Did it fall or was it pushed

I was listening to a person on a phone in a day or so ago suggesting the
failure of the Progress was some kind of conspiracy to try to get the USA to
get the Shuttle back in action. Whether it was sabotage or not is not the
point though, Nobody can bring back theShuttle in under 2 years as there are
no tanks!

Interesting thought though. I did wonder about the eggs in one basket
problem at the moment regarding supplies.

It could be just Mr Murphy and his law showing the weakness of the plan of
course.

Still, I'm sure that a little life extension of a soyuz on orbit and some
nifty tinkering in Russia will solve it..

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!

On 27/08/2011 6:35 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
I was listening to a person on a phone in a day or so ago suggesting the
failure of the Progress was some kind of conspiracy to try to get the USA to
get the Shuttle back in action. Whether it was sabotage or not is not the
point though, Nobody can bring back theShuttle in under 2 years as there are
no tanks!

Interesting thought though. I did wonder about the eggs in one basket
problem at the moment regarding supplies.

It could be just Mr Murphy and his law showing the weakness of the plan of
course.

Still, I'm sure that a little life extension of a soyuz on orbit and some
nifty tinkering in Russia will solve it..

Brian


Shouldn't listen to WNUT radio.

Well, I'm not certain what station it was, but there are certainly some
nutters out there in the UK, after all they seem to all watch TV even
though most of it is regurgitated crap.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
nd.com...
On 27/08/2011 6:35 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
I was listening to a person on a phone in a day or so ago suggesting the
failure of the Progress was some kind of conspiracy to try to get the USA
to
get the Shuttle back in action. Whether it was sabotage or not is not the
point though, Nobody can bring back theShuttle in under 2 years as there
are
no tanks!

Interesting thought though. I did wonder about the eggs in one basket
problem at the moment regarding supplies.

It could be just Mr Murphy and his law showing the weakness of the plan
of
course.

Still, I'm sure that a little life extension of a soyuz on orbit and some
nifty tinkering in Russia will solve it..

Brian


Shouldn't listen to WNUT radio.

On Aug 27, 1:35*am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
I was listening to a person on a phone in a day or so ago suggesting the
failure of the Progress was some kind of conspiracy to try to get the USA to
get the Shuttle back in action. Whether it was sabotage or not is not the
point though, Nobody can bring back theShuttle in under 2 years as there are
no tanks!

Interesting thought though. I did wonder about the eggs in one basket
problem at the moment regarding supplies.

It could be just Mr Murphy and his law showing the weakness of the plan of
course.

Still, I'm sure that a little life extension of a soyuz on orbit and some
nifty *tinkering in Russia will solve it..

If it's a conspiracy, it's a horribly inept one. The best time for
this to have occured is about 2 years ago when ramping up external
tank production would have been most viable. Furthermore, it would
have required several failures of Soyuz, or on-orbit failures of the
spacecraft and Progress to really push through the idea that Shuttle
should be extended until there was a viable U.S. alternative truly up
and running.

Nope, this is good old fashioned statistics coming back to bite us at
a marginally bad time. I'd been predicting for years that something
like this might happen, I'm just glad it did not happen on one of the
manned flights. More to my relief is that we did not see a reentry
disaster as almost happened twice now in the last 7 years with the
Soyuz spacecraft.
-Mike

Nope, this is good old fashioned statistics coming back to bite us at
a marginally bad time. I'd been predicting for years that something
like this might happen, I'm just glad it did not happen on one of the
manned flights. More to my relief is that we did not see a reentry
disaster as almost happened twice now in the last 7 years with the
Soyuz spacecraft.
-Mike

well we are also do for a ISS debris impact that depressurizes the
station

the odds of this must be increasing over time, espically with that
chinese blowing up a sat, which caused a large increase in the low
earth orbit debris field.

In article 7b2a8196-c4f7-4ef5-ae8f-ca1a231fdcc1
@m38g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, says...

Nope, this is good old fashioned statistics coming back to bite us at
a marginally bad time. I'd been predicting for years that something
like this might happen, I'm just glad it did not happen on one of the
manned flights. More to my relief is that we did not see a reentry
disaster as almost happened twice now in the last 7 years with the
Soyuz spacecraft.
-Mike

well we are also do for a ISS debris impact that depressurizes the
station

the odds of this must be increasing over time, espically with that
chinese blowing up a sat, which caused a large increase in the low
earth orbit debris field.

That's not how it works. You're falling prey to a gambling fallacy.

The odds that ISS will be hit (on any given day) are determined by the
geometry of the station, its orbit, and by its orientation with respect
to its orbit.

Sorry Bob, but you fail at probability and statistics.

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

In article m,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:
The odds that ISS will be hit (on any given day) are determined by
the
geometry of the station, its orbit, and by its orientation with respect
to its orbit.


The number of debris at that altitude is probably a greater component of
odds calculation than geometry of station.

If the chinese blow up a satellite at an orbit slightly higher than the
station, that debris will eventually go down to the ISS's orbit and the
odds of debris hit are much greater during that period (after which the
debris goes down to lower orbit and eventually re-enters)

True, but since ISS can't change the debris field it's flying through,
what's your point again?

ISS can be oriented so that it presents a minimum frontal area of
pressurized modules into its velocity vector. This helps to minimize
the chance of impact. You don't want to fly broadside into a debris
field. ;-)

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

On Sep 1, 9:59*pm, JF Mezei wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
ISS can be oriented so that it presents a minimum frontal area of
pressurized modules into its velocity vector. *This helps to minimize
the chance of impact. *You don't want to fly broadside into a debris
field. *;-)

You're assuming debris flies in the same direction and totally opposite.
* *If debris is comig through at a 90 angle, then reducing frontal
surface of station increases lateral surface and that is how the debris
will hit it.

Obviously, NORAD would provide data to NASA on orbital pattern of the
debris and they woudl orient the station accordingly. But that isn't
necessarily to reduce frontal exposure.

plus much debris are too small to track. a 3 inch bolt at orbital
speeds could wreck ISS