Author Topic: Soyuz “LON” plan for STS-135  (Read 9775 times)

Offline TALsite

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Spain
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 10
Soyuz “LON” plan for STS-135
« on: 08/27/2010 07:34 PM »
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/08/nasa-approve-sts-135-mission-june-28-2011-launch/

Quote
A four person crew allows for the utilization of the Soyuz “LON” plan, which – in the highly unlikely event Atlantis was unable to return to Earth – would result in the STS-135 crewmembers returning on two Soyuz vehicles, staggered over their scheduled return dates, with Expedition crewmembers handing over their seats in return for an extended stay on the ISS.

I think I have a less expensive (need only one Soyuz spacecraft) and more faster, and economic (in ISS recourses) plan.

This is an actual manned launch calendar:
2010
December 9 - Soyuz TMA-20 launch [Kondratyev, Nespoli, Coleman]
2011
February 26 - Endeavour (STS-134) launch [M.Kelly, G.H.Johnson, March 30 - Soyuz TMA-21 launch [Samokutyaev, Borisenko, Garan]
May 31 - Soyuz TMA-02M launch [Volkov, Fossum, Furukawa]
June 28 - Atlantis (STS-135) launch [CDR, PLT, Fossum, Magnus]
September 30 - Soyuz TMA-22 launch [Skaplerov, Ivanishin, Burbank]
November 30 - Soyuz TMA-03M launch [Kononenko, Petit, Kuipers]

The plan starts with an extended stay for the ISS-27 crew till the undocking of STS-135 Atlantis, and the delay of the launch for Soyuz TMA-02M

In the crew of Atlantis I would include:
-For MS2 I choose an astronaut with ISS experience.  Sandy Magnus is a good choice for me.  She was ISS FE during 133 days, has Soyuz training, and she was an MS2 on STS-112, and fly a MPLM mission on STS-126.
-For MS1 I choose Michael Fossum (bumped from the delayed TMA-02M flight).  He has MPLM experience with STS-121 and six EVAS under his belt.
 
Atlantis launch on June 28.

*If everything works…
-Atlantis returns with CDR, PLT and Magnus.  Fossum stays in the ISS.
-On the first window, Russians launch Soyuz TMA02-M with Volkov and Furukawa.
-Soyuz TMA-20 crew returns to earth.  Their stay has been extended for about two months: From mid-May to mid-July.


*If Atlantis is unable to return…
-We have 10 people in station:
Kondratyev-Nespoli-Coleman- Samokutyaev- Borisenko- Garan- 135/CDR -135/PLT – Magnus - Fossum.

-Russians launch as soon as possible ONE UNMANNED Soyuz  for rescue; they previously did with Soyuz 34 in the 80’s.  And are doing unmanned dockings with all the Progress vehicles.

-Samokutyaev land Soyuz Rescue with 135/CDR and 135/PLT
-Now we have 7 people in station: Kondratyev-Nespoli-Coleman- Borisenko- Garan- Magnus - Fossum.
-After this, the Russians launch TMA02-M with Volkov and Furukawa.
-Now we have 9 people in station and three Soyuz docked, just seen with Soyuz TMA-14 (Pirs), TMA-15 (Zarya)and TMA-16 (Zvezda)

-Soyuz TMA-20 crew returns to earth with Kondratyev-Nespoli-Coleman (or Magnus).  Their stay has been extended for about two months: From mid-May to mid-July.

-Now in the ISS we have the ISS-28 crew with Borisenko (CDR), Garan, Magnus (or Coleman), Volkov, Fossum and Furukawa.

Is it a feasible plan?
« Last Edit: 08/27/2010 08:19 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16670
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2348
  • Likes Given: 156
Re: Soyuz “LON” plan for STS-135
« Reply #1 on: 08/28/2010 07:34 AM »
A Soyuz can  (I belive) stay up only 6 months.... with your plan Soyuz TMA-20 has to stay in space for almost 8 month, this would never happen....

Offline TALsite

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Spain
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Soyuz “LON” plan for STS-135
« Reply #2 on: 08/28/2010 10:25 AM »
...with your plan Soyuz TMA-20 has to stay in space for almost 8 month, this would never happen....

8 Months X 30 Days = 240 days

Tyurin and Lopez Alegria with TMA-9 stayed for 214 days in 2007. 
Russians also can delay the launch.
Maybe it's possible...

Offline racshot65

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2580
  • Aaron Kalair
  • Coventry, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soyuz “LON” plan for STS-135
« Reply #3 on: 08/28/2010 10:50 AM »
A Soyuz can  (I belive) stay up only 6 months....


Out of interest why is this ?

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9892
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Soyuz “LON” plan for STS-135
« Reply #4 on: 08/28/2010 11:45 AM »
Because certain parts of the spacecraft start to deteriorate after that.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2935
  • Likes Given: 870
Re: Soyuz “LON” plan for STS-135
« Reply #5 on: 08/28/2010 05:33 PM »
Because certain parts of the spacecraft start to deteriorate after that.

That's not exactly the reason. Soyuz is rated (qualified if you will) for a max. stay of 6 months in orbit. The proper functioning of critical parts of Soyuz is not guaranteed beyond the 6 month period. However, it has never been established exactly how long it takes for Soyuz (parts) to deteriorate to such an extent that safe use of Soyuz is no longer guaranteed. The 6 month period goes all the way back to a long-duration exposure experiment on one of the Salyut space stations.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9566
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Soyuz “LON” plan for STS-135
« Reply #6 on: 08/28/2010 09:20 PM »
I believe that Soyuz TMA is qualified for 7 months, not six months.

The larger problem is that Progress has TORU as a backup for rendezvous and docking, whereas an unmanned Soyuz does not. Therefore, in what may be a very dicey situation, launching an unmanned Soyuz presents a very high risk to crew survival, whereas launching a Soyuz with a single pilot does not.

Offline Colds7ream

  • Tomorrow's Flight Surgeon
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Scientia Dabit Alas
  • RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus
    • SalopianJames - en Wikipedia
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soyuz “LON” plan for STS-135
« Reply #7 on: 08/29/2010 11:06 AM »
The 6 month period goes all the way back to a long-duration exposure experiment on one of the Salyut space stations.

There were several, I believe, staring with a 61-day trip for Cosmos 613 in 1973/4, followed by a 92-day flight to Salyut 4 for Soyuz 20 in 1975/6. Cosmos 1074 tested the new Soyuz-T configuration for 61 days in 1979.
« Last Edit: 08/29/2010 11:10 AM by Colds7ream »

Offline Skylon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soyuz “LON” plan for STS-135
« Reply #8 on: 08/29/2010 07:41 PM »
Because certain parts of the spacecraft start to deteriorate after that.

Maybe straying a bit off topic, but this prompts a question. Some years ago there, in a comic series "Y: The Last Man", whose premise is a plague has suddenly wiped out every male on the planet except one (Yorick Brown, the series' protagonist). One of the early story arcs involved an ISS crew (two men, one a Russian cosmonaut, and a woman). Their return to Earth was delayed well past the six month point (it's stated they were on orbit for over a year). I believe it stated the chemical propellants "expired" leading to (in the interests of avoiding spoilers) a hydrazine leak and a dramatic re-entry.

Is there an issue with the chemical propellants kept on Soyuz degrading the longer the craft is kept on orbit?

Online Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6178
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soyuz “LON” plan for STS-135
« Reply #9 on: 08/29/2010 07:54 PM »
Because certain parts of the spacecraft start to deteriorate after that.

Maybe straying a bit off topic, but this prompts a question. Some years ago there, in a comic series "Y: The Last Man", whose premise is a plague has suddenly wiped out every male on the planet except one (Yorick Brown, the series' protagonist). One of the early story arcs involved an ISS crew (two men, one a Russian cosmonaut, and a woman). Their return to Earth was delayed well past the six month point (it's stated they were on orbit for over a year). I believe it stated the chemical propellants "expired" leading to (in the interests of avoiding spoilers) a hydrazine leak and a dramatic re-entry.

Is there an issue with the chemical propellants kept on Soyuz degrading the longer the craft is kept on orbit?

Yes. In particular, the H2O2 monopropellant used in the descent module decomposes over time. That is the main driver of the current 225-day limit (it used to be 200 days, before the Russians improved the grade of H2O2).
JRF

Offline Skylon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soyuz “LON” plan for STS-135
« Reply #10 on: 08/30/2010 04:42 AM »
Because certain parts of the spacecraft start to deteriorate after that.

Maybe straying a bit off topic, but this prompts a question. Some years ago there, in a comic series "Y: The Last Man", whose premise is a plague has suddenly wiped out every male on the planet except one (Yorick Brown, the series' protagonist). One of the early story arcs involved an ISS crew (two men, one a Russian cosmonaut, and a woman). Their return to Earth was delayed well past the six month point (it's stated they were on orbit for over a year). I believe it stated the chemical propellants "expired" leading to (in the interests of avoiding spoilers) a hydrazine leak and a dramatic re-entry.

Is there an issue with the chemical propellants kept on Soyuz degrading the longer the craft is kept on orbit?

Yes. In particular, the H2O2 monopropellant used in the descent module decomposes over time. That is the main driver of the current 225-day limit (it used to be 200 days, before the Russians improved the grade of H2O2).

Thanks for the answer Jorge. I was wondering if the writer of that comic just pulled that one out of nowhere, or had done a little homework.

What would the worst case scenario be if re-entry were attempted with expired propellant?

Offline Sparky

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Connecticut
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Soyuz “LON” plan for STS-135
« Reply #11 on: 08/30/2010 05:20 AM »
Does anyone here know what the Russian reaction to the Soyuz LON plan is? Has NASA even begun talking to them in terms of how much it would cost to pay for the LON vehicles to be ready on time?

Offline TALsite

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Spain
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Soyuz “LON” plan for STS-135
« Reply #12 on: 06/08/2011 12:58 PM »
Quote from the thread “NASA managers approve STS-135 mission planning for June 28, 2011 launch “  Page 4

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Technical Assessment Report:

Assessment of NASA’s Approach to STS-135 with Soyuz Crew Rescue
September 13, 2010

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/482702main_NESC-RP-10-00640%20Assessment%20of%20the%20%20SSP%20Approach%20to%20STS-135%20with%20Soyuz%20Crew%20Rescue%20(9-13-10%20NRB)%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf


The link for this document doesn’t work.
Do you know other link?

Thanks

Offline anik

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7358
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 284

Offline TALsite

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Spain
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Soyuz “LON” plan for STS-135
« Reply #14 on: 06/09/2011 08:17 AM »

See attachment.

Yes, this is the document...

Спасибо Андрей  :)

Tags: