Comments on: Could D- be a passing grade for shuttle life extension?

By: Selenian Boondocks » Blog Archive » Regarding “Lunar COTS”

Selenian Boondocks » Blog Archive » Regarding “Lunar COTS” — Wed, 27 May 2009 06:07:22 +0000

[…] to mention that as was discussed a few months ago regarding the “COTS D-” concept, a vehicle capable of returning living cargo from the station is only a few steps […]

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:27:56 +0000

Never said the whole station had to be abandoned.

You didn’t have to say it. It is implicit in the concept.

Unless you have multiple “lifeboats,” if you use the one that you have for an ambulance, you either abandon the station, or you leave the remaining crew without a lifeboat.

By: anon

anon — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:23:15 +0000

Never said the whole station had to be abandoned.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:56:15 +0000

One of the prime and more likely use of a return only vehicle is to deliver an injured crew member safety. Hence, navigation for a deorbit burn is a requirement.

An ambulance requirement is a foolish and incompatible requirement with a lifeboat. It says that if a single crewmember needs medical attention, the entire station must be abandoned.

We don’t have such a requirement in Antarctica for overwintering; why should we have one at ISS?

By: Chuck2200

Chuck2200 — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:59:19 +0000

anon; I am proposing that this "lifeboat" vehicle, this Cew Return Vehicle (CRV) be continuously available on-orbit so that Shuttle visits every ~6 months can do a crew exchange and then depart, leaving a new American crew aboard and a way home in an emergency between Shuttle visits. This return-only craft would have no function except to evacuate the station. We have agreements in place with the Russians that are not subject to the exemption for emergency return of injuried personnel. I propose this return-only capsule as a way to cover the shortfall of Shuttle visits without a new exemption. Shuttle, by itself, can only crew the station while it is docked, because once undocked and gone, any new crew is trapped with no way home. But if one of these CRV's is continually docked, the new crew can remain aboard. If used, the next Shuttle up can bring a replacement along.

By: anon

anon — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:36:29 +0000

Chuck 2200,

That is inadequate. One of the prime and more likely use of a return only vehicle is to deliver an injured crew member safety. Hence, navigation for a deorbit burn is a requirement.

By: Chuck2200

Chuck2200 — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 03:00:57 +0000

We’ve got 3 years left before the exemption expires. If we really wanted to we could develop a very simple return-only capsule that draws its minimal power directly from the station that could dock and stay there for the duration. No fancy maneuvering capabilities, no special navigation. It should be designed to be used like a parachute; in the event of an emergency, punch out and go. Anywhere on the surface is better than a disintegrating spacecraft that you are abandoning. As far as navigation is concerned, it would automatically dump current orbital position upon separation, and then dump the retro data upon completion of the burn, to ground station. It should be designed to do one thing and one thing only; help the human occupants survive re-entry and land on ground/ocean with a reasonable (not guaranteed) chance of survival. It’s a lifeboat, not a yacht. Comfort is not required; survival is.

We could do this in 3 years; IF we really wanted to.

By: Sergio

Sergio — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:16:52 +0000

Anyone has ever thought about european ATV? It has just ended his first successsful mission to the ISS, and ESA (European Space Agency) has already made studies to let the ATV to evolve in a manned return vehicle.
ATV has already proven his value. IMH a partnership could give all of us only good things. Cheers

By: anon

anon — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:34:49 +0000

“I picked the Shuttle as a quick and dirty solution to getting something up there right away. I agree with you about using EELVs but, every time someone mentions using EELVs, someone else starts arguing about how EELVs arenâ€™t man-rated. Using the Shuttle you can get it up there and leave it as a life boat or use it like the Soyuz, as the return vehicle.”

It doesn’t need to be manrated for an unmanned launch. Anyways, shuttle rating is harder than manrating

By: Engineering Lead

Engineering Lead — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:55:33 +0000

Engineering Lead (trying to lower the bar) I don't read that kind of paper. I read this kind of paper : http://www.arxiv.org Five pages, single spaced, 11 pt Arial, 1 inch margins all around. Gotta deadline, gotta go. Good luck with your ... um ... paper money.