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
  #61  
Old September 1st 11, 03:47 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default 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  
Old September 1st 11, 03:52 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 685
Default 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  
Old September 1st 11, 09:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default 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  
Old September 1st 11, 11:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default 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  
Old September 2nd 11, 01:49 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Space Cadet[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default 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  
Old September 2nd 11, 03:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default 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  
Old September 2nd 11, 01:13 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default 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

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 11:46 AM.


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.