|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
ISS may be abandoned in november
On Sep 1, 10:14*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
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 you didnt read my paste from nasa of the odds of loss........... look back a few posts. 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. its not just obital decay, loss of control where the station tumbles making docking by anything impossible. besides the ISS weighs more than any other man made object ever put in orbit, i think its around a illion pounds....... much would survive re entry tumbling it would spread modules all over the ground track and no doubt cause mass panic. likely ground most air travel. and such a monumental event would likely end manned space travel for a generation. this is beyond russia deciding a man tended station where crews only visit occasionally is the future plan after iSS is deorbited |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
ISS may be abandoned in november
Jeff Findley wrote:
ISS isn't going to fall out of the sky anytime soon. If the crew does leave ISS, they'll leave it in a state where unmanned vehicles can still dock with it and perform reboosts (Progress and ATV can both perform reboosts). I do not wish to feed the bobbert, but what launcher does Progress use? Are its current odds of success much better than those of an unmanned Soyuz launch? rick jones -- No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause. There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision. - Joubert these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
ISS may be abandoned in november
On Sep 1, 11:20*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote: 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. So how'd we ever get it built, Bobbert, since it was crewless for TWO YEARS during construction? its not just obital decay, loss of control where the station tumbles making docking by anything impossible. Why does the station tumble? *Under no outside influences it just flies along. besides the ISS weighs more than any other man made object ever put in orbit, i think its around a illion pounds....... much would survive re entry It's not about 'weight', you moron. *It's about DENSITY. *ISS is largely a bunch of hollow cans which will burn up on reentry. tumbling it would spread modules all over the ground track and no doubt cause mass panic. likely ground most air travel. and such a monumental event would likely end manned space travel for a generation. The sky is falling! *THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!! -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the *truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson its fine that fred isnt concerned but nasa is. 10% chance of loss of ISS if not crewed ffor 6 months, incresing to 50% chance if uncrewed for a year. Yeah sure Fred everything is just fine |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
ISS may be abandoned in november
On 9/1/2011 6:52 AM, Rick Jones wrote:
I do not wish to feed the bobbert, but what launcher does Progress use? Same one as the current Soyuz launches do; it's called a Soyuz-U booster. That's whats causing the problem; if there is something wrong with how the Progress third stage was made, it could also be wrong with the third stage on the Soyuz-U booster that was going to carry up the new crew later this month. Progress is basically a unmanned Soyuz, with the reentry capsule being replaced with a storage area for propellant cargo, and the spherical orbital module being turned into a pressurized cargo carrying hold that can be entered by the ISS crew to unload once it's docked. Are its current odds of success much better than those of an unmanned Soyuz launch? I don't know if a stock Soyuz can do a completely unmanned docking to the ISS; its control system electronics might be different in detail from that of the Progress. One of the ISS docking ports is set up specifically for Progress cargo ships to dock to, with all the station part of the guidance gear they need. In most cases the Soyuz crew lets the autopilot guidance get them very close to the ISS, then does the docking manually to get finer control. It used to be that the docking was fully automatic, with the crew only taking control if something went wrong with that system, but I think that got changed for the ISS. When a Progress does do a fully automated docking, the six ISS crew shelter themselves in the two Soyuz capsules in case something goes wrong and there is a collision between the Progress and the ISS, like happened on Mir - leading to one of its modules getting permanently depressurized. Pat |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
ISS may be abandoned in november
On Aug 30, 9:06*am, Quadibloc wrote:
On Aug 30, 4:44*am, Alan Erskine wrote: Why do I get the feeling someone at NASA said this was going to happen but they were ignored - similar to the guy warning of the SRB problem before Challenger.... Incidentally, some people would blame Obama for cancelling the Shuttle program. The Shuttle fleet was kept running longer than it was really appropriate to operate it from a safety viewpoint. So it wasn't Obama's fault. And it is now too late to build more Shuttles. This doesn't mean that I'm necessarily putting the blame on Bush. Those who wish to blame the Democrats for everything may take solace in the possibility that this threshold was crossed back under Clinton. John Savard I am tempted to blame Griffin* for going with the Ares 1, I mean really how hard would it be to design a capsule that could fly on a heavy version of Atlas or Delta, preferably both, in case one launcher has a 'bad day' then you have redundancy in launcher, as a bonus, make it compatible with the Araine heavy as well then you have even further redundancy! Then we could sell, rent/lease it to ESA and they would be paying us for a manned vehicle instead of the Russians! I see it as a win win. I would still fund COTS for further insurance in case they all have a bad day! *Some days I feel like blaming Dan Golden for the X-33 decision. Could the Delta Clipper, lead to a viable or at least workable shuttle replacement? Just my $0.02 Space Cadet |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
ISS may be abandoned in november
On Sep 1, 8:49*pm, Space Cadet wrote:
On Aug 30, 9:06*am, Quadibloc wrote: On Aug 30, 4:44*am, Alan Erskine wrote: Why do I get the feeling someone at NASA said this was going to happen but they were ignored - similar to the guy warning of the SRB problem before Challenger.... Incidentally, some people would blame Obama for cancelling the Shuttle program. The Shuttle fleet was kept running longer than it was really appropriate to operate it from a safety viewpoint. So it wasn't Obama's fault. And it is now too late to build more Shuttles. This doesn't mean that I'm necessarily putting the blame on Bush. Those who wish to blame the Democrats for everything may take solace in the possibility that this threshold was crossed back under Clinton. John Savard I am tempted to blame Griffin* for going with the Ares 1, I mean really how hard would it be to design a capsule that could fly on a heavy version of Atlas or Delta, *preferably both, in case one launcher has a 'bad day' then you have redundancy in launcher, as a bonus, make it compatible with the Araine heavy as well then you have even further redundancy! Then we could sell, rent/lease it to ESA and they would be paying us for a manned vehicle instead of the Russians! I see it as a win win. *I would *still fund COTS for further insurance in case they all have a bad day! *Some days I feel like blaming Dan Golden for the X-33 decision. Could the Delta Clipper, lead to a viable *or at least workable shuttle replacement? Just my $0.02 Space Cadet- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - congress demanded paying off the existing shuttle contractors by reusing shuttle components. the specs were written to specifically exclude atlas and deltas. nasa claimed it would cost too much to man rate them, and take too long......... meanwhile we find the main change was a launch boost escape system, and a fault detect system, to activate launch boost escape |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
ISS may be abandoned in november
On Sep 1, 11:11*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote: On Sep 1, 11:20*am, Fred J. McCall wrote: bob haller wrote: 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. So how'd we ever get it built, Bobbert, since it was crewless for TWO YEARS during construction? its not just obital decay, loss of control where the station tumbles making docking by anything impossible. Why does the station tumble? *Under no outside influences it just flies along. besides the ISS weighs more than any other man made object ever put in orbit, i think its around a illion pounds....... much would survive re entry It's not about 'weight', you moron. *It's about DENSITY. *ISS is largely a bunch of hollow cans which will burn up on reentry. tumbling it would spread modules all over the ground track and no doubt cause mass panic. likely ground most air travel. and such a monumental event would likely end manned space travel for a generation. The sky is falling! *THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!! -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the *truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson its fine that fred isnt concerned but nasa is. 10% chance of loss of ISS if not crewed ffor 6 months, incresing to 50% chance if uncrewed for a year. And so Bobbert shows that ISS could never be built, since it would have had a least a 75% chance of reentering before the first person was put on it. Yeah sure Fred everything is just fine Where are all those radiation deaths in California from Fukishima again, Bobbert? -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is *only stupid." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - the orignal ISS modules were much more stable in orbit than the large complex station we have today. if ISS were unable to orientate itself what would it do? tumble? turn sideways? rip off some solar panels? whats it no input orbital dynamics look like? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |