From Russia, Without Love

Rand Simberg wrote:
And I said nothing about not asking for its "partners" permission, but
Russia isn't a partner, since it's reneged on its agreements repeatedly.
It's at best a subcontractor, and a crooked one.

The Russians aren't ISS subcontractors or partners, they are the ISS
owners. The Russians have the command codes. We do not have the ISS
command codes.

--
Tony Sivori

Tony Sivori writes:

Rand Simberg wrote:
And I said nothing about not asking for its "partners" permission, but
Russia isn't a partner, since it's reneged on its agreements repeatedly.
It's at best a subcontractor, and a crooked one.

The Russians aren't ISS subcontractors or partners, they are the ISS
owners. The Russians have the command codes. We do not have the ISS
command codes.

You guys sure like to change the meanings of words. Russia IS an ISS
partner; there are signed agreements that say so, and their other
partners consider them to be partners, and you saying they're not
doesn't unmake them partners. You can argue about what adjectives
(e.g. untrustworthy, ass-saving) can be used to modify that noun, but
partners they are.

And it isn't the ISS command codes they have (and we don't), it's the
FGB command codes, which module we paid for and they launched. They owe
them to us (us meaning NASA, not the participants in this thread), and
they should have turned them over, which they didn't, and NASA should
have made a big stink about that, which they didn't. So I'd say Russia
is not living up to this part of the bargain (and I know there are other
bargains, and both sides have failed at times to live up to their part)
and NASA is being a sucker.

Huh?

By what possible metric could the Russian program be considered less
reliable and less safe than the Shuttle program?

Mission reliability? When was the last time a Soyuz or Progress did
not deliver its passengers or cargo to a space station?

Schedule reliability? When was the last time that a Soyuz or Progress
did not launch on the date scheduled?

Accident rate? When was the last time a Soyuz or Progress caused loss
of life?





(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...

A single booster explosion or major failure of the orbiter could
change that. The Russian program's reliability and safety record is
not better than the Shuttles, and in some ways it's worse.

(Explorer8939) wrote in
om:

By what possible metric could the Russian program be considered less
reliable and less safe than the Shuttle program?

Mission reliability? When was the last time a Soyuz or Progress...
Schedule reliability? When was the last time that a Soyuz or Progress
Accident rate? When was the last time a Soyuz or Progress...

Given the low flight rate of Soyuz, "when was the last time..." is not the
relevant question here. The space shuttle had as many successful flights in
a row (87) between the 51L and 107 accidents, as Soyuz has had (and not in
a row, either) in its entire 36-year history.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

(Explorer8939) wrote:
By what possible metric could the Russian program be considered less
reliable and less safe than the Shuttle program?

By almost any metric worthy of considering.

Mission reliability? When was the last time a Soyuz or Progress did
not deliver its passengers or cargo to a space station?

Soyuz has on several occasions failed to deliver it's crew, although
Progress never has failed to deliver it's cargo. OTOH Progress has
collided with it's target at least twice.

Schedule reliability? When was the last time that a Soyuz or Progress
did not launch on the date scheduled?

There are other criteria for safety and reliability than the simple
minded ones you quote. Consider the implications of the failures on
the last two Soyuz flight. Consider the fact that Soyuz has a clear
history of re-entry related failures and accidents.

Accident rate? When was the last time a Soyuz or Progress caused loss
of life?

That's what the mangers asked out the O-rings, and the ET debris.
Considering an accident significant only if it kills folks, is a sure
and certain way to ensure that folks get killed.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
(Explorer8939) wrote:
By what possible metric could the Russian program be considered less
reliable and less safe than the Shuttle program?

By almost any metric worthy of considering.

Mission reliability? When was the last time a Soyuz or Progress did
not deliver its passengers or cargo to a space station?

Soyuz has on several occasions failed to deliver it's crew, although
Progress never has failed to deliver it's cargo. OTOH Progress has
collided with it's target at least twice.

Derek, I don't normally criticize grammar and spelling (partly because it
guarantees that I'll make a mistake) but I know you know better than using
it's as a possesive.

Schedule reliability? When was the last time that a Soyuz or Progress
did not launch on the date scheduled?

There are other criteria for safety and reliability than the simple
minded ones you quote. Consider the implications of the failures on
the last two Soyuz flight. Consider the fact that Soyuz has a clear
history of re-entry related failures and accidents.

Accident rate? When was the last time a Soyuz or Progress caused loss
of life?

You forgot: When's the last time a shuttle landed about 1000 miles short of
its designated landing zone?

And: When's the last time the landing rockets failed to fire on the Soyuz?


That's what the mangers asked out the O-rings, and the ET debris.
Considering an accident significant only if it kills folks, is a sure
and certain way to ensure that folks get killed.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

On or about Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:47:50 -0800 (PST), Greg D. Moore (Strider)
made the sensational claim that:
You forgot: When's the last time a shuttle landed about 1000 miles short of
its designated landing zone?

Erm, I don't think that's a good comparison right now. :-\
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...

Soyuz has on several occasions failed to deliver it's crew, although
Progress never has failed to deliver it's cargo. OTOH Progress has
collided with it's target at least twice.

When was the last time that a Soyuz failed to deliver its crew? What
are the chances that that failure mode would be repeated? When was the
last time that a Progress collided with its target using the standard
Kurs rendezvous system?

That's what the mangers asked out the O-rings, and the ET debris.
Considering an accident significant only if it kills folks, is a sure
and certain way to ensure that folks get killed.

Following that logic, a system with a perfect success record for 100
consecutive years is doomed to failure.

(Explorer8939) wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...

Soyuz has on several occasions failed to deliver it's crew, although
Progress never has failed to deliver it's cargo. OTOH Progress has
collided with it's target at least twice.

When was the last time that a Soyuz failed to deliver its crew? What
are the chances that that failure mode would be repeated? When was the
last time that a Progress collided with its target using the standard
Kurs rendezvous system?

So why are focusing on the failures that haven't happened recently,
and ignoring the ongoing failures that *have* happened. That's a good
way to get people killed.

That's what the mangers asked out the O-rings, and the ET debris.
Considering an accident significant only if it kills folks, is a sure
and certain way to ensure that folks get killed.

Following that logic, a system with a perfect success record for 100
consecutive years is doomed to failure.

Generally each individual flight, for a non-reuseable vehicle, is a
statistical universe unto itself. So flight rate matters greatly when
analyzing the sucess record across a long span of time.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
(Explorer8939) wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...

Soyuz has on several occasions failed to deliver it's crew, although
Progress never has failed to deliver it's cargo. OTOH Progress has
collided with it's target at least twice.

When was the last time that a Soyuz failed to deliver its crew? What
are the chances that that failure mode would be repeated? When was the
last time that a Progress collided with its target using the standard
Kurs rendezvous system?

So why are focusing on the failures that haven't happened recently,
and ignoring the ongoing failures that *have* happened. That's a good
way to get people killed.

Derek, the last time a Soyuz failed to deliver its crew to a space
station was ^1983* and that was back in the day before manual Soyuz
rendezvous was possible. The last Progress collision using standard
Kurs rendezvous was *never*. Please don't trying avoiding the actual
facts.

That's what the mangers asked out the O-rings, and the ET debris.
Considering an accident significant only if it kills folks, is a sure
and certain way to ensure that folks get killed.

Following that logic, a system with a perfect success record for 100
consecutive years is doomed to failure.

Generally each individual flight, for a non-reuseable vehicle, is a
statistical universe unto itself. So flight rate matters greatly when
analyzing the sucess record across a long span of time.

Note that the Columbia was a reusable vehicle that encountered a new
failure mode.

You are trashing the Russians for Soyuz and Progress failures that
either never happened, or happened in the Breshznev era, and lauding
NASA designs that failed this year. Please don't let your biases cause
you to see fatal flaws where they do not exist.


D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.