Friday, September 16th, 2011
Three astronauts returned safely to Earth from the International Space Station aboard a Soviet-era capsule whose mission follows an unprecedented spate of Russian space accidents.
Space officials said the Soyuz TMA-21 capsule landed on its side in the wind-swept steppes of the ex-Soviet republic of Kazakhstan at 0400 GMT on Friday....
The Soviet-era vessel left behind a skeleton crew of three -- NASA's Fossum and Russia's Sergei Volkov along with Japanese flight engineer Satoshi Furukawa -- on board the orbiter at one of the tensest times in its storied history.
But the program has recently suffered an embarrassing series of setbacks that saw sensitive satellites fail to reach orbit and -- in the most dramatic accident last month -- an ISS cargo craft crash back to Earth....
NASA had been mulling the option of leaving the space station abandoned for the first time in 10 years should Roskosmos fail to solve its problems by mid-November.
The Russian agency this week scheduled the next manned Soyuz mission for November 12 -- just days before NASA's final deadline.
This will force a quick handover of command from the team now on board as it prepares to head home on November 22. NASA rules require a quick rotations of crews because Soyuz capsules are only certified for six and a half months. (Emphasis added.) http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/16/space-station-crew-makes-safe...
And to think Nancy Lieder and ZetaTalk are still ridiculed and debunked.
First some relevant ZetaTalk, then the mainstream article announcement, which contains disinformation, naturally, as the true reasons for the most recent rocket failure and a possible evacuation of the ISS are not included.
http://youtu.be/WowgeeXGeVs The unmanned Russian cargo spaceship Progress has crashed in eastern Siberia after failing to reach its target orbit, has the council of worlds been involved like the Pentagon's HTV-2 or is this more in the hands of man making excuses and errors? [and from another] http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/24/russian-space-ship-fails-to-reach-orbit/ Air & Space International Space Station-Bound Supply Ship Explodes, Crashes in Siberia [Aug 24] An unmanned Russian supply ship bound for the International Space Station failed to reach its planned orbit Wednesday, and pieces of it fell in Siberia amid a thunderous explosion. The third stage of the rocket firing the ship into space failed a few minutes into the launch. The ship was carrying more than 2.5 tons of supplies, including oxygen, food and fuel. Since the ending of the U.S. space shuttle program this summer, Russian spaceships are a main supply link to the space station. It was the 44th Progress to launch to the International Space Station. NASA said the rocket appeared to function flawlessly at liftoff, which occurred right on time, but there was a loss of contact with the vehicle just over five minutes into the flight.
After 43 successful launches of the Progress, what went wrong on the 44th? Loss of contact was reported, after the rocket launched, which is indicative of an electrical problem. Did benign aliens interfere, in order to issue a message to those in the establishment that the Council of Worlds is not pleased with their continuing cover-up over the presence of Planet X? Do not the people of the world have the right to know what is in their future, if the elite know and are taking steps to ensure their own survival? Electrical failure is easy to arrange, and fatal for a rocket dependent upon electrical signals between launch stages. Those on the ISS should be brought home, and the cover-up put aside. To do otherwise is indicative of a highly Service-to-Self nature among the worlds elite, who are not likely to do otherwise without inducements. http://www.zetatalk.com/ning/27ag2011.htm
ZetaTalk: ISS Evacuation (written Dec 10, 2004 )
Certain death on the International Space Station lies ahead for any who would remain there during the coming weeks. This is the analysis, based on the current path of Planet X and its entourage of debris. If fireballs have been screaming through the atmosphere and thudding to Earth during the past year, the ISS is scarcely immune. These fireballs have been limply excused by NASA and their cronies as ‘space debris’ from human activity. This is lame excuse #1, especially when many reports can produce, display, and offer for sale chunks of the debris. Fireballs tearing through the roof to land in the basement, bouncing off the garage in full view of astonished home owners, zooming past the head of a homemaker hanging out her wash to be found smoking and imbedded in the toasted lawn nearby. At first broadly reported as the novelty they were, and then suppressed in the news as are all clues to the presence of Planet X and its entourage, these fireballs are the reason for the need to evacuate the ISS, and soon.
How can the ISS be evacuated because of lack of food, when the shuttle to evacuate them could bring them food? Lame excuse #2.
Those at the helm of the cover-up have not released those sworn to silence from their oath, so the news cannot be that debris, or any hint of a reason that might point to Planet X nearby, is the reason. If the meteors and trash slinging by the ISS cannot be mentioned, then what? Lack of toilet paper? A sick crew? Wear and tear on the ISS, causing unexpected breakdown? Lack of food is the least logical reason, yet was chosen. The reason for this is that any other excuse that might seem more reasonable had an association to the fireballs and meteor issue, which is a forbidden subject. Yet another death by accident of a van full of JPL and NASA employees just the day before this announcement was a reminder of what happens when the cover-up is treated lightly. A sick crew implies they are worried, potentially, so the crew must be strong and happy. Mechanical problems implies the ISS has been beset by unexpected stress, so despite a recent oxygen leak, the ISS must be in tip-top shape. What’s left? A food shortage, lack of cargo space, with the astronauts suffering from malnutrition and needing to be returned, and no room on the shuttle for both a replacement crew and food, so temporarily, the next shuttle up will simply bring the malnourished crew back to sick bay. http://www.zetatalk.com/index/zeta186.htm
ISS Close Call
Not a month after the supposed collision of the remains of a Russian satellite and an American Space Surveillance Network over Siberia on February 11, 2009, the ISS supposedly had a collision scare. Per the Zetas, neither of these incidences occurred as reported.
Astronauts Evacuate Space Station Temporarily During Collision Scare
March 13, 2009
Part of an old rocket motor threatened to collide yesterday with the international space station, forcing three astronauts to take refuge in an attached Russian spacecraft that serves as an emergency lifeboat. No collision occurred, and the evacuation of the station lasted only 11 minutes. But the unusual event offered a reminder that astronauts and spacecraft are increasingly playing a nerve-jangling game of space-debris dodge ball. The speeding object, about five inches in diameter, was a motor component that had been circling Earth since the 1993 launch of a Navy global positioning system satellite.
Typically, the flight team at NASA has three or four days' warning of a conjunction, enough time to maneuver the space station, currently 217 miles above Earth, out of harm's way. In this case, according to NASA, there wasn't enough time to plan and execute an avoidance maneuver. Space debris drew headlines last month when two satellites collided 491 miles above Earth. Hundreds of fragments are now dispersed in two debris trails that completely circle Earth. The impact of even a very small object moving at orbital velocity could be catastrophic to the space station. The motor component zoomed past the station at more than 21,000 mph. How close it came to a direct impact remains unknown.
Just as the Zetas predicted, the supposed collision of the satellites is being used as an explanation for the increasing danger to other satellites and the ISS itself.
ZetaTalkComment3/14/2009:Just as the story floated about the crash of the Russian and US surveillance satellite was false, to spread the impression that space trash was increasing and now a danger to satellites, this story about the ISS is also false. How would the public know? The video of any emergency could have been obtained during an exercise in the past. The establishment expects satellite failures to increase, so had to arrange a crash in the satellite zone to explain increasing failures to the public. They also know the ISS must be closed if those manning it are to be brought back alive, and you can be sure those who are manning it are pressing for this. What would NASA do if the ISS crew rebelled and refused to do anything? How would this be explained? The story of space junk endangering the ISS is a cover in case an evacuation is done.
On March 14, 2009 during the live chat the Zetas cited a nervous ISS crew as being central to the problem. Sure enough, on March 15, 2009 the shuttle Discovery's payload is reported to include several replacement astronauts. http://www.zetatalk.com/newsletr/issue125.htm
The International Space Station may have to start operating without a crew in November if Russian engineers don't figure out soon what caused a recent rocket failure, NASA officials announced today (Aug. 29).
The unmanned Russian cargo ship Progress 44 crashed just after its Aug. 24 launch to deliver 2.9 tons of supplies to the orbiting lab. The failure was caused by a problem with the Progress' Soyuz rocket, which is similar to the one Russia uses to launch its crew-carrying vehicle — also called Soyuz — to the station.
Currently, six astronauts reside on the space station. They shouldn't be unduly affected by the Progress crash, NASA officials said, because they have enough supplies to last a while on orbit.
But three of these astronauts are due to return to Earth next month, and the rest are scheduled to come back in mid-November. If the rocket anomaly isn't identified and fixed soon, a fresh crew won't be able to get to the station before the last three spaceflyers head for home.
Unmanned for the first time in a decade?
That situation would leave the $100 billion orbiting lab unmanned for the first time since 2001. Still, it wouldn't be a disaster, according to NASA officials.
"We know how to do this," NASA's space station program manager Mike Suffredini told reporters today. "Assuming the systems keep operating, like I've said, we can command the vehicle from the ground and operate it fine, and remain on orbit indefinitely."
NASA would of course prefer to keep some crew aboard the orbiting lab, Suffredini added. Leaving the station unmanned would cut back significantly on the scientific research being done 240 miles (386 kilometers) above the Earth. In the wake of the space shuttle's retirement last month, NASA has repeatedly stressed the importance of that research, and the scientific potential of the station.
But the timing just might not work out. Two Soyuz spacecraft are currently docked to the station to take its six astronauts home. The vehicles are only rated to spend about 200 days in space, so they'll have to depart soon.
Light at the landing site
Lighting conditions at the Soyuz's Kazakhstan landing site are also an issue. NASA and the Russian space agency mandate that landings must occur at least one hour after dawn and one hour before dusk, to facilitate better search and rescue operations should any be required.
The lighting window closes for about five weeks on Sept. 19 for the first crew and around Nov. 19 for the second. Waiting for a new window to open would stretch the Soyuz spacecraft beyond their 200-day ratings in both cases, Suffredini said.
So all six astronauts on the space station will almost certainly have left the orbiting lab by mid-November. Russian engineers are working hard to give crewed Soyuz launches the best chance to meet that deadline; the next one is slated to blast off Sept. 21, but that's almost certainly not going to happen, Suffredini said.
Russia has formed a commission to determine the cause of the Progress crash, and to figure out how to fix it. But NASA says it won't rush anything, as astronaut safety is its chief priority.
"We'll just see how it plays out," Suffredini said.
NASA won't put any crews on a Soyuz until the rocket has had several successful unmanned launches, he added. Those could happen relatively soon. Russia plans to use Soyuz boosters to launch a commercial payload and another Progress supply ship by late October.
The Progress crash marked the latest in a string of Russian launch failures over the last 10 months. This series of mishaps has caused some concern among U.S. lawmakers and experts, since NASA will rely on Russia to loft its astronauts to orbit until private American crew-carrying spaceships come online. That could start happening by 2015, officials have said. http://news.yahoo.com/astronauts-may-evacuate-space-station-novembe...