How safe a haven?

In message .com
"Allen Thomson" wrote:


Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


They fly home with one of the Station crew (who presumably is
better trained to fly Soyuz.).

How much crew intervention/pilotage do modern Soyuzy require
to get back to Earth?

It's a step up from flight engineer. Several of the ESA astronauts are
trained as Soyuz Flight Engineers, a few have gone on to qualify as
Return Commanders. So far none are full Commanders, and I'm not sure if
even the RSA have any Rescue Commanders (trained to fly solo without an
FE) on the books these days.

Anthony

How much crew intervention/pilotage do modern Soyuzy require
to get back to Earth?

Not much, and a ballistic return is survivable.

100% coverage unless you accelerate the pipeline. And you still have the
seatliner issue; since there will typically be multiple shuttle launches
over the life of that Soyuz, you'd have to get all the shuttle crewmembers
fitted for them.

How serious is the issue of no seat liner?? I guess I'm thinking of
something like the old US form fitting things. Is that correct? In an
emergency can you land with out one or would the occupant suffer
enough injuries that its not a valid idea?

George

===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766
President +1 206 374 6482 FAX
Netwrx Consulting Inc. Jackson, WI USA
http://www.netwrx1.com

ICQ #12862186

George R. Kasica wrote in
:

100% coverage unless you accelerate the pipeline. And you still have
the seatliner issue; since there will typically be multiple shuttle
launches over the life of that Soyuz, you'd have to get all the
shuttle crewmembers fitted for them.

How serious is the issue of no seat liner??

Broken back at landing, otherwise not a big deal.
--
JRF

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

Jorge R. Frank wrote:


How serious is the issue of no seat liner??

Broken back at landing, otherwise not a big deal.


But, to back up a bit, why would it be infeasible for
each shuttle flight to carry Soyuz seatliners for all
seven of its crewfolk? Weight? Volume? Expense?

(Is there a picture of a seatliner around?)

On 07 Feb 2005 05:08:32 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

George R. Kasica wrote in
:

100% coverage unless you accelerate the pipeline. And you still have
the seatliner issue; since there will typically be multiple shuttle
launches over the life of that Soyuz, you'd have to get all the
shuttle crewmembers fitted for them.

How serious is the issue of no seat liner??

Broken back at landing, otherwise not a big deal.

Okay...that's sort of a big deal, but if my choices are slow
asphyxiation or a broken back, I'll take my chances, bones heal, death
is forever (usually).


===[George R. Kasica]===

Village Of Jackson EMT-IV Tech #304005/PHTLS

http://www.netwrx1.com/georgek
ICQ #12862186

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:57:17 GMT, (Derek Lyons) wrote:

"Allen Thomson" wrote:

And if Columbia-like shuttle damage
forces an emergency rescue, he thinks two Soyuz capsules
could do it quicker than one U.S. backup shuttle.

And where precisely are these two 'extra' Soyuz going to come from?

The way I read it, Krikalev is only talking about one extra Soyuz.
Two shuttle and one ISS crew member in each, leaving the station
unoccupied for a while. Given the probable loss of another reenterable
shuttle forcing the situation in the first place, the future of ISS would
be in doubt anyway.

Dale

"Allen Thomson" wrote in message
oups.com...
But, to back up a bit, why would it be infeasible for
each shuttle flight to carry Soyuz seatliners for all
seven of its crewfolk? Weight? Volume? Expense?

Considering the shuttle program is about $4 billion a year, I'm sure NASA
could afford to do Soyuz seat liners for each of its astronauts it flies on
the shuttle. Weight and volume would certainly be issues, but you'd think
it would be manageable, considering that the shuttle was used several times
for crew rotation on Mir and the seat liners had to be swapped out on those
flights.

Still, you'd think the easier thing to do would be to make sure ISS was
stocked with enough O2, H2O, and food to sustain a ten person crew until a
shuttle rescue mission could be flown. Part of this would be making sure
that Quest was fully stocked with full O2 tanks and that all of the excess
H2O from the shuttle fuel cells was being stored on ISS. The food issue is
relatively minor. As long as there is enough water, dehydrated food would
keep you alive.

As for CO2 removal, the US unit isn't used much, so presumably NASA would
need to make sure they could keep that running during such a contingency.

I wonder if power might also be an issue, since one would presume that
Elektron and the CO2 scrubbers would be running full tilt. This issue would
surely get better once more US solar arrays are added to ISS, but for now,
how strapped for power would ISS get with ten crew members on board?

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Derek Lyons wrote:
And if Columbia-like shuttle damage
forces an emergency rescue, he thinks two Soyuz capsules
could do it quicker than one U.S. backup shuttle.

And where precisely are these two 'extra' Soyuz going to come from?

What "two 'extra' Soyuz"? Can you read? He's taking about 1 (one) extra
Soyuz with a three-man capsule. Another capsule is already there on ISS,
meaning that six people will be able to return from ISS (two - ISS crew,
and another four - shuttle crew) leaving the ISS unoccupied.

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich

Andrey Tarasevich wrote:

What "two 'extra' Soyuz"? Can you read? He's taking about
1 (one) extra Soyuz with a three-man capsule. Another
capsule is already there on ISS, meaning that six people
will be able to return from ISS (two - ISS crew, and
another four - shuttle crew) leaving the ISS unoccupied.


But, which is also a possibility, if there are six people on
ISS, they want to reduce the crew to the previous two to avoid
abandoning the station (at least for a while) and leave a
lifeboat Soyuz there for the two, that means two extra Soyuz.

Either that or have somebody sit in sombody else's lap, which
the seatliner discussion indicates might not be a good idea.