Shuttle ET crack

On 11/7/2010 6:34 AM, wrote:
On Nov 6, 7:42 pm, Pat wrote:

Many years back, I read the area around the Cape has more thunderstorms
on average per year than any other place in the US.

US: http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/lightning_map.htm

Looking at that, I didn't realize that the area around New Orleans got
that many.

Pat

On 11/7/2010 9:37 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:

Jorge on many times has said four is the minimum crew needed for
rendezvous flights.

Minor note: Atlantis does not have SSPTS, so there will be less time
to offload the MPLM.

If that's the case, and Atlantis gets stuck up there, it's going to be a
pain in the rear to get them all back; that's two Soyuz flights mininum,
and can the ISS life support system handle ten crew without resorting to
the oxygen candles?

Pat

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 20:09:33 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

One thing that hasn't been discussed yet is the scenario where the
Shuttle makes it into orbit, but is damaged enough that it can't reach
the ISS for some reason.

Which is very unlikely. It would require two separate failures (TPS
and OMS/RCS.)

Then they would need a rescue Shuttle to go to
it and rescue the crew, and that wouldn't be available on a presumed
added last mission.

Just like the first 113 shuttle missions.

It's probably better to get out of this whole little Shuttle experiment
with only 14 people dead and 40% of the orbiters lost.

Oh for heaven's sake, Pat. I'll send you $5 toward purchasing a
backbone.

Brian

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 20:26:01 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:


Minor note: Atlantis does not have SSPTS, so there will be less time
to offload the MPLM.

If that's the case, and Atlantis gets stuck up there, it's going to be a
pain in the rear to get them all back;

It has already been planned out. Someone (the healthiest astronaut
presumably) will be staying on ISS for a year. That's still a few
months short of the record duration in orbit.

that's two Soyuz flights mininum,
and can the ISS life support system handle ten crew without resorting to
the oxygen candles?

Three would return immediately on one of the Soyuzes.

Brian

On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 19:37:40 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


a better question........ does soyuz have the extra production
capacity to quickly produce 2 or more extra vehicles?

Nope, they're built on Just In Time delivery schedules. The Shuttle
crew (or some subset of the ten people in orbit) will just have to
wait it out.

i wonder too about what would happen if soyuz were suddenly
unavailable for some reason?

A bad day. But that would require two simultaneous failures (Shuttle
and Soyuz.)

like finding the vehicles at station cant reenter?

A little hard to see how that could happen.

Brian

On Nov 8, 10:52*am, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 19:37:40 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
a better question........ does soyuz have the extra production
capacity to quickly produce 2 or more extra vehicles?

Nope, they're built on Just In Time delivery schedules. The Shuttle
crew (or some subset of the ten people in orbit) will just have to
wait it out.

i wonder too about what would happen if soyuz were suddenly
unavailable for some reason?

A bad day. But that would require two simultaneous failures (Shuttle
and Soyuz.)

like finding the vehicles at station cant reenter?

A little hard to see how that could happen.

Brian

once the final shuttle departs ISS human transit is 100% totally
dependent on soyuz.

which could have some sort of problem preventing soyuz from deorbiting
anyone..

in which case the crew is stuck in orbit

On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:56:32 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

once the final shuttle departs ISS human transit is 100% totally
dependent on soyuz.

which could have some sort of problem preventing soyuz from deorbiting
anyone..

Could, but it is *very* unlikely. Russia has 40 years of experience
with Soyuz at Space Stations, so I think we can have some confidence
they know what they're doing.

in which case the crew is stuck in orbit

But unless Station suddenly springs a leak, they're still safe and can
wait out Russia fixing whatever problem happened to Soyuz. The longest
a cosmonaut stayed on Mir was 438 days.

I already know you're going to say "but what if Station springs a
leak?" Do I need to send you $5 for new functioning backbone, too?
At some point, you nhave to stop with all the "coulds" and "mights"
and "what ifs" and you just accept that sometimes bad things happen.
If the crew is willing to risk it, why are you so afraid of them doing
it?

Brian

In message
Brian Thorn wrote:

On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 19:37:40 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


a better question........ does soyuz have the extra production
capacity to quickly produce 2 or more extra vehicles?

Nope, they're built on Just In Time delivery schedules. The Shuttle
crew (or some subset of the ten people in orbit) will just have to
wait it out.

As has been stated following the bump the next Soyuz got during
transport from the factory to Baikonour, there's a spare. If it's
decided to send the next one back for a thorough checkup the spare will
be used to keep the crew rotation on schedule. The limiting factor is
more likely to be the availability of a suitable launcher.

Anthony

Pat Flannery wrote:
It might be time to rethink where we launch rockets from.

This is not a technical problem, it is a political one. The space coast is
too tied to the NASA jobs to ever let that happen.

Glen Overby

Brian Thorn wrote:
Oh for heaven's sake, Pat. I'll send you $5 toward purchasing a
backbone.

The problem is our collective backbones, and our flight to safety: people in
general are unwilling to take risks and are unwilling to let others take
risks.

The latter is more of a problem than the former.

Glen Overby