Prton Failure

:: ... plus perhaps some hanging hammock type return capacity..

: Fred J. McCall
: Some WHAT? You really don't have a clue about this stuff, do you?

It's a bit difficult to even tell what he's confused about, so that
something described as a "hammock" would help. Let alone "hammock
type return".

Of course, for somebody who thinks nobody at the controls of the ISS
for a few hours will cause it to plummet into the atmosphere or maybe
swerve off course into the next galaxy or something (what*ever* he
thought would happen; other than "falling" modules it wasn't clear),
I suppose a "hammock type return" is par for the course.

On the other hand, give him a break. For somebody who apparently doesn't
know what an orbit is or what freefall is, what can you expect?

One can also google and get hits on "space hammocks".
Maybe that confused him.

the problem isnt no one in control for a few hours......

its no one in control for days weeks or months...

imagine a serious soyuz problem that grounds the program for 6 months....

at some point the soyuz at the station will age and must be sent home, since soyuz are only good for 6 months in orbit.

since soyuz are generally replaced near the end of their in orbit life crews must be returned...

and could leave the station unmanned for lack of emergency escape.

the obvious fix is keeping at least one musk unmanned capsule at station as a backup emergency escape. this would be a good idea even if soyuz didnt have problems.

a debris hit on the station is always possible and might disable a soyuz.

the more back ups for a bad day the better....

with just enough soyuz at station to evacuate the crew a station debris hit could damage the station while taking out the soyuz escape capsule

yeah fred the same drivel you said about a shuttle getting stuck at station just before the columbia loss......

In article ,
says...

russia appears to have rot in their space systems....

This is so vague as to be meaningless. Yes, they've had another
failure, but *why*? If you can't address the *why* then you're simply
pointing out the obvious.

ths should be totally unacceptable...

Yes, we know. Any failure in chicken little Bobbert world is "totally
unacceptable".

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

russia may no longer be a dependable ISS partner their launch
vehcles are no longer dependable and russias support of assad
isnt good either...

A Proton failed. Russia doesn't use Proton to launch people.

short term giving extra bucks to musk might be a good idea, for
a few emergency iSS return capsules. sent to the station with
supples with some minimal life support plus perhaps some
hanging hammock type return capacity..

Then call your congressman and senator and tell them to increase the
"commercial crew" funding so we can stop buying rides on Soyuz.

so a american astronaut could remain longer at the station....

This has nothing to do with a Proton failure or commercial crew.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

the ability to have crew remain at station without concern for soyuz aging out of their life expectancy should be of concern to everyone....

heck a soyuz that fails at station for any reasons potentally leaves 3 ISS crew stuck with no way home....

and the fact the russian program has had so many different failures is a bad sign.

the problem isnt a one off issue it effects every part of russias space program

: bob haller
: the ability to have crew remain at station without concern for soyuz
: aging out of their life expectancy

Of course, near as I can tell, you're saying that the shelf life of
them soyuzen is no longer than they could *operate* in space.
Unless you want to cite different?

once launched a soyuz is only good for 6 months at station.

it would of been a good idea to upgrade a couple soyuz to be a permanent part of ISS untill used, or at least a couple years life expectancy at station..'

with longer crew rotations and the increasing amount of in orbit debris some backup would be a good addition to ISS