I donâ€™t understand this â€œsafe havenâ€ concept.

SpaceKiwi · Jun 23, 2006

This is a non-viable option as there must always be a Soyuz at the ISS for immediate evac of the existing Expedition crew. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

unseent · Jun 24, 2006

If the Discovery crew does get stuckup there, I think they could consider pulling out Expedition-13 out. Note, the last member of Expidetion 13 is the discovery anyhow. That would be 3 less people up there to worry about. Doubt, they would just leave all 9 people up there if there is such a problem. Earlier, it would mentioned in post that the ISS can hold 9 people for only about 90 days. So taking out 3 should increase the time the remaining 6 have for a recuse. I doubt they would opt leaving all 9 people up for long time when there is a way out for 3 of them. Also, as I was saying a Soyuz will launch in Sept (60 day or so), might be even able to launch sooner if needed. That should atleast get 1 or 2 more people of the ISS if needed. So far, I haven't seen anyone else mention there is Soyuz launch planned for Sept. either.

themanwithoutapast · Jun 24, 2006

You all forget about the real reason for the STS-300 plan of a shuttle rescues shuttle crew option and not including Soyuz as an option to get down a stranded Shuttle crew if needed: it was politically not feasible to say that NASA would totally rely on Russian help as a back-up solution if something goes wrong with the Shuttle, NASA has to be in control over any possible rescue scenary - every other scenario would not be a major controversy within the US media and a big, big problem for any politician backing NASA with this plan. It would have been very easy to negotiate the following with the Russians back in 2004/2005 when the concept of STS-300 was first brought up: Have the Russians build two additional Soyuz vehicles as a back-up (NASA would pay for them). As already outlined above by others the Russian crew rescue scenario would then be the following: 1. Discovery is damaged and flown to ISS, crew size of 9. 2. The Soyuz docked to ISS is used to get 3 of the crew back to Earth. 3. The 6 other crew members stay on the ISS up to 120 days (the ISS combined with the Shuttle systems allow for this period with a crew size of 6). 4. Another Soyuz with one crew member (or if NASA would have paid for modifications of Soyuz an automatically guided unmanned Soyuz vehicle) is sent to ISS. 5. Another 2 to 3 crew members are sent to Earth. 6. NASA has ample and sufficient time to consider what to do with their Shuttle fleet - most likely end the program immediatly. Other than said by most of the people until now, that does not mean the end of the ISS. The program would go on in an alternative form, maybe just by adding the Russian MLM and probably another Russian-style research module for the other partners - a permanent crew size of 4 could still be sustained in this scenario.

askold · Jun 25, 2006

If it was up to me, yes I'd cancel the shuttle program because its only purpose is to finish building the ISS which is just about useless. As for my concerns - I'm concerned about sending more shuttle crews up on dangerous missions because I'm a caring human being. I'm also concerned about NASA's engineering practices - I think overruling your head of safety is just wrong. It puts all of NASA's engineering decisions in question.

radarredux · Jun 25, 2006

> If it was up to me, yes I'd cancel the shuttle program because its only purpose is to finish building the ISS which is just about useless./i> Today's editorial section in the New York Times shares a similar position.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />... Any delays inevitably increase the chances that the shuttle program will be terminated before the space station is completed. That would not be a national disaster, in our judgment. The aging shuttles are a diminishing asset, required primarily to finish the space station, which is itself of only marginal scientific value. ...<hr /></blockquote> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/opinion/25sun1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

lampblack · Jun 25, 2006

It's ironic... with the post-Columbia modifications, the shuttle is safer than it has ever been. Yet now that folks actually understand what's happening with the vehicle, the top safety officials are "no-go." Presumably, the same safety officials would have been no-go for all the 100 or so pre-Columbia flights -- had they only known then what they know now. The unavoidable implication is that although they did not realize it (and with the unhappy exception of Challenger), blind-ass luck sustained NASA in its multi-billion-dollar manned space program from the start of the shuttle program through the Columbia accident. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

strandedonearth · Jun 25, 2006

I would just like to know why people think the ISS only has marginal scientific value. Fully powered and staffed, assembled with the lab modules waiting to go up, it should be capable of a lot more science than it is doing now

askold · Jun 25, 2006

Maybe you can start the conversation by telling us about the science that ISS would be doing if it were fully staffed. I'll stipulate to "long duration mission human biology studies" if you don't mention "growing crystals".

strandedonearth · Jun 25, 2006

Well, I found one piece of research scheduled for the Columbus module. However, after also finding this article, I have a better understanding of the naysayers point of view.

radarredux · Jun 26, 2006

> Fully powered and staffed, assembled with the lab modules waiting to go up, it should be capable of a lot more science than it is doing now/i> That is almost certainly a true statement. The problems are in the subsequent questions. For example, "Who will be doing that science?" As it stands right now, the US has almost no plans to heavily exploit ISS, so many see the US as spending a lot of money so others can do science. Another question would be, "Is ISS the optimal approach to doing the science?" Many have argued that a man-tended space station could produce better results for most non-human science, have been put up far earlier, and cost far less. Another question might be, "Will the results for long-term exposure studies of humans in zero-G on ISS be valuable for planned exploration over the next 30+ years?" This question stems from the observation that a typical stay on ISS (~6 months) is already roughly equivalent to the time humans would be in zero-G on trip to Mars. There may be very good responses to all these (and many other) questions, but NASA has not put together a good explanation as to why the US will be spending several 10s of billions of dollars on ISS until it is retired. To be fair, NASA hasn't done much for building a compelling argument to the "why" questions for the VSE either.

JonClarke · Jun 26, 2006

Ten thousand research papers so far from the ISS seems like a good start to the research program to me. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Jun 26, 2006

"Another question would be, "Is ISS the optimal approach to doing the science?" Many have argued that a man-tended space station could produce better results for most non-human science, have been put up far earlier, and cost far less. " I know you are quoting what others say, but I find this argument utterly specious. For 30 years people in the US have been pushing for a permanent laboratory and bemoaning the fact they had only had brief flights on the space shuttle. Man-tended missions were not seen to be the answer then, they were at best a half way house between the shuttle and a true station. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

j05h · Jun 26, 2006

> I know you are quoting what others say, but I find this argument utterly specious. For 30 years people in the US have been pushing for a permanent laboratory and bemoaning the fact they had only had brief flights on the space shuttle. Man-tended missions were not seen to be the answer then, they were at best a half way house between the shuttle and a true station. The opposite argument is that all those people and machines to provide life support spoil the microgravity environment for some research. The vibrations, jostling and attitude-control thrusters provide no-where near the needed environment for some biology, crystal and physics experiments. I'm not against ISS utilization, I just think the original (Freedom) concept with a free-flying tender alongside the station makes a lot of sense. If you needed 6 months of zero-vibration environment, it'd be possible with the freeflyer. It's not possible on the current station. I'm for more laboratories, not fewer. josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

nacnud · Jun 26, 2006

Well how about the ATV as a free flyer? It may need more power and cooling but it's got everything else I think.

elguapoguano · Jun 26, 2006

When/If ATV ever flies, it's already at least 3 years behind schedule... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>) </div>

nibb31 · Jun 26, 2006

The original plan for the Columbus module was actually to be free-flying science platform. http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/graphics/m/mtff85.jpg

radarredux · Jun 26, 2006

> For 30 years people in the US have been pushing for a permanent laboratory and bemoaning the fact they had only had brief flights on the space shuttle./i> I cannot speak for any particular criticism, but one major problem I can see with the Shuttle system is that experiments could only run for two weeks or so. Having experiments that could run continuously for months or years opens up a new set of options not available with the Shuttle-based experiments. I am curious to see how China takes advantage of their relatively innovative design where they can leave part of their manned spacecraft in orbit (unmanned) for months or longer after the humans have returned. /> Man-tended missions were not seen to be the answer then/i> There have been arguments that NASA actively scuttled attempts at man-tended space stations because they were seen as competition with Freedom/ISS. For example, if a man-tended station was "good enough", Congress might be inclined to cut funding for further Freedom/ISS development if it started to develop major cost overruns. In the end, however, I don't think any of the arguments here matter. I predict there will be one of two possible courses that will happen. ONE, the foam isn't a problem, constuction proceeds, more than 2 crew members will be active again, the Columbus module is delivered, and NASA develops a credible ISS utilization plan. At this point (12-18 months from now?), all will be forgiven and no one will remember these arguments. or TWO, the foam problem isn't solved, Griffin terminates the Shuttle program, and effectively the ISS effort will draw to a close. At this point, all these arguments will be forgotten. Either way, all the arguments will be forgotten.

frodo1008 · Jun 27, 2006

Well, as we got all our partners into the ISS, and then it is the US that effectively cancels it, perhaps they may not forget? As a matter of fact if this happens then the next time we want or need such cooperation, do you think we can get it and not pay through the nose for it? It is quite possible that China, Russia, and Europe can get together and even do what we evidently can't do. Even though I am a very patriotic person, I really don't care anymore. Congress will quite probably nickle and dime the CEV to death also. And eventually we can watch others lead! Heck, they may even find ways to not only serve the ISS, but also build other far more effective space stations with the likes of Bigelow. After all, as a pure private business what loyalty would he have to NASA or even this nation? Or any of the other pure private businesses for that matter? After all, Virgin Galactic is a British company not an American one! The only problem is the billions of already paid for (by the American taxpayer) ISS equipment waiting at the Cape. What is to be done there? The companies and countries that can lead mankind in not only the exploration of space, but even more importantly the exploitation of space, are going to be the oil baron's of the last part of this century. Those that fall behind will just be third world losers! Which will it be for the US?

j05h · Jun 27, 2006

> The original plan for the Columbus module was actually to be free-flying science platform. Bingo. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

scottb50 · Jun 27, 2006

I don't see why the U.S. has to keep control over ISS anyway. If we abandon it I'm sure others will fill the vacuum and keep it in operation. If nothing else it's a lot cheaper to launch to a fixed platform than taking the platform into Space everytime you need it. I would like to see ISS complete as a first step, the problem here is Shuttle is the only way some components can get to ISS. 2010 or whatever date you use may not be long enough, especially with the current cautious approach NASA has. It might be simpler to convert the Shuttles to crewless transports, take the hardware to ISS and return for more. Soyus and CEV or whatever can be specifically designed for transporting people, supplies and parts to keep ISS operating. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

j05h · Jun 27, 2006

> I don't see why the U.S. has to keep control over ISS anyway. Because we built and paid for it. If anything, NASA should help make it into a national lab. The biggest problem I see in turning it over to the Partners is all the proprietary tech involved. JSC can't just turn the manuals and radio frequencies over to Brussels. I'd like to see the ISS finished (or some variant of) instead of limping along as-is or being ditched. We need alternative access. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

mattblack · Jun 27, 2006

ISS is NOT useless. At least it wont be if it's allowed to be finished and staffed with 6 people aboard. Then you'd see some serious science being done... Provided the science budget isn't slashed further: losing the centrifuge was a big blow. And as for growing crystals -- just because protein crystal growth may now be considered a cliche to you, or unexciting, that doesn't mean lots hasn't been learned from these processes. And this may surprise you, but that technology is still relatively new territory, even after 20 years. Also -- remember that although Skylab was only a 3-man spacecraft; mind-boggling amounts of science was done on those flights. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

radarredux · Jun 27, 2006

> Well, as we got all our partners into the ISS, and then it is the US that effectively cancels it, perhaps they may not forget?/i> Sorry, I didn't mean to say that ISS as a whole would be forgotten, but I think many of the lesser issues will largely be (e.g., should path B have been taken instead of path A?). Right now, because of the limbo state for the last 3 1/2 years, these lesser questions have been given more attention. Regarding the forgiveness of the partners, I think they would. At this point, what will cancel the Shuttle effort and severely hurt ISS is evidence (i.e., major foam loss) that after 3 1/2 years of work NASA still cannot make the Shuttle safe to fly. I don't think the partners will stand up and say, "I don't care if the Shuttle isn't safe to fly, you should fly our equipment up there." This is a different situation than what has been discussed before here and in editorial sections of papers: cancelling the Shuttle because of costs or priority changes.

radarredux · Jun 27, 2006

> ISS is NOT useless./i> [edit: There are responses to the points mentioned below, but it is important that an organization as important as the NRC feels there are problems. To me, this indicates that NASA needs to do a better job of organizing and communicating.] There are at least two issues: whether ISS represents a near-optimal approach for achieving certain research, and whether NASA is prepared to effectively use ISS. Ignoring the first issue, the second issue was addressed by the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council's recent report on ISS utilization, and their position was that NASA does not have a good plan to use ISS. The NRC pointed out two major problems. (1) Much of the original US plans to justify ISS (e.g., biological and physical research) have been thrown out. (2) The remaining US justification for ISS, namely the support of manned space exploration, has little if any concrete agenda. [Note: this report only applies to the US's plans for ISS.] Here are some quotes from that Spring 2006 report:<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />At the time this report was written, no single integrated plan for the ISS was available for the panel’s review. ... However, it appears that much of the racks’ supporting equipment has been eliminated in concert with the NASA research programs that would have utilized the racks. ... However, the panel noted with concern that these objectives no longer include the fundamental biological and physical research that had been a major focus of ISS planning since its inception. ... Given the lack of a single defined research plan for the ISS, the panel could not verify that specific areas it had identified as critical to exploration were in fact gaps in NASA’s current planning. ... The panel saw no evidence of an integrated resource utilization</blockquote>

radarredux · Jun 27, 2006

> [Note: this report only applies to the US's plans for ISS.]/i> To clarify a bit more. The reduction in basic science research (including the much talked about crystals ?) is for NASA's funded work. I don't know what the other partners have on the table. Furthermore, Griffin has pointed out several times that the ISS is a "national" research facility and not just a "NASA" research facility, and if other government agencies (e.g., NSF or DOE) or commercial organizations (e.g., GE) can identify research that should be done on it and can bring their own money to pay for it, they are welcome to show up.

I donâ€™t understand this â€œsafe havenâ€ concept.

SpaceKiwi

Guest

unseent

Guest

themanwithoutapast

Guest

askold

Guest

radarredux

Guest

lampblack

Guest

strandedonearth

Guest

askold

Guest

strandedonearth

Guest

radarredux

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

j05h

Guest

nacnud

Guest

elguapoguano

Guest

nibb31

Guest

radarredux

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

j05h

Guest

scottb50

Guest

j05h

Guest

mattblack

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

I donâ€™t understand this â€œsafe havenâ€ concept.