Safe Haven Documents Released (Finally)

These links originally found on NASA Watch:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/153444main_C...ce_%20Book.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/153442main_CSCS_Report.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/153441main_C...ight_rules.pdf

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
These links originally found on NASA Watch:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/153444main_C...ce_%20Book.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/153442main_CSCS_Report.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/153441main_C...ight_rules.pdf

Most interesting to me is page 4 of
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/153442main_CSCS_Report.pdf, which lists consumables.
It also lists different consumables running out at different times due to
Elektron, CDRA, CFU, and SRV-K operationa/failed status. It was interesting
to note that this page assumed that Vozdukh (Russian CO2 removal system)
would always be operational.

Also, all these documents refer to unmanned undocking and disposal of the
orbiter. No mention of attempting a landing at White Sands.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

sorry

No mention of attempting a landing at White Sands.

What would that be and entail..benefits?

Thanks John John

"The Guy In Ireland" wrote in message
oups.com...
sorry

No mention of attempting a landing at White Sands.

What would that be and entail..benefits?


Permit inspection of the orbiter afterwards.


Thanks John John

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:14:53 -0700, The Guy In Ireland wrote:

sorry

No mention of attempting a landing at White Sands.

What would that be and entail..

That would entail forethought. The plan looks more like an afterthought,
three years in the making. Three years, plenty of time to make an
extension cord, develop tire repressurization, actually use the OGS they
just delivered... Running out of O2 before H2O, I guess in their current
plan they won't be able to breath but will have plenty to drink, just not
the right stuff. And, no plan to do anything else if the rescue mission is
aborted, as they would have already disposed of the broken Orbiter.

If the rescue Orbiter crashes during an RTLS, does NASA actually have
enough parts to launch the third Orbiter?

How many Soyuz are in the pipeline, to bring astronauts down two at a time?

How many Progress are in the pipeline?

I guess those questions won't get answered unless something actually
happens and the Media prods NASA into really thinking seriously about the
plan. Right now the Safe Haven plan doesn't look too safe, with only one
exit.

I don't think NASA would publish the other exit plan as supplies dwindle.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

"Craig Fink" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:14:53 -0700, The Guy In Ireland wrote:

sorry

No mention of attempting a landing at White Sands.

What would that be and entail..

That would entail forethought. The plan looks more like an afterthought,
three years in the making. Three years, plenty of time to make an
extension cord, develop tire repressurization, actually use the OGS they
just delivered... Running out of O2 before H2O, I guess in their current
plan they won't be able to breath but will have plenty to drink, just not
the right stuff. And, no plan to do anything else if the rescue mission is
aborted, as they would have already disposed of the broken Orbiter.

If the rescue Orbiter crashes during an RTLS, does NASA actually have
enough parts to launch the third Orbiter?

NASA wouldn't likely have enough time to launch a third shuttle in rapid
succession. However, if there were a chance of success, I'm sure they'd
try.

However, given the current safety record, it's unlikely that there would be
a problem with the rescue orbiter. But the odds of a safe rescue of
stranded astronauts by shuttle are still better than the odds of a safe
ejection when a military jet pilot pulls on the ejection handle.

You do know about the many ways an ejection can go wrong and injure or kill
a pilot, don't you?

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Craig Fink" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:14:53 -0700, The Guy In Ireland wrote:

sorry

No mention of attempting a landing at White Sands.

What would that be and entail..

That would entail forethought. The plan looks more like an afterthought,
three years in the making. Three years, plenty of time to make an
extension cord, develop tire repressurization, actually use the OGS they
just delivered... Running out of O2 before H2O, I guess in their current
plan they won't be able to breath but will have plenty to drink, just not
the right stuff. And, no plan to do anything else if the rescue mission is
aborted, as they would have already disposed of the broken Orbiter.

If the rescue Orbiter crashes during an RTLS, does NASA actually have
enough parts to launch the third Orbiter?

NASA wouldn't likely have enough time to launch a third shuttle in rapid
succession. However, if there were a chance of success, I'm sure they'd
try.

However, given the current safety record, it's unlikely that there would be
a problem with the rescue orbiter. But the odds of a safe rescue of
stranded astronauts by shuttle are still better than the odds of a safe
ejection when a military jet pilot pulls on the ejection handle.

You do know about the many ways an ejection can go wrong and injure or kill
a pilot, don't you?

Jeff
-- -

Ideal time for MOOSE..... too bad it was never funded. even being able
to evacuate a single ISS member without leaving the station
unmanned.....