If they find Soyuz has a major systems fault after the latest 'landing'...

What if it takes more than two years to fix? The shuttle won't be in
service after that either. What about the crew currently on the ISS?

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
What if it takes more than two years to fix? The shuttle won't be in
service after that either. What about the crew currently on the ISS?

Since when have non-fatal incidents like this stopped the Russians from
flying Soyuz? Reportedly the previous Soyuz flight had a similar problem to
this one.

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

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
What if it takes more than two years to fix? The shuttle won't be in
service after that either. What about the crew currently on the ISS?

Since when have non-fatal incidents like this stopped the Russians from
flying Soyuz?

It hasn't. Which, as several of us have pointed out over the years,
is what lead NASA to lose two shuttles.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
What if it takes more than two years to fix? The shuttle won't be in
service after that either. What about the crew currently on the ISS?

Since when have non-fatal incidents like this stopped the Russians from
flying Soyuz?

It hasn't. Which, as several of us have pointed out over the years,
is what lead NASA to lose two shuttles.

True, but occasionally, NASA will delay shuttle flights due to problems like
the LH2 low level cutoff sensors. My impression is that Russia isn't quite
as cautious, especially when you consider that this is the second ballistic
reentry in a row for Soyuz.

I like the stories of Russian fighter pilots who stay out drinking the night
before they're going to fly and then fly without a g-suit because g-suits
are for sissies...

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

Jeff Findley wrote:

True, but occasionally, NASA will delay shuttle flights due to problems like
the LH2 low level cutoff sensors.

NASA is very much by the book. If the book specifies that such and such
sensor must be within certain values, that it will make sure that the
values are acceptable before giving the go for launch. And it is very
hard for NASA to deviate from that.

The problem is with parameters that are not in the book. (such as when
foam problems started to surface).

Now that foam problems have been documented, NASA has written them in
the book and knows what to check for during tank construction,
inspections, and obviously during launch with new camerias installed.

I think that for many problems, it takes a number of occurences before
you start to understand what really happens and what causes it.

In the case of this flight, if a module failed to separate, but that
module was vapourised during re-entry, there is not much left to
investigate on why it didn't work.

And one needs to ask whether this was a manufacturing problem, or a
design problem.

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
What if it takes more than two years to fix?

Hard to say. Years ago, the USSR would have stopped flights for the time
required (and flown at least one unmanned flight after the fix).

Today, I really suspect they'll keep flying until someone dies.


The shuttle won't be in
service after that either. What about the crew currently on the ISS?

After the last Soyuz reaches its 6 month limit, they abandon the station.

Keep in mind it's not just the lack of ferry flights. It's the loss of
assured crew return. That's one thing the Soviets and the Russians have
never ignored (i.e. never left cosmonauts on a station w/o a docked Soyuz)
and one thing the Americans won't do.

So we have a fairly major single point of failure if they stop flying Soyuz.
The shuttle can't stay at the station for 6 months at a time.







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

Yes, but surely, many of them do not have this problem so it should be
relatively easy to fix it, if only by a change in procedure.
As has been said many times before, This launching and bringing back people
relatively undamaged from space is not easy. If it was easy, we would all
go!

The Russian way around things seems to be to just make the equipment tougher
and only fix the core problem when its fatal.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
What if it takes more than two years to fix? The shuttle won't be in
service after that either. What about the crew currently on the ISS?

Since when have non-fatal incidents like this stopped the Russians from
flying Soyuz? Reportedly the previous Soyuz flight had a similar problem
to this one.

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

I don't see how it can have a major systems fault, as if it did every re
entry would suffer from the problem
I'd imagine the main problem now is what about the on station ship?

Its more of a detective story at the moment. If its something which has
only just happened, then one needs to look through changes different batches
of critical components and see if there is any correlation.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
What if it takes more than two years to fix?

Hard to say. Years ago, the USSR would have stopped flights for the time
required (and flown at least one unmanned flight after the fix).

Today, I really suspect they'll keep flying until someone dies.


The shuttle won't be in
service after that either. What about the crew currently on the ISS?

After the last Soyuz reaches its 6 month limit, they abandon the station.

Keep in mind it's not just the lack of ferry flights. It's the loss of
assured crew return. That's one thing the Soviets and the Russians have
never ignored (i.e. never left cosmonauts on a station w/o a docked Soyuz)
and one thing the Americans won't do.

So we have a fairly major single point of failure if they stop flying
Soyuz. The shuttle can't stay at the station for 6 months at a time.







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

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:15:19 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

I don't see how it can have a major systems fault, as if it did every re
entry would suffer from the problem

Exactly what NASA was thinking on January 16, 2003. Sixteen days
later, that logic was proven faulty.

Brian

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Jeff Findley wrote:

True, but occasionally, NASA will delay shuttle flights due to problems
like
the LH2 low level cutoff sensors.

NASA is very much by the book. If the book specifies that such and such
sensor must be within certain values, that it will make sure that the
values are acceptable before giving the go for launch. And it is very
hard for NASA to deviate from that.

Except when it came to o-ring erosion on the SRB's and TPS damage caused by
foam falling from the ET (which happens on *every* mission).

The problem is with parameters that are not in the book. (such as when
foam problems started to surface).

What do you mean? The TPS was never designed nor intended to withstand
impacts by foam falling from the ET. This was a design defect that showed
its ugly head on the first flight.

Now that foam problems have been documented, NASA has written them in
the book and knows what to check for during tank construction,
inspections, and obviously during launch with new camerias installed.

I think that for many problems, it takes a number of occurences before
you start to understand what really happens and what causes it.

If you're really going "by the book" with a craft as experimental as the
shuttle you stop flying immediately and don't fly again until the problem,
and its possible consequences, is well understood. NASA *never* fully
understood the consequences of falling foam until after the Columbia
disaster.

In the case of this flight, if a module failed to separate, but that
module was vapourised during re-entry, there is not much left to
investigate on why it didn't work.

And one needs to ask whether this was a manufacturing problem, or a
design problem.

There are still systems you can inspect on the part of the capsule that
comes back. Furthermore, you can do more testing on the ground of the
systems that didn't come back intact.

The shuttle has similar pyrotechnic separation systems that absolutely must
operate each and every time, or it would result in loss of vehicle and crew.
Imagine what would happen if the shuttle or an SRB failed to fully separate
from the ET. NASA has always taken very seriously any problems with these
sorts of systems. They're all multiply redundant and use explosive nuts,
bolts, and etc. that have been thoroughly tested on the ground.

In my opinion, pyrotechnics is one area where NASA has a better safety
record than the Russians.

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