A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Space station future adrift (Soyuz purchase crisis)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 28th 04, 07:12 PM
Earl Colby Pottinger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Space station future adrift (Soyuz purchase crisis)

(Derek Lyons) :

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:


(Derek Lyons) :


There probably isn't a single company in the world that can do the
job, nor a consortium of the either. You are seriously delusional as
to how complex a 'simple' taxi/lifeboat is.


No, I am not.


Yes, you are. The mere statement that you think that Rutan or anyone
else can do so 'in two years' is shining proof of just that.


I am quite aware how stupidly complex NASA or the ESA can make
such a craft.


Ignorant bigotry. (As Henry pointed out - It took NASA much longer
than two years to fly the Gemini, and that was back in it's glory days
*and* with a spacecraft considerably less sophisticated and capable
than Soyuz.)


And that was when it have to learn everything from zero first. Today we have
access to a lot of that data without having to do costly research because
NASA and others recorded it for us to use. Second many materials needed have
to be invented/refined, today you just order them. The methods to build with
those materials again needed to be developed, today you send off a CAD file
and have it made for you. Computers, Navigation, Communication and Life
support were all things NASA and others needed to develop from almost nothing
to meet thier needs. Today, if you have the money they are just a phone call
away. The hardest thing to buy today seems to be the spacesuit itself, not
suprising considering it is usually a custum design item.

However if you had read the lifeboats in space thread you
would realize a simple float untill rescue lifeboat does not need to be
complex.


However, if you read this thread, you would realize we are talking
about a Soyuz replacement, not a (hypothetical and non-existent) craft
that can float around until rescued by (also hypothetical and
non-existent) another craft.


Yes, you are right here. This is clearly my mistake in mixing up threads.
Sorry about that - Again this is complete my fault sorry.

(And given that maritime lifeboats for
hostile enviroments are neither simple, nor cheap, one wonders about
your conclusions regarding space ones. It's *hard* to make things
that must wait quiescent for extended periods, and then function with
no checkout and a near guarantee of sucess.)


I would disagree except this is not the thread to do it in. Again my mistake
- maybe in another thread sometime?

Earl Colby Pottinger


--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time?
http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp
  #2  
Old November 29th 04, 12:35 AM
Phil Paisley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Do I hear a MOOSE coming over the horizon?

Seriously, isn't it about time someone gave some serious thought to an
ultra-minimal personal re-entry scheme? Would the 'cure' actually
work without killing the 'patient'

P


Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:


(Derek Lyons) :


There probably isn't a single company in the world that can do the
job, nor a consortium of the either. You are seriously delusional as
to how complex a 'simple' taxi/lifeboat is.

  #3  
Old November 29th 04, 02:21 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Phil Paisley wrote:
Do I hear a MOOSE coming over the horizon?
Seriously, isn't it about time someone gave some serious thought to an
ultra-minimal personal re-entry scheme?


Alas for the notion, that's not really what's called for. A lifeboat that
can carry at least two or three people is generally superior, not least
because it doesn't require donning a spacesuit on short notice (which is
all too likely to cause decompression sickness, aka the bends -- not only
painful but also deadly dangerous).
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
  #4  
Old November 29th 04, 08:56 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I wrote:
Seriously, isn't it about time someone gave some serious thought to an
ultra-minimal personal re-entry scheme?


Alas for the notion, that's not really what's called for. A lifeboat that
can carry at least two or three people is generally superior, not least
because it doesn't require donning a spacesuit on short notice (which is
all too likely to cause decompression sickness...


A friend has pointed out, in private mail, that you could do this with a
two-step emergency setup: an emergency refuge, which would provide life
support for a while and give time for prebreathing procedures, and then
a spacesuit-dependent bailout system.

While that's feasible, my gut feeling is that you're still better off with
a non-spacesuit lifeboat. And it does not strike me as substantially
harder to do, not when you deal with all the details.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
  #6  
Old November 30th 04, 02:39 AM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek Lyons wrote:
It's also possible to design an emergency escape suit *that doesn't
require prebreathing*. Get in it, seal it, and pop out the airlock.
Prebreathe while dropping the pressure down to a level where you can
move the suit, complete the remainder of the escape sequence.


Thing is that for an escape pod, you do not need mobility. You're not going to
be using some fancy screwdriver to connect cables and pipes and install
antennas. You just want to fire a deorbit engine and fall down. Once back in
atmosphere, you'd regain mobility as atmospheric pressure increases.

An escape pod is more likely to be some pressurized shell. A de-orbit engine
on a space suit might burn some of your extremities.
  #7  
Old November 30th 04, 07:06 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
It's also possible to design an emergency escape suit *that doesn't
require prebreathing*. Get in it, seal it, and pop out the airlock.
Prebreathe while dropping the pressure down to a level where you can
move the suit, complete the remainder of the escape sequence.


Unfortunately, starting from the station's normal 14.7psi atmosphere, suit
prebreathing even on an emergency basis takes about four hours, which is
kind of a long time to just float in the suit. (Preplanned spacewalks use
less prebreathing time than that because those guys live in reduced
pressure, with increased oxygen content, for 12+ hours first.)

Guys without current spacewalk training are going to be essentially
immobilized until pressure is down to near-normal suit levels; there isn't
going to be any useful mobility during the transition. Guys *with*
current spacewalk training -- which puts a lot of emphasis on building up
hand and arm muscles in particular -- may have some limited mobility late
in the transition.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
  #8  
Old November 30th 04, 09:26 AM
Ian Stirling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In sci.space.policy Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Phil Paisley wrote:
Do I hear a MOOSE coming over the horizon?
Seriously, isn't it about time someone gave some serious thought to an
ultra-minimal personal re-entry scheme?


Alas for the notion, that's not really what's called for. A lifeboat that
can carry at least two or three people is generally superior, not least
because it doesn't require donning a spacesuit on short notice (which is
all too likely to cause decompression sickness, aka the bends -- not only
painful but also deadly dangerous).


And putting on my heretic hat...
Does a minimal reentry scheme require a spacesuit?
If there is a hole in your reentry vehicle, you'r probably already dead.

  #9  
Old November 30th 04, 05:36 PM
Earl Colby Pottinger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Henry Spencer) :

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
It's also possible to design an emergency escape suit *that doesn't
require prebreathing*. Get in it, seal it, and pop out the airlock.
Prebreathe while dropping the pressure down to a level where you can
move the suit, complete the remainder of the escape sequence.


Unfortunately, starting from the station's normal 14.7psi atmosphere, suit
prebreathing even on an emergency basis takes about four hours, which is
kind of a long time to just float in the suit. (Preplanned spacewalks use
less prebreathing time than that because those guys live in reduced
pressure, with increased oxygen content, for 12+ hours first.)

Guys without current spacewalk training are going to be essentially
immobilized until pressure is down to near-normal suit levels; there isn't
going to be any useful mobility during the transition. Guys *with*
current spacewalk training -- which puts a lot of emphasis on building up
hand and arm muscles in particular -- may have some limited mobility late
in the transition.


Why does prebreath take so long? Bubbles? But at the lower pressure tere is
not that much gas in the blood, is there? People often dive to 30 to 50 feet
and come back up in time measured in minutes not hours. So why so long? And
if caution is the main reason for such a long time how much can it be cut
back for an emergency?

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time?
http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp
  #10  
Old November 30th 04, 06:37 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
Unfortunately, starting from the station's normal 14.7psi atmosphere, suit
prebreathing even on an emergency basis takes about four hours, which is
kind of a long time to just float in the suit. (Preplanned spacewalks use
less prebreathing time than that because those guys live in reduced
pressure, with increased oxygen content, for 12+ hours first.)


Why does prebreath take so long? Bubbles?


Getting nitrogen flushed out of the body, so it doesn't form bubbles when
the pressure is reduced. Unfortunately, it's noticeably soluble in some
body materials, so it takes a while to diffuse out.

But at the lower pressure tere is
not that much gas in the blood, is there?


There's enough. In fact, NASA's decompression rules are probably too
optimistic: mild unreported cases of the bends -- both in suit operations
and in pre-Shuttle low-pressure spacecraft -- are not uncommon. E.g.,
Michael Collins had trouble in one knee early in both his flights.

The U-2 uses similar operations rules, and an anonymous survey showed that
75% of U-2 pilots had had the bends at least once, and 13% had altered or
aborted a flight because of it.

People often dive to 30 to 50 feet
and come back up in time measured in minutes not hours.


How long they spend down there matters. Guys who spend a week underwater
take the ascent very slowly.

if caution is the main reason for such a long time how much can it be cut
back for an emergency?


Four hours *is* the emergency value, which still incurs some risk of some
adverse symptoms. In a life-or-death crisis, you load up on painkillers
and do what you have to do... but it may kill you.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 August 5th 04 01:36 AM
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 Policy 145 July 28th 04 07:30 AM
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) Rand Simberg Space Science Misc 18 February 14th 04 04:28 AM
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 0 October 24th 03 04:38 PM
Space Station Agency Leaders Look To The Future Ron Baalke Space Shuttle 0 July 30th 03 05:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.