West Wing speculation about secret military shuttle

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:54:42 PM UTC-4, David Spain wrote:
No it's not.



It'd be pure fantasy, but fun to speculate if an X37B could have it's payload module modified to allow occupation by ONE suited astronaut so that it could serve as a lifeboat for a stranded astronaut. Haven't looked at the numbers.



But not likely that would be done until there was a need.

There isn't one today.



Dave

google moose, they should be stored on ISS for emergencies...

allowing the safe return of one astronaut at a time

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:54:42 PM UTC-4, David Spain wrote:
No it's not.



It'd be pure fantasy, but fun to speculate if an X37B could have it's
payload module modified to allow occupation by ONE suited astronaut so
that it could serve as a lifeboat for a stranded astronaut. Haven't
looked at the numbers.



But not likely that would be done until there was a need.

There isn't one today.



Dave

google moose, they should be stored on ISS for emergencies...

allowing the safe return of one astronaut at a time




Yes, because all the extensive testing showed how effective they were.

Oh wait, they were just a drawing.

Oh and returning a single injured satellite is an effective medical
procedure.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Monday, May 26, 2014 9:21:26 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message

...



On Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:54:42 PM UTC-4, David Spain wrote:

No it's not.







It'd be pure fantasy, but fun to speculate if an X37B could have it's

payload module modified to allow occupation by ONE suited astronaut so

that it could serve as a lifeboat for a stranded astronaut. Haven't

looked at the numbers.







But not likely that would be done until there was a need.



There isn't one today.







Dave



google moose, they should be stored on ISS for emergencies...



allowing the safe return of one astronaut at a time









Yes, because all the extensive testing showed how effective they were.



Oh wait, they were just a drawing.



Oh and returning a single injured satellite is an effective medical

procedure.





--

Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/

CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

having alternatives to evacuating the entire station in a emergency could be very useful.

Imagine the station at a time of a crew of 3....

A accident occurs, one astronaut is hurt..

2 crew could return by the normal capsule, the injured crew member and one who wasnt hurt

one remaining crew member can remain on ISS to maintain it, rather than have it unmanned.....

Or a soyuz or other return vehicle could be damaged in a debris hit..

moose would provide alternatives, heck nasa may have had columbia imaged if they had moose onboard and could of returned all or some of the crew till a rescue shuttle could of arrived...

In article ,
says...
having alternatives to evacuating the entire station in a emergency could be very useful.

Imagine the station at a time of a crew of 3....

A accident occurs, one astronaut is hurt..

2 crew could return by the normal capsule, the injured crew member and one who wasnt hurt

one remaining crew member can remain on ISS to maintain it, rather than have it unmanned.....

Or a soyuz or other return vehicle could be damaged in a debris hit..

moose would provide alternatives, heck nasa may have had columbia imaged if they had moose onboard and could of returned all or some of the crew till a rescue shuttle could of arrived...


Recycling this b.s. again, Bob? Exactly how many times have crews had
to evacuate a station due to the medical condition of a single
astronaut? In other words, how likely is this to happen based on the
data we have, which goes back to Skylab and the Salyut stations in the
1970's?

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

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 7:18:39 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

having alternatives to evacuating the entire station in a emergency could be very useful.



Imagine the station at a time of a crew of 3....



A accident occurs, one astronaut is hurt..



2 crew could return by the normal capsule, the injured crew member and one who wasnt hurt



one remaining crew member can remain on ISS to maintain it, rather than have it unmanned.....



Or a soyuz or other return vehicle could be damaged in a debris hit..



moose would provide alternatives, heck nasa may have had columbia imaged if they had moose onboard and could of returned all or some of the crew till a rescue shuttle could of arrived...





Recycling this b.s. again, Bob? Exactly how many times have crews had

to evacuate a station due to the medical condition of a single

astronaut? In other words, how likely is this to happen based on the

data we have, which goes back to Skylab and the Salyut stations in the

1970's?



Jeff

how often will a orbiter break up on re entry caused by a TPS foam hit?

How often will a too cold O Ring cost a lost vehicle and crew?

if moose had existed at the time of columbia nasa managers may have imaged the orbiter. Most of the crew could of returned by moose, perhaps leaving 1 or 2 on columbia awaiting rescue.

Now take ISS, do you REALLY want to risk ISS being left unmanned?

it requires continious human maintence, unmanned control can be lost and it could drop modules all over the ground track.......

plus ISS is getting old, which makes tech troubles more likely

In article ,
says...
how often will a orbiter break up on re entry caused by a TPS foam hit?

That was a launch accident which didn't manifest itself until reentry.
This has nothing to do with your imagined requirement to evacuate a
single crew member from ISS.

How often will a too cold O Ring cost a lost vehicle and crew?

That was a launch accident, plain and simple. This has nothing to do
with your imagined requirement to evacuate a single crew member from
ISS.

if moose had existed at the time of columbia nasa managers may have
imaged the orbiter. Most of the crew could of returned by moose,
perhaps leaving 1 or 2 on columbia awaiting rescue.

This is utter b.s.

Now take ISS, do you REALLY want to risk ISS being left unmanned?

It won't. With six crew and two Soyuz capsules, you only need to
evacuate half the crew of ISS if a medical emergency arises.

it requires continious human maintence, unmanned control can be lost
and it could drop modules all over the ground track.......

plus ISS is getting old, which makes tech troubles more likely

None of this is an issue if you only evacuate three of the six crew
members.

This is exactly why I accused you of recycling the same old b.s.
Today's fully crewed ISS is less susceptible to the medical evacuation
"problem", which hasn't really been a big problem in the past.

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

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 7:18:18 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
Bob has a point...



Consider how Sandra Bullock and George Clooney were recently stranded in

orbit. And it isn't the first time hollywood stars rich enough to go to

LEO end up having problems :-)





If one were to build an escape pod whose only function is to separate

from ship and de-orbit ASAP and land in water/land/anywhere, how much

simpler would it be from all the systems needed in a soyuz (launch,

on-orbit survival, guidance, docking etc).



Would the added simplicity of the escape pod make its lifetime much much

longer ? Even on marine ships, they have to test their liferafts now

and then or replace them. Testing a simplified escape pod that has no

return to ship capability would be impossible.



So, once you are stuck with the problem of the escape pod needing

regular replacement, then the concept of Soyuz/Dragon becomes much more

realistic since the taxi flights automatically rewnew the escape pods

with fresh ones.



last year, some dude jumped out of a baloon at world record altitude and

reached speed of sound in free fall. How much heating of suit would have

happened ?



In a scenario where one would scale this daredevil event up to

orbital-re-entry:



How big would a de orbit engine need to be to de-orbit one adult in a

suit from ISS ? Hand held ? something that fits as a backpack ? Some

something way bigger that makes de-orbit from a suit totally

unrealistic ?



Assuming de-orbit burn can be made, could a series of parachutes that

start to be deployed right after de-orbit burn be able to manage

de-deleration in a way that is survivable in G forces and also slow down

fast enough to make re-entry burning no longer a show stopper ?

To jump out of a ballon differes from deorbiting. Ballon is backisly a static drop, deorbit MUST cut speed ....

JF Mezei suggested that ...

What if one had parachutes deploy right after de-orbit burn (and by
partachute, I mean any device that aerodinamically offeres much
resistance). ? This would mean the deceleration would begin much
earlier, which may greatly reduce heat once you get into denser
atmosphere, and also spread G forces over longer period.

In addition to the practical problems of coming up with such a chute,
you would also have to deeply understand the resulting flight profile
to be sure that you didn't trade the level of peak heating to vastly
longer exposure to less-than-peak heating such that the total heat
exposure was far worse.

I think its an integral problem rather than a differential problem.

/dps

--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

to evacuate a station due to the medical condition of a single
astronaut? In other words, how likely is this to happen based on the
data we have, which goes back to Skylab and the Salyut stations in the
1970's?


I'll admit I've been putting this off because I'm too lazy to go downstairs
to the library, but I believe there is a grand total of ONE such case, and
that was a psychological issue on I believe Salyut 7.


Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

to evacuate a station due to the medical condition of a single
astronaut? In other words, how likely is this to happen based on the
data we have, which goes back to Skylab and the Salyut stations in the
1970's?


I'll admit I've been putting this off because I'm too lazy to go downstairs
to the library, but I believe there is a grand total of ONE such case, and
that was a psychological issue on I believe Salyut 7.

That is my recollection as well. So this is obviously a possibility,
but history has, so far, proven this to be an unlikely scenario. It's
so unlikely that evacuating three people (on one Soyuz) is the plan.
And since the ISS crew size is currently six, this contingency does not
leave ISS unmanned.

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