This is what German astronaut Reynold Ewald, who spent several months on the Mir space station in 1996 as a representative of the European Space Agency, told the site.
Reynold Ewald, a German astronaut who flew as a representative of the International Space Agency speaks in praise of the true international partnership in maintaining the station as manifested in the response to the chain of malfunctions that resulted in the loss of three cargo spacecraft destined for the space station.
"In every bad thing there is also good. On the one hand, this is a setback in the space station project (mainly the loss of the AV experiments) on the other hand, despite the loss of the spacecraft (SpaceX's Dragon, Orbital's Cygnus, and the Russian Space Agency's Progress), we succeeded in an international effort to quickly launch a supply spacecraft - HTV from Japan and speed up its departure of the next Progress spacecraft from Russia. One lost payload can be replaced with another space agency's payload. While the Russians investigated the circumstances of the failure of the Soyuz that carried the Progress, the Americans and Japanese managed to make up for it. And not just cargo, we saw that as soon as the shuttle could not fly, the Soyuz replaced it. This is the idea behind international cooperation.
And what about the disaster in which a Virgin Galactic pilot was killed during a spacecraft test?
Manned missions must be designed and built to be safe. It is not easy to put humans into space, you need a high-performance vehicle and the way to carry out experiments, in the hope that there will be no more tragic experiments, is a long way. If people say that in two years they will be able to fly to Mars, it is not practical, it is not in the timetable for developing spacecraft, certainly manned spacecraft.
In response to the science site's question if he meant the Mars One project, Ewald said "you said".
Given the long time it took to build the International Space Station and following the Russian statement that the station will operate at least until 2024, we asked Ewald what will come after that, because ten years is like the blink of an eye in the development of space stations. To this he replied: "In this conference, many ideas came up for where to continue after the International Space Station, from new infrastructures around the Earth to manned missions into deep space. In any case, we must start building the building blocks right now. It's not like in the Apollo era when there was a clear goal - to fly to the moon, or like in the more distant future to fly to Mars. We need to have the components that will allow us one day to return to the moon or reach other bodies in the solar system, including Mars.
Do you not believe that governments will allocate the necessary money for this?
I can't speak for them. What we (the people involved in space AB) need to do is to show the benefits of manned space flights not only for the welfare of the inhabitants of the earth in the form of technological progress, but also to inspire young people.
How do you do this?
"Humans have always been curious, we had a garden of discoveries, people set up whole expeditions to explore places. I am sure that among the young people we saw today, many have a desire to find out. I am optimistic that the desire to discover will lead to the launch of manned space missions, provided that this is technically safe. The only question is whether we provide them with the necessary knowledge and preparation."
9 תגובות
The only big problem in my opinion that remains to be solved is the dangerous radiation on the way and on Mars that could kill the astronauts.
It is currently driving probes. I don't know if it can fly a large spacecraft to Mars within six months...
Emmanuel, you mean an electric motor that receives electricity from a nuclear generator
NASA defined a flight to Mars in about 25 years. I don't know if it's because it's a time when no one will ask to pay off the bill or if they're really making an effort to fly to Mars. In my opinion, they don't try that hard.
To fly to Mars we must develop a spaceship powered by nuclear power, all chemical propulsion is a waste of money and time
Instead of investing money in building a huge spaceship, they should invest money in developing an atomic engine that will be able to fly at much higher speeds and shorten the flight time to a maximum of a month
Herzl, you just get involved in more inventions and it's a shame.
Your link just doesn't work. You wrote about the question of "trained test pilots for such experiments in the future", in practice they announced astronauts intended to train for the commercial crew program. This plan does not include spaceShipTwo at all simply in light of the fact that the plan requires aircraft to reach the International Space Station (altitude 400 km) while spaceShipTwo only reaches an altitude of 110 km and is intended for space tourism.
Moreover, NASA's first pilot, Blink from France, is 26 years old with 1500 hours of flight experience - 300 hours less than the experience of the pilot who made the mistake. So apparently such experience is good enough for NASA (the other pilots are indeed much more experienced). Regarding all the beautiful stories about a mistake that a pilot should not make, and that it was probably "convenient" to assign him the task - it seems to me that you continue to get involved in more inventions. Is this your theory? Did you hear her in the showers at NASA? To be sure, there is no trace of this theory in the investigative committee (see below). If he is such a bad pilot, why does the same company use him as a test pilot for 13 years? Why was he flying this craft for the ninth time at the time of the crash? 9 times there was no other volunteer available? What is spaceShipTwo, Virgin Galactic's only spacecraft without which the company cannot exist - is this spacecraft a wear and tear spacecraft that is okay to let children fly on? Why is the Federal Accident Investigation Board announcing that the manufacturer needs to improve safety procedures and safety measures and not simply telling them to hire better pilots? http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/28/virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwo-crash-cause
To the point: there is a difference between a pilot who is chosen to serve in the Air Force (or other US forces) after a careful selection of abilities, and then chosen to be a test pilot from among dozens of the best pilots, and then chosen to be a spaceship pilot.
Here the co-pilot (hence it is according to a check on Wikipedia as your recommendation and not according to memory) had 200 hours of flight experience when he started working in 2001 as a test pilot for the same company that built the spacecraft that recently crashed. In the same company he had 1600 hours as a test pilot. His main training was a bachelor's degree in aeronautical engineering.
For those who don't understand - a pilot with 200 hours is a rookie / tzitzik / and I rightly wrote boy.
The nature of the accident - he pulled a handle that should not have been pulled under the flight conditions at that moment. It's a type of confusion that no pilot should have under any circumstances, and the sorties should exclude people who don't have proper concentration. But he was an engineer in the company and it was probably convenient to assign him another task.
Regarding NASA:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/bolden/2015/07/09/nasa-selects-astronauts-for-first-u-s-commercial-space-flights/
Herzl, why are you lying? The co-pilot was 39 years old and the main one was 45 years old and both had years of experience as test pilots and in particular had flight experience in the same spaceship that crashed. Both won awards from the "Experimental Pilots Association". Just google their names.
Michael Alsbury
Peter Siebold
You just made up the NASA announcement.
The Virgin Atlantic pilot was an inexperienced boy, killed himself and seriously injured his friend. NASA has announced that they will lend trained test pilots to such experiments in the future, let's hope there are no such silly human errors in the future. There are enough accidents anyway. Very fortunate that the last three failures were of unmanned cargo spaceships.
Regarding the mission to Mars - indeed two years is funny. But you need a goal that will arouse interest among the voting population, and then the politicians will put up the money. The Mars landings generated much more interest than the space station (and much more science, too).