1) I wish to read the study that tells us this is "within expectations". Sorry don't buy it.
1. Don't you think there is an offer on the table for a jet from Houston to Star City? 2. Or at the very least an ask for all the available raw data to be shared?
Quote from: DARPA-86 on 08/26/2011 12:54 am1. Don't you think there is an offer on the table for a jet from Houston to Star City? 2. Or at the very least an ask for all the available raw data to be shared?1. No, there is no rush2. No, not all the raw data, that is for the russians to work with. However, the US will be kept informed.
Quote from: Jim on 08/26/2011 02:33 amQuote from: DARPA-86 on 08/26/2011 12:54 am1. Don't you think there is an offer on the table for a jet from Houston to Star City? 2. Or at the very least an ask for all the available raw data to be shared?1. No, there is no rush2. No, not all the raw data, that is for the russians to work with. However, the US will be kept informed. Ever been to Russia Jim? Maybe we can send you for a NASA review of the material.
Quote from: malenfant on 08/25/2011 02:45 pmContinued from other thread.The risk to the program of leaving the station unmanned would transform that debate out of all recognition. I don't think nasa could be seen to be jeopardising a $100m asset because of those medical concerns. Of the crew members effected only one would be US anyway.Okay, am I correct in concluding you wouldn't mind 'just' 1 dead US crew member? If you're truly French and your English is that limited, don't even try posting!
Continued from other thread.The risk to the program of leaving the station unmanned would transform that debate out of all recognition. I don't think nasa could be seen to be jeopardising a $100m asset because of those medical concerns. Of the crew members effected only one would be US anyway.
Quote from: Prober on 08/26/2011 02:37 amQuote from: Jim on 08/26/2011 02:33 amQuote from: DARPA-86 on 08/26/2011 12:54 am1. Don't you think there is an offer on the table for a jet from Houston to Star City? 2. Or at the very least an ask for all the available raw data to be shared?1. No, there is no rush2. No, not all the raw data, that is for the russians to work with. However, the US will be kept informed. Ever been to Russia Jim? Maybe we can send you for a NASA review of the material.Me being the devil's advocate, how would you feel about the opposite approach?
The failures cannot be put down to chance, but directly result from the poor state of the industry, experts said."The series of accidents with Russian satellites is not by chance. It is a crisis in the sector," Lisov said."This is an alarm call. It shows that monitoring has failed. Before, they would not have let through a defect at the checking stage."Even the deputy chief designer of Energia space corporation, Valery Ryumin, acknowledged to Echo of Moscow radio station that standards had fallen."Of course quality is worsening, we have to admit this," he said.
The Progress crash, which comes after five satellites have failed to reach their orbits since December, hinders Russia's hopes of using its space prowess to commercial advantage.Newly appointed Roskosmos boss Popovkin has said that he is keen to cut down on manned launches and do more lucrative satellite launches.
Have to say, this report makes for scary reading:-
Igor Lisov, an expert at the Novosti Kosmonavtiki journal [said], "It is almost 100 percent certain that it was a production error or down to bungling operators."
Quote from: MP99 on 08/26/2011 07:43 amHave to say, this report makes for scary reading:-QuoteIgor Lisov, an expert at the Novosti Kosmonavtiki journal [said], "It is almost 100 percent certain that it was a production error or down to bungling operators."Lisov may be jumping to conclusions there. We don't know that any of the prior (successful) Soyuz vehicles would have succeeded on this mission. For example this vehicle may have been hit by freak atmospheric conditions that caused a mechanical failure. In other words, this vehicle may have been just as perfect as all the preceding ones, yet experienced a radically different outcome. But of course maybe what Lisov means by "almost 100 percent" is something like 98%, and not 99.999%. (Those two values are "almost" the same, aren't they? )
Just my two cents,in view of complaints coming from the RSA that manned Spaceflight consumes more than 50% of the available budget i have to wonder if there is any stomach left for LEO anywhere in the World,i think as the US has shown there may not even be much of a stomach for anything other than commercial flights that return a profit.China also needs justification for every launch and a Military reason seems to be the only thing that gives their way of Govt give the green light to a project.it seems to me that the days of manned spaceflight might be coming to an end until the World economy recovers.My sense at this time is that Russia would not view the end of the ISS as a terrible loss.i believe many see no point in LEO, and as has been said by many what is the point of flying just to re-learn the data about human endurance already known from 50 years of manned spaceflight?.If Soyuz could not return to flight other than research what has Russia got to lose?yes the price of a Soyuz seat but that is peanuts compared to the profit from launching satellites.it might happen sooner than we thought that manned spaceflight will be as dead as a dodo.
Personally, I believe HSFs high-watermark was 1969-1972 and that it will probably never be matched again, much less surpassed.
According to news sources, Soyuz needs to be cleared for launch until late November of this year, or the station will be completely abandoned. This is because of rules regarding the landing of Soyuz during the winter months of December and January, which is deemed high risk.
So... the beginning of the end for HSF?
Quote from: AlexCam on 08/28/2011 04:25 pmAccording to news sources, Soyuz needs to be cleared for launch until late November of this year, or the station will be completely abandoned. This is because of rules regarding the landing of Soyuz during the winter months of December and January, which is deemed high risk.So... the beginning of the end for HSF?
Quote from: aquanaut99 on 08/28/2011 05:26 pmQuote from: AlexCam on 08/28/2011 04:25 pmAccording to news sources, Soyuz needs to be cleared for launch until late November of this year, or the station will be completely abandoned. This is because of rules regarding the landing of Soyuz during the winter months of December and January, which is deemed high risk.So... the beginning of the end for HSF?If you prefer to create hype - yes. If you listen to NASA - no. If the worst-case scenario occurs, it's abandoned (which it can do just fine) until otherwise ready to be used again.