STS-121: Launch target May, 2006 - Griffin

[llivinglarge]

NASA should follow NASCAR's example...<br /><br />"Crashes and flaming wrecks are to be expected..."

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">If the Shuttle is grounded then the it is not possible to resupply the 9 people on the ISS with Progress or Soyuz launches before the consumables are exhausted.</font>/i><br /><br />I assume they would send 3 people home as soon as possible on a soyuz so that only 6 people would be consuming food, water, and air.<br /><br />I admit that I find it frustrating that after nearly a half century of putting stuff into orbit that the entire global community couldn't in a timely fashion get a little fuel, water, and air into orbit close enough to ISS so that someone couldn't move it through the airlocks manually.</i>

 

[krrr]

<font color="yellow">There are no Progress or Soyuz spacecraft on standby.</font><br /><br />Since the Russians are launching Progresses roughly every three months, they always have a Soyuz rocket and a Progress in some state of readiness. Surely in an emergency they could accelerate the pace and send a "survival" Progress within two or three weeks.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The policy is to never leave anyone on the ISS with no rescue craft docked to the ISS.</font>/i><br /><br />I would think that the policy could be modified in extraordinary situations.</i>

 

[j05h]

>The policy is to never leave anyone on the ISS with no rescue craft docked to the ISS. <br /><br />That rule would surely be relaxed in a 9-crew emergency situation. The real problem w/ getting the first Soyuz away is that the only qualified pilot is in the station crew, not the STS crew. He would likely be needed onboard for the duration of the emergency. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

>Why do you say that? The next Soyuz coming up would have a Soyuz pilot.<br /><br />There would most likely be a gap of weeks to months between the Shuttle stranding and the arrival of the next Soyuz. There would be a strong pressure to get some of the crew back to Earth quickly (consumables, etc). Doing this has every chance of leaving the station without a Flight Engineer or whatever the position is called, because he would also be the only available Soyuz pilot. THis would be exacerbated by the strain on Station systems by the surge of crew. <br /><br />One possibility is to get whoever is closest to Soyuz qualification up to speed, and have that person (maybe the Shuttle pilot or CDR) perform the Soyuz reentry. <br /><br />It's a truly awful scenario on lots of levels. I can see two outcomes: The international community steps up and shows some brilliance in rescuing everyone, and builds out ISS in the process (ie, they fly an emergency module w/ life support) or the station ends up looking like the New Orleans Superdome. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"One possibility is to get whoever is closest to Soyuz qualification up to speed, and have that person (maybe the Shuttle pilot or CDR) perform the Soyuz reentry. "<br /><br />Having dealt with this sort of discussion with the Russians I can assure you that would NEVER happen. I think they would prefer a US person working ont eh Russian segment than a US person piloting the Soyuz. Keep in mind the Russians showed no sympathy or support in earlier crises (e.g., 6A) so I don't hold out much hope int he international community stepping up. But also realistically, I don't see the Russians abadoning the ISS even in dire cicumstances. ANd the US probably wouldn't either. In fact, we are adding cables that should the RS become unlivable, we could isolate in the US segment and control the systems from there. Yes, the Soyuz would not be accessible.

 

[j05h]

"Dragonfly" also carried plenty of suggestions about Russian possesiveness about their craft. They do know how to stick it out on a flying garbage heap , though (Mir). However it's spun, 9 people on ISS right now would be a very, very bad situation.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[llivinglarge]

How long would it take to modify Shenzhou for emergency rendezvous/docking?

 

[j05h]

> How long would it take to modify Shenzhou for emergency rendezvous/docking?<br /><br />I'm pretty sure the connection between RV and OM on Shenzhou uses APAS-89. If not, they are planning on putting adrogynous adapter in place of foreward equipment pallet in next few years. It'd mostly be a question of communication and any docking protocols. <br /><br />In that situation it might make sense to have Russian cosmonauts fly the Shenzhou rescue missions. Never happen but an interesting idea.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

What Shuttle_Guy seems to be saying here is that the ISS is NOT the safe haven that the committee invstigating the Columbia accident seemed to think it was? <br /><br />I find this to be difficult to believe, particularily from SG. NASA has in the past (Re: Apollo 13) overcome far more serious problems than that of too many people on board the ISS before, and they did that alone! If this is truly an INTERNATIONAL Space Station, then it behoves all of the partners in it to work to save people stuck in such a situation.<br /><br />If this really isn't the case (the ISS being a safe haven) then perhaps those who believe that the shuttle should be shut down now are perhaps correct. I hope not, but that is the way it sounds here!<br /><br />This is not in direct answer to your last post JOSH, but I just attached it to yours. <br /><br />Also, I would like to ask SG, is there going to be another shuttle ready for emergency use as I originally thought there was going to be?

 

[jschaef5]

There will be an 'emergency shuttle'.<br /><br />Atlantis's ET should be there in time to launch an STS-300 mission if need be within like 60 days i think it is. Or do you mean a backup to the backup? Because Endeavour is still being fixed up I think, just finishing up its overhaul? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

No, the Atlantis mission should be enough backup. If NASA starts having all three remaining shuttles backing up the other two, then we are really in trouble here!

 

[j05h]

i'm pretty sure that 9 crew would max out the current iSS life support and oxygen regen capability. THey'd be able to use STS initially to provide some extra capacity, but following the "ditching" scenario, breathing is going to get real hard. <br /><br />Station probably isn't the safe-haven it's advertised as, esp. if STS300 can't get off the ground. I'd be interested in the proffessional's opinion, as well.<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Your true statements are just a tad on the scary side. However, we all know that human space travel is always going to be a very difficult and dangerous thing for a long time to come (and perhaps always, at least because of the environment). <br /><br />What I am referring to when I state that the international community itself would get involved if necessary is that there are now at least half a dozen or more rockets all now capable of reaching the nearby vicinity of the ISS with supplies. If the shuttle itself was damaged so that it could not come back to earth it could still be used in space itself, and would easily have enough propellents to reach such a rockets payload. Space walkers would then be able to place the supplies into the payload bay of the shuttle and take them back to the ISS. The payload of the rocket would then not have to come anywhere near the ISS itself, and even a a small solid rocket (carried as part of the same payload) could then be used to see to it that the empty payload was slowed to come back to the earth (as many such LEO payloads have done all during the space age). I know that such a procedure is not as good as the current Russian supply method, but as you say Russia itself may not be able to build and launch such rockets fast enough. But I am certain that amoung the Delta IV, Atlas V, Protons, Zenits, Ariene IV, and Ariene V, and even Chinese Longmarch rokets at least one if not several could be diverted from their usual loads (thus giving those that made such a temporary sacrifice a very good PR boost!) to such a truly humanitarian use!<br /><br />Of course, such a procedure would only even be attempted in a case of life or death for the inhabitents of the ISS. But I just can't see the space agencies of the world (even those who are not now partners in the ISS, including China) just sitting here and doing nothing while the press have a field day here! It might even be a total negative on ALL human efforts in space for a very

 

[jschaef5]

At 11:00am there will be a breifing on the status of STS-121 and the ET. It sounds like they are going to fly it as is even though many engineers are saying no. This could get interesting.<br />The breifing will be on NASAtv.<br />Good Article on it over at : http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4472 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[askold]

"It sounds like they are going to fly it as is even though many engineers are saying no."<br /><br />Isn't that what happened to Challenger?

 

[frodo1008]

I am somewhat afraid that I have to go along with NASA management on this one. As they are flying to the ISS, and there is going to be a backup shuttle ready to fly, I really think that they must go at this time. You are NEVER going to eliminate all possible problems with either the foam or even other problems with the shuttle itself in some other area. It just isn't going to happen! Another down time of 12 to 18 months will kill the program just as totally as another accident! The American public and its representatives are just NOT going to stand for such a delay! <br /><br />So the real decision here is: are we going to even try to continue to fly the shuttle to finish the ISS, or not! It is that simple. If the shuttle isn't going to be used then they had better get busy on finding an alternative approach to getting all that already paid for very expensive hardware up to the ISS and installed! It is also that simple!<br /><br />At this stage I am myself at a balance point. I will personally support which ever way things go here! Even if it should mean that the shuttle has already flown its last flight! Although it isn't going to make me happy, I can accept that, if NASA isn't going to fly the shuttle this year! <br /><br />It will be interesting to find out at least!

 

[frodo1008]

And I agree with you as well as Dr. Griffin. If there are problems now or in the future let us hope that my opinions as to the viability of the ISS as a true haven are valid. Expecially if they are going to keep the crews at seven!<br /><br />As always I truly value your information and opinions, keep up the very good work, and Have A Very Good Day!

 

[askold]

I wonder - does Dr. Griffin play poker or chess?

 

[jschaef5]

I think that they made a fairly good decision. On each new ET they hope to make improvements on. This one they fixed the PAL ramp and hopefully by the next couple flights they will have a solid ice frost ramp design and then after that they can continue eliminating other smaller problem areas. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The most important engineer, Dr. Griffin saids fly the Ice frost ramps as they ar. i agree with him.</font>/i><br /><br />I liked O'Keefe, but what I like about Griffin is that I feel he makes a decision with a much more fundamental understanding of the issues than O'Keefe ever could. I am sure he understands the whole range of issues (from the engineering to the political) better than just about anyone else could.</i>

 

[askold]

The only problem with that is you don't know if you're being thoughtfull courageous or fearfuly safe until after the fact.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">ONLY the people involved with the data are in a position to make that call, not the press and not the politicians.</font>/i><br /><br />But Griffin can understand the data, whereas O'Keefe (assuming he had the same data) had to rely on others to interpret it for him.<br /><br />Likewise, Griffin is in a position to understand the politics of the situation (once again, because he as that "data" too) much more clearly than the engineer in the field.</i>

 

[llivinglarge]

At this moment, NASA is truly a lost cause for manned space flight. 16 flights just ain't happening.