Space station future adrift (Soyuz purchase crisis)

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 ...

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.

Strange, given that the Russians have been building Soyuzes for
decades.

I think you're being led astray by your constant tendency to see
spacecraft as nuclear submarines.

Although, there are companies that build nuclear submarines as well.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:59:20 GMT, in a place far, far away, Craig Fink
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

I wonder if that new space tourist law was passed? That would be really
ironic if NASA was the first to limit their liability with the new
law that was ment to foster private space travel.

That legislation would not apply to NASA.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:08:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, Craig Fink
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

I wonder if that new space tourist law was passed? That would be really
ironic if NASA was the first to limit their liability with the new
law that was ment to foster private space travel.

That legislation would not apply to NASA.

Why do you say that?

Ummm...because it's true. NASA is not subject to regulation by any
other government agency.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:32:55 GMT, in a place far, far away, Craig Fink
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

I wonder if that new space tourist law was passed? That would be really
ironic if NASA was the first to limit their liability with the new
law that was ment to foster private space travel.

That legislation would not apply to NASA.

Why do you say that?

Ummm...because it's true. NASA is not subject to regulation by any
other government agency.

Yeah, that's true, and the government is immune to liability except where
it chooses not to be.

Yes, which is entirely irrelevant to the launch legislation, which is
about how the FAA will regulate the industry.

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message ...
Space station future adrift
By Philip Chien
27 November 2004 // SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES



etc....

I wonder, I had known that ESA and JAXA has explored the idea of
carefully funneling money to RSA to help fix this problem , for them,
...., but I never heard what came of that.

?

John Doe wrote:

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".

Given, as I explained to Earl, that we are discussing a Soyuz
replacement, one must consider the taxi requirement.

Henry is, I believe, badly wrong in thinking we can concentrate on the
'lifeboat' side while depending on the Shuttle for the 'taxi' side.
The Shuttle's schedule is now going to be horribly crowded, leaving
little margin for the taxi role.

In an ideal universe, the proposed taxi/lifeboat would be a Block I to
CEV's Block II.

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

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

John Doe wrote:

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.

Given that nobody has proposed the latter.

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

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

(Edward Wright) wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...

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.

Strange, given that the Russians have been building Soyuzes for
decades.

Strange, given that complexity is no barrier to building something for
decades, that you assume the longetivity of Soyuz has anything to do
with the issue.

I think you're being led astray by your constant tendency to see
spacecraft as nuclear submarines.

I think you are as ignorant and stupid of engineering realities as
ever.

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

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

Derek Lyons wrote:

I think you are as ignorant and stupid of engineering realities as
ever.

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

Exactly when does this resolution kick in, Derek? :-)

Jim Davis