posted
Forgive me if this has already been said (just so much content in this topic). Doesn't the space station have an old-stype pod (like the one's the Apollo's and the Russians currently used/use)? I heard that they have one as an escape pod-type vessel. Why don't they just use that and come home?
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Because they now have supplies until June, and it's very much a last-chance solution. And if they leave that may be it for the ISS - any other solution at least gives a chance of a relief crew to carry on the work. Plus there's the symbolism of it all.
"Did Archer give up and go home after he was beaten by the Germans in 'Shockwave?' Hell no!" "Germans?" "Forget it, he's rolling. . ." 8)
I'm not sure rages is exactly the right word to use but hey... Also how exactly do you wage war on an abstract noun?
Yes, these are worrying times and yes there are many other budgetry requirements BUT the space programme is a vital investment in the future, in this better world we hope to create. The technology, jobs and not to mention the morale boost successful programs generate are all vital. And I believe it is our future.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
If, in the worst case, no one can go get them, is there a pod?
I know there was supposed to be one, and it would make sense to have it there before there was a crew, but is it there? That wasn't really clear when they were talking about it on TV.
-------------------- Sparky:: Think! Question Authority, Authoritatively. “Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.” EMSparks
Shalamar: To save face, keep lower half shut.
Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Yes, ISS has a Soyuz capsule that doubles as lifeboat.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Kosh: It is internationally recognized that NO ONE will put more people in orbit than they have the ability to bring back down - it's just common sense. The station is plenty capable (or at least WILL be capable) of supporting more than the current crew of three, but they're not going to do it unless they can bring everyone back if need be.
One of the big concerns about the ISS is that the shelving of the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle has effectively eliminated the ability to have a crew of six or seven on the station - the capacity of the long-duration CRV capsule. Russian Soyuz capsules can only take three people, plus are replaced every six months (they can only last in space for a year AT MOST). Furthermore, the Russians are only contracted to provide Soyuz capsules for so long.. The CRV was to replace them by 2006, but this ain't gonna happen.
A few weeks ago a bunch of ISS people resolved that increasing the crew of the ISS is imperative to accomplish the goals of the station (the crew of three have barely any time to work on science as so much time is spent just keeping the station going), and so are hoping to allocate the funding to have the Russians provide two Soyuz capsules to ISS at a time. This will double the crew capacity of the station, and allow for most of the science objectives the station is designed to do. It's unknown if they'll provide more Progress resupply ships to match, or if they'll need to if the ESA can finish off the Jules Verne ATV...
Unfortunately the station will never be at its designed effectiveness without the cancelled habitation, propulsion and additional lab modules, but that's a whole other thread.
Mark
[ February 04, 2003, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
posted
And of course, the Soyuz isn't any safer than the Shuttle, having suffered at LEAST as many fatal accidents (2 that the Russians have admitted. Possibly more).
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The Soyuz family of spacecraft probably have the single best success/failure ratio of any spacecraft, thanks to their age and how often they have been used. I'm having some problems digging up exact numbers, but I would not be surprised if there have been at least twice as many Soyuz launches as shuttle ones, and would be surprised if there had been twice as many capsule failures.
And, of course, that's taking the entire Soyuz family into account. If we only talk about the modern versions the success rate only goes up.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Last April, NASA released some members of the advisory board. This advisory board had issued warnings on the health of the space program. The people who were released feel they this was a self-motivated action by NASA to protect its interests. If you like, I will get the relevant article which goes into more detail on this event.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
Also the Soyuz is a little less complex than a space shuttle orbiter. Less complex = less that can go wrong.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
quote:Originally posted by newark: Last April, NASA released some members of the advisory board. This advisory board had issued warnings on the health of the space program. The people who were released feel they this was a self-motivated action by NASA to protect its interests. If you like, I will get the relevant article which goes into more detail on this event.
Read the same article. It states the members who were released were at the end of their terms anyway. So it's just conspiracy assumption to think that the only reason they were released was for this.
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
-Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney, LeMans
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I was careful in my post to say that the people on the board, not myself, believe that NASA had other motives. There are some who distrust NASA more than I.
Looking at the budget for this coming year, Pres. Bush proposes a decrease in spending for the shuttle program, than a modest increase in spending for the shuttle program. In terms of inflation, the increase is 1.5 of inflation. Any increase which is 2.0 of inflation is a good thing; an increase of <2.0 is not a good thing. Amusingly, this budget makes no allowance for war in Iraq or North Korea. Wishful thinking?
I have read coverage in Newsweek and Time. There is no coverage of the incident in US News and World Report. The DOD, who receive more money for their space program, are less interested in a manned program. They are looking at an increased presence in space by Americans through the utilization of unmanned recon and defensive space vehicles. Seeing how our country is headed, I will argue that their approach is the future, not NASA's two programs of manned and unmanned. Our nation is moving away from risking people's lives in combat. I heard on NOVA that the F-35, the JSF, may be the last jet fighter with a human fighter in our arsenal.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I fail to see how military decisions have any effect on the civilian, scientific space programme. Just because the USAF are doing one thing it doesn't necessarily follow that NASA will do the same.
The DoD has a fundamentally different role in space to NASA. Do not forget that.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
quote: and we will need a new propulsion system before we can do it with any reasonable hope of the Astronauts getting there and back.
No.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
