|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?
Revision wrote:
What would you propose as non-NASA development group? Teams put together for the purpose of tackling markets. In other words, there isn't group that can replace NASA. ?? Can you describe the thought process (to use the phrase generously, and ignoring the lack of knowledge of english grammar) that would result in such a statement, based on mine? That's a rhetorical question, of course. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "Jeff Findley" wrote: During the Shuttle-Mir program, many, many people talked about how bad Mir was and how little science was actually performed. Now along comes ISS, which is being operated in a manner very similar to Mir. That is to say, ISS is being run by two to three permanent crew members which spend most of their waking moments doing maintenance on the station so it can remain operating. That's a trifle misleading. Yes, ISS is being operated 'MIR-style' now, but that is a result of many missteps, problems, etc... It is not the planned style of operations. (Though it appears likely that it will remain the style for the near future.) To be fair, there isn't even a very credible plan for increasing the crew size beyond 3. The US was originally committed to providing a CRV (or CRV's) at ISS which would allow crew sized beyond 3 and would relieve Russia of providing Soyuz for this purpose. As we can all see by recent press releases, this date for this "handoff" is fast approaching and the US has no CRV to replace Soyuz! Furthermore, the US HAB module was cancelled long ago as well, making it even more difficult to expand the crew size beyond 3. It's largely the fault of the US that the crew size may never exceed 3. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?
"Rand Simberg" wrote earlier:
And in my opinion, finally admitting that they were disastrous decisions, and promising to learn from them, and not do things like that any more are most essential for *reestablishing* U.S. credibility. How does continuing a failed policy maintain credibility (assuming, of course that the U.S. has any residual credibility in space to maintain)? "Mike Walsh" replied: I am somewhat bemused by the views of some people in these newsgroups that something good will happen if we abandon a working space station and the only personnel carrying orbital vehicle the U.S. has and expect something good to happen. What are the lessons you would expect to be learned? 1. Never build a recoverable and reusable spacecraft. 2. Never build a space station. I don't know about point 1, but I think we can rescue point 2: We can admit we were too optimistic about the ability of STS to fly safely and frequently, and that we may or may not be able to ever get it back to safe-enough condition to ever fly again. We can admit the ISS-completion depends on STS, hence might never get finished. Accordingly we can make the best of what we've already invested in ISS by switching to a fully tele-operated situation there in the foreseeable future (until STS is flying again, or something else turns up). We can use our various expendable unmanned rockets to launch cargo and equipment to ISS, developing expertise at automated rendezvous and docking which may prove useful for the HST repair. The equipment we deliver to ISS in this way can be for tele-operated experiments. For example, we might create a folding mock-up of the general shape of HST, fly it to ISS, tele-unfold it, attach it to some truss, and then practice HST tele-repairs on it. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Oberg wrote: COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT? linked from http://www.spacetoday.net/ 2004-08-05 16:37 MOSCOW. August 3. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov.) It is becoming increasingly difficult to tally US declarations about the International Space Station (ISS) with reality. On the one hand, President Bush and NASA have given repeated assurances that the US still sees the ISS as a unique international project in manned space flight. On the other hand, words alone cannot make equipment, especially sophisticated space equipment, keep functioning. Money is needed for the final version of the space station to appear in all its beauty, complete with new Russian and US-Canadian elements, the European Columbus orbital facility and the Japanese Kibo module. However, are the requisite funds available? Until the US resumes shuttle flights, all the ISS can do is try to survive. No matter how great Russia's space capabilities may be, while the shuttles are grounded the station has to operate on a minimum skeleton crew of two. So, it appears that before the shuttles fly off into the sunset of a well-deserved retirement, a great deal of work will have been done. Firstly, this means enabling astronauts to live on the ISS on a permanent basis. Secondly, the further construction of the US and Canadian modules is pointless without the shuttles, as the entire orbital equipment was designed exactly for this transport system. When commenting on NASA plans for the old shuttles, Nikolai Moiseyev, deputy director of Russia's Federal Space Agency, quoted the US side as saying that "considerable funds would be required for this, but Congress has not yet approved them. The sum in question is about one billion dollars, which is an issue for even such a wealthy country as the United States." So, there may be some good intentions, but the cash is obviously a problem. Finally, it looks like the Americans simply fear the ISS. Here is just one example. A New York Times report featured a senior NASA official who preferred to remain anonymous categorically rejecting the idea of using the ISS as a shelter for shuttle crews in emergencies. The argument is based on expert conclusions that the space station's present life-support system could not cope with the increased demand for oxygen, water and food. The figures are as follows: the experience of servicing orbital stations shows that the average period a crew of nine can survive is 59.6 days. The conclusion was that there would still not be enough time for another shuttle to complete a rescue operation. Russian Soyuz rescue spaceships were totally ignored, as if the Russian partners simply did not exist. Since there wouldn't need to be nine crew if the shuttle ended up at the ISS, but instead nine minus the three who could go home right away on the Soyuz capsule, the math on the total time they could stay needs to be redone. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Since there wouldn't need to be nine crew if the shuttle ended up at the ISS, but instead nine minus the three who could go home right away on the Soyuz capsule, the math on the total time they could stay needs to be redone. nasa appeared reluctant to return 3 on soyuz, I guess vbecause in a medical emergency there wouldnt be a way to get a sick crew person home. but they would likely do what had to be done with a failing overcrowded station.... not wanting to admit it in advance HAVE A GREAT DAY! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Proposed Theoretical Adjustments to Project Orion | Diginomics | Policy | 4 | April 21st 04 01:25 AM |
Shenzhou has landed | Rick DeNatale | History | 74 | October 25th 03 07:23 PM |
News: Blue Streak Rocket history project gets cash boost | Rusty B | History | 0 | August 6th 03 11:17 PM |
The Little Engineer That Could--Humor | Karl Gallagher | Policy | 0 | July 23rd 03 08:13 PM |