Discovery News: Will the Space Station be Abandoned?

[Larry]

Link.

In the wake of the Russian Progress vehicle crash shortly after launch on Aug. 24, a chain of events has been set into motion that could result in the decision not to fly astronauts into orbit. If this happens, the ISS will be temporarily mothballed before the end of the year to avoid landing astronauts during the harsh Kazakh winter.

[Their emphasis]

Lots more at link.

OK, this looks like it's some writer writing about things that might happen. Still, thought I'd toss it out.

[mjah]

Terrible article title, IMO. "Unoccupied" != "abandoned."

Hitching rides on Soyuz for several years has been part of the NASA transition plan away from the Shuttle since the mid-2000s. It was tacitly assumed that the old Soyuz workhorse would continue to be available and reliable. That assumption was, and still is, a gamble.

Maybe this unmanned Soyuz failure will offer a bit of an additional kickstart to the urgency for private and/or public-sector US launch capability to LEO. Particularly private-sector, as I don't see a lot of reasons for NASA to continue pooping around in LEO for burdened costs of $1 billion per launch.

[Larry]

Now, I did read an article a while back that, I think, said that Boeing was expecting to be ready for the first launch of their capsule in just a year or two. (But I don't remember if that was "first launch", or "first manned launch". I seem to recall that the first launch was to be simply a unmanned launch test, and that the second would be an unmanned test of their launch abort system.)

Edit:

Clancy-novel theory: This whole thing is a Commie plot. They faked that failure in order to trick us into abandoning the station. As soon as we abandon it, then they'll suddenly discover that gee, they really do have a launch vehicle, and the Commies are planning on claiming salvage rights to the abandoned property.

[mjah]

Now, I did read an article a while back that, I think, said that Boeing was expecting to be ready for the first launch of their capsule in just a year or two. (But I don't remember if that was "first launch", or "first manned launch". I seem to recall that the first launch was to be simply a unmanned launch test, and that the second would be an unmanned test of their launch abort system.)

I remember that too, and as I recall the first two launches will be unmanned. I really want to see the LAS fire. Those things are crazy.

Clancy-novel theory: This whole thing is a Commie plot. They faked that failure in order to trick us into abandoning the station. As soon as we abandon it, then they'll suddenly discover that gee, they really do have a launch vehicle, and the Commies are planning on claiming salvage rights to the abandoned property.

Moore era Bond-film twist: It only looks like a Commie plot, as everyone assumes that the US and Russia alone have the technology to reach the station. The hotheaded Americans are ready to declare war over what looks like a brazen case of Commie squatters. But actually there is a third party with the money and technology to commit this nefarious deed: a volcano-laired criminal mastermind hell bent on hijacking the ISS and stealing its dual primary capabilities of maintaining itself and performing limited zero-G research of largely dubious scientific value. Only a suave, essentially homicidal subject of the Queen can stop the dastardly space-baron's plans while dodging the constant, surprisingly effective annoyances of a bumbling redneck sheriff.

[Larry]

I'm remembering recently reading that the Russians only recently admitted something about the Space Race.

Seems that, when Yuri Gagarin became the first person in space, he didn't land.

Supposedly, his spacecraft lacked the ability to slow down enough to permit a safe parachute landing. The Russian solution was to build his spacecraft with an ejector seat. Gagarin ejected from his spacecraft when it was, I think, 40 miles up.

----------

And I thought of the James Bond angle, but it reminded me too much of the Worst Bond Movie Ever.

[Larry]

I really want to see the LAS fire. Those things are crazy.

I understand it's going to use a "pusher" system. I have to admit that the armchair rocket scientist in me thinks that the "tractor" system feels safer.

The abort system has to work under all kinds of unanticipated thrusts. In a tractor system, the center of thrust is forward of the center of mass, making it inherently dynamically stable, without any need for complicated active stabilization.

[mjah]

I understand it's going to use a "pusher" system. I have to admit that the armchair rocket scientist in me thinks that the "tractor" system feels safer.

Maybe the pusher system is less complex mechanically (if more complex from a controls POV). Or lighter, harder to screw up in fabrication, more fault tolerant, etc.

But either way, at least there is a launch abort system. It exists. That's more than could be said for the Shuttle over most of its initial ascent.

I fund the Gagarin story fascinating -- it was a state secret for decades. As a kid, I wondered what it must have been like to be the very first guy in a capsule that landed on the ground. Even after being blasted into orbit atop a continuously exploding bomb, as the ground approached I bet you'd still feel like you were placing an inordinate amount of trust in the hands of the system's designers... BUMP.

Edit: I just found this interesting passage at parabolicarc.com:

In the past, crew escape systems have been of the "tractor" variety, in which a launch escape tower pulls a capsule away from the launch vehicle. This introduces a flight safety event when there is no emergency, as the tractor must be jettisoned. Blue Origin is developing a "pusher" system mounted at the rear of the capsule. This allows the escape system to remain with the vehicle when there is no emergency, avoiding the flight-safety risk of the jettison event.

I have to admit, this hadn't occurred to me...

[Larry]

Pointing out that the shuttle did have abort systems, available during virtually the entire ascent.

Granted, all of them assumed that the orbiter was intact. But they did exist.

[mjah]

Pointing out that the shuttle did have abort systems, available during virtually the entire ascent.

Granted, all of them assumed that the orbiter was intact. But they did exist.

Most of those options were for a failure that allowed the intact orbiter to reach a very substantial altitude. The options after a Challenger event were nil, and options after a Challenger event with an intact orbiter (incredibly unlikely) ranged from questionable -- level-glide crew bailout -- to none. At T +73 seconds an intact orbiter couldn't have made it across the Atlantic and couldn't have returned to any landing site.

(In fact, beginning at T -30 seconds even the zipline from the launch tower was off-limits, so I guess there was even a contingency-less failure mode on the pad .)

I might have overstepped a bit by claiming that launch abort systems "didn't exist" for that two-minute initial ascent -- but it's hard to claim that the options they had construed a useful system. I mean, I can open my car door and drag my feet if the brakes fail, but that assumes I'm traveling at less than 1 mph on level ground when the problem occurs. I don't consider it a useful option.

[mjah]

Okay, back to normal now. Sorry, but the general configuration of the Space Shuttle is infuriating even now.

Fourteen lives lost, all directly traceable to designed-in issues with the launch configuration and lax diligence paid thereto once the Shuttle became operational.

Grrrr.

[Larry]

Yeah, one of the things that seriously infuriates me about the Shuttle was after Challenger, when Congress decided that they had to shut the Shuttle down for over a year, while Congress investigated who was at fault.

Hey, Congress! You wanna know what happened to Challenger? A component that wouldn't have been there in the first place, if Congress hadn't insisted that the SRBs had to be manufactured in pieces and then bolted together, so that it could be made in Utah.

[mjah]

I can only imagine the Congressional response to Ares I potentially shaking astronauts to death during launch, had Ares I not been mercy-killed. "How could this be allowed to happen? Hrrm hrrm harrumph."

Answer: "Remember when Bush Jr. said 'Scrap the Shuttle and build this' and NASA said 'Okay great, please fund it' and then Bush Jr. and Congress effectively said 'No, find the money yourself,' so Michael Griffin took advantage of that opportunity to ram his hopelessly idiotic pet project through based on it supposedly being ultra-cheap, and that was Ares I? Well, there you go."

Speaking of which: Has Congress officially killed Ares I yet? Griffin's Ghost lives!