|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
No straight answers from NASA on depressurization event on Soyuz descent
Two weeks ago -- a potentially alarming safety issue.
So far, not a single useful word of reply from anyone at NASA. Questions remain -- more questions arise: First question -- how did Phillips describe it during his debriefing with NASA folks at GCTC-Zvyozdniy? Then, WHEN is Russia supposed to inform NASA of the results? Lastly, WHAT (if any) implications are there for the Soyuz currently docked? What written documentation of the comments during descent were made at MCC-H and the NASA Moscow office? Did anyone note at that time the verbal descriptions of pressure drop, and discuss them in debriefings for which there are minutes? Can we see those minutes and log pages? These are not unreasonably questions. Any appeal to 'go use FOIA' is not, in my view, reasonable or fair. Here's my original MSNBC.com story from October 14 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9697668/) and the followup on Alan Boyle's 'space blog' at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9732230/#051019a |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
No straight answers from NASA on depressurization event on Soyuz descent
Out of curiosity, what is the consquence today if the historic
valve-stuck-open problem repeats? They wear pressure suits now, so is it a matter of having time to put on the helmet and gloves? are those already on? Presumably it is harder to flip switches, etc in a suit inflated by pressure difference (ie, in a depressuarized capsule). Not saying the issue should be taken lightly, but wondering if it's medium danger / severe annoyance level, or if it's seriously life threatening on the ground it until it's fixed level? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
No straight answers from NASA on depressurization event on Soyuz descent
It will be interesting to see how reactions run to this question. My
reaction is that if (and these are not foregone conclusions) the crew is prompted in time, sufficiently trained to rapidly don helmets and gloves, and the leak rate is not unreasonably high . . . then no . . . it not seriously life threatening (i.e. prompt dire consequences for the crew). But it is unsettling that the crew would be down to their last layer of redundancy (the suit itself). Yes, the suits have been reliable (when donned in a relaxed fashion with someone backstopping you) and no, I not saying we should stay on the ground unless the risk is zero. It is that it elevates the pulse slightly that you are down to your last (albeit very good) layer of defense. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
No straight answers from NASA on depressurization event on Soyuzdescent
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
No straight answers from NASA on depressurization event on Soyuz descent
John Doe wrote:
It was probably a very minor glitch that appears to be more serious than it was because of the "secrecy" about it. Yah. And all the o-ring partial burnthroughs were minor glitches too.. And all the foam shedding events prior to -107. It's nauseating how idiots like yourself handwave away every problem as a 'minor glitch'. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
No straight answers from NASA on depressurization event on Soyuzdescent
Derek Lyons wrote:
It's nauseating how idiots like yourself handwave away every problem as a 'minor glitch'. Just because in-flight, a problem is not seen as critical doesn't mean that back on ground, it can be forgotten. Russia needs to find out exactly why this happened and make sure it doesn't happen anymore. Unfortunatly, the evidence would have been destroyed when the orbital module disintegrated into atmosphere. (Unless crews would have been able to manoeuver the re-entry module to take hi-res pictures of the orbital modul forward hatch once the orbital module was detached, but I doubt this was done). If a problem is under control and the leakage rate was steady and well within limits, there there was no reason to panic and for journalists on earth to make a mountain out of a mole hill. But yes, people deserve to know exactly what happened. This was a russian craft and I don't expect NASA to have to release any information about this issue. It is up to the russians to discuss this. I wouldn't blame NASA for lack of information about this incident. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
No straight answers from NASA on depressurization event on Soyuz descent
"John Doe" wrote in message ... Derek Lyons wrote: This was a russian craft and I don't expect NASA to have to release any information about this issue. It is up to the russians to discuss this. I wouldn't blame NASA for lack of information about this incident. As long as NASA astronauts are expected to ride Soyuz, I expect NASA to be forthcoming on the risks. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
No straight answers from NASA on depressurization event on Soyuzdescent
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
As long as NASA astronauts are expected to ride Soyuz, I expect NASA to be forthcoming on the risks. Reverse the table for a minute. Do you really expect the russians be the first to release NASA information on glitches on shuttle flights that carried russians cosmonauts ? Do you really think NASA would be happy with this ? NASA is expected to be held accountable and release the informationa about glitches on its shuttle. the Russians are expected to be held accountable and release the information about glitches on Soyuz. As a quasi customer/guest of Soyuz, NASA itself can ask the russians for an explanation, but it isn't its role to make that information public. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
No straight answers from NASA on depressurization event on Soyuzdescent
John Doe wrote:
NASA is expected to be held accountable and release the informationa about glitches on its shuttle. the Russians are expected to be held accountable and release the information about glitches on Soyuz. but the Russians simply do not play by the same set of rules that we do in America. Never have, never will. Their culture is what it is. So NASA has had to repeatedly hold their nuts to the fire to get what we expect from our "partners". As a quasi customer/guest of Soyuz, NASA itself can ask the russians for an explanation, but it isn't its role to make that information public. it is if NASA is a US government agency funded by tax dollars... -- Terrell Miller "Suddenly, after nearly 30 years of scorn, Prog is cool again". -Entertainment Weekly |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
No straight answers from NASA on depressurization event on Soyuzdescent
Jim Oberg wrote:
Two weeks ago -- a potentially alarming safety issue. So far, not a single useful word of reply from anyone at NASA. snip These are not unreasonably questions. Any appeal to 'go use FOIA' is not, in my view, reasonable or fair. why? If it's reasonable to ask the questions of a federal agency, why is it unreasonable to amke sure you get an answer? -- Terrell Miller "Suddenly, after nearly 30 years of scorn, Prog is cool again". -Entertainment Weekly |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 2nd 05 04:13 AM |
Sandia National Lab assists NASA with several shuttle projects (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 21st 05 06:06 PM |
JimO writings on shuttle disaster, recovery | Jim Oberg | Policy | 0 | July 11th 05 06:32 PM |
Review board says shuttle safe despite NASA failure to fully implement three CAIB recommendations | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 3 | July 1st 05 09:25 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |