Space station future adrift (Soyuz purchase crisis)

Adam Przybyla wrote:
" ?Fund a crash program for a quick-and-dirty lifeboat designed only to save the lives of the crew.

NASA is unable to do those. It can only do fancy ships with complex systems
that take years and years and years to plan and where funds are cut off after
the first test because something went wrong (that is what tests are for, but
politicians don't understand that anymore).

Rutan would be the only one capable of whipping up something cheap and simple
within 2 years.

If the yanks can't send money to Russia, perhaps they could get China to
supply the "Soyuz" in exchange for becoming a member of the ISS ?

Of course, this being an "NBC" article, things are all blow out of proportion
with words like "adrift" and "crisis".

Russia was to continue to build the Soyuz anyways. But after 2006, Russia was
to have 2 or 3 crewmembers of its own choice, and provide the Soyuz for ferry
and escape pod capability, while the americans would provide Shuttle for ferry
of the US or other crewsmembers and CRV for escape pod.

When the USA cancelled the CRV programme, it essentially broke its commitments
to the ISS, so it is only normal that the agreements need to be reviewed.

It is interesting that such stories are coming out at a time where the USA
refuses to allow the agreements reached by UN's IAEA and GB/FR/DE with Iran to
take root by constantly stoking the fire and making unfounded accusations that
cause Iran to rethink its position.

reading-comprehension-challenged "John Doe" wrote
Of course, this being an "NBC" article, things are all blow out of
proportion
with words like "adrift" and "crisis".

Check the byline again.

John Doe wrote:

Rutan would be the only one capable of whipping up something cheap and simple
within 2 years.

ROTFL. The powers that people invest in Rutan are becoming nothing
short of miraculous.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

(Derek Lyons) :

John Doe wrote:

Rutan would be the only one capable of whipping up something cheap and
and simple within 2 years.

ROTFL. The powers that people invest in Rutan are becoming nothing
short of miraculous.

I have to agree, there must be at least a dozen other companies in the USA
that can do it in that time frame as well, and probably as many companies in
Europe who can do too if they had the contract, design and money on hand.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

(Derek Lyons) :

John Doe wrote:

Rutan would be the only one capable of whipping up something cheap and
and simple within 2 years.

ROTFL. The powers that people invest in Rutan are becoming nothing
short of miraculous.

I have to agree, there must be at least a dozen other companies in the USA
that can do it in that time frame as well, and probably as many companies in
Europe who can do too if they had the contract, design and money on hand.

goggles

There probably isn't a single company in the world that can do the
job, nor a consortium of the either. You are seriously delusional as
to how complex a 'simple' taxi/lifeboat is.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

(Derek Lyons) :

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

(Derek Lyons) :

John Doe wrote:

Rutan would be the only one capable of whipping up something cheap and
and simple within 2 years.

ROTFL. The powers that people invest in Rutan are becoming nothing
short of miraculous.

I have to agree, there must be at least a dozen other companies in the USA
that can do it in that time frame as well, and probably as many companies
in
Europe who can do too if they had the contract, design and money on hand.

goggles

There probably isn't a single company in the world that can do the
job, nor a consortium of the either. You are seriously delusional as
to how complex a 'simple' taxi/lifeboat is.

No, I am not. I am quite aware how stupidly complex NASA or the ESA can make
such a craft. However if you had read the lifeboats in space thread you
would realize a simple float untill rescue lifeboat does not need to be
complex. There are simple but limited ways to do something or there are
complex but less limited ways to do things. NASA loves complex. Think KISS
instead.

Earl Colby Pottinger.

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

(Derek Lyons) :

There probably isn't a single company in the world that can do the
job, nor a consortium of the either. You are seriously delusional as
to how complex a 'simple' taxi/lifeboat is.

No, I am not.

Yes, you are. The mere statement that you think that Rutan or anyone
else can do so 'in two years' is shining proof of just that.

I am quite aware how stupidly complex NASA or the ESA can make
such a craft.

Ignorant bigotry. (As Henry pointed out - It took NASA much longer
than two years to fly the Gemini, and that was back in it's glory days
*and* with a spacecraft considerably less sophisticated and capable
than Soyuz.)

However if you had read the lifeboats in space thread you
would realize a simple float untill rescue lifeboat does not need to be
complex.

However, if you read this thread, you would realize we are talking
about a Soyuz replacement, not a (hypothetical and non-existent) craft
that can float around until rescued by (also hypothetical and
non-existent) another craft. (And given that maritime lifeboats for
hostile enviroments are neither simple, nor cheap, one wonders about
your conclusions regarding space ones. It's *hard* to make things
that must wait quiescent for extended periods, and then function with
no checkout and a near guarantee of sucess.)

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
Ignorant bigotry. (As Henry pointed out - It took NASA much longer
than two years to fly the Gemini, and that was back in it's glory days
*and* with a spacecraft considerably less sophisticated and capable
than Soyuz.)

Operational in two years is probably not in the cards. However, I can see
a program with firm support, a small team, and "waste anything but time"
marching orders doing a limited flight test at two years, followed quickly
by a full flight test, a manned test, and delivery of the first usable
lifeboats to the ISS people before the three-year mark. Gemini lost at
least a year to immature technologies (notably the fuel cells) and sheer
bad luck (sustained bad weather at the Cape, including several hurricanes,
badly delayed launch preparations for the second unmanned test).

For a crash program, it is important to distinguish between requirements
(which absolutely must be satisfied) and wishlist items (which can be
disregarded if they prove inconvenient). The ability to separate, wait,
retrofire, reenter, and land is requirement. Long storage life at the
station, zero maintenance during storage, pushbutton operation by an
untrained crew, a gentle ride, a low-G reentry, precision navigation to a
preselected landing site, lots of crossrange, a risk-free landing, very
high reliability, usability as a taxi, and usability as a cargo carrier
are *wishlist items*, not requirements.

Some of those wishlist items are of some importance and would need to be
addressed eventually, but the key immediate need is for a bare-bones
lifeboat capability to serve a six-man station whose normal crew exchanges
are done by the shuttle. Continuation of the program (on the same terms)
for another year or two of work and flight tests could address much of the
wishlist in a Block II version (which might include a major redesign).

The big obstacle to this sort of fast pace is management, not technology:
firm support, a small team, "waste anything but time" marching orders, and
the freedom to ruthlessly disregard wishlist items would be very difficult
to arrange in today's political situation and organizational environment.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Ignorant bigotry. (As Henry pointed out - It took NASA much longer
than two years to fly the Gemini, and that was back in it's glory days
*and* with a spacecraft considerably less sophisticated and capable
than Soyuz.)

Gemini is in many ways a far more capable craft than an ISS life boat needs
to be.

Gemini was also the seond manned spacecraft designed by the US. We're a bit
further along the learning curve now. Something like APAS can be bought off
the shelf today, but Gemini was built (in part) to research rendesvous and
docking.

However, if you read this thread, you would realize we are talking
about a Soyuz replacement, not a (hypothetical and non-existent) craft
that can float around until rescued by (also hypothetical and
non-existent) another craft. (And given that maritime lifeboats for
hostile enviroments are neither simple, nor cheap, one wonders about
your conclusions regarding space ones. It's *hard* to make things
that must wait quiescent for extended periods, and then function with
no checkout and a near guarantee of sucess.)

As long as the shuttle is still flying, all we need is a lifeboat. A crew
ferry craft isn't needed until after the shuttle is retired.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Derek Lyons wrote:
job, nor a consortium of the either. You are seriously delusional as
to how complex a 'simple' taxi/lifeboat is.

Ahh, you add the word "taxi".

If you just say "lifeboat", then it greatly simplifies things. Undock with
enough spring to get you far enough away, then a couple of thrusters to
orient, and de-orbit engine, the rest is re-entry, parachutes, and maybe some
retro rockets for final metre of descent. Something the size of Rutan's
Spaceship one is fine (just put enough of them on station to cover crewing needs).

Because you're not launching, avionics need not be so complex. And in terms of
redundancy, you don't need systems as complex as the shuttle's. De-orbit isn't
as millisecond critical as ascent.

You need to get right orientation, burn de=orbit engine for X seconds, deploy
parachutes, and then fire retro rocklets for landing. (or heck, just inflate
some large that deploys like ain a car and deflates after first impact).

t doesn't need to be re-usable. It doesn't need fancy life support if the max
time you'll spend in it is 2.5 hours. (1 orbit max and 1 hour minutes to fall
down.) Goal is to get you back to earth safely. The earliest you decide when
you de=orbit, the fastest they can send rescue helicopters to your area.


If you design a 1 or 2 person thing that can deorbit and bring someon to the
ground, it doesn't need to be complex.

If you design it so that it can also be used for expedition to mars, haul 15
tonnes to Jupiter, land at any airport and carry 6 passengers for 3 weeks,
then yes, it will have to be very complex.