Orbiting fuel depot concept

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Pat Flannery wrote:

Jeff Findley wrote:

There have been some fairly serious problems with Soyuz. Specifically
the
pyro problem with the separation mechanism between the service module
and
descent module. But the Russians are perfectly willing to continue
flying
in the face of such near disasters.

I think the Russians are sort of using the concept of "Any landing you
can walk away from is a good landing."

Well, regardless of the standard the Russians use there is still an
objective standard.

That's what makes Soyuz so problematic to discuss in relation to safety.
When it does screw up, the crew seems to get out with only mild
injuries; on the other hand, it screws up _a lot_.

The question is why is are such ongoing problems tolerated? Not just
by the Russians, but in the double standards of the observers and
commentators.

It's just accepted as the way the Russians operate. They're not Americans
and they don't operate like Americans. The Russians are more than willing
not only to take risks, but I think they're more willing to acknowledge that
there *are* risks that can't easily be quantified.

As an example, how many here believe that the safety numbers being promoted
for Ares I/Orion have any basis in reality? Based on historical data of
similar launch vehicles and spacecraft, I simply don't believe NASA's
predictions. I think Ares I/Orion will be lucky if they duplicate the
shuttle's safety numbers. Less hardware will be reused on Ares I/Orion than
on shuttle, giving the program more opportunities for "infant mortality"
types of problems with the expendable hardware and more opportunities for
unseen near failures in the hardware won't be recovered or inspected after
every flight.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


..

Jeff Findley wrote:

As an example, how many here believe that the safety numbers being promoted
for Ares I/Orion have any basis in reality?


I do, but then I also believe that Ed White's glove is still in orbit.
I'm waiting for the launch of Ares-1X, currently scheduled to occur on
Halloween; the thing is fully stacked now, and I assume they are waiting
till the administration has a look at the Augustine Commission's final
report before they actually attempt to launch it.
If some of the speculation that Air Force Range Safety has made about
it...that it could shake so much that it would disable its own self
destruct system while going out of control during ascent...is correct,
this could be one spectacular launch, with the thing ending up
who-knows-where. Let's just say if I were a alligator near KSC, I'd be
wearing a Nomex suit and steel helmet for my Halloween costume.

Pat

"Jeff Findley" wrote:


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Pat Flannery wrote:

Jeff Findley wrote:

There have been some fairly serious problems with Soyuz. Specifically
the
pyro problem with the separation mechanism between the service module
and
descent module. But the Russians are perfectly willing to continue
flying
in the face of such near disasters.

I think the Russians are sort of using the concept of "Any landing you
can walk away from is a good landing."

Well, regardless of the standard the Russians use there is still an
objective standard.

That's what makes Soyuz so problematic to discuss in relation to safety.
When it does screw up, the crew seems to get out with only mild
injuries; on the other hand, it screws up _a lot_.

The question is why is are such ongoing problems tolerated? Not just
by the Russians, but in the double standards of the observers and
commentators.

It's just accepted as the way the Russians operate. They're not Americans
and they don't operate like Americans.

Which fails to explain why non American fanboys also love Soyuz and
hate Shuttle, and why American fanboys (who quite often decry NASA's
and the public's aversion to risk) love Soyuz and hate Shuttle.

As an example, how many here believe that the safety numbers being promoted
for Ares I/Orion have any basis in reality?

Nice handwaving to divert attention. Didn't work.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:

Which fails to explain why non American fanboys also love Soyuz and
hate Shuttle, and why American fanboys (who quite often decry NASA's
and the public's aversion to risk) love Soyuz and hate Shuttle.

I'll say one thing for both Soyuz and Progress - they launch on the day
they are planned to launch on a hell of a lot more often than the
Shuttle ever has, with today's scrub being another good example of that.
It's not a all-weather spacecraft, it's a fair-weather spacecraft at
best... and given any sort of requirement for getting something into LEO
reliably on a fixed schedule, it's pretty much pointless to rely on the
Shuttle to get it there.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Derek Lyons wrote:

Which fails to explain why non American fanboys also love Soyuz and
hate Shuttle, and why American fanboys (who quite often decry NASA's
and the public's aversion to risk) love Soyuz and hate Shuttle.

I'll say one thing for both Soyuz and Progress - they launch on the day
they are planned to launch on a hell of a lot more often than the Shuttle
ever has, with today's scrub being another good example of that.
It's not a all-weather spacecraft, it's a fair-weather spacecraft at
best... and given any sort of requirement for getting something into LEO
reliably on a fixed schedule, it's pretty much pointless to rely on the
Shuttle to get it there.

Oh no, that's Soyuz launcher fanboy talk Pat! Just because the Russians
launch on time doesn't make it better than the shuttle. Clearly you're
biased. ;-)

The last Soyuz spacecraft launched and the last shuttle launched both make
it to ISS, so that's something.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


..

Jeff Findley wrote:


The last Soyuz spacecraft launched and the last shuttle launched both make
it to ISS, so that's something.

This is supposed to be the last Shuttle flight that will be carrying
crew up to the ISS BTW.

Pat

"Jeff Findley" wrote:


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Derek Lyons wrote:

Which fails to explain why non American fanboys also love Soyuz and
hate Shuttle, and why American fanboys (who quite often decry NASA's
and the public's aversion to risk) love Soyuz and hate Shuttle.

I'll say one thing for both Soyuz and Progress - they launch on the day
they are planned to launch on a hell of a lot more often than the Shuttle
ever has, with today's scrub being another good example of that.
It's not a all-weather spacecraft, it's a fair-weather spacecraft at
best... and given any sort of requirement for getting something into LEO
reliably on a fixed schedule, it's pretty much pointless to rely on the
Shuttle to get it there.

Oh no, that's Soyuz launcher fanboy talk Pat! Just because the Russians
launch on time doesn't make it better than the shuttle. Clearly you're
biased. ;-)

Since there appears to be no requirement to launch or arrive on a
rigid schedule...

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Derek Lyons wrote:

Which fails to explain why non American fanboys also love Soyuz and
hate Shuttle, and why American fanboys (who quite often decry NASA's
and the public's aversion to risk) love Soyuz and hate Shuttle.

I'll say one thing for both Soyuz and Progress - they launch on the day
they are planned to launch on a hell of a lot more often than the Shuttle
ever has, with today's scrub being another good example of that.
It's not a all-weather spacecraft, it's a fair-weather spacecraft at
best... and given any sort of requirement for getting something into LEO
reliably on a fixed schedule, it's pretty much pointless to rely on the
Shuttle to get it there.

Oh no, that's Soyuz launcher fanboy talk Pat! Just because the Russians
launch on time doesn't make it better than the shuttle. Clearly you're
biased. ;-)

The last Soyuz spacecraft launched and the last shuttle launched both make
it to ISS, so that's something.

On the other hand, I'll take my odds of landing in the right place over
on-time launch. :-)



Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

.




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
Oh no, that's Soyuz launcher fanboy talk Pat! Just because the Russians
launch on time doesn't make it better than the shuttle. Clearly you're
biased. ;-)

Since there appears to be no requirement to launch or arrive on a
rigid schedule...

Only if you want good microgravity science experiments coming out of ISS,
which apparently isn't a priority to anyone but the scientists who own those
experiments.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


..

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
m...
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Derek Lyons wrote:

Which fails to explain why non American fanboys also love Soyuz and
hate Shuttle, and why American fanboys (who quite often decry NASA's
and the public's aversion to risk) love Soyuz and hate Shuttle.

I'll say one thing for both Soyuz and Progress - they launch on the day
they are planned to launch on a hell of a lot more often than the
Shuttle ever has, with today's scrub being another good example of that.
It's not a all-weather spacecraft, it's a fair-weather spacecraft at
best... and given any sort of requirement for getting something into LEO
reliably on a fixed schedule, it's pretty much pointless to rely on the
Shuttle to get it there.

Oh no, that's Soyuz launcher fanboy talk Pat! Just because the Russians
launch on time doesn't make it better than the shuttle. Clearly you're
biased. ;-)

The last Soyuz spacecraft launched and the last shuttle launched both
make it to ISS, so that's something.

On the other hand, I'll take my odds of landing in the right place over
on-time launch. :-)

I'll give you that rather than try to claim it doesn't matter like Derek did
by claiming that launch schedules (and therefore docking schedules for ISS)
don't matter.

I'm not trying to claim Soyuz is superior, just different.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


..