|
Posted by cole smith on August 27, 2006, 9:24 pm
Please log in for more thread options
"US businesswoman Anousheh Ansari is set to blast off from Russia's Baikonur
Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan on 14 September, taking the place of Japan's
Daisuke Enomoto, who failed medical tests this month ... the Soyuz launch
date depends on when the shuttle goes up. If the shuttle launches before 3
September, the Soyuz would lift off on its 11-day mission from Kazakhstan on
14 September. However, if the shuttle launches from 4 to 7 September, the
Soyuz would launch on 18 September. And there is little wiggle room in the
Soyuz schedule. Russia does not want to launch after 18 September because
after that, it will not be able to land back in Kazakhstan during daylight
hours. It wants to land in daylight because the upcoming flight is the first
in which a civilian group - and not Russia's military - will handle recovery
operations after the Soyuz capsule parachutes to earth." - AP
Let's assume the worst case: a VAB rollback, and little chance for launch
before the 7th. So here we are, faced with a scenario in which we may have
to delay launch for a crucial ISS construction mission, possibly for the
rest of the year, at God knows what expense, because the Russians want to
launch a paying space tourist (U.S. citizen no less) to bounce of the walls
for a few days and their recovery crew is too sissy to work at night.
Why don't we just pay off the Russians? A $10M Soyuz flight is certainly
cheaper than the cost of delaying a shuttle launch.
|
|
Posted by Jorge R. Frank on August 27, 2006, 9:30 pm
Please log in for more thread options
show/hide quoted text
> So here we are, faced with a scenario in which
> we may have to delay launch for a crucial ISS construction mission,
> possibly for the rest of the year, at God knows what expense, because
> the Russians want to launch a paying space tourist (U.S. citizen no
> less) to bounce of the walls for a few days and their recovery crew is
> too sissy to work at night.
>
> Why don't we just pay off the Russians?
Because the tourist is not the only, or even the primary, reason for the
flight.
Soyuz is also used as the emergency crew return vehicle for the ISS crew.
Each Soyuz is only certified for a 200-day orbital lifetime, so they must
be changed out every six months or so. The primary objective of this flight
is to change out the current Soyuz before its expiration date.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
|
|
Posted by Brian Thorn on August 27, 2006, 9:48 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:30:39 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
show/hide quoted text
>Soyuz is also used as the emergency crew return vehicle for the ISS crew.
>Each Soyuz is only certified for a 200-day orbital lifetime, so they must
>be changed out every six months or so. The primary objective of this flight
>is to change out the current Soyuz before its expiration date.
But do they really need to hang around for a week?
Brian
|
|
Posted by cole smith on August 27, 2006, 9:58 pm
Please log in for more thread options 200 days for TMA-8 would be around October 17 by my reckoning. Seems like
there is still some wiggle room.
show/hide quoted text
> Soyuz is also used as the emergency crew return vehicle for the ISS crew.
> Each Soyuz is only certified for a 200-day orbital lifetime, so they must
> be changed out every six months or so. The primary objective of this
> flight
> is to change out the current Soyuz before its expiration date.
> --
> JRF
|
|
Posted by Jim Oberg on August 28, 2006, 9:52 am
Please log in for more thread options Indeed there is if that were the only factor (one you overlooked).
The other factor is safe landing conditions, especially since this
Soyuz will be recovered by a rookie contractor. Landing beyond
about October 1-2 results in pre-dawn darkness (and about half an hour
earlier every day). There have been enough Soyuz landing and
recovery anomalies, even in recent years, to be nervous about
piling worst-on-worst risks.
But... if the risk of losing this entire Shuttle window is considered,
and for some MONEY to double-up recovery forces, the Russians
probably could be talked around into doing exactly that.
show/hide quoted text
> 200 days for TMA-8 would be around October 17 by my reckoning. Seems like
> there is still some wiggle room.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | could soyuz dock with shuttle? | August 13, 2005, 1:58 pm |
| Shuttle and Soyuz orbits: lap each other ? | September 19, 2006, 12:02 am |
| Processing time, Soyuz, Shuttle and CEV | September 30, 2005, 3:28 am |
| US will NOT pay for Soyuz | October 16, 2005, 11:33 am |
| Soyuz moving, why all three? | October 5, 2006, 4:27 am |
| Falcon 9 and Apollo/Soyuz | September 13, 2005, 4:25 am |
| Risk Assessment: Soyuz | February 26, 2006, 12:37 am |
| Brazilian Astronaut to Fly to ISS via Soyuz | October 7, 2005, 12:34 am |
| Bumpy ride in Soyuz? | April 10, 2006, 6:09 am |
| Soyuz musical chairs at ISS... | September 22, 2006, 1:47 pm |
|
XML Sitemap
> we may have to delay launch for a crucial ISS construction mission,
> possibly for the rest of the year, at God knows what expense, because
> the Russians want to launch a paying space tourist (U.S. citizen no
> less) to bounce of the walls for a few days and their recovery crew is
> too sissy to work at night.
>
> Why don't we just pay off the Russians?