A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Orbiting fuel depot concept



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 21st 09, 07:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Orbiting fuel depot concept

Pat Flannery wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
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.


Because it's their spaceship, and if you want to use it, it's up to you.
If you say that you don't want to use it, then go ahead and find or
build a alternative to use. They'll still go up to and down from the ISS
in it, there just won't be any US astronauts on board during those trips.


Nice way to ignore the second half of the statement.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #2  
Old August 22nd 09, 01:03 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Orbiting fuel depot concept

Derek Lyons wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

Because it's their spaceship, and if you want to use it, it's up to you.
If you say that you don't want to use it, then go ahead and find or
build a alternative to use. They'll still go up to and down from the ISS
in it, there just won't be any US astronauts on board during those trips.


Nice way to ignore the second half of the statement.



Well, everyone knows that the thing has demonstrated way off-kilter
behavior on a lot of its flights, so that the reliability (particularly
regarding reentry) is pretty poor.
But on three separate occasions (Soyuz 5, Soyuz TMA-10 and 11) it has
gotten into a really nasty situation where it ended up going into the
atmosphere nose-first with the service module still attached, then had
the service module burn off, spun around and still made a survivable
landing. I'm sure the crew on these flight were scared ****less on the
way in, and never wanted to fly on one again, but the fact it could
actually _survive_ something like that says a lot about how tough it is
in a desperate situation; and then of course there is descending into
the freezing lake during a blizzard, doing a successful launch abort,
Having its retro engine malfunction, and a inflight abort that resulted
in it pulling 20 G's on the way down...then rolling down a mountainside
for good measure on landing.
You are measuring it against the Shuttle, when you should be measure it
against something like it in concept, say Gemini or the Apollo CSM.
Both those together flew far fewer missions than Soyuz has, and both got
into some pretty hairy situations that could have ended up with dead
crews, despite their relatively few flights in comparison to Soyuz.

Pat
  #3  
Old August 23rd 09, 07:22 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Orbiting fuel depot concept

Pat Flannery wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

Because it's their spaceship, and if you want to use it, it's up to you.
If you say that you don't want to use it, then go ahead and find or
build a alternative to use. They'll still go up to and down from the ISS
in it, there just won't be any US astronauts on board during those trips.


Nice way to ignore the second half of the statement.



Well, everyone knows that the thing has demonstrated way off-kilter
behavior on a lot of its flights, so that the reliability (particularly
regarding reentry) is pretty poor.


Which doesn't lessen the hurricane level handwaving you and Jeff are
indulging in one bit.

You are measuring it against the Shuttle, when you should be measure it
against something like it in concept, say Gemini or the Apollo CSM.


No, I'm attempting to measure it against an objective standard. You
and Jeff are doing everything possible to avoid doing so.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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




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
Orbiting fuel depot concept Pat Flannery Policy 103 September 3rd 09 05:15 AM
Orbiting fuel depots for lunar flight! Pat Flannery Policy 4 August 4th 09 03:55 PM
Home Depot Scam nightbat Misc 8 March 11th 07 09:19 PM
Griffin wants orbiting fuel depot Richard Morris Policy 70 December 22nd 05 10:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:51 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.