A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

Shuttle program extension?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old September 17th 08, 04:02 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Shuttle program extension?

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:02:46 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

Titanic had many ships within hours' travel of rescue The Californian
was within sight (her radioman had gone to sleep and distress rockets
were ignored by her captain, another change after Titanic was that all
large ships have their radios manned 24 hours a day) and the Carpathia
arrived on scene just after sunrise. ISS cannot expect to have other
ships available to rescue the crew within a reasonable amount of time.


Then either that has to change, or the assumption that it's a requirement
has to change.


It won't. Get over it. You may as well say that Carnival Cruises can
stop putting lifeboats on their ships. Never gonna happen.

As I pointed out, there are already scenarios where lifeboats won't do you
much good.


But you provide a lifeboat to handle as much as you practically can.
Practical being the key word. There are always going to be events
that happen too quickly for lifeboats to help, at sea and in space.
The Andrea Doria was listing too far over for half her lifeboats to be
launched in 1956 (the passengers were fortunately rescued by the
nearby Ile de France). We didn't say "See! Lifeboats aren't a 100%
guarantee! Get rid of them!".

The government already sends hundreds of employees out on craft which have
rescue capabilities that are far more feel good than actually useful. One
of our own here served on one such craft.


You're wrong about submarines, Greg. They do have lifeboats, the same
as all Navy ships (you don't see lifeboats hanging all along the sides
of the Nimitz, either). For example, take a look at "Hunt for Red
October" to see inflatable lifeboats in action (the scene was filmed
on a Brit sub, I think). They have been used in real life, too.

Being able to "deliver all the way back to Southampton" is a lot
cheaper for NASA than having a Carpathia on standby for launch 24/7.


Or is it? Seriously. I do wonder if anyone has looked at the cost of
either developing a rescue craft for the next 4-5 years,


We don't need to develop a rescue craft. We just need to accellerate
Orion.

paying the Russians


That's still a lifeboat that gets you back to Southampton. It's just
not one the US builds.

Brian

Ads
  #104  
Old September 17th 08, 04:19 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Shuttle program extension?

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:02:29 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 Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:02:46 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

Titanic had many ships within hours' travel of rescue The Californian
was within sight (her radioman had gone to sleep and distress rockets
were ignored by her captain, another change after Titanic was that all
large ships have their radios manned 24 hours a day) and the Carpathia
arrived on scene just after sunrise. ISS cannot expect to have other
ships available to rescue the crew within a reasonable amount of time.


Then either that has to change, or the assumption that it's a requirement
has to change.


It won't. Get over it. You may as well say that Carnival Cruises can
stop putting lifeboats on their ships. Never gonna happen.


Not a good analogy. Carnival Cruises isn't a cutting-edge operation
on a dangerous frontier.

Being able to "deliver all the way back to Southampton" is a lot
cheaper for NASA than having a Carpathia on standby for launch 24/7.


Or is it? Seriously. I do wonder if anyone has looked at the cost of
either developing a rescue craft for the next 4-5 years,


We don't need to develop a rescue craft. We just need to accellerate
Orion.


Or Dragon. Or put up a safe haven with an interorbital transfer
system, which is actually much simpler and cheaper.
  #105  
Old September 17th 08, 11:47 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Shuttle program extension?

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:02:46 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

Then either that has to change, or the assumption that it's a requirement
has to change.


It won't. Get over it. You may as well say that Carnival Cruises can
stop putting lifeboats on their ships. Never gonna happen.


Last I knew Carnival Cruises weren't offering high-risk jobs on the cutting
edge of science. (to be a bit melodramatic).


As I pointed out, there are already scenarios where lifeboats won't do you
much good.


But you provide a lifeboat to handle as much as you practically can.
Practical being the key word.


And that's the key word; practical. Is it practical to provide lifeboats at
$20million+/pop.

No offense, but you're going to find few actuarial tables that say that's a
good return.


There are always going to be events
that happen too quickly for lifeboats to help, at sea and in space.
The Andrea Doria was listing too far over for half her lifeboats to be
launched in 1956 (the passengers were fortunately rescued by the
nearby Ile de France). We didn't say "See! Lifeboats aren't a 100%
guarantee! Get rid of them!".


Nor did we say, "double up lifeboats on both sides of the boat just in case
this happens." Or "make lifeboats accessible while under water.


The government already sends hundreds of employees out on craft which have
rescue capabilities that are far more feel good than actually useful. One
of our own here served on one such craft.


You're wrong about submarines, Greg. They do have lifeboats, the same
as all Navy ships (you don't see lifeboats hanging all along the sides
of the Nimitz, either). For example, take a look at "Hunt for Red
October" to see inflatable lifeboats in action (the scene was filmed
on a Brit sub, I think). They have been used in real life, too.


You're right, I'll admit to overlooking inflatables. But my point stands,
they're usable in a very limited set of circumstances. Note the Thresher
incident. Again, no one is demanding a lifeboat that covers all the
possible accidnets.


Being able to "deliver all the way back to Southampton" is a lot
cheaper for NASA than having a Carpathia on standby for launch 24/7.


Or is it? Seriously. I do wonder if anyone has looked at the cost of
either developing a rescue craft for the next 4-5 years,


We don't need to develop a rescue craft. We just need to accellerate
Orion.

paying the Russians


That's still a lifeboat that gets you back to Southampton. It's just
not one the US builds.

Brian




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


  #106  
Old September 17th 08, 11:49 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Shuttle program extension?

wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 11:16 pm, John Doe wrote:

1. Consider that PMA2 can possibly be used as an airlock. If you have
some
primitive pressure suits stored in node2, then the stranded crewmembers
could ingress PMA2, close the hatch to the station, then depressurise
(equalise with the ship on other side which happens to be "vacuum" :-)
and open hatch to outside and then move towards a waiting Soyuz ship and
ingress through its airlock. (attach line to PMA2, then propell yourself
towards the nearby soyuz, if you fail to latch on to the soyuz, you pull
yourself back to station and try again).

2. If NODE2 has no spare suits, then someone in the soyuz would have to
EVA
with spare suits, place them in an already depressurised PMA2, close
the hatch, let the crew then repressurise it, put the suits on and then
egress.

3. If a crewmember went from 14.7 to 5psi with only O2 pre-breathe for a
few minutes+ whatevcer time it takes for a PMA2 to equalise to vaccum,
how long before "the bends" symtoms would appear ? Could they go for say
30 minute at 5psi in pure O2 and then repressurise in the soyuz and be
relatively OK ?


1. Not viable. The crew can't just "jump" to the Soyuz.


Umm, sure they can. It's ill-advised and no one in their right mind would
do it given a choice, but again, emergency situations dictate slightly
different procedures than non-emergency ones.



2. Not viable, it would take at least 2 Soyuz crew members and so
where is the room for the 'rescued" crew


Sure there is. Again, in John D's scenario, you're simply using the Soyuz
to ferry them to a viable part of the station.

Again, against all protocols currently, but again, the point is to think
outside the box and way the risk.




3. immediately.


True, but again, is it worth it?



None of your ideas are viable


  #110  
Old September 18th 08, 01:54 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Shuttle program extension?

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:58:40 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


Why do you think ISS is closer to a ship like the Titanic than it is to
something like the South Pole research station?


Because without a lifeboat, if the ISS is crippled, you die, just like
the lifeboat-less passengers on Titanic. You always have a fighting
chance at McMurdo, look how long Scott's expedition survived and that
was with 1912 technology. At the very least, you won't suffocate. You
might freeze, but during the summer months that's far from certain
(space is 100% hostile 24/7/365.)

My point is that evac from ISS using the shuttle is similar to evac
from the South Pole during the middle of winter. It certainly woudln't be
easy, but NASA already has plans in place for rescuing a stranded shuttle
crew for the Hubble repair mission.


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.

So a Mars mission is "special", but a LEO station with a thousand people on
it would need to have "lifeboats" to return everyone to earth in case of an
emergency? That's just silly.


Let me turn this around on you. Cruise ships and aircraft carriers
already have thousands of people on them, and they have lifeboats for
everyone. Why is LEO different? Just because you want to save a few
bucks on a lifeboat? Good luck getting government or commercial
backers for THAT plan. :-)

Brian
 




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
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 03:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.