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

How safe a haven?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 4th 05, 03:58 PM
Allen Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How safe a haven?

Space station chief wary of haven plan
Fri Feb 4, 2005 5:16 AM GMT
By Irene Klotz
[EXCERPTS]

MELBOURNE, Florida (Reuters) - The International Space Station is not
ready to serve as a safe haven for shuttle crew members stranded by
ship damage, the Russian commander of the next station crew has said.

Cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev said NASA's emergency plan for the crew of a
damaged space shuttle to take refuge on the orbiting station until a
rescue ship could be sent raised safety issues and he had pressed
managers on the issue.

"We need to prepare a backup plan for this backup scenario," said
Krikalev, 46, a veteran of three long-duration space flights and two
shuttle missions.

"It's going to be difficult. The station cannot stay in this
configuration for a long time," he said during a news conference at
Houston's Johnson Space Centre.

Managers are targeting the first post-Columbia shuttle mission for
launch in mid-May. Although the primary purpose of the Discovery flight
is to test in-flight heat shield repair techniques, the crew will
deliver critical equipment to the space station.

Some of the gear is to outfit the station to serve as a safe haven if
another shuttle is damaged.

Krikalev's chief concerns centre around adequate air, water and food
supplies, as well as how nine people would cope physically and mentally
in a small space for a prolonged time.

Access to the station's exercise equipment, which is critical during
long-duration space flight, would be limited.

"I've got assurance from station managers that everything necessary
needs to be done to make sure that this scenario would be avoided,"
Krikalev said.

Although NASA will have a second shuttle poised for launch in case of a
problem with Discovery, the agency would have to go ahead with the
mission well before an accident investigation or hardware modifications
could be made.

"If the situation which requires people to stay (aboard the station)
happened, it will be a very difficult decision to send another shuttle
to try to rescue them," Krikalev said.

  #2  
Old February 4th 05, 06:46 PM
Allen Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A bit mo

-------------------------------

Feb. 3, 2005, 9:33PM
Cosmonaut questions space shuttle strategy
NASA says it will keep crew size at seven for its upcoming mission
By MARK CARREAU
Houston Chronicle

Months before Discovery is scheduled to lift off, Sergei
Krikalev, who becomes the station skipper in late April,
has asked NASA to consider cutting Discovery's crew from
seven to four. And if Columbia-like shuttle damage
forces an emergency rescue, he thinks two Soyuz capsules
could do it quicker than one U.S. backup shuttle.

"As soon as I knew the shuttle would fly during my
(command), it became my duty to work up all of these
options to be sure I would not be faced with two bad
scenarios, and that is why I talked about this," Krikalev
said Thursday during a news conference at Johnson Space
Center discussing the six-month space station mission
he'll share with American John Phillips.

"It's my concern, and I feel it's my duty."

The odds of a serious problem are low, admits Krikalev,
who has spent 17 months in space. But he noted the outpost
has struggled to sustain even its two-man U.S. and Russian
crews since the loss of Columbia two years ago grounded
NASA's shuttle fleet.

NASA intends to stick with its plans for a seven-member
crew on Discovery's mission, NASA spokesman James
Hartsfield said Thursday.

"I believe the NASA management knows exactly what the
risks are," Phillips said.

With a shuttle crew of four, Krikalev says Russians could
rescue all six space station crew members by launching a
three-man Soyuz rescue capsule to join another Soyuz
already parked at the outpost. With a larger Discovery
crew, NASA would have to launch a backup shuttle or ask
nine people to share the station's cramped quarters for
months, he said.

--------------------------------------------------------



Question: Why not use the one presumably available Soyuz
(besides the docked life-boat one) to reduce a crew of
nine to six, thus buying some time?

  #3  
Old February 5th 05, 02:57 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Allen Thomson" wrote:

And if Columbia-like shuttle damage
forces an emergency rescue, he thinks two Soyuz capsules
could do it quicker than one U.S. backup shuttle.


And where precisely are these two 'extra' Soyuz going to come from?

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #4  
Old February 5th 05, 05:15 AM
Allen Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Derek Lyons wrote:

And where precisely are these two 'extra' Soyuz going to
come from?


An excellent question that goes to the heart of the matter.

I'd be willing to spot them one extra Soyuz available on
fairly short notice, which would get three people down while
leaving the emergency life-boat on ISS. Russian boosters
and hardware in general are notoriously rugged and given to
rough-and-ready response. But that assumes that they're
available to respond rough-and-readily.

However, how soon after an initial emergency Souyz launch
could Russia get another Soyuz to ISS to return an additional
three people and leave the station with three on board?

Krikalev's concerns are worth thinking about, but I'm
not sure where the answer will come out.

  #5  
Old February 5th 05, 09:52 AM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek Lyons wrote:
And where precisely are these two 'extra' Soyuz going to come from?


Krikalev was acting as a saleman: "For a true safe haven that works, buy
2 soyuz now and have them always ready to be launched if needed to
rescue shuttle crews".

While the Soyuz solution does deal with saving human lifes, it does not
deal with any cargo uplift for spare parts to save the injured shuttle.
And that is where the backup shuttle really comes in handy.

In the short term, will they be doing anything to make PMA3 usable ? Are
there any possible PMA3 locations that would allow the SSRMS to move the
injured shuttle from PMA2 to PMA3 ?

In terms of sufficient storage and general space, I still think that
NASA should have spend those 2 years strenghtening one MPLM into a
permanent fixture to the station.
  #6  
Old February 5th 05, 03:23 PM
Allen Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Doe wrote:

Krikalev was acting as a saleman: "For a true safe haven
that works, buy 2 soyuz now and have them always ready to
be launched if needed to rescue shuttle crews".


Who would buy them? Not the US, which is constrained (at least
in ordinary circumstances) by the Iran Non-Proliferation Act.

  #7  
Old February 5th 05, 06:32 PM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Allen Thomson" wrote in
ups.com:

Question: Why not use the one presumably available Soyuz
(besides the docked life-boat one) to reduce a crew of
nine to six, thus buying some time?


Actually, there is some consideration of using the docked lifeboat one.
There's a safety tradeoff here, though: you can only bring home crewmembers
that already have Soyuz seatliners, which limits you to bringing home the
ISS crew rather than three members of the shuttle crew. So you get longer
consumables lifetime, at the price of removing the crewmembers best trained
to deal with an ISS contingency after the Soyuz leaves.

"Presumably available" is a bit strong; looking over the history of Soyuz
in the ISS era, the next Soyuz typically doesn't ship to Baikonur until
about three months after the previous one was launched. So you don't have
100% coverage unless you accelerate the pipeline. And you still have the
seatliner issue; since there will typically be multiple shuttle launches
over the life of that Soyuz, you'd have to get all the shuttle crewmembers
fitted for them.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #8  
Old February 5th 05, 07:35 PM
Allen Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Jorge R. Frank wrote:


"Presumably available" is a bit strong; looking over the history
of Soyuz in the ISS era, the next Soyuz typically doesn't ship
to Baikonur until about three months after the previous one was
launched. So you don't have 100% coverage unless you accelerate
the pipeline.


Is Soyuz assembly now being done on a single-shift per day basis?
If so, some acceleration should be possible.

And you still have the seatliner issue; since there will
typically be multiple shuttle launches over the life of that
Soyuz, you'd have to get all the shuttle crewmembers fitted
for them.


Is that a big deal? Or could inflatable or moldable few-sizes-
fit-all seatliners be developed for emergency use? Perhaps not as
good as custom-fitted ones, but better than the alternative...

  #9  
Old February 5th 05, 11:01 PM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...

"Presumably available" is a bit strong; looking over the history of Soyuz
in the ISS era, the next Soyuz typically doesn't ship to Baikonur until
about three months after the previous one was launched. So you don't have
100% coverage unless you accelerate the pipeline. And you still have the
seatliner issue; since there will typically be multiple shuttle launches
over the life of that Soyuz, you'd have to get all the shuttle crewmembers
fitted for them.


Not all, just the ones you want to fly home. For each flight designate the
two "lucky ones" and give them seat liners.

They fly home with one of the Station crew (who presumably is better trained
to fly Soyuz.).




--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.



  #10  
Old February 6th 05, 05:57 PM
Allen Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


They fly home with one of the Station crew (who presumably is
better trained to fly Soyuz.).


How much crew intervention/pilotage do modern Soyuzy require
to get back to Earth? Ideally, you'd want a lifeboat to
be able to get back automatically, or at least under ground
control. (Maybe it could have a big red "DOWN" button in the
cabin.)

 




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
MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble Jim Oberg Misc 81 December 14th 04 04:10 AM
MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble Jim Oberg Policy 77 December 14th 04 04:10 AM
No safe haven at Hubble.... Blurrt Space Shuttle 20 May 10th 04 06:37 PM
ISS Safe Haven John Doe Space Station 0 January 27th 04 10:47 AM
ISS Safe Haven? Explorer8939 Space Station 15 January 6th 04 11:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:32 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.