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

(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 wrote:
Can a fleet of TWO still support ISS?

Yes. Consider that the station will have survived more of less without Shuttle
for at least 2 years. With the introduction of the ATV, it will definitely
fill a big gap in the supplies issue, allowing the station and crews to
restock all the spare stocks they have more or less depleted during the
limited resupply by progress only.

With 2 shuttles only, they may re-evaluate the actual construction missions.
They might drop some MPLM flights, moving those supplies to ATV, and focus on
hauling only the modules to complete the construction.

John Doe wrote:

bob haller wrote:
Can a fleet of TWO still support ISS?

Yes. Consider that the station will have survived more of less without Shuttle
for at least 2 years. With the introduction of the ATV, it will definitely
fill a big gap in the supplies issue, allowing the station and crews to
restock all the spare stocks they have more or less depleted during the
limited resupply by progress only.

Except the supply of ATV's is limited, they are expendable, not
re-useable. As they are also already committed to routine
reprovisioning, they do really nothing to adress the greater than
planned drawdown of consumables because of the Shuttle standown.

With 2 shuttles only, they may re-evaluate the actual construction missions.
They might drop some MPLM flights, moving those supplies to ATV, and focus on
hauling only the modules to complete the construction.

No matter how many vehicles you shuffle the loads between, the
pipeline always has the same capacity. Shifting MPLM loads to ATV
means building more ATV's than currently planned to carry the cargo
displaced from them by MPLM cargo.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Derek Lyons wrote:
Except the supply of ATV's is limited, they are expendable, not
re-useable.

If the goal is to keep the station operating, and shuttle is not replaced,
then the goal is to keep the station resupplied with whatever is available.
And right now, there is only Progress and soon ATV.

And yes, it would mean ESU building more ATVs. But since the tooling is still
there, it wouldn't be so expensive and time consuming to build extra ones.
Same applies to Progress.

As they are also already committed to routine
reprovisioning, they do really nothing to adress the greater than
planned drawdown of consumables because of the Shuttle standown.

But originally, they were planned with 3 crew members or more. If you send a
couple ATVs while station is still at 2 crewmembers, that will allowing a
restocking of the wharehouse.

Since ATVs are designed to stay there a few months, does this mean that they
have sufficient shielding to remain up there permanently ? If, after doing its
job to reboost station, an ATV were to be moved to a nadir port of Zvezda,
couldn't this act as a storage module, freeing up much space on station ?

pipeline always has the same capacity. Shifting MPLM loads to ATV
means building more ATV's than currently planned to carry the cargo
displaced from them by MPLM cargo.

ATVs can be built, and right now, NASA can't build or even launch Shuttles.
And with NASA even scared to launch to Hubble, the trend isn't so good for the
future of Shuttle.

John Doe wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:
Except the supply of ATV's is limited, they are expendable, not
re-useable.

If the goal is to keep the station operating, and shuttle is not replaced,
then the goal is to keep the station resupplied with whatever is available.
And right now, there is only Progress and soon ATV.

And soon HTV as well.

And yes, it would mean ESU building more ATVs. But since the tooling is still
there, it wouldn't be so expensive and time consuming to build extra ones.
Same applies to Progress.

It would be almost as expensive and just as time consuming. The
production rate wouldn't be high enough that the amortization of the
tooling and development across 'n' additional vehicles would
significantly lower the cost. Since the tooling was already used for
the first vehicles, and all vehicles will require the same level of
certification, there is really no opportunity for time to be saved.

As they are also already committed to routine
reprovisioning, they do really nothing to adress the greater than
planned drawdown of consumables because of the Shuttle standown.

But originally, they were planned with 3 crew members or more. If you send a
couple ATVs while station is still at 2 crewmembers, that will allowing a
restocking of the wharehouse.

Which doesn't change the fact that as currently planned the throughput
of the pipeline across the next few years is a fraction of the that
planned before -107. We can make up for the current losses, but there
is still a total shortfall.

Since ATVs are designed to stay there a few months, does this mean that they
have sufficient shielding to remain up there permanently ? If, after doing its
job to reboost station, an ATV were to be moved to a nadir port of Zvezda,
couldn't this act as a storage module, freeing up much space on station ?

*sigh* The problem isn't storage. The problem is the size of the
total transport pipeline. Moving an ATV from one port to another
won't increase the size or throughput of the pipeline.

pipeline always has the same capacity. Shifting MPLM loads to ATV
means building more ATV's than currently planned to carry the cargo
displaced from them by MPLM cargo.

ATVs can be built, and right now, NASA can't build or even launch Shuttles.
And with NASA even scared to launch to Hubble, the trend isn't so good for the
future of Shuttle.

ATV's can be built is someone can be found to pay for the building and
flight. The flight to Hubble or the lack thereof is utterly
irrelevant.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

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:

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.