-
#200 by Chris Bergin on 05 May, 2008 13:16
-
I'll quote and copy the two posts into Ex.17 as a mirror, Dmitry.
-
#201 by synchrotron on 05 May, 2008 13:43
-
Quote
Jorge - 4/5/2008 5:50 PM
Re-read and now understand your point in context. I picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue.Quotesynchrotron - 4/5/2008 1:40 PM
QuoteJorge - 4/5/2008 5:01 PM
It counts for something, but not as much as people like to think. It counts only inasmuch as the intervening years have allowed flight experience to accumulate.
Number of flights is the metric that matters, not number of years.
Surely you are making use of hyperbole with this comment.
No. I don't think you understood my comment. And don't call me Shirley.Quote
Per-flight trend is the dominant metric that matters. I agree. But things tend to go wrong with processes and organizations over calendar days; organizations must keep flights safe over time as well as over the number of flights. We shouldn't discount it entirely.QuoteTrend analyses are clearly valuable for extrapolating expected outcomes.
Of course. But trends are measured over flights, not over time.QuoteLikewise, the increasing frequency of Soyuz re-entry failures recently is a cause for concern.
Of course. But that is still a per-flight trend, not a per-time trend. -
#202 by JimO on 07 May, 2008 16:13
-
I just posted my latest article over at the 'Expedition 17' thread...
-
#203 by strangeluck on 08 May, 2008 12:55
-
Was this already posted?
"Internal NASA Documents Give Clues to Scary Soyuz Return Flight"
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may08/6229
Nice read... most interesting part for me:QuoteBut at some point, the aft section did tear free, probably because of the mounting aerodynamic torques and heating. This may have been no mere lucky break. Russia suffered a series of near disasters early in its program, including Yuri Gagarin's first mission in 1961 and a chillingly similar Soyuz nosedive in January 1969. So Russian engineers apparently modified module-to-module connectors to tear loose, if needed, under such entry stresses, even if the separation system fails entirely. If that modification was indeed made-which is unknown outside of Russian space circles-this may have been the first time this fail-safe system was flight-tested.
Still seems no one is certain if the module tearing away was luck or by design... I'm very surprised no one not involved in this knows...
-
#204 by rdale on 08 May, 2008 14:18
-
Quote
strangeluck - 8/5/2008 8:55 AM
Was this already posted?
Yep, scroll up one post
QuoteJimO - 7/5/2008 12:13 PM
I just posted my latest article over at the 'Expedition 17' thread... -
#205 by Citabria on 09 May, 2008 10:55
-
Quote
JimO - 7/5/2008 12:13 PM
Nice article and images!
I just posted my latest article over at the 'Expedition 17' thread...
I saw a diagram once that showed that the OM has no proper hatch where it connects to the DM - just a swing-down grill to cover the opening (obviously the DM has a proper hatch there). Could it be that the OM separation thrust is powered merely by air escaping the OM through the grill?
-
#206 by JimO on 12 May, 2008 12:19
-
Perilous Landings by Soyuz Worry NASA
U.S. to Be Dependent on Russian Capsule
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/11/AR2008051102101.html
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 12, 2008; Page A07
-
#207 by extropiandreams on 12 May, 2008 19:57
-
ok. first of all money is really growing on trees in russia today. They have so much of it, that inflation caused by those great money inflows is a great burden for them. A new soyuz launch would cost them a hour of fossil fuel export, metals not counted.
They are discussing various ways to solve this problem, and are even suggesting spacewalks, so they don't deny anything, they are just working on it. i think that's the most important thing. -
#208 by Chris Bergin on 16 May, 2008 23:41
-
Now it's potentially serious if they take this option....
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5425 -
#209 by Big Al on 17 May, 2008 02:15
-
It sounds like this whole situation is coming unravelled!
-
#210 by MB123 on 17 May, 2008 04:12
-
They need to hurry up and draw some conclusions on the Soyuz. Is the Soyuz good or bad.
IMO, If this isn't finalised by the STS-124 launch then they should use the shuttle to remove all astronauts,
If at that suggestion, we reach a cultural impass re: acceptable risk, that's healthy.
-
#211 by rdale on 17 May, 2008 04:19
-
Quote
MB123 - 16/5/2008 12:12 AM
IMO, If this isn't finalised by the STS-124 launch then the US should suggest taking all astronauts off the ISS using the space shuttle.
I disagree... When you look over the history of ISS evacuations needed in an emergency (none) and combine with the number of astronauts killed on Soyuz returns from ISS (none) and the odds of something happening that 1) requires emergency return and 2) failure of Soyuz to make it back then 3) I think the impact of abandoning ISS doesn't weigh in. -
#212 by MB123 on 17 May, 2008 04:46
-
Quote
rdale - 17/5/2008 3:19 PM I think the impact of abandoning ISS doesn't weigh in.
What are the impacts?
-
#213 by rdale on 17 May, 2008 13:37
-
The US leaving ISS would have a major impact on the entire program... I don't think that's relevant to the Soyuz problem though, maybe worthy of a new thread.
-
#214 by Avron on 17 May, 2008 14:39
-
Maybe Washington will tell them to move on.. I don't think that there is any wish to make this a bigger deal with two nations that NASA may impact if they stall.
-
#215 by brihath on 17 May, 2008 19:08
-
I guess I don't understand the rationale behind removing American Astronauts from ISS. How is it that the Russians would have the confidence to fly their crew, but we wouldn't have the confidence to fly Astronauts in the same vehicle? I would hope there is some serious interchange of information during the investigation of the incidents on the two most recent Soyuz returns. I agree that there needs to be enough confidence in the vehicle to fly, but that should apply to all crew, American, Russian or any other nationality.
If NASA and the RSA can't agree on something as basic as safety of flight, we have some real problems here. I don't think the Russians welcome the prospect of losing crew members any more than we do.
-
#216 by DaveS on 17 May, 2008 19:39
-
brihath: It could be that the Russians are lulled into a sense of false security over the ballistical descents, just like NASA was with repeated SRB O-ring blow-bys and the falling ET foam.
Only because you got away with it last time doesn't mean you will get away with it forever. Why should the Russians and the Soyuz be immune to the same management and technological base problems that doomed 17 astronauts and 3 spacecrafts?
For NASA, Columbia is still very fresh in everyone's mind and no-one would dare trying to fly with a problem that they doesn't understand completely. For Russian's the last time they lost a crew was back in 1971, nearly 37 years ago. -
#217 by on 17 May, 2008 20:20
-
Sometimes you have to convince russians by your actions. You don't yell, you don't intimate ... you just do. Coldly.
They think that you're setting them up for a fall. Which may in this case be right. Then they'll take the appropriate measures.
Smartest thing NASA could do right now. But the other international partners, especially the Japanese, will be PO'd - and will blame the Russian's for evading flight safety. They are used to this kind of situation.
And it will be another reason for ESA to go ahead with the DLR proposal for ATV Evolution in November - you don't wand to backed into a corner when the Russian's override their better, more careful judgment. Read the DLR proposal as a "safe Soyuz" replacement where they can ignore Russian options, forcing them to do a Orion equivalent (CSTS) from the ground up on there own rubles, before looking at it. -
#218 by kraisee on 17 May, 2008 20:50
-
If I were a cynical sort, I might speculate that there are some folk within NASA who would welcome any lever to re-direct the $2bn annual budget for ISS over to Exploration if the opportunity were ever to present itself. $2bn extra each year would certainly represent quite a shot-in-the-arm given the present budget.
Can't see Congress ever capitulating to this reasoning though - especially given the strong ISS support clearly present in the wording of the recent bills, so ISS should be safe for a while to come.
Ross. -
#219 by brihath on 19 May, 2008 00:50
-
Quote
DaveS - 17/5/2008 3:39 PM
brihath: It could be that the Russians are lulled into a sense of false security over the ballistical descents, just like NASA was with repeated SRB O-ring blow-bys and the falling ET foam.
Only because you got away with it last time doesn't mean you will get away with it forever. Why should the Russians and the Soyuz be immune to the same management and technological base problems that doomed 17 astronauts and 3 spacecrafts?
For NASA, Columbia is still very fresh in everyone's mind and no-one would dare trying to fly with a problem that they doesn't understand completely. For Russian's the last time they lost a crew was back in 1971, nearly 37 years ago.
Oh, I agree that the Russians could be lulled into a false sense of security, but they have had many warning flags since Soyuz 11. I guess the big question in my mind is what level of transparency NASA is insisting upon during the Soyuz TMA-12 investigation before we are comfortable flying with them again. I wonder if any knowledgable individuals could address that question. The corollary would be what level of transparency did we offer the Russians during the Columbia investigation and subsequent flights with the foam issues.
