Soyuz safety: NASA to temporarily remove ISS presense?

[docm]

<p>http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5425</p><h2 class="featured-header"><font size="3">Soyuz debate considers removing US presence from the ISS</font></h2><h2 class="featured-header"><font size="2">NASA managers have been meeting today to debate the option of removing the US presence from the International Space Station (ISS) when Discovery undocks at the latter part of STS-124.</font></h2><div>></div><div>></div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[3488]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5425Soyuz debate considers removing US presence from the ISSNASA managers have been meeting today to debate the option of removing the US presence from the International Space Station (ISS) when Discovery undocks at the latter part of STS-124.>> <br />Posted by docm</font></DIV></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000"><strong>How long has Soyuz been used in crewed spaceflight? Surely it won't be too difficult to fix?</strong></font></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000"><strong>I wonder if the Russian's really want to be in the driving seat, without American presence?</strong></font></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000"><strong>Andrew Brown.<br /></strong></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How long has Soyuz been used in crewed spaceflight? Surely it won't be too difficult to fix?I wonder if the Russian's really want to be in the driving seat, without American presence?Andrew Brown. <br />Posted by 3488</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I think it's a good idea to permanently remove U.S. presence from the ISS, until Orion is ready to fly.&nbsp; Move up the launch schedules, to install the necessary modules (nodes), and save a few dollars for the Ares-Orion rocket developement.&nbsp; And then, retire the Shuttle earlier than planned.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[neuvik]

<p>Does this mean that the overall crew of the ISS will be limited too?&nbsp;&nbsp; Will the research being conducted up there and maintenance be adversly affected?&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; Why is it a good idea to remove our astronaughts from the station during NASAs vehical switch? &nbsp; The Soyuz has had some problems none too detramental, but unfortunatly so have we with the orbiters.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Ares/Orion are bound to have their beginning flaws too, especially if we speed development.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does this mean that the overall crew of the ISS will be limited too?Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Probably cut in 1/2.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; Will the research being conducted up there and maintenance be adversly affected?</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Doubtful.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Why is it a good idea to remove our astronaughts from the station during NASAs vehical switch?</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>First&nbsp;of all, now NASA has an excuse for safety issues.&nbsp; And 2nd, it costs lots of money ($400-$500 million/Launch).&nbsp; I'd rather see one shuttle launch deleted from the manifest, and put into the Ares developmental problems:&nbsp; frequency modulation, and payload mass inadequacy.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; The Soyuz has had some problems none too detramental, but unfortunatly so have we with the orbiters.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Ares/Orion are bound to have their beginning flaws too, especially if we speed development.&nbsp; <br />Posted by neuvik</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Think of it, as putting a white elephant on a diet, or streamlining costs.&nbsp; It's not a matter of speeding up development, as much as staying on schedule, without further delays.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p>This is surely&nbsp;just to ensure that all options have been covered and all possibilities considered when questions get asked by pollies.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Doubtful.&nbsp;&nbsp;First&nbsp;of all, now NASA has an excuse for safety issues.&nbsp; And 2nd, it costs lots of money ($400-$500 million/Launch).&nbsp; I'd rather see one shuttle launch deleted from the manifest, and put into the Ares developmental problems:&nbsp; frequency modulation, and payload mass inadequacy.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Think of it, as putting a white elephant on a diet, or streamlining costs.&nbsp; It's not a matter of speeding up development, as much as staying on schedule, without further delays. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Can't delete any flights, the ISS needs all the hardware scheduled for those missions.&nbsp; Also, it doesn't save any money, the shuttle costs are the same whether it is one or four missions per year.&nbsp; The extra money wouldn't help Ares anyways. </p>

 

[trailrider]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is surely&nbsp;just to ensure that all options have been covered and all possibilities considered when questions get asked by pollies.Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>Oh, I would think there is more to it than just to answer questions by Congress, et al.&nbsp; Let's suppose that you launch STS-124 <em>without </em>having done any contingency planning, and <em>then</em> the Russians discover that there is a real problem with the Soyuz that's docked to the ISS.&nbsp; Better to have a plan and contingencies worked out, and then NOT have to use them, than be caught short!&nbsp; This is done ALL THE TIME, with any critical mission.&nbsp; No need to get all excited...YET!</p><p>Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!</p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>There is supposed to be a post&nbsp;FRR (Flight Readiness Review) briefing tomorrow afternoon. Without any input from shuttle_guy or erioladastra I guess we need to wait until then.</p><p>If I see updated times, I'll let Y'all know.</p><p>Wayne</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Can't delete any flights, the ISS needs all the hardware scheduled for those missions.&nbsp; Also, it doesn't save any money, the shuttle costs are the same whether it is one or four missions per year.&nbsp; The extra money wouldn't help Ares anyways. <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Oh really?&nbsp; Read this, and weep.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cry.gif" border="0" alt="Cry" title="Cry" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5404<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Oh really?&nbsp; Read this, and weep.&nbsp; &nbsp;http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5404 <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV><br /><br />I don't see what that has to do with this thread subject. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p>There is only one Shuttle flight whose removal could possibly assist Orion, and that's the Hubble servicing mission.&nbsp; But before getting all gung-ho about deleting it, consider a) the earlier loss of Hubble (that *is* a cost) and b) the fact that you would save, at best, about a month of schedule.&nbsp; You would save very little money, if any.&nbsp; All you'd acheive is freeing up the MLP one month earlier so it can be converted for the Ares system and used for the upcoming Ares I vibration tests.&nbsp; It would be a small gain, at great cost.</p><p>In any case, it would have no bearing on whether or not to maintain a US presence at the ISS during the hiatus between Shuttle and Orion flights. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bobble_bob]

Even if the last few have been ballistic re-entry, there is nothing to suggest the Soyuz isnt a reliable spacecraft. Its safety record is excellant <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even if the last few have been ballistic re-entry, there is nothing to suggest the Soyuz isnt a reliable spacecraft. Its safety record is excellant <br />Posted by bobble_bob</DIV><br /><br />Should be interesting to see how the subject is addressed in the STS-124 FRR News Conference. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even if the last few have been ballistic re-entry, there is nothing to suggest the Soyuz isnt a reliable spacecraft. Its safety record is excellant <br />Posted by bobble_bob</DIV></p><p>No rocket system has an excellent safey record by usual commercial standards.&nbsp; Going to&nbsp;space has been and remains a bit risky, but with "acceptable risk".&nbsp; But it is the vigilance and oversight that come with not accepting the status quo that keeps that risk acceptable.&nbsp; As soon as you dismiss the Soyuz incidents and just carry on as usual, you start to depart from the rigorous process that keeps the risk acceptable.&nbsp; Ballistic re-entry is not per design and ought to be treated as a serious anomaly.&nbsp; For the systems with which I used to work, there would be a shutdown until the cause of such a condition was identified and corrected. </p><p>U.S. failure review boards always try to establihs a "root cause" and take corrective action for an anomaly, evern when the anomaly does not result in a catastrophe.&nbsp; In some cases, I am not familiar with all or even most for the Russian aerospqce industry, the Russians have been satisfied with a determination that a problem is not due to a systemic design flaw, but merely to a lapse in quality control.&nbsp; It that approach is taken with Soyuz then I would be concerned.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Oh really?&nbsp; Read this, and weep.&nbsp; &nbsp;http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5404 <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;That link has nothing about reducing shuttle flight rates to save money </p>

 

[erioladastra]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;There is supposed to be a post&nbsp;FRR (Flight Readiness Review) briefing tomorrow afternoon. Without any input from shuttle_guy or erioladastra I guess we need to wait until then.If I see updated times, I'll let Y'all know.Wayne <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Correct to aboive that it was to consider all options.&nbsp; However, leaving ISS unmanned (which is what would have to happen if NASA pulled) is almost certainly a loss of ISS.&nbsp; So it was a check but not really a viable option unless loss of life was more likely using the Soyuz.</p><p>&nbsp;Stats are that there is a low enough risk (1:124 is the value quoted, but that doesn't really take into account a number of items) to need an evac that we are go for launch and leaving Chamittoff.&nbsp; Plan is to launch May 31.</p>

 

[vulture4]

<p>The Soyuz has an excellent and very long safety record. But when vital components start failing in two different systems (apparently the controller cable which triggered the balistic return and the explosive bolts separating the service module, or perhaps the system that separates the wiring harness) then quality control is likely to be slipping. What NASA should insist upon is access to the Soyuz manufacturing process and records, and input on the level of inspection, and in the case of parts that cannot be fully tested by NDT, sampling and destructive testing of sufficient samples to assure quality. </p><p>Cutting Shuttle won't save money, and if the AMS (alpha magnetic spectrometer) isn't launched than a billion dollars will be wasted. Ditto the Hubble mission. We are in space to accomplish useful work and significant science, not just to fly around.</p>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What NASA should insist upon is access to the Soyuz manufacturing process and records, and input on the level of inspection, and in the case of parts that cannot be fully tested by NDT, sampling and destructive testing of sufficient samples to assure quality. </DIV></p><p>NASA can request but not insist, any more the RFSA could insist on similar access to the Shuttle after Columbia.</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>