A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ISS may be abandoned in november



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #52  
Old August 31st 11, 07:55 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bootstrap Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default ISS may be abandoned in november



"David Spain" wrote in message
...

Rick Jones wrote:
etc etc I was going to work the chorus but the most obvious thing to
be jingling as the Soyuz didn't rhyme with "bells" though it differed
only by a vowel.

rick jones


See a few lyrics down:
http://www.lyricsmania.com/jinglebellslyrics.html


-------------------------------------------------------------------
OT: Does anyone know why this is considered to be a Christmas song when it
has absolutely nothing to do with the holiday? It's a song about WINTER.

  #53  
Old August 31st 11, 10:06 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default ISS may be abandoned in november

is it better to have a unmanned station with no control dropping
modules all along its ground track.


or 1 or 2 astronauts marroned at station thats still under control?


Leaving the station unmanned for a period of time is surely safer, at
least for the ISS crew.

Jeff


for the crew surely safer to be on the ground, but what of all the
people along its ground track?
  #54  
Old August 31st 11, 10:09 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default ISS may be abandoned in november

On Aug 31, 10:37*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d7254a2a-bb4a-444f-89e5-4ebc21969a76
, says...


NASA always looks at contingencies like this. Hopefully it won't be
necessary to leave ISS unmanned, but it's preferable to leaving
astronauts on ISS without a way to get back. Marooned is the term for
this, and it's not a good thing deliberately put yourself in that
situation.


nasa never planed for a shuttle stuck at station till after columbia
disaster........ so they didnt look at that contigency.


is it better to have a unmanned station with no control dropping
modules all along its ground track.


or 1 or 2 astronauts marroned at station thats still under control?


Leaving the station unmanned for a period of time is surely safer, at
least for the ISS crew.


It'll be safer (or at least no more dangerous) for everyone. *If ISS
'goes out of control' it will be because one or more reaction wheels
are broken or saturated and there is no fuel left aboard to desaturate
them or because it needs a reboost (which it can't do on its own).
Having people aboard in these eventualities accomplishes nothing other
than to put those people at direct risk, since there is bugger all the
crew can do about any of those eventualities.

Bobbert, as usual, is just, well, bobberting.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


theres lots of systems that can fail without human intervention.
someone just rebooting a system can sometimes fix a system.......

lack of pressurization would likely make any problem worse. lots of
systems may overheat without cooling air.
  #55  
Old September 1st 11, 05:11 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default ISS may be abandoned in november

for the crew surely safer to be on the ground, but what of all the
people along its ground track?


Certainly no less safe for them, since if it goes out of control and
reenters there's bugger all a crew on board can do other than ride it
in and die.


having a couple astronauts onboard may help keep the station under
control...

oh well if ISS is lost it will save lots of money once damage claims
are paid
  #56  
Old September 1st 11, 01:44 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default ISS may be abandoned in november

On Sep 1, 7:39*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
for the crew surely safer to be on the ground, but what of all the
people along its ground track?


Certainly no less safe for them, since if it goes out of control and
reenters there's bugger all a crew on board can do other than ride it
in and die.


having a couple astronauts onboard may help keep the station under
control...


So might prayer, but it's pretty bloody unlikely.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine


astronauts onboard spend most of their time fixing things.

if moose had been built this wouldnt be a issue
  #57  
Old September 1st 11, 01:47 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default ISS may be abandoned in november

NASA officials are hopeful Russia will return the venerable Soyuz
booster to service in time to avert such a circumstance, which would
put the space station at increased risk in the event of serious
equipment malfunctions.

Engineers are analyzing what's needed to keep the station alive in
case astronauts have to pull out of the international laboratory,
according to Michael Suffredini, NASA's space station program
manager.

"There is a greater risk of losing ISS if it were unmanned than if it
were manned," Suffredini said Monday. "The risk increase is not
insignificant
  #58  
Old September 1st 11, 02:26 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default ISS may be abandoned in november

If the grounding of Soyuz rockets forces crews to abandon the
International Space Station even temporarily, the chances of losing
the facility outright skyrocket the longer it goes unmanned, Florida
Today reports.


NASA International Space Station Program Manager Mike Suffred says
evacuation is a distinct possibility in mid-November if Russian Soyuz
rockets are not flying, writes Florida Today's Todd Halvorson.


Past NASA risk assessment shows a one in 10 chance of losing the
station within six months if there is no crew aboard to handle
critical system failures. That soars to a 50% probability if it
remains crewless for a year, the newspaper says.


The International Space Station has been continuously staffed since
the first expedition crew opened the outpost in November 2000.




In a worst-case scenario, station systems could fail, making it
impossible for engineers on the ground to maintain remote control of
the 1 million-pound outpost.

In that case, the station eventually would make an uncontrolled re-
entry, potentially showering flaming wreckage on populated areas, says
Florida Today, USA TODAY's sister publication.



The issue is acute as Russian experts try to figure out why a Soyuz
rocket failed last week, sending an unmanned Progress supply ship
crashing into Siberia.

Russia's Soyuz rocket is the only means of ferrying supplies and crew
to the station now that the U.S. space shuttle missions have ended.

Plans to send a fresh crew to the station Sept. 21 have been postponed
indefinitely, and the return of three crewmembers Sept. 8 has been
delayed for at least week.

Complicating the problem is the imminent "expiration date" for the two
Soyuz spacecraft docked with the station. They are not certified to
stay longer than 200 days in space.

By juggling schedules, a crew could remain onboard until late
December, although that would mean a landing during brutally cold
weather in Kazakhstan around Christmas.

yeah fred abandonmg ISS is no safety issue at all


  #60  
Old September 1st 11, 03:14 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default ISS may be abandoned in november

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:
theres lots of systems that can fail without human intervention.
someone just rebooting a system can sometimes fix a system.......


But that's not going to change orbital mechanics, which is what
determines if it stays up or not.


Plus, as far as I know, Progress and ATV could both dock and perform
reboosts even while ISS is unmanned. So even if ISS was in danger of
"coming down", there is still something we could do about it.

lack of pressurization would likely make any problem worse. lots of
systems may overheat without cooling air.


What lack of pressurization? You don't have to let all the air out
just because you're leaving, do you? If you can't keep air in it,
that's going to be REAL hard on the crew you're leaving up there,
isn't it?


If the crew does leave ISS, they'll surely shut all of the hatches
between modules so that if one does become depressurized, it won't
impact the others.

As usual Bob is worrying about the unlikely while simultaneously
thinking NASA and the Russians are both stupid and don't know how to
plan for such contingencies.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Abandoned Spaceships [email protected] History 96 July 23rd 05 09:43 PM
Abandoned Spaceships [email protected] News 0 July 12th 05 12:45 AM
Hubble to be abandoned Michael Gallagher History 577 February 29th 04 04:09 PM
Station to be abandoned? Jorge R. Frank Policy 56 September 3rd 03 02:55 AM
Station to be abandoned? [email protected] Policy 2 August 25th 03 04:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.