A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Shuttle program extension?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old September 16th 08, 03:53 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Shuttle program extension?


"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:57:35 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

(Though one could argue that at some point one may want to simply accept
that lifeboats aren't required for 100% of the crew.)

Never gonna happen. That's a political non-starter.


It's a political non-starter, but it's a bit silly.

ISS currently had many redundant systems and modules.


So did the Titanic. Now we have lifeboats for everyone.


Tell that to the guys at the South Pole research station. Where's their
lifeboats? On top of that, evac from there in the middle of the winter is
extremely dangerous at best. At some point, your station grows so big you
simply can't supply lifeboats for everyone.

What do you do for a Mars mission? Multiple reentry vehicles? Do you make
them the safe haven for the trip back as well as the return vehicle? How
big would they need to be to support the astronauts for the entire trip
back? I think the lifeboat analogy breaks down for a Mars mission.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein


  #72  
Old September 16th 08, 05:01 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Shuttle program extension?

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:57:35 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

(Though one could argue that at some point one may want to simply accept
that lifeboats aren't required for 100% of the crew.)

Never gonna happen. That's a political non-starter.


It's a political non-starter, but it's a bit silly.

ISS currently had many redundant systems and modules.


So did the Titanic. Now we have lifeboats for everyone.


Remember, most Titantic boats didn't even carry a full complement of
passengers. So having even more lifeboats wouldn't have helped all that
much.



Brian




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


  #73  
Old September 16th 08, 08:04 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Shuttle program extension?

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:09:59 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:57:35 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

(Though one could argue that at some point one may want to simply accept
that lifeboats aren't required for 100% of the crew.)

Never gonna happen. That's a political non-starter.


It's a political non-starter, but it's a bit silly.

ISS currently had many redundant systems and modules.


So did the Titanic. Now we have lifeboats for everyone.


But we don't insist that they be able to deliver ship's complement all
the way back to Southampton. NASA demands a lot more than a
"lifeboat."
  #74  
Old September 16th 08, 10:23 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Shuttle program extension?



Al wrote:

The Dean Drive!
I remember when John Campbell was extolling that to the sky!
Funniest thing to come out of the Dean Drive madness (besides John
Campbell taking another step down hill in the eyes of the science
fiction community) was that the United Statess Patents Office wrote
Dean back saying he should get in touch with the mining industry ,
that he has a good invention for using on mining processing shaker
tables!
(I don't know if Dean ever followed up on this!)


Western Gear corporation actually did some tests on the Dean Drive.
There's more on it he http://www.jerrypournelle.com/science/dean.html
Then there's the other wild space drive from the same time period, T.
Townsend Brown's strange widget:
http://members.gcronline.com/cbrauda/0001.htm
For me, the test of a antigravity device would be to seal it in a
watertight sphere weighted to achieve neutral buoyancy, rev it up and
drop it into a swimming pool so that it is fully submerged, but not
touching the bottom. If it starts moving in one direction, you are on to
something.


Pat
  #75  
Old September 16th 08, 11:07 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Shuttle program extension?



Jeff Findley wrote:

ISS currently had many redundant systems and modules. With the US and
Russian segments, you have completely separate systems for life support.
Even if something catastrophic happened, it's not very likely to take out
both sets of life support systems.


Unless they close airtight hatches as they move from one module to the
next, one meter hit that blew a foot-wide hole in the thing is going to
vacuumate it in short order.
Even if you were in a sealed-off module, it had better have spacesuits
in it if you want to get to the escape Soyuz.
Even a rescue Shuttle EVA would be a real problem...you'd have to
repressurize the station before you opened the door to the module they
were trapped in, or detach the module with them in it and return it to
Earth.

Pat
  #77  
Old September 17th 08, 01:52 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Shuttle program extension?

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:53:06 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

So did the Titanic. Now we have lifeboats for everyone.


Tell that to the guys at the South Pole research station. Where's their
lifeboats?


Last I checked, dry-land facilities don't require lifeboats, no matter
how remote. Ships universally do.

On top of that, evac from there in the middle of the winter is
extremely dangerous at best.


But not impossible. It has been done. Without a lifeboat on ISS,
you're dead when the O2, the scrubbers, or the power die.

At some point, your station grows so big you
simply can't supply lifeboats for everyone.


That's ridiculous. Why not?

What do you do for a Mars mission?


We have to accept a greater risk for deep space exploration. That's a
given. Without warp drive, you can't get back to Earth in a reasonable
amount of time or expect a rescue ship in a reasonable amount of time.
ISS has no such excuse. There are no fundamental physics that prevent
a lifeboat for all ISS crew, it is simply a matter of cost. If an ISS
crew dies because they have no lifeboat, the press, critics, and the
crew's survivors will universally, and loudly, proclaim that the crew
died because the government was too cheap to pay for a lifeboat when
the technology was essentially off-the-shelf. And the government knows
this, which is why, as I said, it is a political non-starter.

Brian
  #78  
Old September 17th 08, 02:53 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Shuttle program extension?

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:39:27 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:04:01 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

So did the Titanic. Now we have lifeboats for everyone.


But we don't insist that they be able to deliver ship's complement all
the way back to Southampton. NASA demands a lot more than a
"lifeboat."


They have to. The sea lanes are relatively crowded, while LEO has
exactly one human-capable "ship".


Then that's the problem to be solved, not developing a "lifeboat" that
comes all the way to earth and idiotically abandons a
hundred-billion-dollar space station.
  #79  
Old September 17th 08, 04:02 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Shuttle program extension?

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:04:01 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

So did the Titanic. Now we have lifeboats for everyone.


But we don't insist that they be able to deliver ship's complement all
the way back to Southampton. NASA demands a lot more than a
"lifeboat."


They have to.


Define "have to". Question that assumption. At some point one has to make
the choice to not spend the money.


The sea lanes are relatively crowded, while LEO has
exactly one human-capable "ship". The Titanic's lifeboats were only
needed to await the next ship to come along. ISS's lifeboats don't
have that luxury.

Titanic had many ships within hours' travel of rescue The Californian
was within sight (her radioman had gone to sleep and distress rockets
were ignored by her captain, another change after Titanic was that all
large ships have their radios manned 24 hours a day) and the Carpathia
arrived on scene just after sunrise. ISS cannot expect to have other
ships available to rescue the crew within a reasonable amount of time.


Then either that has to change, or the assumption that it's a requirement
has to change.

As I pointed out, there are already scenarios where lifeboats won't do you
much good.

The government already sends hundreds of employees out on craft which have
rescue capabilities that are far more feel good than actually useful. One
of our own here served on one such craft.



Being able to "deliver all the way back to Southampton" is a lot
cheaper for NASA than having a Carpathia on standby for launch 24/7.


Or is it? Seriously. I do wonder if anyone has looked at the cost of
either developing a rescue craft for the next 4-5 years, paying the Russians
or simply doing what is being done for Hubble. A hassle, sure, but workable
if one really wants to do it.

Heck I'd argue it might open up more options than what we have now.



Brian



  #80  
Old September 17th 08, 04:08 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Shuttle program extension?

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:53:06 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

So did the Titanic. Now we have lifeboats for everyone.


Tell that to the guys at the South Pole research station. Where's their
lifeboats?


Last I checked, dry-land facilities don't require lifeboats, no matter
how remote. Ships universally do.


Really? Can you find a diagram of Los Angeles class submarines and tell me
where the lifeboats are?

And in any case, why should dry-land facilities be any different? When deep
night hints the Antartic, that's it. You're basically there until things
improve. The dramatic rescue of Dr. Nielson was just that because of the
winter issues.


On top of that, evac from there in the middle of the winter is
extremely dangerous at best.


But not impossible. It has been done. Without a lifeboat on ISS,
you're dead when the O2, the scrubbers, or the power die.


No, not really. There was an extremely dangerous airdrop done in July, an
attempt at evacuating here didn't occur until mid-October, several months
later.


At some point, your station grows so big you
simply can't supply lifeboats for everyone.


That's ridiculous. Why not?

What do you do for a Mars mission?


We have to accept a greater risk for deep space exploration. That's a
given. Without warp drive, you can't get back to Earth in a reasonable
amount of time or expect a rescue ship in a reasonable amount of time.
ISS has no such excuse. There are no fundamental physics that prevent
a lifeboat for all ISS crew, it is simply a matter of cost. If an ISS
crew dies because they have no lifeboat, the press, critics, and the
crew's survivors will universally, and loudly, proclaim that the crew
died because the government was too cheap to pay for a lifeboat when
the technology was essentially off-the-shelf. And the government knows
this, which is why, as I said, it is a political non-starter.


And that's an attitude that needs to be changed. Again, we already have
scenarios where the current lifeboat won't do much good. Witness the fire
on Mir, had it been much worse we might have seen an astronaut die.

Brian




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


 




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
Shuttle program extension? Flyguy Space Shuttle 175 September 22nd 08 04:18 PM
No Shuttle launch, Shuttle program mothballed? Widget Policy 1 July 4th 06 03:51 PM
The shuttle program needs some comedy!!! Steve W. Space Shuttle 0 August 9th 05 09:59 PM
More Evidence The Shuttle Program Should Be Scrapped John Slade Space Shuttle 7 August 2nd 05 04:35 AM
Question regarding the end of the Shuttle program JazzMan Space Shuttle 23 February 19th 04 03:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:21 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.