Shuttle only gets us extra crew while the Shuttle is on-station. After the Shuttle leaves (Shuttle has a rather limited on-orbit lifetime, even when attached to the station), any extra crew have to leave with her.
Edit: IE I'm wondering whether the combined effect could be more than the contribution of a 7th crew member for a few days.
Quote from: MP99 on 03/15/2011 08:45 pmEdit: IE I'm wondering whether the combined effect could be more than the contribution of a 7th crew member for a few days.There IS NO "7th crew member". This mythical 7th crew member contributes just as much to ISS ops as the other shuttle crew members.ISS normally has a crew of 6. When the Shuttle is docked, the whole complex could have a crew of 10-14, depending on Shuttle crew size.
ISS was originally intended for 7 crewmembers, but it was decided a while ago to only support 6 crewmembers.
“Expedition” crews have occupied ISS on a 4-6 month rotating basis since November 2000. Originally the crews had three members (two Russians and one American, or two Americans and one Russian), with an expectation that crew size would grow to six or seven once assembly was completed. Crew size is temporarily reduced to two (one American, one Russian) while the U.S. shuttle is grounded in order to reduce resupply requirements. The number of astronauts who can live on the space station is limited in part by how many can be returned to Earth in an emergency by lifeboats docked to the station. Only Russian Soyuz spacecraft are available as lifeboats. Each Soyuz can hold three people, limiting crew size to three if only one Soyuz is attached. NASA planned to build a U.S. Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) to provide lifeboat capabilities for at least four more crew. The Bush Administration canceled those plans due to cost growth in the ISS program, then began a different program (the Orbital Space Plane) that also was cancelled.- - -At the time the core complete configuration was announced, another major concern was the decision to indefinitely defer the CRV, which subsequently was canceled. That would have limited the space station to three permanent crew members, not seven as planned, reducing the number of researchers on board to conduct the research program.
Of course they provide an invaluable service. My point was that it was silly to say that Shuttle provides a "7th ISS crew member" when it actually provider several temporary crew members.
The real issue here is that this is yet another example of the current NASA Adminstration taking a confrontational approach to Congress. The Congressional intent has been clear - make us less reliant upon Russian crew capacity, not more. Now with over three years remaining on the existing contract, this NASA Adminstrator committs us to another two years and an additional three quarters of a billion dollars out of future NASA budgets to underwrite another nations space program.
Quote from: Lars_J on 03/15/2011 09:43 pmOf course they provide an invaluable service. My point was that it was silly to say that Shuttle provides a "7th ISS crew member" when it actually provider several temporary crew members.No it's not Lars. During construction the combined crews were mainly dedicated to assembly. Yet, there was still ISS ops and science to attend to.During logistics/crew-rotation runs, the pace does not need to be as feverish. The shuttle crew could essentially tend to the transfers, etc and the "7th person" could be dedicated to any number of things onboard ISS.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/15/2011 09:59 pmQuote from: Lars_J on 03/15/2011 09:43 pmOf course they provide an invaluable service. My point was that it was silly to say that Shuttle provides a "7th ISS crew member" when it actually provider several temporary crew members.No it's not Lars. During construction the combined crews were mainly dedicated to assembly. Yet, there was still ISS ops and science to attend to.During logistics/crew-rotation runs, the pace does not need to be as feverish. The shuttle crew could essentially tend to the transfers, etc and the "7th person" could be dedicated to any number of things onboard ISS. The 7th person could not stay aboard the ISS when the shuttle leaves and thus would not be considered part of the ISS crew. Unless we want to buy 3 soyuzs since the CRV was canceled. The shuttle like any manned spacecraft could provide temp. personel but that isn't crew for the station.
A capability models what a business function does—its externally visible behavior (versus how it does it, its internal behavior)—and the expected level of performance.
Thinking exclusively about processes creates rigidity leaving the enterprise vulnerable to competitors who think beyond “what has to be done” and toward “what are the different combinations of resources to create the outcome.”This happened in the music industry. Where recording companies were perfecting their supply chain processes to meet the requirements for lower prices demanding by mass retailers like Wal-Mart only to be upset by a new configuration of resources known as Napster and eventually iTunes. The process focus contributed to a limited vision and execution. iTunes illustrates capability thinking. First off, iTunes is build from a collection [of] resources...
Without a re-organization that assigns resources and responsibilities for evolving the operating model, change will continue to be sporadic, risky and disruptive. These are the resources CIOs need to actively manage the operating model.Yes I am talking about an organization having three major operational areas: The Line, the Back Office (oversight) and Enterprise Capability (evolution)So what is in an enterprise capability organization? The resources required to define, build and sustain how the enterprise works defined by its capabilities. A capability is the resources an enterprise uses to create outcomes and it embodies the combination of process, human capital, technology, information and culture.
Some things that everyone can agree on:1) The Russians will likely continue to raise their prices until the US has an alternative to Soyuz for lifeboat services.
Some things that everyone can agree on:1) The Russians will likely continue to raise their prices until the US has an alternative to Soyuz for lifeboat services.2) Continuing to fly the Shuttle does nothing to influence #1 above.3) Buying Soyuz lifeboat services and flying Shuttle can divert financial resources that could be instead used to develop and fly a US lifeboat.4) However, the STS-134 and STS-135 budgets are not redeployable to developing a US lifeboat alternative to Soyuz.
Could a manned dragon be launched unmanned?This would not require the development of an LAS, and if it is really as simple as installing some chairs in a cargo-dragon, it would be quite cheap.Would enable a seventh crew-member and could do it this year IMHO if they keep COTS-3 or CRS-1 docked to the ISS.
Quote from: Danderman on 03/16/2011 08:36 pmSome things that everyone can agree on:1) The Russians will likely continue to raise their prices until the US has an alternative to Soyuz for lifeboat services.Could a manned dragon be launched unmanned?This would not require the development of an LAS, and if it is really as simple as installing some chairs in a cargo-dragon, it would be quite cheap.Would enable a seventh crew-member and could do it this year IMHO if they keep COTS-3 or CRS-1 docked to the ISS.
AArggh. It's not a 2-3 year gap. Goodness how many times does it have to be said.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/16/2011 09:09 pmAArggh. It's not a 2-3 year gap. Goodness how many times does it have to be said. Most sources figure atleast 2 years to restart the shuttle's production lines.