credit NASA / Flight / caption: Britain might not get to the Moon or station but it is a great leap forward
Hyperbola is hearing that the UK may well get its own member of the European Space Agency astronaut corps this June
Why so specific? ESA says that it intends to ask candidates to join its astronaut corps this summer after months of selection testing that ended with interviews with the space agency’s director general Jean-Jacques Dordain
June is obviously, for us in the northern hemisphere, this summer, and it just so happens that that month will see an ESA, NASA bilateral meeting on what the agencies can do together after 2016 including Mars exploration. Don’t take my word for it, acting NASA administrator Christopher Scolese mentioned it during the 29 April Congressional appropriations subcommittee hearing
So what has that got to do with a UK astronaut?You see to make the jump to a UK astronaut a bit of recent and Tudor history needs to be known, yes Tudor, don’t you watch HBO? The ESA, NASA bilateral meeting is taking place in Plymouth, England. Yes Plymouth, England, not Plymouth, New England in what used to be called the New World and is now the Americas
The Tudor period of history encompasses the rise to Kingship in 1485 of Henry Tudor aka King Henry VII, his son King Henry VIII, unsurprisingly, and that tyrannical son’s feisty daughter Elizabeth the first – well someone had to be. It was during Elizabeth’s reign (15-something to 1603, but I’m sure you knew) that one Plymouth resident Sir Francis Drake sailed from his home town and found his way to the New World
So you can see that by having a meeting about exploration in Plymouth its fairly heavy with symbolism for the British. And what about that recent history?
Flightglobal.com and Hyperbola has been bringing the ups and downs of the UK space strategy review and prospects for a UK astronaut for sometime. The latest space exploration review should be fnished by now or at least was supposed to be done by May and this was to examine the “potential benefits” of UK involvement in human spaceflight, but I forget which of the three UK space ministers said exactly that over the last three years
The important bit is this confluence of events, the completion of a government review that includes human spaceflight, a meeting in an English city that is historically symbolic for British exploration and the planned announcement “this summer” by ESA of its new astronaut candidates (they are candidates until they go into space)
You can see that for a journalist that sort of situation is just begging for a conspiracy theory
This blog has been extremely sceptical about the prospects for a UK astronaut so here is the how
ESA is selecting four individuals but the organisation also has a reserve of four. Who is to say what will happen over the next few years before these individuals get to fly on a Soyuz TMA or perhaps even Russia’s proposed Advanced Crew Transportation System or, maybe even, NASA’s Orion crew exploration vehicle (OK that maybe too outlandish)
The UK pilot-astronaut, if selected, will probably be in the reserve because Hyperbola is guessing that has lower immediate cost implications for the citizen’s nation and allows for a potential step change in the member state’s involvement if for any reason that reserve has to become a full time astronaut
The fact that the June meeting is dealing with NASA, ESA collaboration after 2016, the original notional date for the end of International Space Station operations, also suggests that it will see discussed the extension of ISS utilisation to 2020 and that opportunity for bringing onboard new partners, of which the UK could be one
Hyperbola thinks Sir Francis Drake would be pleased
——————
After posting several comments on US’ space forums and blogs (with links to my article about the Hubble SM4 risks) my question is: “Does the american Press take care of the Atlantis’ astronauts lives?”
——————
Well, while waiting for an answer about this question, I’ve UPDATED my article with other concerns regarding the STS-400 rescue mission, the space-junk problem and the Atlantis’ radiator issue, also, in the same article, I give some suggestions to increase the Atlantis’ astronauts chances to survive to this risky mission (if “something goes wrong” of course).
——————
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/044sm4risks.html
——————
gm, with all due respect, you seem to have way too much time at hand. Google “Atlantis and STS-27” and you should be able to figure out that an orbiter can survive a reentry having sustained multiple hits to its thermal protection system. The bipod region where foam previously covered the V-shaped connection between the orbiter and the external fuel tank was significantly redesigned following STS-107 so as to eliminate large-piece foam shedding which could shatter RCC-panels on the leading edge of the wing. Although these panels are less brittle than many other ceramics, they lack impact resistance. For the RCC-panels to be breached, you need some fairly large foam pices separating from the ET, but since the return to flight status for the shuttle, it looks like the massive efforts with the aim to significantly reduce/mitigate foam shedding, have been very successful.
Claiming, therefore, that the last mission to Hubble is “so risky”, is based on little insight and scaremongering. STS-125 will be the 124th shuttle mission. Do note that up to this point only 9 missions went to MIR and 28 to the ISS, but 84 successful missons have been flown without a space station safe haven, and those mission were flown without any of the recent improvements to the shuttle system. Your objections seems to be much ado about nothing with little appreciation of sound risk-taking.
“Do note that up to this point only 9 missions went to MIR and 28 to the ISS, but 84 successful missons have been flown without a space station safe haven, and those mission were flown without any of the recent improvements to the shuttle system.”
but all them accomplished before the Columbia accident that has shown us the risk a Shuttle flight so away from the ISS (as safe haven)
now, we know that the crew of a too damaged Shuttle can’t survive without the ISS
WHY did NASA keeps the Endeavour on pad (ready to launch) if a Shuttle flight to the Hubble is so safe???
.
“..but all them accomplished before the Columbia accident that has shown us the risk a Shuttle flight so away from the ISS (as safe haven)”
Wrong, STS-51L first demonstrated the risk of a shuttle flight, not STS-107.
“now, we know that the crew of a too damaged Shuttle can’t survive without the ISS”
Well, the 9 Apollo missions that were sent to the moon were a far more riskier undertaking than what is involved in sending Atlantis on a mission to repair the Hubble in LEO. If your flawed risk analysis had been followed at that time, man would never have landed on the moon. In fact, if you’re never going to accept sound risk taking, the wheels will grind to a halt
“WHY did NASA keeps the Endeavour on pad (ready to launch) if a Shuttle flight to the Hubble is so safe???”
Political reasons and the fact that NASA (unfortunately) has become a risk averse institution. Interestingly, at the start of the shuttle programme, it was envisaged that with a much higher flight rate, you would (almost) always have an orbiter available on either pad 39A or 39B which would be availble for any “rescue” missions on a short notice.