StarDestroyer.Net BBS

ArmorPierce wrote:

phongn wrote:That can be done with Soyuz (which doubles as the crew escape vehicle)

Is that that old Russian thing that was put there to give the illusion of safety and a back up plan until we finished our designs on a better one?

Statistically Soyuz is safer than the Shuttle. I believe it's had two losses (one on accent, one on decent) in a lot more flights than the Shuttle has ever flown. It's also had crew walk away from incidents which would have been fatal had they occured on the shuttle. The KISS principle applies just as much to spaceflight as anything else and Soyuz is definitely in the 'simple' category.

Manned Soyuz has made approximately 150 flights since 1975 with no fatalities.

ArmorPierce wrote:

phongn wrote:That can be done with Soyuz (which doubles as the crew escape vehicle)

Is that that old Russian thing that was put there to give the illusion of safety and a back up plan until we finished our designs on a better one?

You mean the one we stopped funding?

SirNitram wrote:The three guys up in the ISS right now.

Someone will have to bring them down, or at least bring them munchies(Their vodka is flat), and the US will not be abandoning them.

The ISS crew has a lifeboat. If they are ordered to come back, run out of supplies, or simply lose confidence that the their supplies are going to keep on showing up on-time, all they need to do is climb in their lifeboat and come back. They're not stranded but NASA has no way of getting them back using anyhing American launched from the ground.

The ISS can be supplied by the Russians using Progress. The loss of the shuttle will halt ISS construction but will not prevent the delivery of supplies vital to the continued operation of the ISS-as is. The European ATV cargo vehicle will be operational in 19 months to take some of the load off Progress, too.

My mistake, I just heard bad things about it including that it has space for only 3(?) people in it but that wouldn't be a problem here when it was being stated why we need to make a new design.

ArmorPierce wrote:My mistake, I just heard bad things about it including that it has space for only 3(?) people in it but that wouldn't be a problem here when it was being stated why we need to make a new design.

The X-38 was designed to be the ISS lifeboat for up to 7 people. When it was cancelled, there was an uproar because this gives a maximum of only 3 people on the station, who would be too busy carrying out routine maintenance to carry out much useful science.

ArmorPierce wrote:

phongn wrote:That can be done with Soyuz (which doubles as the crew escape vehicle)

Is that that old Russian thing that was put there to give the illusion of safety and a back up plan until we finished our designs on a better one?

That is right. Unfortunately the American Crew Return Vehicle was cancelled in the FY2002 budget cuts and the other robot resupply vehicle is being designed and built (and will be operated by) the European Space Agency. I guess that is why they call it the International Space Station...

That aside, it is possible to operate the ISS using only the proven Soyuz/Progress-series of single-use spacecraft. The Russians operated Mir (which had broadly the same logistical requirements as the ISS) for something like a decade that way. However, the Russians don't have the economic resources to pay for this anymore. So, if Rossyacosmos are to pick up the slack until the Shuttle is either re-certified or replaced, NASA will have to pick up most of the bill.

BenRG wrote:

ArmorPierce wrote:

phongn wrote:That can be done with Soyuz (which doubles as the crew escape vehicle)

Is that that old Russian thing that was put there to give the illusion of safety and a back up plan until we finished our designs on a better one?

That is right. Unfortunately the American Crew Return Vehicle was cancelled in the FY2002 budget cuts and the other robot resupply vehicle is being designed and built (and will be operated by) the European Space Agency. I guess that is why they call it the International Space Station...

Well, America is in a recession. Of course we'll cut NASA. Nothing important...

That aside, it is possible to operate the ISS using only the proven Soyuz/Progress-series of single-use spacecraft. The Russians operated Mir (which had broadly the same logistical requirements as the ISS) for something like a decade that way. However, the Russians don't have the economic resources to pay for this anymore. So, if Rossyacosmos are to pick up the slack until the Shuttle is either re-certified or replaced, NASA will have to pick up most of the bill.

NASA already is picking up most of that bill. And its not like the Russians don't care, either. Considering that at least one cosmonaut(IIRC) has generally also been on the ISS since the begining has given the Russian government a vested intrest in keeping the ISS up.

As to China, I certianly hope they start launching soon.

salm wrote:ach, why should the shuttle programm be abandoned? there are still a couple of shuttles left. letting them rot in their hangars or putting them up as tourist attractions wouldn´t be that smart.

Iceberg wrote:Pfft. They just don't want *us* to do it.
To the Chinese government, there are two sets of rules

a bit off topic but: dont blame it on the chinese government. more countries than just china have one set of rules for themselves and one for the others.

The US is one of those, duh.