Rather than putting this over on Newmars in the thread that you started on MORV (Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle). I felt that it was more to the point of Hubble in that we want it fixed. Since the move the Hubble thread is close it leaves this one to place it in. Thou it will change nothing since the repair has been set in motion. This is more for gaetanomarano;

At the time in late 2003 a decision was made to not service Hubble and lots of campaints were launched to get a mission to fix it. Nasa at the time felt that no safe Haven meant that no Hubble mission was possible.
I think that it was part of the CAIB that suggested the second shuttle on standby.

After seeing the image of the shuttle with your MORV in it I recalled that I had sent to the then Hubble director a simular idea to give safe return instead of safe haven. At the time it was not possible to purchase a seat let alone the capsule to serve as a rescue pod. But it was an out of the box suggestion that needed to be offered even if nothing became of it.




Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle

The copy of what was sent less email address and my real name...



Of course the rest is history now with regards to shuttle tile exam before docking with the ISS, being able to purchase seats and the mission being a go to fix Hubble after all.

I've evaluated the Soyuz option, but rejected it, since a single 3-seats Soyuz (inlcuding the russian pilot) is not enough for rescue, while, two Soyuz need near ALL the Shuttle cargo-bay space (about 14 m. of 18 m. max) and payload-weight (about 14 mT) leaving near zero space and weight for the Hubble's repair-tools and the spare/repair/upgrade parts ...the max payload a Shuttle can lift changes with the altitude it must reach, then (probably) the 14 mT weight of two Soyuz may be close to (or exceed) the max payload a Shuttle can lift to the Hubble's ~600 km. orbit (also, each Soyuz needs a russian pilot) ...two possible alternatives are: (a) wait to launch the repair mission until Soyuz can be launched from Guiana and keep two Soyuz ready to fly for rescue, but this option looks close to (and has the same risks of) the "rescue-Shuttle ready to fly" option of the 2008's mission (also, two Soyuz need two russian pilots, so, the max Shuttle crew must be of four) ...or (b) launch (from Guiana) two remote-controlled Digital-Soyuz (if they will be available soon and have that feature) BEFORE the Hubble-repair-Shuttle launch (increasing the Hubble mission's cost of further ~$100M) ..it's a little complex, but may work ...as explained in my article, the (NASA and/or ESA and/or Russia and/or Privates) MORV is intended to be a "very fast and easy to learn and use" general purpose rescue-vehicle that everyone (astronauts, non-astronauts and tourists) will be able to use to save their life ...unfortunately, MORV needs time to develop, build and test it, then, it can't be ready for the 2008's Hubble mission (not even if it will be delayed a few years)

.

gaetanomarano You would not need the complete soyuz since the orbital end is of no value it serves as living space, the propelant would be minimal at best to allow for deobit burn and the solar arrays would not be needed.

To exit the cargo bay go into the unit with space suits on and have the arm lift it from the bay.

Being now shorter and lighter in mass will now make it possible for 2 units to fit.

as you can see from the Soyuz schematics below, the Orbital Module is not only an "extra living space" but inside it there are all the life support systems of the vehicle (infact, the Orbital Module is jettisoned some minutes before the capsule reentry in the atmosphere) ...also, since the Hubble's orbit is around ~600 km. the Soyuz can't reentry in a few minutes but must perform some deorbits (procedures that need many hours or a day ...not minutes) so, both rescue-Soyuz must have their Orbital Module with a total lenght around 14 m. (about 80% of the cargo-bay) ...cut the solar arrays don't save so much weight since you must add a battery, but, most important, cut (both) the Orbital Module and the solar array is TOO RISKY for the astronauts ...the standard Soyuz has 14 day of life support for 3 astronauts, while, your version has only a few hours of life, and, since the Soyuz are used as lifeboats, they can't be more dangerous than the Shuttle itself (if something goes wrong on a Soyuz) and become a death-trap ...WITH the Orbital Module and the solar array but WITHOUT part of the propellant, each Soyuz may weigh around 6.7 mT and two Soyuz-light over 13.4 mT ...but, you can't fit two Soyuz inside the cargo-bay without a complex (and unexisting) SPECIAL HARDWARE to firmly clamp them (to avoid risks for the crew) and that "clamping" hardware may need years and money to develop, build and test it ...also, the "clamping hardware" for two big Soyuz (with many external structures that need to be protected from possible damages) will have its own "weight" (maybe, around 2-3 mT) reducing the available cargo-bay's space and Shuttle payload (for the Hubble repair tools and the repair/upgrade parts) to... zero ...last, each standard Soyuz needs a russian pilot to fly, reducing the Shuttle's crew to four astronauts (including commander and pilot) ...of course, everything can be changed in the standard Soyuz (or in the simpler MORV version) but it needs years and money


.

Just like the X38 which was designed from the ground up for essentially - this exact purpose. Rapid return to Earth (from ISS not Hubble - but the specification is the same) in case of emergency.

And please - again I ask you - stop using excessive formatting. It looks childish, makes your words harder to read and doesn't highlight the importance of any words.

Doug

infact, it was deleted
.

I know it was. (how stupid do you think I am?) The point is - that vehicle was the only one to date to progress significantly into development with the purpose of crew rescue alone. It had very limited life support capacity for the reason that all you want to do is get people on the ground, quickly. Nothing else. Whatever unrealistic fictional scenario you want to compose for crew rescue during Hubble servicing - you can forget requiring long life support - it's simply not needed.


Doug

Not sure what version of soyuz you are referencing but the current is a TMA.

According to these references
Russian Soyuz-TMA spacecraft

Russian Soyuz TMA Spacecraft Details

as to what is where.

Space suits have many hours of oxygen plus and with what is in the descent stage should be plenty. One could reroute the oxygen tanks from the propulsion stage into the descent to allow for the extended time if that is normally is needed.

Station Crew Returns To Earth gives a timeline of descent.

It looks like it departs at 2:00 p.m EDT and lands at 8:36 p.m. EDT, which puts it at a little under 7 hours not days.

Oh and we do not care where it comes down when we are in a hurry, so no orbit wait to line up to a landing zone..

Yes a special bracket to hold them in the cargo bay is a given and until you enter it to leave it is in a dead state or powered completly off. No need for extra batteries.

edit: [they realized it was too dangerous to be a lifeboat] infact, it was deleted

.

I think that a lifeboat must be safer than its spaceship and have only the spacesuits' oxygen is not safe enough
Soyuz can't land everywhere (not in the ocean, not in a forest, etc.)
.

As for years and money the entire launcher of the soyuz is only about $40 million, so for just a capsule that is altered for this purpose it would not be even that cost if purchased and reworked in the US for the intended purpose an by far less if they do it for anyone who wants it.

Why would it take years to make changes to what already exists.

It is an intersting image but would you post the link to the reference as well.

Yes I would agree that oceans would be an issue for a soyuz landing but not a forest unless you are concerned about starting a fire from the landing thrusters.

I would also agree that a life boat that stays in orbit needs some real staying capabilities but around 14 days still is not enough for rescue ships to be launched.

Only safe return is what is required.

Why? It's just a last resort. If everything that should not fail, fails, you try the emergency plan. On sea, a lifeboat or liferaft is a worse place to be than its mother ship when functioning OK. In aircraft, landing via ejection seat and chute is worse than the regular plane landing.

I agree that the lifeboat should be safer than your damaged ship, otherwise it has no purpose.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Keep in mind that by far the greatest risk is ascent. Many highly stressed systems such as main engines, SRBs, etc. must function with near perfection. Those are the most common failure cause, and the in-orbit rescue scenario doesn't help those.

If it's a major ascent malfunction such as Challenger on STS-51-L, obviously no rescue issues exist.

If it's a less-serious ascent malfunction such as STS-51-F (in-flight main engine failure), this will cause an abort: either RTLS, TAL, East Coast, to orbit, or possibly a bail out. In most of those, the ISS "safe haven" or rescue won't help.

BTW you can hear the actual flight controller audio from the 1985 STS-51-F "abort to orbit" here: http://www.shuttlesource.com/media/A...1F%20abort.mp3. Note had ISS even existed at that time, the shuttle couldn't have reached it.

The HST mission is actually safer from an ascent standpoint, as the trajectory has better abort options than the high-inclination ISS trajectory.

As already stated, here are more details on risk of the HST servicing mission:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=927

I've pulled the posts not directly related to Hubble servicing mission 4 from that thread to this one.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Again with the lies and miss-information - when will you ever stop!!! This is simply untrue. It was cancelled for budget reasons. Please please please stop posting things as facts when they are not. As with another thread which resulted in closure - you are intentionally swopping what you WISH were true with what IS true.

Here are some facts.

http://gop.science.house.gov/hearing...08/charter.htm
"On June 13, 2002, NASA notified Congress of the project’s cancellation citing their desire to pursue a multipurpose vehicle, which could include both crew transport and crew return capabilities as a more optimal use of NASA’s resources than pursuit of a single-purpose vehicle, such as the X-38 project."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_Vehicle
"On April 29, 2002, NASA announced that it was cancelling the CRV and X-38 programs, due to budget pressures associated with other elements of the ISS"

http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/usa/launch/x-38.htm
"On April 29, 2002, NASA announced the cancellation of the X-38 program due to budget pressures associated with the international space station"

PLEASE stop telling outright lies in this place forcing people to do the leg work to correct you to minimise your spread of missinformation.

Doug

Not quite true. A lifeboat has to be safer than a sinking ship (or appropriate space-based analog).

As my sailing instructor said:

__________________
I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. -- Jimmy Hoffa

that's clearly true, but the main problem of Shuttles in latest launches is (and can be again) a big (Columbia-like) damage due to an ET foam loss, then, we must consider both (Challenger-like and Columbia-like) risk as EQUAL (since, both, may result in a loss of crew)
.

one standard-Soyuz launch costs that price, but they can't be used without big changes (that need time and money)
.

they are activated at a few meters before landing, then, they need a plain soil (it can't land on a mountain or between trees...)
a rescue-vehicle is not perfect, it may have a malfunction and needs to be rescued, so, why don't add a longer life support? (since its weight is in the order of 100-200 kg.)
.

that's exactly my opinion, the space-lifeboat must be used only in the worst case
.

I'm sure you can agree that a lifeboat is the most important part of a spaceship ...with an ISS "total price" in excess of $100B there are no reasons to save money only in the vehicle that must save the astronauts' life, but it is funded until it flies! ...yes, that rescue vehicle have not received the funds to end the project, but 90% of all deleted projects don't receive further funds because they are bad designs and/or dangerous! ...like many other projects (e.g. the X-33) the X-38 was (simply) a project going nowere! ...too little, only automatic, no piloted functions to adjust a wrong trajectory, very small space (and bad position) for the astronauts, no landing wheels, no Soyuz-like retro rockets for a softer landing, only parachutes (that have given an "hard" landing on a test) and the intention to use that vehicle without man-rating it (from your wiki source: "NASA's plans for the development program did not include an operational test of the actual CRV, which would have involved it being launched to the ISS, remaining docked there for up to three months, and then conducting an "empty" return to Earth. Instead, NASA had planned to "human rate" the spacecraft based on the results of the X-38's orbital testing. Three independent review groups, as well as NASA's Inspector General's office, expressed concerns about the wisdom and safety of this plan.") then... yes... they have cut its funds... but (simply) because it was a bad project!
.

I think that a lifeboat (and, especially, a space-lifeboat) must be (simply) "as much safe as possible"
.

I repeat for the record.

There will be no purchase of Russian Soyuz for use by American personnel in any capacity. Period. The End.

Discussion further on the matter is pointless, it is not a reality in the current political climate.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

you post here with a nickname, so, we don't know your real name/job, but (you can agree with me) we can believe 100% in your claims (so you are 100% right about them) ONLY if you are:

a) the President of United States, Mr. George W. Bush, or...

b) at least, the NASA Administrator, Dr. Michael D. Griffin...

however, in the case a) the 100% figure (of probabilities that you don't change your opinion) appears too much...

.

Not to be the difficult one, but "define possible".

You're not going to design without limitations.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

"possible" with to-day's technology, of course
.

AHh - you said it was cancelled because it was dangerous ( which is a lie ).

Now you are saying it was a 'bad project'. Again - this is probably a lie as well - you do this a lot. Interpret events with a bias to suit your own diabolical means. It was cancelled because there wasn't enough money to finish it. End of story.

I can not believe that with your experience in the 'other' thread you're still bashing on like a woodpecker at the impractical.

Question - which is safter - a Cruise ship or an inflateable life raft?

You really are so far from the mark - again - that this thread is now pointless.

Doug

So you are giving the task to define a rescue ship that is "as safe as possible with today's technology"

Designing can't work that way. What may it cost to develop and build, what may it weigh, how long should development take at max, what is an acceptable failure rate...

Just saying "as safe as possible with today's technology" still doesnt put any limit, and hence makes for an infinite design phase. Putting these limits on both defines what exactly it is that we're looking for, and steers the engineering process.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

a bad designed vehicle actually IS "dangerous"
I've not opened this thread, only replied to questions
.