|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
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... Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
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. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
![]() . |
|
|||
|
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 |
|
|||
|
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. |
|
||||
|
I think that a lifeboat must be safer than its spaceship and have only the spacesuits' oxygen is not safe enough
Quote:
. |
|
|||
|
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. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
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 |
|
||||
|
Quote:
As my sailing instructor said: Quote:
__________________
"That's Not Blight. It's New Jersey" - The Wall Street Journal |
|
||||
|
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)
. |