Shuttle program extension?

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
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.

Why should the lifeboat be required to return to earth immediately? Why not
a lifeboat that remains in LEO for up to three months so that the next
shuttle in the processing flow can be used to rescue the astronauts? Such a
lifeboat can be much simpler than a vehicle which must reenter and land.

It seems the only requirement for immediate evacuation would be medical
emergency. As seen at the South Pole base, immediate evacuation simply
isn't possible in all cases. From Wikipedia:

The original South Pole station, now referred to as "Old Pole", was
constructed by an 18-man United States Navy crew during 1956-1957.
The crew landed on site in October 1956 and was the first group to
winter-over at the South Pole, during 1957.

That 18-man crew certainly didn't have the capability to evacuate due to
medical emergency and that is still the case today. Again, from Wikipedia:

In 1999, the winter-over physician, Dr. Jerri Nielsen, discovered
she had breast cancer. She had to rely on self-administered
chemotherapy using supplies from a daring July cargo drop, then
was picked up in an equally dangerous mid-October landing.

There is no immediate medial evac available, yet the station continues to
operate during the harsh Antarctic winter.

Your comparison to cruise ships is silly. The ISS isn't a cruise ship.
It's far more like the South Pole station. The South Pole station even
hosts occasional visitors, which is very similar to commercial customers who
fly to ISS.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:50:39 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

In a situation like that, Soyuz isn't likely to save you anyway. The
discussion is about the lunacy of requiring a "lifeboat" which takes the
ISS
astronauts all the way back to "port" on the ground as opposed to a
"lifeboat" which would allow the astronauts to survive until rescued by a
shuttle.

Actually, I'm not 100% opposed to the "storm shelter" concept. I just
think the "return to port" lifeboat is probably the safer and cheaper
bet, and also covers the medical emergency return contingency.

Safer is debatable. Cheaper is laughable.

A safe haven needs far less complicated systems than a manned reentry
vehicle. In fact, a manned reentry vehicle needs every system you would
need on a safe haven. The only difference is that the manned reentry
vehicle specs those systems to have consumables for a few days where a safe
haven would spec consumables for a several weeks to a few months. Those
extra consumables are very cheap compared to all the extra systems you need
on a reentry vehicle.

In terms of development costs, the safe haven is dirt cheap compared to a
manned reentry vehicle.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...
Unlike Rand, I'm probably more likely to buy into this.

My thesis is that once the station goes to 6 permanent residents, we
should re-examine the lifeboat scenario.

Keep one Soyuz for emergency return of a crew member if necessary (though
there are issues with that, including high-G re-entry and given the last
few overshoots, not sure that's a great option :-)

And the rest go to a storm-shelter solution for the rest of the crew (and
make sure you can basically support them 3-4 months and make sure we keep
shuttle flights on schedule for that.)

As for the seat liner issue, keep them outside the Soyuz, crew members
grab theirs as they enter (depending on who, tec.) (Granted, I realize
their may be issue with how long that takes, but it's an idea.)

This strikes me as a reasonable compromise.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:47:10 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


Last I knew Carnival Cruises weren't offering high-risk jobs on the
cutting
edge of science. (to be a bit melodramatic).

Aircraft carriers do. The have pilots of high-performance jets and
specialists in nuclear powerplants.

And they have lifeboats for everyone.

Aircraft carriers do not have lifeboats that can take the crew back to port
in case of a medical evacuation. That scenario is handled by small
transport aircraft! Soyuz is not a one size fits all solution anymore than
a lifeboat on an aircraft carrier is such a solution.

Soyuz is more like a small crew transport aircraft, not a lifeboat with no
propulsion. A safe haven on ISS is the analog of a lifeboat on an aircraft
carrier. Its purpose is to keep you alive until you can be rescued.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 01:07:16 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

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.

Yet scores of major ships sink every year.

Not that it matters, but "scores of major ships sink every year"?

I don't think so. Unless by "scores" you mean one or two. Or less.

Huh? I didn't say "cruise liners" or "passenger ships", I said major
ships, that includes cargo haulers. Cargo ships are also perceived to
be a low-risk, non cutting-edge job on the same frontier as Carnival
Cruises. But we lose *a lot* of them every year. Thank God they have
lifeboats.

http://www.cargolaw.com/presentation_casualties.07.html

It's a long list, just for 2007. Search the list for the word "sank".
A lot of the list are ferries and small craft, but it is sobering how
many are *not*.

And by "major" you mean ferries...

No, I was aiming more for maritime vessels.

When was the last time a large cruise liner needed to deploy
lifeboats?

The Island Star off Nice, due to loss of power. September 30, 2007.

Brian

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:48:05 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


Aircraft carriers do not have lifeboats that can take the crew back to port
in case of a medical evacuation.

Again, that is because they have the reasonable expectation of rescue
in short order. The ISS does not have that luxury.

Brian

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:39:25 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

Actually, I'm not 100% opposed to the "storm shelter" concept. I just
think the "return to port" lifeboat is probably the safer and cheaper
bet, and also covers the medical emergency return contingency.

Safer is debatable. Cheaper is laughable.

Only if you're keeping the safe haven attached to the ISS, which I
don't think is a good idea (there could be debris issues for a rescue
ship reaching the "storm shelter", loss of control of ISS could make
approach and docking almost impossible, etc.) There is also the danger
that whatever wrecked ISS could also be a timebomb waiting to go off
on the safe haven (i.e., O2 candles.)

A safe haven needs far less complicated systems than a manned reentry
vehicle.

Which we already have with Soyuz and will soon have with Orion (if we
stop screwing around with Ares I) or could have in fairly short order
(X-38, which was 80% complete when cancelled, or Dragon, which the
SpaceX mafia insists will be the greatest thing since sliced bread and
will be available any day now.)

In fact, a manned reentry vehicle needs every system you would
need on a safe haven.

Agreed, but we don't have a safe haven. We have several CRVs off the
shelf (Soyuz) or in design (including Orion, X-38, Dragon, and the
other COTS concepts.) We don't have any ISS modules that can survive
alone, except perhaps ATV. An ATV free-flying storm shelter is an
interesting idea, although I'm not sure how long it could support six
crew independently. If we're going to spend the bucks to make the
storm shelter concept work, wouldn't we be better off spending the
bucks to just finish X-38 or Orion and giving the crew a way to get
home without waiting a month or two for rescue?

In terms of development costs, the safe haven is dirt cheap compared to a
manned reentry vehicle.

Except that little development is needed. Others are already paying
for it.

Brian

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:48:05 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

Soyuz is more like a small crew transport aircraft, not a lifeboat with no
propulsion. A safe haven on ISS is the analog of a lifeboat on an aircraft
carrier. Its purpose is to keep you alive until you can be rescued.

I'm not adamantly against the idea, but I do think you are
underestimating the difficulty and reliability of the safe haven
concept. Safe haven works for Shuttle/ISS because the ISS is a fully
functional refuge if the Shuttle is disabled. But how do you provide
safe haven for ISS when the next Shuttle launch might be four months
away? A module that can be completely isolated from the rest of ISS?
What happens if ISS loses complete control (which it probably would if
you're looking to use safe haven or otherwise bail out). How do the
rescue ships dock? If you seperate the safe haven and fly
independently, then we're essentially talking about a space station
the size of Salyut 1 that can support six crew for a month or two.
That will not be a small or cheap undertaking. Why build a second
space station when we need a crew ferry anyway, and the crew ferry can
also serve as lifeboat?

Brian

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:13:44 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 Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:48:05 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

Soyuz is more like a small crew transport aircraft, not a lifeboat with no
propulsion. A safe haven on ISS is the analog of a lifeboat on an aircraft
carrier. Its purpose is to keep you alive until you can be rescued.

I'm not adamantly against the idea, but I do think you are
underestimating the difficulty and reliability of the safe haven
concept. Safe haven works for Shuttle/ISS because the ISS is a fully
functional refuge if the Shuttle is disabled. But how do you provide
safe haven for ISS when the next Shuttle launch might be four months
away? A module that can be completely isolated from the rest of ISS?
What happens if ISS loses complete control (which it probably would if
you're looking to use safe haven or otherwise bail out). How do the
rescue ships dock? If you seperate the safe haven and fly
independently, then we're essentially talking about a space station
the size of Salyut 1 that can support six crew for a month or two.
That will not be a small or cheap undertaking.

Tell it to Bob Bigelow...

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:48:05 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


Aircraft carriers do not have lifeboats that can take the crew back to
port
in case of a medical evacuation.

Again, that is because they have the reasonable expectation of rescue
in short order. The ISS does not have that luxury.

Which is why I like the South Pole base analogy better than the aircraft
carrier analogy. A cargo drop from an LC-130 in the middle of winter (e.g.
Soyuz, ATV, HTV, COTS) is more likely to come in a timely fashion than an
actual landing of an LC-130 crew transport (e.g. shuttle visit), which has
to wait for more ideal weather conditions.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein