Re: 4 Astronauts Will Be on Emergency Standby, Ready to Rush to the Rescue of Next Shuttle

From: Reed Snellenberger (rsnellenberger_at_houston.rr.com)
Date: 03/22/05 

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 04:40:58 GMT

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
> Reed Snellenberger <rsnellenberger@houston.rr.com> wrote in
> news:BxK%d.25169$Ux.10052@tornado.texas.rr.com:
>
>
>>Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It is creating some ECLSS challenges, to be sure, but it's not
>>>*quite* as cramped as you might think - remember, the internal
>>>airlock is gone now. The big challenge is going to be keeping enough
>>>airflow through the "trench" where the internal airlock used to be to
>>>prevent CO2-rich "dead spots" from forming.
>>
>>Having been in the shuttle mock-up at Space Center Houston, and
>>assuming that removing the internal airlock doesn't move the rear
>>bulkhead's position, it seems like they're going to have to really
>>pack them in if they use standard seats. Has the "floor plan" that
>>shows the seat positions been published somewhere?
>
>
> I haven't seen it in public yet. The plan calls for a pallet of three
> recumbent seats to be placed where the internal airlock would have gone.
> The crew in those seats will have to bend their knees but that's really no
> different from a Soyuz entry.
>

Okay... and sounds similar to the recumbent "knees-in-the-footlocker"
position that's been used a couple of times (during the Mir flights?)
before.

>
>>Finally, I'm wondering whether there are refuge scenarios where the
>>demands on life support from "hosting" the shuttle crew for xx days
>>makes it necessary for the ISS crew to leave (in the Soyuz, of course)
>>due to consumables issues
>
>
> That depends on how badly the rescue flight pushes its deadline. That
> deadline literally runs ISS consumables to zero, so if the rescue flight
> doesn't launch until that date, then yes, the ISS crew will also have to
> leave.
>

Seems like KSC has been saying launch prep would be at least 30 days
from "Go", depending on a whole lot of things. When supplies got low
late last year, they were going to bring the crew home if there was less
than a certain number of days left (20 or 30, if I remember correctly).
  So there's a fairly hard limit here -- you need supplies on board ISS
to cover at least 30 days for 9 people, plus 30 days for two people, and
then whatever is left needs to cover the 9 people for as many days as
the launch slips.

If you have less than that on-board, and can't schedule a Progress
flight, the crew would need to abandon ISS.

>
>>-- or are there plans to provide an
>>immediate re-supply flight to "re-stock" afterwards?
>
>
> One disaster at a time, please... :-0

My preference, as well... :-)

Thanks for the answers, Jorge. 

-- 
Reed Snellenberger
GPG KeyID: 5A978843
rsnellenberger-at-houston.rr.com

Relevant Pages

  • Adding a long duration habitation module to ISS?
    ... If one were to add a 'long duration' habitation module to the ISS I ... Ability to allow crew to 'exercise' through long periods of zero-G. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: And what about civilian Shuttle casualties?
    ... I *really* wouldn't want to put a crew into ISS safe ... Wouldn't the scenario be that the damaged shuttle would stay docked to ... only be undocked to clear the port for the arriving rescue shuttle? ... I would also have the ISS crew training the crew of the damaged shuttle ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: In two years time...
    ... The Shuttle crew never do any ISS assembly until they have docked to ... With the shuttle, every development problem resulted in an operational workaround that increased crew workload, and that was accepted because the crew was always going to be there and you had plenty of them to help. ... Relying on the ISS crew for AMS assembly would also require that AMS have everything frozen and ready for procedures development a lot earlier, so that the ISS crew can be trained before they fly. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Whats nasa thinking
    ... > minimize the size of shuttle crews on ISS construction flights? ... > With the exception of missions involving crew rotations I don't see why more ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)