If a orbiter was intentionally ditched you would be here no
doubt talking of how to continue the program with just 2 vehicles.

after all its a jobs program.
Hey this is my opinion

(bob haller) writes:

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...3004rescue.htm

Anyone know why they decided that returning 3 crew aboard soyuz early on is a
bad idea? That fascinates me. No matter what the crew is stranded. Better to
get the life support load dropped ASAP.

The obvious reason is that the crew on ISS need to stay there because
they're trained to keep ISS going. You couldn't send back three
people from the shuttle, because they're not trained on Soyuz (and
would lack the properly fitted Russian spacesuits and custom seat
liners necessary). Besides, once a rescue shuttle arrives, if there
isn't a Soyuz at ISS, you've got to bring everyone home on the
shuttle, temporarily abandoning ISS (again leaving it without a crew
that knows how to fix things).

Beyond which it appears they have given up all thoughts of salvaging the
shuttle prefering to ditch it in the pacific. A irreplaceable orbiter.

Because they're finding it difficult enough just to get the crew back
home alive.

Does soyuz have auto dock capacity like progress?

This has been discussed before. Soyuz has flown unmanned in the past,
but the ability to do this with the current design is questionable.
You'd have to ask the Russians.

What they really need are a couple soyuz always ready for launch within a month
or less waiting in inventory.

If NASA were willing to *pay* for this to happen, the Russians would
surely do just about anything. Again, paying the Russians *cash* has
been discussed in the past. This is a difficult thing for the US
(NASA) to do. There are a *lot* of political roadblocks to overcome.

Send 3 crew back onboard the at station soyuz, and launch two adfditional
unmanned soyuz to return the others.

Again, not practical unless everyone has the proper training. I'm
sure NASA would prefer to do the rescue themselves.

Thuis news story raises lots of new questions
Hey this is my opinion

We all know what that's worth.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

(bob haller) writes:

Rescue shuttle planning update

Another question. If we ditch one of the remaining orbiters intentially in the
ocean should we really be concerned with long term station operations?

Can a fleet of TWO still support ISS?

I'm sure the answer is "depends". It would be even harder to have two
ready to go at the same time (one ready for a rescue flight) since
you've got no "spare" orbiter at all. It would surely impact the
flight rate.

How big an impact this had on ISS would surely depend on when this
happened. If its sooner, the impact is greater. If we lose a shuttle
on one of the last assembly flights, the impact may not be as bad
(even if some remaining flights were canceled completely).

Hey this is my opinion

Yea, we know.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

(bob haller) writes:

Same back to you. If a orbiter was intentionally ditched you would be here no
doubt talking of how to continue the program with just 2 vehicles.

In this case, intentional ditching is the alternative to a Columbia
like disaster with shuttle pieces raining down over several states.
Ditching the shuttle is safer for the people on the ground. The
Pacific Ocean is a whole lot of nothing. Dumping a shuttle on Texas,
California, or Florida in a futile attempt to recover it won't win
NASA any respect, especially if it kills someone on the ground.

This only shows that "human life" is only important to you if its NASA
astronauts. Your approach would be to save the all important NASA
astronauts, then damn the people on the ground by flying a broken
shuttle over their heads with no crew on board to help control it.

Your lack of logic and compassion for the general public is
appalling.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

In this case, intentional ditching is the alternative to a Columbia
like disaster with shuttle pieces raining down over several states.
Ditching the shuttle is safer for the people on the ground. The
Pacific Ocean is a whole lot of nothing. Dumping a shuttle on Texas,
California, or Florida in a futile attempt to recover it won't win
NASA any respect, especially if it kills someone on the ground.

This only shows that "human life" is only important to you if its NASA
astronauts. Your approach would be to save the all important NASA
astronauts, then damn the people on the ground by flying a broken
shuttle over their heads with no crew on board to help control it.

Your lack of logic and compassion for the general public is
appalling.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.


This has been discussed before. There are alternative landing sites that
wouldnt endanger people.

besides if theres a 4% chance of a breakup on reentry would you ditch it in the
pacific?
Hey this is my opinion

(bob haller) writes:

This has been discussed before. There are alternative landing sites that
wouldnt endanger people.

Wouldn't endanger *as many* people. Unless your landing site is
completely deserted, there is still a risk that the shuttle will
"crack up" upon landing. If anything, you're risking exposure to
toxic hypergolics (major complaint of Proton's first stage).

besides if theres a 4% chance of a breakup on reentry would you
ditch it in the pacific?

It's a judgment call.

However the likelihood of such a scenario is so remote that NASA is
unlikely to spend the money necessary on orbiter upgrades to make the
auto-landing of a crippled orbiter a reality. You can't cobble these
sorts of upgrades together on short notice. They'd have to be in
place before return to flight, and I simply don't think that will
happen.


To put this into perspective, NASA and sent "working" satellites into
the ocean because they were one failure away from being
uncontrollable. This is despite the fact that their uncontrolled
re-entry would have resulted in a very slight risk to people on the
ground. The "bad press" they got for this decision was better than
the "bad press" they'd get if the pieces killed anyone.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

bob haller wrote:
Anyone know why they decided that returning 3 crew aboard soyuz early on is a
bad idea? That fascinates me. No matter what the crew is stranded. Better to
get the life support load dropped ASAP.

Nop. The escape pod is there for a reason: in case of emergecy. A Shuttle
stranded at ISS isn't an "emergency" per say. They can stay there for quite
some time. But should there be a medical emergency, they need this.

Also, consider the progress crashing into Mir. It was the Soyuz that saved the
day because they were able to use it to re-orient the station so that solar
panels could produce sufficient power to reboot get station restarted
(especially computers that make the arrays track the sun for continued
electricity production.)