Author Topic: Rohrabacher - Russian Launch Failure; Calls for Emergency Commercial Funding  (Read 49503 times)

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
A protracted standdown of Progress could be serious from a reboost perspective, since it's the tanker for the reboost fuel.  IIRC ATV/HTV doesn't have that capability to act as a tanker, correct??  As Jim pointed out, developing the capability for another spacecraft to act as a tanker would take at least 18 months... would ISS be in danger of being back in the atmosphere in that length of time?? 

A simple answer; no. This was adressed in various meetings and press briefings.



No, what??  No ATV/HTV cannot act as tankers??  I already read that there is sufficient reboost fuel for about a year, but if as Jim asserts it would take a minimum of 18 months to develop the capability for another spacecraft to act as a tanker (on the unlikely assumption that Progress would be down that long) would the 6 month minimum 'tanker gap' pose a problem?? 

For the record, I don't think Progress will be down for a year, or even several months-- the Russian program is too motivated to resume operations-- unlike NASA they actually lose money when they're "not doing anything".  Also, with the extra supplies and stuff sent up on STS-135 and all, I would think that ISS is pretty well set with a comfortable 'cushion' and therefore Progress's loss as a supply craft is "in the noise."  Besides, there are other means of supplying ISS with Tang, T-shirts, and toilet paper (like ATV/HTV, and hopefully soon commercial providers).  BUT, like the fact that Soyuz is the ONLY manned craft capable of transporting astronauts/cosmonauts to/from ISS, and is also affected by this incident, just as Progress is the sole tanker, this does highlight the issue.  Soyuz and Progress will probably be back up and running before Thanksgiving would be my SWAG, but the question remains... what about next time?? 

That's all I'm saying... I guess we'll see...

Later!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
No idea if this works, but why not offer the experience and services of the NASA centers for free. Send them 100 of the best NASA engineers and free access to the supercomputers, wind tunnels, test ranges, etc...

Please, please, please don't help them!  100 greybeards with access to supercomputers and wind tunnels would gum up the works massively.

As suggested elsewhere, the only ways I can see for NASA to help SpaceX launch as early as possible is to:

1) Keep focused on the software upgrades to the SSRMS.  That is, dedicate the ground and on-orbit manpower to complete the software tests, even if it is at the expense of other tasks, and

2) Buy from SpaceX the cargo positions currently planned for the two Orbcomm test satellites.  We have read that these secondary payloads and the flight plan to carry them are only remaining issues holding up approval for the upcoming flight.  Removing the payloads and having the F-9 second stage do a quick deorbit from below the ISS altitude should for allow the COTS-2 flight to incorporate the COTS-3 elements and actually rendezvous with the ISS, be berthed, and deliver some cargo.    SpaceX has demonstrated with Ratsat that they can quickly make mass models to replace cargo, (Falcon-1 flight 4)  and as a commercial entity, there is some price at which they would agree to do this.

(edit for grammar)
« Last Edit: 08/26/2011 04:10 am by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105

No, what??  No ATV/HTV cannot act as tankers??

ATV can act as a tanker, HTV can't.
« Last Edit: 08/26/2011 07:11 pm by douglas100 »
Douglas Clark

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
No idea if this works, but why not offer the experience and services of the NASA centers for free. Send them 100 of the best NASA engineers and free access to the supercomputers, wind tunnels, test ranges, etc...

Please, please, please don't help them!  100 greybeards with access to supercomputers and wind tunnels would gum up the works massively.

As suggested elsewhere, the only ways I can see for NASA to help SpaceX launch as early as possible is to:

1) Keep focused on the software upgrades to the SSRMS.  That is, dedicate the ground and on-orbit manpower to complete the software tests, even if it is at the expense of other tasks, and

2) Buy from SpaceX the cargo positions currently planned for the two Orbcomm test satellites.  We have read that these secondary payloads and the flight plan to carry them are only remaining issues holding up approval for the upcoming flight.  Removing the payloads and having the F-9 second stage do a quick deorbit from below the ISS altitude should for allow the COTS-2 flight to incorporate the COTS-3 elements and actually rendezvous with the ISS, be berthed, and deliver some cargo.    SpaceX has demonstrated with Ratsat that they can quickly make mass models to replace cargo, (Falcon-1 flight 4)  and as a commercial entity, there is some price at which they would agree to do this.

(edit for grammar)
Why SpaceX in particular, when there are four other options there, some in more advanced states.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
No idea if this works, but why not offer the experience and services of the NASA centers for free. Send them 100 of the best NASA engineers and free access to the supercomputers, wind tunnels, test ranges, etc...

Please, please, please don't help them!  100 greybeards with access to supercomputers and wind tunnels would gum up the works massively.

As suggested elsewhere, the only ways I can see for NASA to help SpaceX launch as early as possible is to:

1) Keep focused on the software upgrades to the SSRMS.  That is, dedicate the ground and on-orbit manpower to complete the software tests, even if it is at the expense of other tasks, and

2) Buy from SpaceX the cargo positions currently planned for the two Orbcomm test satellites.  We have read that these secondary payloads and the flight plan to carry them are only remaining issues holding up approval for the upcoming flight.  Removing the payloads and having the F-9 second stage do a quick deorbit from below the ISS altitude should for allow the COTS-2 flight to incorporate the COTS-3 elements and actually rendezvous with the ISS, be berthed, and deliver some cargo.    SpaceX has demonstrated with Ratsat that they can quickly make mass models to replace cargo, (Falcon-1 flight 4)  and as a commercial entity, there is some price at which they would agree to do this.

(edit for grammar)
Why SpaceX in particular, when there are four other options there, some in more advanced states.
In more advanced states for delivering cargo to ISS? The launch is in about 3 months, the only thing that could be closer to a flight to ISS is another Russian vehicle of some sort.

I don't believe Comga was talking about commercial crew, though perhaps apace was.

(And for the record, I'm not entirely sure that using a supercomputer has the tendency to speed up development... And I say that as someone who has done a little development of aerostructures on a supercomputer.)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0


Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
No idea if this works, but why not offer the experience and services of the NASA centers for free. Send them 100 of the best NASA engineers and free access to the supercomputers, wind tunnels, test ranges, etc...

Please, please, please don't help them!  100 greybeards with access to supercomputers and wind tunnels would gum up the works massively.

We are from government and we're here to help ..
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
In more advanced states for delivering cargo to ISS? The launch is in about 3 months, the only thing that could be closer to a flight to ISS is another Russian vehicle of some sort.

If the rumours are right, then launch is now actually 5 (five) months away.

Offline arkaska

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3042
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 4
In more advanced states for delivering cargo to ISS? The launch is in about 3 months, the only thing that could be closer to a flight to ISS is another Russian vehicle of some sort.

If the rumours are right, then launch is now actually 5 (five) months away.

This discussion is not that usefull since ISS have supplies long into next year. The concern is a secondary crew-vehicle since Soyuz delays are the main concern now.

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
Which of the commercial companies have said they could accelerate their crew schedule with additional money?

I just don't remember ever seeing such statements. If they have, great - would like to see them.

Exactly. There are some processes you just can't speed up by throwing money at it.

Remember though, at least for commercial crew, they're getting less money, and much slower than was originally intended.  It's true that some things can't be accelerated with additional money, but they can be decelerated by insufficient money, and restoring that money can accelerate their pace compared to what they could do with the more limited resources.

Less money and much slower than what?

When you talk about what was originally intended, you're obviously referring to an earlier proposal, but I'm not sure which one.

What would you regard as a good budget for commercial crew?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0