|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:02:46 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote: Titanic had many ships within hours' travel of rescue The Californian was within sight (her radioman had gone to sleep and distress rockets were ignored by her captain, another change after Titanic was that all large ships have their radios manned 24 hours a day) and the Carpathia arrived on scene just after sunrise. ISS cannot expect to have other ships available to rescue the crew within a reasonable amount of time. Then either that has to change, or the assumption that it's a requirement has to change. It won't. Get over it. You may as well say that Carnival Cruises can stop putting lifeboats on their ships. Never gonna happen. As I pointed out, there are already scenarios where lifeboats won't do you much good. But you provide a lifeboat to handle as much as you practically can. Practical being the key word. There are always going to be events that happen too quickly for lifeboats to help, at sea and in space. The Andrea Doria was listing too far over for half her lifeboats to be launched in 1956 (the passengers were fortunately rescued by the nearby Ile de France). We didn't say "See! Lifeboats aren't a 100% guarantee! Get rid of them!". The government already sends hundreds of employees out on craft which have rescue capabilities that are far more feel good than actually useful. One of our own here served on one such craft. You're wrong about submarines, Greg. They do have lifeboats, the same as all Navy ships (you don't see lifeboats hanging all along the sides of the Nimitz, either). For example, take a look at "Hunt for Red October" to see inflatable lifeboats in action (the scene was filmed on a Brit sub, I think). They have been used in real life, too. Being able to "deliver all the way back to Southampton" is a lot cheaper for NASA than having a Carpathia on standby for launch 24/7. Or is it? Seriously. I do wonder if anyone has looked at the cost of either developing a rescue craft for the next 4-5 years, We don't need to develop a rescue craft. We just need to accellerate Orion. paying the Russians That's still a lifeboat that gets you back to Southampton. It's just not one the US builds. Brian |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:05:21 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:53:24 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: They have to. The sea lanes are relatively crowded, while LEO has exactly one human-capable "ship". Then that's the problem to be solved, not developing a "lifeboat" that comes all the way to earth and idiotically abandons a hundred-billion-dollar space station. Agreed, but that's the world we live in. We're talking about what to do for the years 2010-2015, not for 2025. In 2010, doing without a lifeboat is a political non-starter. I would think that Bigelow (or someone who purchased one from Bigelow) could put a Sundancer in an ISS co-orbit by 2012, for a lot less than a capsule will cost. With that safe haven in place, all you need is a true lifeboat--a simple can with minimal propulsion, docking system, and a few hours of life support. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:02:29 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:02:46 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote: Titanic had many ships within hours' travel of rescue The Californian was within sight (her radioman had gone to sleep and distress rockets were ignored by her captain, another change after Titanic was that all large ships have their radios manned 24 hours a day) and the Carpathia arrived on scene just after sunrise. ISS cannot expect to have other ships available to rescue the crew within a reasonable amount of time. Then either that has to change, or the assumption that it's a requirement has to change. It won't. Get over it. You may as well say that Carnival Cruises can stop putting lifeboats on their ships. Never gonna happen. Not a good analogy. Carnival Cruises isn't a cutting-edge operation on a dangerous frontier. Being able to "deliver all the way back to Southampton" is a lot cheaper for NASA than having a Carpathia on standby for launch 24/7. Or is it? Seriously. I do wonder if anyone has looked at the cost of either developing a rescue craft for the next 4-5 years, We don't need to develop a rescue craft. We just need to accellerate Orion. Or Dragon. Or put up a safe haven with an interorbital transfer system, which is actually much simpler and cheaper. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
... On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:02:46 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote: Then either that has to change, or the assumption that it's a requirement has to change. It won't. Get over it. You may as well say that Carnival Cruises can stop putting lifeboats on their ships. Never gonna happen. Last I knew Carnival Cruises weren't offering high-risk jobs on the cutting edge of science. (to be a bit melodramatic). As I pointed out, there are already scenarios where lifeboats won't do you much good. But you provide a lifeboat to handle as much as you practically can. Practical being the key word. And that's the key word; practical. Is it practical to provide lifeboats at $20million+/pop. No offense, but you're going to find few actuarial tables that say that's a good return. There are always going to be events that happen too quickly for lifeboats to help, at sea and in space. The Andrea Doria was listing too far over for half her lifeboats to be launched in 1956 (the passengers were fortunately rescued by the nearby Ile de France). We didn't say "See! Lifeboats aren't a 100% guarantee! Get rid of them!". Nor did we say, "double up lifeboats on both sides of the boat just in case this happens." Or "make lifeboats accessible while under water. The government already sends hundreds of employees out on craft which have rescue capabilities that are far more feel good than actually useful. One of our own here served on one such craft. You're wrong about submarines, Greg. They do have lifeboats, the same as all Navy ships (you don't see lifeboats hanging all along the sides of the Nimitz, either). For example, take a look at "Hunt for Red October" to see inflatable lifeboats in action (the scene was filmed on a Brit sub, I think). They have been used in real life, too. You're right, I'll admit to overlooking inflatables. But my point stands, they're usable in a very limited set of circumstances. Note the Thresher incident. Again, no one is demanding a lifeboat that covers all the possible accidnets. Being able to "deliver all the way back to Southampton" is a lot cheaper for NASA than having a Carpathia on standby for launch 24/7. Or is it? Seriously. I do wonder if anyone has looked at the cost of either developing a rescue craft for the next 4-5 years, We don't need to develop a rescue craft. We just need to accellerate Orion. paying the Russians That's still a lifeboat that gets you back to Southampton. It's just not one the US builds. Brian -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
wrote in message
... On Sep 16, 11:16 pm, John Doe wrote: 1. Consider that PMA2 can possibly be used as an airlock. If you have some primitive pressure suits stored in node2, then the stranded crewmembers could ingress PMA2, close the hatch to the station, then depressurise (equalise with the ship on other side which happens to be "vacuum" :-) and open hatch to outside and then move towards a waiting Soyuz ship and ingress through its airlock. (attach line to PMA2, then propell yourself towards the nearby soyuz, if you fail to latch on to the soyuz, you pull yourself back to station and try again). 2. If NODE2 has no spare suits, then someone in the soyuz would have to EVA with spare suits, place them in an already depressurised PMA2, close the hatch, let the crew then repressurise it, put the suits on and then egress. 3. If a crewmember went from 14.7 to 5psi with only O2 pre-breathe for a few minutes+ whatevcer time it takes for a PMA2 to equalise to vaccum, how long before "the bends" symtoms would appear ? Could they go for say 30 minute at 5psi in pure O2 and then repressurise in the soyuz and be relatively OK ? 1. Not viable. The crew can't just "jump" to the Soyuz. Umm, sure they can. It's ill-advised and no one in their right mind would do it given a choice, but again, emergency situations dictate slightly different procedures than non-emergency ones. 2. Not viable, it would take at least 2 Soyuz crew members and so where is the room for the 'rescued" crew Sure there is. Again, in John D's scenario, you're simply using the Soyuz to ferry them to a viable part of the station. Again, against all protocols currently, but again, the point is to think outside the box and way the risk. 3. immediately. True, but again, is it worth it? None of your ideas are viable |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:39:17 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:17:46 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: Agreed, but that's the world we live in. We're talking about what to do for the years 2010-2015, not for 2025. In 2010, doing without a lifeboat is a political non-starter. I would think that Bigelow (or someone who purchased one from Bigelow) could put a Sundancer in an ISS co-orbit by 2012, for a lot less than a capsule will cost. I have almost no confidence in that being the case, given the SpaceX example. What does SpaceX have to do with Bigelow? Bigelow has been consistently ahead of schedule... |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:58:40 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote: Why do you think ISS is closer to a ship like the Titanic than it is to something like the South Pole research station? Because without a lifeboat, if the ISS is crippled, you die, just like the lifeboat-less passengers on Titanic. You always have a fighting chance at McMurdo, look how long Scott's expedition survived and that was with 1912 technology. At the very least, you won't suffocate. You might freeze, but during the summer months that's far from certain (space is 100% hostile 24/7/365.) My point is that evac from ISS using the shuttle is similar to evac from the South Pole during the middle of winter. It certainly woudln't be easy, but NASA already has plans in place for rescuing a stranded shuttle crew for the Hubble repair mission. That's not practical for ISS, though. We'd have to have a Shuttle on standby like Endeavour will be for Atlantis, but launch prep takes too long and we don't have enough Orbiters to keep doing this 365 days a year. So a Mars mission is "special", but a LEO station with a thousand people on it would need to have "lifeboats" to return everyone to earth in case of an emergency? That's just silly. Let me turn this around on you. Cruise ships and aircraft carriers already have thousands of people on them, and they have lifeboats for everyone. Why is LEO different? Just because you want to save a few bucks on a lifeboat? Good luck getting government or commercial backers for THAT plan. :-) Brian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shuttle program extension? | Flyguy | Space Shuttle | 175 | September 22nd 08 04:18 PM |
No Shuttle launch, Shuttle program mothballed? | Widget | Policy | 1 | July 4th 06 03:51 PM |
The shuttle program needs some comedy!!! | Steve W. | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 9th 05 09:59 PM |
More Evidence The Shuttle Program Should Be Scrapped | John Slade | Space Shuttle | 7 | August 2nd 05 04:35 AM |
Question regarding the end of the Shuttle program | JazzMan | Space Shuttle | 23 | February 19th 04 03:21 AM |