|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
Jeff Findley wrote:
True, that's a horrible scenario that even Soyuz doesn't solve. Too bad the docking and berthing systems on ISS aren't *all* compatible with each other. If they were, then Soyuz could be used to move them to the functional side of the station. 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). 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. 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 ? |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
not enough lifeboats for everyone.
If you have fewer lifeboats than people on a station, you then have a very serious "human" problem of who gets to decide who gets to evacuate and who gets to die. Soyuz having individual seat liners does provide some "guidance", it is those who have a seat on the available soyuz that goes down. But If you have 3 seats on the soyuz, and only 2 or the 3 are present (third stuck in different module and unable to reach the soyuz, then you have the problem of who gets the 3rd seat even if the liner isn't matched perfectly). The only solution to this issue is to have a station with sufficient redundancy and either racetrack layout so that failure of one module still permits circulation across the station, or airlocks at both ends with emergency eva suits to allow transfer to the safe side of station. You also want to have much redundancy with regards to ECLSS and food/toilet. Right now, the USA ECLSS "core" (aka: the O2/N2 tanks in Quest) are attached to node1 and controled by Destiny. Someone stuck in Columbus would not have access to this if there were a fire in either node1 or destiny. Perhaps the last shuttle flight to the station should install a modified PMA device on node2 which would allow a soyuz to dock (even if manually). This way, rescues would become possible once the shuttle is retired and the USA has nothing to replace it. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
Really? Can you find a diagram of Los Angeles class submarines and tell me where the lifeboats are? They have no rubber dingies that can be inflated if the sub has surfaced ? And doesn't the USA have the DSRV which could theoretically rescue people from a sub ? (China just bought a similar sub from the UK for submarine rescues, it can rescue 19 at a time). |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
... On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:01:33 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote: Remember, most Titantic boats didn't even carry a full complement of passengers. So having even more lifeboats wouldn't have helped all that much. It would have helped enormously. Many hundreds died on deck for lack of lifeboats. Yes, a few lifeboats were launched half full, but that was made up for later by overloading the remaining boats after it was clear that seas were calm enough to safely do so Cite on that? My understanding is that pretty much ALL lifeboats, regardless of the time were pretty much underloaded. and that the Carpathia (and the mystery ship which turned out to be the Californian) was only hours away. Even more could have been saved if all of the lifeboats had been overloaded, but the Titanic crew was slow to that realization. Brian |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
"John Doe" wrote in message
... Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: Really? Can you find a diagram of Los Angeles class submarines and tell me where the lifeboats are? They have no rubber dingies that can be inflated if the sub has surfaced ? I don't know the full details, but the problem there is "surfacing". And doesn't the USA have the DSRV which could theoretically rescue people from a sub ? (China just bought a similar sub from the UK for submarine rescues, it can rescue 19 at a time). Yes. In theory. Just like they have escape trunks. Makes Mom feel good at home. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
Brian Thorn wrote: Tell that to the guys at the South Pole research station. Where's their lifeboats? Last I checked, dry-land facilities don't require lifeboats, no matter how remote. Ships universally do. There was a case several years back where a female member of a antarctic research station's crew came down with a severe and fast-advancing type of cancer, and they had a hell of a hard time landing a aircraft to evacuate her in mid antarctic winter. Pat |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: Really? Can you find a diagram of Los Angeles class submarines and tell me where the lifeboats are? The Russians actually put escape spheres for the crew on theirs. The only time it ever got used operationally was then the "Mike" class sub K-278 "Komsomolets*" sank and some of the crew separated the escape sphere from the sail... only a few of the crew survived the ascent, but without it the whole crew would have been dead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...78_Komsomolets * Strange name... it refers to the Soviet youth organization the "Komsomol" - picture a communist version of the Boy Scouts.or Hitler Youth. I actually got drunk enough at a party in Russia to call a young member of the Russian Army's tactical missile forces a great Komsomol member. Then I got punched out, although thanks to the vodka I didn't even feel it. :-D Pat |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:08:38 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote: "Brian Thorn" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:53:06 -0400, "Jeff Findley" wrote: So did the Titanic. Now we have lifeboats for everyone. Tell that to the guys at the South Pole research station. Where's their lifeboats? Last I checked, dry-land facilities don't require lifeboats, no matter how remote. Ships universally do. Really? Can you find a diagram of Los Angeles class submarines and tell me where the lifeboats are? Submarines aren't ships, they're boats. Boats don't have lifeboats. Mary "It's only the targets that have them" -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it. or Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/ |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Sep 16, 9:57�am, "Jeff Findley"
wrote: "Brian Thorn" wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 20:03:56 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote: "J Waggoner" wrote in message . .. Excellent point on the lifeboat... Thanks for cancelling it Mr. Goldin. �You dick. And how did you expect him to pay for it when Congress of course the one writing the checks? That said, Rand does bring up a good point I had overlooked. �While continuing the shuttle reduces the requirement for us paying for rides, rescue seats home are still required. (Though one could argue that at some point one may want to simply accept that lifeboats aren't required for 100% of the crew.) Never gonna happen. That's a political non-starter. It's a political non-starter, but it's a bit silly. ISS currently had many redundant systems and modules. �With the US and Russian segments, you have completely separate systems for life support. Even if something catastrophic happened, it's not very likely to take out both sets of life support systems. If safe haven wasn't such a political non-starter it would actually be a viable way to run the program without the US relying on the Russian Soyuz.. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - as apollo 13 proved incompatible designs can have issues. remember the incompatilble air ducts? it sounds good but 2 complete different designs isnt all good |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Sep 16, 11:14�pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:01:33 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote: Remember, most Titantic boats didn't even carry a full complement of passengers. �So having even more lifeboats wouldn't have helped all that much. It would have helped enormously. Many hundreds died on deck for lack of lifeboats. Yes, a few lifeboats were launched half full, but that was made up for later by overloading the remaining boats after it was clear that seas were calm enough to safely do so and that the Carpathia (and the mystery ship which turned out to be the Californian) was only hours away. Even more could have been saved if all of the lifeboats had been overloaded, but the Titanic crew was slow to that realization. Brian there are those space balls to rescue crew stuck in difficult situations. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Obama to extend Shuttle program? | J Waggoner | Space Shuttle | 5 | June 23rd 08 11:50 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 |
Positive Aspects from Shuttle Program? | Brandons of mass destruction | Space Shuttle | 7 | August 5th 05 03:08 PM |
Question regarding the end of the Shuttle program | JazzMan | Space Shuttle | 23 | February 19th 04 02:21 AM |