STS-121: Launch target May, 2006 - Griffin

[askold]

I saw something once about "Project Pluto" - a nuclear ramjet! To test it they pushed an amazing amount of air through it. And this was in the late 50's.

 

[frodo1008]

Isn't that also why (at least for the next couple of launches) there is supposed to be an additional shuttle ready to go long before such problems develope? The possibility of both shuttles becomming disabled has got to be pretty remote I would think!<br /><br />Also, I would think that with enough incentive (cash would probably do it) the Russians would at the very least be able to send up more progress vehicles than normally until all could be safetly brought back. Heck, it might even be an eventual positive, at least from the press persective, something dramatic happening with the space program for a change, That is, of course, short of actually killing off astronauts!<br /><br />

 

[subzero788]

"A Soyuz can seat 3 max? <br /><br />That means that 3 can come home on the one parked at the ISS, the next soyuz could be sent up with tons of supplies (can soyuz go up unmanned?) and then 3 more can come down. That only leaves 1 extra person up there after the soyuz leaves. It seems somewhat possible though? "<br /><br />You're forgetting the other 2 crew already on the ISS. That makes a total of 9 people which would have to be "evacuated", as I doubt the ISS could remain manned with 3 crew after such a disaster, with no shuttle resupply. That would require at least 2 (unmanned) Soyuz launches within a month or so which as sg mentioned doesn't seem possible.<br />

 

[llivinglarge]

What parts of the ISS can survive reentry in one piece?

 

[lbiderman]

I believe big chunks will go through, but I don't think that any module can survive reentry in one piece.

 

[jschaef5]

the impact alone would kill anyone aboard... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[llivinglarge]

Could a 4th astronaut be squeezed in?

 

[elguapoguano]

I believe the answer to that is no. Each seat is specially designed for the individual astronaut/cosmonaut. Only three seats fit in the Soyuz... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Has anyone one got an idea to what the answers to Barry and I questions abiut 6-7 posts up? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[bobw]

The news story said "NASA currently is carrying out wind tunnel tests at the Arnold Engineering Development Center using a full-scale model of a tank segment that can be equipped with ice/frost ramps of various shapes." I googled the place and found a link to a .pdf that describes a supersonic wind tunnel with a 16 foot by 16 foot test cell. I guess it is a closed loop thing with the air going around and around. I don't think they put a whole shuttle and tank in there, just the part of it they are interested in like the picture below. I hope that helps some.<br /><br /><i>The facility boasts some of the most powerful electric motors ever built—tall as a two-story house and as heavy as a railroad locomotive. Four motors—two at 83,000 horsepower each and a smaller pair rated at 60,000 horsepower each—drive five compressors that generate wind speeds (airflow) in excess of 2,000 miles per hour in PWT’s transonic and supersonic tunnels. Both 83,000-hp motors stand 21-1/2 feet high and weigh 225 tons with 31 miles of copper wire used in the motor windings. All four motors standing one after another are longer than two football fields.</i><br /><br />http://www.arnold.af.mil/<br />http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/aerodynamics/index.htm<br />http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/factsheets/pwt/PWT.pdf<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Hey thanks fellow folder <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Thats the sort of info I was after! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[llivinglarge]

We need more compact astronauts!

 

[jschaef5]

I think its a matter of seats... they get some pretty high g loads on reentry even. Wouldn't want someone just flyin around in there without a seatbelt or something to hold him/her in. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

If it was volume then in an emergency situtation, I would think that they would be able to cram someone in. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[blacknebula]

I assume that you have never been in a Soyuz mockup before. Take shuttle_guy's word for it...there is no possible way to fit a fourth person unless you kill one of them. The Soyuz barely fits three.

 

[llivinglarge]

(I'm sure a "little person" could fit.)

 

[nacnud]

Nope a little person wouldn't fit with three normal people as well. You'd need at least 2 very small people that could fit in the space of one normal person and even then the seat wouldn't fit, neither would the pressure suits.

 

[llivinglarge]

Are repair EVAs still on the table?

 

[j05h]

>I assume that you have never been in a Soyuz mockup before. Take shuttle_guy's word for it...there is no possible way to fit a fourth person unless you kill one of them. The Soyuz barely fits three.<br /><br />Also, the Soyuz is based, partly, around custom-made seat liners for each passenger. In a ditch-STS-onorbit scenario, every one of the stranded crew is going to need the right seat liner for descent or they will get seriously damaged. Never mind this "fourth passenger" idea, just getting two people plus a Soyuz pilot down is going to be a challenge. You're talking about 3-4 extra Soyuz flights (plus delivery of Sokol suits and seat liners) in the space of maybe 6 months. That's a tight schedule. <br /><br />I sure hope we never have to see this type of scenario play out. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

Anyone happen to know what the times are for the July 1st window? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"Are repair EVAs still on the table?"<br /><br />Absolutely - that is always an option. Inspection - whether before docking or after docking will be a requirement to the end of the program, and if anything is found a repair will be done if possible. The deleted EVA was mainly to demonstrate one of the repiar options which many people for years has been saying probably won't work.

 

[jschaef5]

It looks like there is some promising news on the ET modifications.<br /><br />"The new concerns arose this month when modified tank foam components blew off an external tank mockup undergoing wind tunnel tests at AEDC. Engineers tweaked the design of the components, and later tests were favorable, with no foam loss."<br /><br />http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_space_story.jsp?id=news/awSHUT04216.xml <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I really, really hope that NASA can get its act together for a flight in July. If there should ever be too much damage for a shuttle to come back down safely, then I can pretty well guarantee that every effort would be made by not only the US but also by Russia to get the people back down safely!<br /><br />The problem with having the extra people on board the ISS would have to be delt with in the meantime by whatever extra supply flights would be necessary! I mean people, what is NASA and the RSA going to do? Just sit by an have the media frenzy watch astronaut/cosmonauts slowly die of a lack of air, water, and food? Somehow I don't think that would be acceptable!<br /><br />Come on people! A little common sense here, this IS NOT going to happen! <br /><br />The current loss of peoples lives for the verious space programs was in no way preventable. Oh, with hindsight we can see what should have been done, true, but at the time it was not preventable. <br /><br />But if a shuttle were so damaged that it couldn't be fixed, having those people die would indeed be preventable. So all this talk about how many we could get on a Soyuz just doesn't mean anything. The people would stay on board the ISS until they could be brought back by whatever means it would take.<br /><br />At any rate, hopefully the problem of foam damage itself will be at least corrected to the point of continuing the program to finish up the ISS to the point of making it what it was supposed to be from the beginning (and it can't be that until there are at the very least some six people on board).<br /><br />So let us DO at least attempt to be a little bit hopeful here!

 

[j05h]

>But if a shuttle were so damaged that it couldn't be fixed, having those people die would indeed be preventable. So all this talk about how many we could get on a Soyuz just doesn't mean anything. The people would stay on board the ISS until they could be brought back by whatever means it would take. <br /><br />"How many people can fit on a soyuz" is exactly the type of question we should be discussing. The ISS can not handle 10 crew currently, and would be extremely strained in that scenario. How to get the stranded astronauts off ISS means everything in that case. The ONLY means to get them back would currently be Soyuz (follow here - the Shuttles not being flyable) - and possibly a ShenZhou craft. It would still be an extreme challenge to get everyone back alive. Sure wish they'd finished the X-38! One CRV stored on-orbit would solve all of this. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

There is also the fact that for the next few launches there will be another shuttle on the launch pad ready to go. Of course, I guess you could say that it would then be possible that there might just be two shuttle crews stranded on the ISS, but such a scenario is very improbably (although I really would have to say there would be a real crisis for the worlds space programs!)<br /><br />Also, if it wasn't feasable to get the crew back from the ISS, then what has the ISS been slated for use in this manner by the people investigating the safety of the shuttle after the Columbia accident?<br /><br />As I stated the ISS does have the short term capacity to have that many people on board, and this could be extended with additional progress vehicles (in this kind of emergency I would think that every space program (after all, isn't that why it is called the INTERNATIONAL Space Station?) would make efforts to see to it that the ISS was kept supplied while these additional people are on board? There are many rockets capable of reaching the ISS (addmitedly with reduced carrying capacity). Heck, it might even give such international cooperation a boost!