5 ms·

What does this mean for people at the ISS? There are definitely people there now, right? I'd imagine this doesn't change their schedules for return?

by scoggs 8y ago

Sharlin 8y ago
It might; at least part of them. I presume they have contingency plans for exactly this situation. Probably leave a skeleton crew up there until either a new crew can be launched or the station has to be abandoned (supply missions are probably not a problem, but the Soyuz return capsules have a limited ”shelf life”).
- wolf550e 8y ago
  They have a single return capsule there. They can't leave anyone without a return/rescue boat, so they all have to return together and leave the station empty. And as you said they can't extend stay for a year because Soyuz has limited life.
  - Sharlin 8y ago
    Oops, right, they’re in the middle of crew change and there’s only three of them and one Soyuz up right now. That does complicate matters.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    Isn’t that Soyuz the one with the patched hole?
    - arctor_bob 8y ago
      the hole is in the orbital module that gets ditched before reentry so it's not a problem
      - sianns 8y ago
        More concerned with serenas hole with them two dudes up there with her for 127 days
      - AstralStorm 8y ago
        You really hope that is the only defect. Considering inspection missed this, what else did they miss?
- rconti 8y ago
  "skeleton crew" unfortunate term.
vvillena 8y ago
One of the ways you can land a Soyuz is basically an uncontrolled crash land. It is so dependable compared to any other spaceship that I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes an emergency return capsule, after it stops being the main spaceship used to reach the ISS.
- zaarn 8y ago
  It already is.
TomK32 8y ago
My bet is that they'll send the next Soyuz without crew. A lot of research that will have to be postponed or scrapped :(
drinchev 8y ago
There are currently 3 people in space [1] and they are there for 127 days on the ISS. Serena Auñón-Chancellor Alexander Gerst Sergey Prokopyev 1 : https://www.howmanypeopleareinspacerightnow.com https://www.howmanypeopleareinspacerightnow.com
- rory096 8y ago
  Their Soyuz capsule is the one with a drilled hole in it, though there's no indication that will affect descent. https://spacenews.com/nasa-plays-down-soyuz-investigation-controversy/ https://spacenews.com/nasa-plays-down-soyuz-investigation-co...
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    It's like the space equivalent of fielding a fleet of shitboxes as your daily driver(s). One Soyoz has a hole. The other Soyuzes won't run because safety. You scrapped the shuttle a few years ago. You haven't finished assembling your SpaceX project car yet. Little Jimmy is going to have to hold the flashlight for daddy while he fixes a shitbox so mommy can get to work in the morning (metaphorically speaking of course, because space).
    - solarkraft 8y ago
      What a metaphor. Thanks for making me imagine space Ladas.
    - mulmen 8y ago
      This seems deeply unfair and dismissive of the accomplishments of the people who built Soyuz. Soyuz is a proven reliable spacecraft, it’s not a shitbox. Who is little jimmy or daddy in this analogy? Why can’t mommy fix her own car? I don’t see the connection to human spaceflight.
      - scoggs 8y ago
        > Soyuz is a proven reliable spacecraft, it’s not a shitbox. I was going to say... It might not be flashy and shiny and new but what else is really important when you are doing space travel? Personally I'd rather have the indestructable, boxy, non-aerodynamic 1995 Jeep Cherokee and its inline V6 engine than some brand new "2.4L Tigershark® MultiAir® 2 I4 Engine with Electronic Stop/Start (ESS) Technology". All of those adjectives / descriptors after the "2.4L" look and sound nice but beside looking fancy is there any merit to them being added? Most people in and around the Jeep car scene / motor heads / people with decent car knowledge KNOW that Jeep's Inline V6 was nearly indestructible. They lasted forever when properly maintained (regular oil changes, fluid changes, and tune ups) and could take loads of abuse. Most other things in and on the car would wear out and/or burn out (things like electronics) before the engine and transmission would even become an issue at all. That said, in 2018, there are lots of reasons a 1995 Jeep Cherokee isn't the ideal car. Namely gas mileage, lack of aerodynamics, weight and weight distribution (materials and generally being overweight), and so on. Even knowing all of that I'm sure if paying for gas wasn't a major issue lots of people who had Jeep Cherokees in the past would love to have a properly running one again for one simple reason: Reliability and dependability. What else really matters? I'd definitely trade in the offset in cost at purchase time for a gas guzzler if the cost winds up the same or the scale even tilts toward the Jeep if you consider all of the upkeep and maintenance costs included, after purchase, for another vehicle. The Soyuz, if nothing else, is extremely reliable. If I were an astronaut that's the main thing I'd be worried about and if I had any say it'd be the one thing I absolutely required -- for obvious reasons.
JshWright 8y ago
The current deadline for their return is the on-orbit lifespan of their return capsule. It's possible that grounding "crewed" flights doesn't mean grounding all flights. An uncrewed capsule could be sent up (they dock autonomously), and the missions of the on-station crews could be extended. Something similar has been done in the past due to a suspected fault in the on-orbit capsule.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  What a world we live in that we have space capsules that can dock autonomously....
  - JshWright 8y ago
    The Russians have done it since the beginning of space capsules.
- scoggs 8y ago
  > It's possible that grounding "crewed" flights doesn't mean grounding all flights This is what I figured / assumed but I didn't want to act like I actually knew as basically everything I'm saying is an assumption. Thank you!

What does this mean for people at the ISS? There are definitely people there now, right? I'd imagine this doesn't change their schedules for return?

by scoggs 8y ago

What does this mean for people at the ISS? There are definitely people there now, right? I'd imagine this doesn't change their schedules for return?

Sharlin 8y ago

It might; at least part of them. I presume they have contingency plans for exactly this situation. Probably leave a skeleton crew up there until either a new crew can be launched or the station has to be abandoned (supply missions are probably not a problem, but the Soyuz return capsules have a limited ”shelf life”).

wolf550e 8y ago
They have a single return capsule there. They can't leave anyone without a return/rescue boat, so they all have to return together and leave the station empty. And as you said they can't extend stay for a year because Soyuz has limited life.
- Sharlin 8y ago
  Oops, right, they’re in the middle of crew change and there’s only three of them and one Soyuz up right now. That does complicate matters.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Isn’t that Soyuz the one with the patched hole?
  - arctor_bob 8y ago
    the hole is in the orbital module that gets ditched before reentry so it's not a problem
    - sianns 8y ago
      More concerned with serenas hole with them two dudes up there with her for 127 days
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      You really hope that is the only defect. Considering inspection missed this, what else did they miss?
rconti 8y ago
"skeleton crew" unfortunate term.

vvillena 8y ago

One of the ways you can land a Soyuz is basically an uncontrolled crash land. It is so dependable compared to any other spaceship that I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes an emergency return capsule, after it stops being the main spaceship used to reach the ISS.

zaarn 8y ago
It already is.

TomK32 8y ago

My bet is that they'll send the next Soyuz without crew. A lot of research that will have to be postponed or scrapped :(

drinchev 8y ago

There are currently 3 people in space [1] and they are there for 127 days on the ISS. Serena Auñón-Chancellor Alexander Gerst Sergey Prokopyev 1 : https://www.howmanypeopleareinspacerightnow.com https://www.howmanypeopleareinspacerightnow.com

rory096 8y ago
Their Soyuz capsule is the one with a drilled hole in it, though there's no indication that will affect descent. https://spacenews.com/nasa-plays-down-soyuz-investigation-controversy/ https://spacenews.com/nasa-plays-down-soyuz-investigation-co...
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  It's like the space equivalent of fielding a fleet of shitboxes as your daily driver(s). One Soyoz has a hole. The other Soyuzes won't run because safety. You scrapped the shuttle a few years ago. You haven't finished assembling your SpaceX project car yet. Little Jimmy is going to have to hold the flashlight for daddy while he fixes a shitbox so mommy can get to work in the morning (metaphorically speaking of course, because space).
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    What a metaphor. Thanks for making me imagine space Ladas.
  - mulmen 8y ago
    This seems deeply unfair and dismissive of the accomplishments of the people who built Soyuz. Soyuz is a proven reliable spacecraft, it’s not a shitbox. Who is little jimmy or daddy in this analogy? Why can’t mommy fix her own car? I don’t see the connection to human spaceflight.
    - scoggs 8y ago
      > Soyuz is a proven reliable spacecraft, it’s not a shitbox. I was going to say... It might not be flashy and shiny and new but what else is really important when you are doing space travel? Personally I'd rather have the indestructable, boxy, non-aerodynamic 1995 Jeep Cherokee and its inline V6 engine than some brand new "2.4L Tigershark® MultiAir® 2 I4 Engine with Electronic Stop/Start (ESS) Technology". All of those adjectives / descriptors after the "2.4L" look and sound nice but beside looking fancy is there any merit to them being added? Most people in and around the Jeep car scene / motor heads / people with decent car knowledge KNOW that Jeep's Inline V6 was nearly indestructible. They lasted forever when properly maintained (regular oil changes, fluid changes, and tune ups) and could take loads of abuse. Most other things in and on the car would wear out and/or burn out (things like electronics) before the engine and transmission would even become an issue at all. That said, in 2018, there are lots of reasons a 1995 Jeep Cherokee isn't the ideal car. Namely gas mileage, lack of aerodynamics, weight and weight distribution (materials and generally being overweight), and so on. Even knowing all of that I'm sure if paying for gas wasn't a major issue lots of people who had Jeep Cherokees in the past would love to have a properly running one again for one simple reason: Reliability and dependability. What else really matters? I'd definitely trade in the offset in cost at purchase time for a gas guzzler if the cost winds up the same or the scale even tilts toward the Jeep if you consider all of the upkeep and maintenance costs included, after purchase, for another vehicle. The Soyuz, if nothing else, is extremely reliable. If I were an astronaut that's the main thing I'd be worried about and if I had any say it'd be the one thing I absolutely required -- for obvious reasons.

JshWright 8y ago

The current deadline for their return is the on-orbit lifespan of their return capsule. It's possible that grounding "crewed" flights doesn't mean grounding all flights. An uncrewed capsule could be sent up (they dock autonomously), and the missions of the on-station crews could be extended. Something similar has been done in the past due to a suspected fault in the on-orbit capsule.

tomjen3 8y ago
What a world we live in that we have space capsules that can dock autonomously....
- JshWright 8y ago
  The Russians have done it since the beginning of space capsules.
scoggs 8y ago
> It's possible that grounding "crewed" flights doesn't mean grounding all flights This is what I figured / assumed but I didn't want to act like I actually knew as basically everything I'm saying is an assumption. Thank you!