ISS Safe Haven?

(Explorer8939) wrote in message . com...
Thanks for the new name. However, my question remains: is this an
ISSPO requirement, and if so, why wasn't it included in the ISSPO
response to the CAIB report?


Well.... , indeed, I cannot pinpoint it as being a 'hard' RTF
requirment from the CAIB report.
This is a bit of a dissapointment,..., in my opinion, since I was
hoping this would be an avenue to some kind of a 'module' that was
satisfy the ESA concern about not ever having a 6 man crew. An issue ,
which I thought, had been resolved in favor of ... well... a 6 man
crew... at some future date, somehow .
Sigh! we shall see.
Anyway a 'module' resolution would have killed two birds with one
stone!

Al Jackson wrote:
hoping this would be an avenue to some kind of a 'module' that was
satisfy the ESA concern about not ever having a 6 man crew. An issue ,
which I thought, had been resolved in favor of ... well... a 6 man
crew... at some future date, somehow .

That wouldn't make a big difference since you'd still have to be able to cater
to 7 extra visitors.

(Explorer8939) wrote in message . com...
Thanks for the new name. However, my question remains: is this an
ISSPO requirement, and if so, why wasn't it included in the ISSPO
response to the CAIB report?



"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
(Al Jackson) wrote in
om:

(Explorer8939) wrote in message
. com...
The NASA Return to Flight report mentions that ISS should have some
sort of safe haven that would allow a Shuttle crew to survive at ISS
for 84 days. However, if this is a requirement, how will the station
office meet this requirement?

Actually it is still in the loop. "ISS Safe Haven" has been renamed
"ISS Contingency Shuttle Crew Support (CSCS).

Right. It was renamed CSCS to avoid confusion with an earlier, unrelated
"Safe Haven" analysis (on the ability of ISS to support a crew of six with
only one Soyuz).

If you look at the CAIB report , 'save haven' is strongly mentioned in
section
2.5. However , best I can tell, it is not listed as a RTF issue.

CSCS is mentioned in section 2.5 of Implementation Plan for Space
Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond , tho I can't find it mentioned in
the ISS Implementation Plan.
Maybe it will be a 'Beyond' item to take action on?

It is , for sure, if the Orbiter is damaged to such an extent that it
has to make an un-manned entry , well... , I hope somebody is still
working this contingency, since one is going to need CSCS then.

Hello? I guess I must be typing all my letters in a font with the
color of white, since the below is my original question:


(Al Jackson) wrote in message . com...
If you look at the CAIB report , 'save haven' is strongly mentioned in
section
2.5. However , best I can tell, it is not listed as a RTF issue.

CSCS is mentioned in section 2.5 of Implementation Plan for Space
Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond , tho I can't find it mentioned in
the ISS Implementation Plan.


Let me try asking this a different way: why the f%$& would the Shuttle
program describe CSCS that levies heavy requirements on ISS in their
response to CAIB if the ISS Program Office response to CAIB is silent
on this issue? WHO is responsible for determining whether there will
be a CSCS, or will this astronaut safety issue simply vanish between
the cracks?

(Explorer8939) wrote in message . com...
Hello? I guess I must be typing all my letters in a font with the
color of white, since the below is my original question:


(Al Jackson) wrote in message . com...
If you look at the CAIB report , 'save haven' is strongly mentioned in
section
2.5. However , best I can tell, it is not listed as a RTF issue.

CSCS is mentioned in section 2.5 of Implementation Plan for Space
Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond , tho I can't find it mentioned in
the ISS Implementation Plan.


Let me try asking this a different way: why the f%$& would the Shuttle
program describe CSCS that levies heavy requirements on ISS in their
response to CAIB if the ISS Program Office response to CAIB is silent
on this issue? WHO is responsible for determining whether there will
be a CSCS, or will this astronaut safety issue simply vanish between
the cracks?

I would not say the ISS Program Office has been silent to the issue.
There was an Assessment in August of 2003, I am guessing it is still
an action item. Why it did not turn up in the Station Implementation
Plan , I don't know.
Perhaps Jorge knows?

Its going to be non-trivial for the ISSPO to support CSCS, that is a
lot of logistics to deliver and store at ISS (some of this is alluded
to in earlier messages). I am wondering if this particular
non-requirement will simply be met in the breach.


(Al Jackson) wrote in message om...
(Explorer8939) wrote in message . com...
Hello? I guess I must be typing all my letters in a font with the
color of white, since the below is my original question:


(Al Jackson) wrote in message . com...
If you look at the CAIB report , 'save haven' is strongly mentioned in
section
2.5. However , best I can tell, it is not listed as a RTF issue.

CSCS is mentioned in section 2.5 of Implementation Plan for Space
Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond , tho I can't find it mentioned in
the ISS Implementation Plan.


Let me try asking this a different way: why the f%$& would the Shuttle
program describe CSCS that levies heavy requirements on ISS in their
response to CAIB if the ISS Program Office response to CAIB is silent
on this issue? WHO is responsible for determining whether there will
be a CSCS, or will this astronaut safety issue simply vanish between
the cracks?

I would not say the ISS Program Office has been silent to the issue.
There was an Assessment in August of 2003, I am guessing it is still
an action item. Why it did not turn up in the Station Implementation
Plan , I don't know.
Perhaps Jorge knows?