Soyuz TMA-11 Comes Home, More or Less...

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
news:PLKdnVNhus0crI3VnZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@northdakotat elephone...
Not for me... I thought the whole ISS program was a convoluted mess from
the word go that would eat up huge amounts of money while yielding very
little useful data, and was mainly a bone thrown to "international
cooperation" and a public works program for the aerospace manufacturers of
all the countries involved in it after the end of the Cold War.
Like I said years ago, it can still perform a useful scientific purpose as
a artificial reef in the South Pacific. ;-)

Now you're sounding like me. ;-)

If you're the federal government, there are certainly worse things to throw
your money at than NASA programs like the space station/ISS program. But
it's not like you're getting your money's worth out of it. ISS still isn't
up to the planned 6 person crew and it's been how many years now?

I've been ****ed off for years that the US had no crew return vehicle for
the station. Remember the lifting body crew return vehicle work that NASA
****ed away? The X-38 couldn't even land on a runway! It had to land using
a parafoil! I thought sticking a big, steerable, parafoil on a capsule
would have made more sense.

The Russian Soyuz is like a Yugo that works most of the time, but is scary
to drive. NASA wanted a Cadillac style lifting body (and got nothing). I
was always rooting for the Chevy, which would have been a capsule using the
outside mold-lines of the Apollo CM, carried up in the shuttle's cargo bay
so you don't have to worry about launch escape systems.

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

On Apr 23, 10:54 pm, spazhoward wrote:

THIS PRODUCT HAS ALREADY SHIPPED!!! TO OUTER-FREAKIN'-
SPACE!!! With people essentially FORCED to get in it and ride it
home, no less! And soon, very soon, there will be NO viable
alternative to the Soyuz for a return vehicle (no one really believes
Orion will be finished on time and problem-free, do they?)

Shenzou?

wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 10:54 pm, spazhoward wrote:

THIS PRODUCT HAS ALREADY SHIPPED!!! TO OUTER-FREAKIN'-
SPACE!!! With people essentially FORCED to get in it and ride it
home, no less! And soon, very soon, there will be NO viable
alternative to the Soyuz for a return vehicle (no one really believes
Orion will be finished on time and problem-free, do they?)

Shenzou?

What about it? It certainly hasn't been qualified for 6 month stay times
either.

If folks get really nervous, you do a crew rotation via a shuttle flight and
fly up a NEW Soyuz and simply ditch the existing one in the ocean.

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

writes:

On Apr 23, 10:54 pm, spazhoward wrote:

THIS PRODUCT HAS ALREADY SHIPPED!!! TO OUTER-FREAKIN'-
SPACE!!! With people essentially FORCED to get in it and ride it
home, no less! And soon, very soon, there will be NO viable
alternative to the Soyuz for a return vehicle (no one really believes
Orion will be finished on time and problem-free, do they?)

Shenzou?

Does the ISS toolkit include a hacksaw?

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 10:54 pm, spazhoward wrote:

THIS PRODUCT HAS ALREADY SHIPPED!!! TO OUTER-FREAKIN'-
SPACE!!! With people essentially FORCED to get in it and ride it
home, no less! And soon, very soon, there will be NO viable
alternative to the Soyuz for a return vehicle (no one really believes
Orion will be finished on time and problem-free, do they?)
Shenzou?

What about it? It certainly hasn't been qualified for 6 month stay times
either.

Or rendezvous, for that matter.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
news
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 10:54 pm, spazhoward wrote:

THIS PRODUCT HAS ALREADY SHIPPED!!! TO OUTER-FREAKIN'-
SPACE!!! With people essentially FORCED to get in it and ride it
home, no less! And soon, very soon, there will be NO viable
alternative to the Soyuz for a return vehicle (no one really believes
Orion will be finished on time and problem-free, do they?)
Shenzou?

What about it? It certainly hasn't been qualified for 6 month stay times
either.

Or rendezvous, for that matter.

Details details!

Quite seriously though, I am curious what NASA or the Russians would do if
there was a decision to ground the Soyuz.

(Though quite honestly, in today's Russia, I seriously doubt they will do so
until a fatal accident occurs. (And no I'm not trying to sound like Bob
Haller).





--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
news
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 10:54 pm, spazhoward wrote:

THIS PRODUCT HAS ALREADY SHIPPED!!! TO OUTER-FREAKIN'-
SPACE!!! With people essentially FORCED to get in it and ride it
home, no less! And soon, very soon, there will be NO viable
alternative to the Soyuz for a return vehicle (no one really believes
Orion will be finished on time and problem-free, do they?)
Shenzou?
What about it? It certainly hasn't been qualified for 6 month stay times
either.
Or rendezvous, for that matter.

Details details!

Quite seriously though, I am curious what NASA or the Russians would do if
there was a decision to ground the Soyuz.

Interesting question. My first instinct was to bring the ISS crew home
on the last shuttle flight before the next Soyuz rotation would have
taken place. Bring the Soyuz back unmanned, with low-value cargo in the
seats approximating the mass of the crew, as a test. Continue shuttle
assembly flights and operate the station in a man-tended mode until
Soyuz return-to-flight.

Then I realized that if you don't trust the current Soyuz at the end of
its scheduled rotation, you don't trust it now, either. Therefore there
is little marginal risk in continuing to keep the crew up there without
the Soyuz, and it would greatly improve the probability of the station
surviving.

The *psychological* difference between having a CRV (albeit of
questionable reliability), and having no CRV at all, is considerable.

(Though quite honestly, in today's Russia, I seriously doubt they will do so
until a fatal accident occurs.

Agreed. Hopefully we will not learn the hard way what the Russian
equivalent of "foam logic" is.

(And no I'm not trying to sound like Bob
Haller).

Don't worry; no one will confuse you with bBo ahllerb.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
Quite seriously though, I am curious what NASA or the Russians would do
if there was a decision to ground the Soyuz.

Interesting question. My first instinct was to bring the ISS crew home on
the last shuttle flight before the next Soyuz rotation would have taken
place. Bring the Soyuz back unmanned, with low-value cargo in the seats
approximating the mass of the crew, as a test. Continue shuttle assembly
flights and operate the station in a man-tended mode until Soyuz
return-to-flight.

Then I realized that if you don't trust the current Soyuz at the end of
its scheduled rotation, you don't trust it now, either. Therefore there is
little marginal risk in continuing to keep the crew up there without the
Soyuz, and it would greatly improve the probability of the station
surviving.

The *psychological* difference between having a CRV (albeit of
questionable reliability), and having no CRV at all, is considerable.

Hmm, if I'm following you, you're suggesting ditch the Soyuz now, rather
than later?

I think I'd suggest the following, wait until the next scheduled rotation
and try to coordinate with a shuttle flight.

At that point, ditch TMA-11. If it survives, great, if not, no loss, in
either case you swap the crew using the Shuttle.

But, you keep it in the meantime since a 2% failure rate (based on
historical odds, etc) is still far better than a 100% failure rate if you
ditch it now. i.e. if you absolutely need it, you're better off having it,
even with a higher than normal risk of failure, than not having the option
at all.

The real question becomes what do you do about TMA-12? Do you fly it before
or after TMA-11 comes home? And if so, do you fly it with a crew or not?

I do think at this point the risk to the station if left without a crew is
higher than I'd like to see.


(Though quite honestly, in today's Russia, I seriously doubt they will do
so until a fatal accident occurs.

Agreed. Hopefully we will not learn the hard way what the Russian
equivalent of "foam logic" is.

Given what appears to be their history of "trust us, don't worry" in the
past decade coupled with a desire to trade seats for money or other items, I
suspect they're suffering their own version of "Go" fever.



(And no I'm not trying to sound like Bob
Haller).

Don't worry; no one will confuse you with bBo ahllerb.

What, you mean the sky isn't falling all the time?




--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
Details details!


Somewhere way down the line, the Chinese are intending to dock it to a
small space station of around Salyut size.
But even then, it's doubtful if its intended rendezvous and docking
facilities are going to be ISS compatable.

Quite seriously though, I am curious what NASA or the Russians would do if
there was a decision to ground the Soyuz.


Crew transfers via Shuttle? You might end up with only one guy on the
ISS to cut down the need for supplies, like the crazy cosmonaut on the
souped-up Mir in "Armageddon".

(Though quite honestly, in today's Russia, I seriously doubt they will do so
until a fatal accident occurs. (And no I'm not trying to sound like Bob
Haller).


They have a fatal accident with one of our astronauts aboard, and all
hell is going to break loose.

Pat

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Interesting question. My first instinct was to bring the ISS crew home
on the last shuttle flight before the next Soyuz rotation would have
taken place. Bring the Soyuz back unmanned, with low-value cargo in
the seats approximating the mass of the crew, as a test. Continue
shuttle assembly flights and operate the station in a man-tended mode
until Soyuz return-to-flight.

Won't work... the Russians will say we are being cowardly for not
trusting their Soyuz, and bring their crew members down on it no matter
what the risk.
There is one way around this - everyone who goes up and comes down on
the Soyuz is Russian, and all of our astronauts go up and return via the
Shuttle.


Then I realized that if you don't trust the current Soyuz at the end
of its scheduled rotation, you don't trust it now, either. Therefore
there is little marginal risk in continuing to keep the crew up there
without the Soyuz, and it would greatly improve the probability of the
station surviving.

No lifeboat sounds a bit like the Titanic scenario.
Even a faulty Soyuz is better than no means of escape if something
serious occurs, like the on-board fire Mir had, or a collision with
space debris or a out-of-control Progress... like Mir also had.


Pat