|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message ... That's not practical for ISS, though. We'd have to have a Shuttle on standby like Endeavour will be for Atlantis, but launch prep takes too long and we don't have enough Orbiters to keep doing this 365 days a year. Why should the lifeboat be required to return to earth immediately? Why not a lifeboat that remains in LEO for up to three months so that the next shuttle in the processing flow can be used to rescue the astronauts? Such a lifeboat can be much simpler than a vehicle which must reenter and land. It seems the only requirement for immediate evacuation would be medical emergency. As seen at the South Pole base, immediate evacuation simply isn't possible in all cases. From Wikipedia: The original South Pole station, now referred to as "Old Pole", was constructed by an 18-man United States Navy crew during 1956-1957. The crew landed on site in October 1956 and was the first group to winter-over at the South Pole, during 1957. That 18-man crew certainly didn't have the capability to evacuate due to medical emergency and that is still the case today. Again, from Wikipedia: In 1999, the winter-over physician, Dr. Jerri Nielsen, discovered she had breast cancer. She had to rely on self-administered chemotherapy using supplies from a daring July cargo drop, then was picked up in an equally dangerous mid-October landing. There is no immediate medial evac available, yet the station continues to operate during the harsh Antarctic winter. Your comparison to cruise ships is silly. The ISS isn't a cruise ship. It's far more like the South Pole station. The South Pole station even hosts occasional visitors, which is very similar to commercial customers who fly to ISS. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message news On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:50:39 -0400, "Jeff Findley" wrote: In a situation like that, Soyuz isn't likely to save you anyway. The discussion is about the lunacy of requiring a "lifeboat" which takes the ISS astronauts all the way back to "port" on the ground as opposed to a "lifeboat" which would allow the astronauts to survive until rescued by a shuttle. Actually, I'm not 100% opposed to the "storm shelter" concept. I just think the "return to port" lifeboat is probably the safer and cheaper bet, and also covers the medical emergency return contingency. Safer is debatable. Cheaper is laughable. A safe haven needs far less complicated systems than a manned reentry vehicle. In fact, a manned reentry vehicle needs every system you would need on a safe haven. The only difference is that the manned reentry vehicle specs those systems to have consumables for a few days where a safe haven would spec consumables for a several weeks to a few months. Those extra consumables are very cheap compared to all the extra systems you need on a reentry vehicle. In terms of development costs, the safe haven is dirt cheap compared to a manned reentry vehicle. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message ... Unlike Rand, I'm probably more likely to buy into this. My thesis is that once the station goes to 6 permanent residents, we should re-examine the lifeboat scenario. Keep one Soyuz for emergency return of a crew member if necessary (though there are issues with that, including high-G re-entry and given the last few overshoots, not sure that's a great option :-) And the rest go to a storm-shelter solution for the rest of the crew (and make sure you can basically support them 3-4 months and make sure we keep shuttle flights on schedule for that.) As for the seat liner issue, keep them outside the Soyuz, crew members grab theirs as they enter (depending on who, tec.) (Granted, I realize their may be issue with how long that takes, but it's an idea.) This strikes me as a reasonable compromise. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:47:10 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote: Last I knew Carnival Cruises weren't offering high-risk jobs on the cutting edge of science. (to be a bit melodramatic). Aircraft carriers do. The have pilots of high-performance jets and specialists in nuclear powerplants. And they have lifeboats for everyone. Aircraft carriers do not have lifeboats that can take the crew back to port in case of a medical evacuation. That scenario is handled by small transport aircraft! Soyuz is not a one size fits all solution anymore than a lifeboat on an aircraft carrier is such a solution. Soyuz is more like a small crew transport aircraft, not a lifeboat with no propulsion. A safe haven on ISS is the analog of a lifeboat on an aircraft carrier. Its purpose is to keep you alive until you can be rescued. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:48:05 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote: Aircraft carriers do not have lifeboats that can take the crew back to port in case of a medical evacuation. Again, that is because they have the reasonable expectation of rescue in short order. The ISS does not have that luxury. Brian |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:39:25 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote: Actually, I'm not 100% opposed to the "storm shelter" concept. I just think the "return to port" lifeboat is probably the safer and cheaper bet, and also covers the medical emergency return contingency. Safer is debatable. Cheaper is laughable. Only if you're keeping the safe haven attached to the ISS, which I don't think is a good idea (there could be debris issues for a rescue ship reaching the "storm shelter", loss of control of ISS could make approach and docking almost impossible, etc.) There is also the danger that whatever wrecked ISS could also be a timebomb waiting to go off on the safe haven (i.e., O2 candles.) A safe haven needs far less complicated systems than a manned reentry vehicle. Which we already have with Soyuz and will soon have with Orion (if we stop screwing around with Ares I) or could have in fairly short order (X-38, which was 80% complete when cancelled, or Dragon, which the SpaceX mafia insists will be the greatest thing since sliced bread and will be available any day now.) In fact, a manned reentry vehicle needs every system you would need on a safe haven. Agreed, but we don't have a safe haven. We have several CRVs off the shelf (Soyuz) or in design (including Orion, X-38, Dragon, and the other COTS concepts.) We don't have any ISS modules that can survive alone, except perhaps ATV. An ATV free-flying storm shelter is an interesting idea, although I'm not sure how long it could support six crew independently. If we're going to spend the bucks to make the storm shelter concept work, wouldn't we be better off spending the bucks to just finish X-38 or Orion and giving the crew a way to get home without waiting a month or two for rescue? In terms of development costs, the safe haven is dirt cheap compared to a manned reentry vehicle. Except that little development is needed. Others are already paying for it. Brian |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:48:05 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote: Soyuz is more like a small crew transport aircraft, not a lifeboat with no propulsion. A safe haven on ISS is the analog of a lifeboat on an aircraft carrier. Its purpose is to keep you alive until you can be rescued. I'm not adamantly against the idea, but I do think you are underestimating the difficulty and reliability of the safe haven concept. Safe haven works for Shuttle/ISS because the ISS is a fully functional refuge if the Shuttle is disabled. But how do you provide safe haven for ISS when the next Shuttle launch might be four months away? A module that can be completely isolated from the rest of ISS? What happens if ISS loses complete control (which it probably would if you're looking to use safe haven or otherwise bail out). How do the rescue ships dock? If you seperate the safe haven and fly independently, then we're essentially talking about a space station the size of Salyut 1 that can support six crew for a month or two. That will not be a small or cheap undertaking. Why build a second space station when we need a crew ferry anyway, and the crew ferry can also serve as lifeboat? Brian |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:13:44 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:48:05 -0400, "Jeff Findley" wrote: Soyuz is more like a small crew transport aircraft, not a lifeboat with no propulsion. A safe haven on ISS is the analog of a lifeboat on an aircraft carrier. Its purpose is to keep you alive until you can be rescued. I'm not adamantly against the idea, but I do think you are underestimating the difficulty and reliability of the safe haven concept. Safe haven works for Shuttle/ISS because the ISS is a fully functional refuge if the Shuttle is disabled. But how do you provide safe haven for ISS when the next Shuttle launch might be four months away? A module that can be completely isolated from the rest of ISS? What happens if ISS loses complete control (which it probably would if you're looking to use safe haven or otherwise bail out). How do the rescue ships dock? If you seperate the safe haven and fly independently, then we're essentially talking about a space station the size of Salyut 1 that can support six crew for a month or two. That will not be a small or cheap undertaking. Tell it to Bob Bigelow... |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message ... On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:48:05 -0400, "Jeff Findley" wrote: Aircraft carriers do not have lifeboats that can take the crew back to port in case of a medical evacuation. Again, that is because they have the reasonable expectation of rescue in short order. The ISS does not have that luxury. Which is why I like the South Pole base analogy better than the aircraft carrier analogy. A cargo drop from an LC-130 in the middle of winter (e.g. Soyuz, ATV, HTV, COTS) is more likely to come in a timely fashion than an actual landing of an LC-130 crew transport (e.g. shuttle visit), which has to wait for more ideal weather conditions. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shuttle program extension? | Flyguy | Space Shuttle | 175 | September 22nd 08 04:18 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 |
More Evidence The Shuttle Program Should Be Scrapped | John Slade | Space Shuttle | 7 | August 2nd 05 04:35 AM |
Question regarding the end of the Shuttle program | JazzMan | Space Shuttle | 23 | February 19th 04 02:21 AM |