|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
From Russia, Without Love
"Explorer8939" wrote in message
om... (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. Umm, he's not. He's simply not redefining them. Who cares what the last Progress collission using Kurs was. What you care about is the last collision in general. It crippled an entire module in Mir. Note that the Columbia was a reusable vehicle that encountered a new failure mode. Actually no. It encountered a failure mode in a new way. (i.e. they had known about foam strikes for years. Whether or not they considered the RCC vulnerable is actually irrelevant as they weren't considering it a problem at all.) Had they approached the problem with the seriousness it deserved, Columbia would still be flying. 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. I'm not trying to speak for Derek, but he's not. He's simply trying to remind you that Soyuz/Progress is not nearly as good as some folks would like to think it is. The truth of the matter is, spaceflight, Russian or American is just plain risky. 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. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
From Russia, Without Love
Hmmm ... let me try this again.
The centerpiece of the world's human spaceflight programs is ISS (at least at the moment). The *only* available logistics carrier for ISS is the Russian Progress. Even worse, the launch vehicles for all other near term ISS logistics supply systems are all grounded, due to various catastrophic failures. Yet, you trash the Russian system that is actually working. "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message ... "Explorer8939" wrote in message om... (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. Umm, he's not. He's simply not redefining them. Who cares what the last Progress collission using Kurs was. What you care about is the last collision in general. It crippled an entire module in Mir. Note that the Columbia was a reusable vehicle that encountered a new failure mode. Actually no. It encountered a failure mode in a new way. (i.e. they had known about foam strikes for years. Whether or not they considered the RCC vulnerable is actually irrelevant as they weren't considering it a problem at all.) Had they approached the problem with the seriousness it deserved, Columbia would still be flying. 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. I'm not trying to speak for Derek, but he's not. He's simply trying to remind you that Soyuz/Progress is not nearly as good as some folks would like to think it is. The truth of the matter is, spaceflight, Russian or American is just plain risky. 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|