totm dec 2019 Russian Launch and Mission Thread

[CatastrophicFailure]

29 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Okay, let's talk about implications...

...or we could just use one of those armored X-71's NASA's been keeping at Area 51 while they track down that saboteur... 

[insert_name]

1 hour ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Okay, let's talk about implications... If Soyuz is not cleared for flight before December (or early January if we want to be a bit risky) then the fuel tanks of Soyuz MS-09 will be dangerously corroded by the fuel they carry and the crew will have to come home, which is not good for the station, as a lot of the crew's work is maintenance. Also this isn't as important but I think we'd all like to keep our streak of having someone in space at all times.

So we need to keep the station constantly manned. We have a few options. Generally the list becomes more impractical as you go further down, but that's a trend, not a rule.

1 - Just send Soyuz MS-11 according to schedule. Soyuz is really reliable. If the investigation is finished in time, or even if it's not fully concluded, the failure is probably a related to a manufacturing defect. Increasing inspections at the factory should be sufficient. Chances are that MS-11 will not fail. But the chance is there.

2 - Send Soyuz MS-11 on schedule but unmanned. If we're being really risk averse or the investigation takes too long, MS-09 will have exceeded its warranty and will need to be jettisoned. An unmanned MS-11 could serve as a return vehicle and a buffer until more crew could arrive, although the crew of MS-09 would be in for a really long mission. And it would cause more crew scheduling issues, notably a big wave for the crew lineup and pushing of the last American bought seats to later flights.

3 - Jettison MS-09 and wait with no escape ship. There has not been an incident on the ISS causing need for an evacuation. There have been a few close calls, though. Simply waiting for a spacecraft with return seats to arrive is an option, the chances that something catastrophic will happen are rather low. This also extends the MS-09 crew mission time. And also will make the officials wary.

4 -  Jettison MS-09 and wait with CRS-16 as an escape ship. Wait for unmanned MS-11 to return the crew. Dragon 1 is a proven re-entry platform with 15 CRS re-entries and IIRC 2 test flight re-entries with no failures (but possibly some parachute anomalies). In the event that the crew need to go back while waiting for a proper return module, they could borrow CO2 scrubbers and oxygen replenishers from MS-09 if they can get them out and rig up some padding for use as seats. They might not even need extra oxygen if they can land quickly enough. But Dragon 1 was never intended for crew, this will again make the officials wary. If needed, instead of only being used as an emergency descent vehicle, CRS-16 could be the planned descent vehicle, but there is no way that would clear NASA review. If this does, then it could also be fitted with seats and scrubbers before launch.

5 -  Jettison MS-09. Keep an escape ship on standby (Dragon 1), send MS-11 manned, return crew of MS-09 on MS-11, MS-11 on MS-12, and MS-12 on DM-2. Same idea as 4, but chaining the Soyuz return times until DM-2, with its up to 7 seats, would arrive with only 2 on board, providing ample return room. Same cons as 4. Dragon 2 will have been tested on DM-1 and the inflight abort so it will be proven by now.

6 - 4 but with DM-1 as an escape ship. Slightly better than 4, actually, as Dragon 2 was designed to carry crew, but will not have undergone a re-entry test.

7 - 5 but with DM-1 as the return ship. The daisy chaining of Soyuz descent flights could be ended earlier using DM-1 as the planned return pod. Same cons as 6.

8 - Fast-track commercial crew and launch a replacement crew on DM-2 or the second flight of Starliner. Very possible, Boeing was in talks for this before the launch failure even happened. Both Dragon and Starliner can seat 7 if need be. You'd have to get them up before 2019 (not happening) or else use an interim spacecraft as an emergency descent pod, like in option 4. It could be CRS-16 or DM-1. If the need extremely arises, the inflight abort could even be launched as DM-2. Boeing isn't doing an inflight abort, and SpaceX did a pad abort already, although that was ages ago.

9 - REALLY fast-track CC and launch a replacement crew on DM-1 or Starliner flight 1. Not happening. Legislation and common sense will not allow SpaceX or Boeing to fly crew on the first flight of an unproved vehicle.

10 - Vent propellant tanks on Soyuz MS-09 and refuel later. If the problem is corrosion and the spacecraft can last longer if it weren't for the fuel, either vent or burn all of the fuel (ISS hyper-reboost?) but keep it attached and refuel it later. I don't know if this is possible. It certainly wasn't designed for in-orbit refueling so I doubt this will be considered. But, if the Soyuz/Progress ports are androgynous then you could use another Soyuz or Progress to de-orbit MS-09.

11 - Ask China to launch a Shenzhou. I read that the docking ports on Shenzhou are similar to the APAS-89, which are similar to the APAS-95, which are similar to the IDA... I think. I could be wrong. If (very big if) the Chinese have a Shenzhou lying around, then the docking port might be able to be ripped out and replaced with an ISS compatible one, or even modified. An adapter could also be built, going Chinese port on Shenzhou -> Chinese port -> Adapter structure -> ISS compatible port -> ISS. But at this point I'm grasping at straws, and IIRC NASA is banned from collaborating with China. China would also need to be paid somehow. And Shenzhou can only carry 2.

12 - Launch Orion on a Delta-IV Heavy with crew to replenish ISS crew. REALLY not going to happen, but if aliens came and told us to do this or the world would be destroyed then we could pull it off... I know that the Orion for EM-1 is at least somewhat near to being done, but I don't know how close the next D-IVH is... And D-IVH is not man rated. But it has gone its whole life without a big failure and has carried Orion (albeit without a service module - a big deal, probably can't dock without one) before. The service module for EM-1 is in storage IIRC, and you could launch it with only a little bit of fuel as to not overwhelm D-IVH.

13 - Launch Orion on D-IVH with 1 or 0 crew. Same as the above but just as a return vehicle for the crew of MS-09.

14 - 12 but with Falcon Heavy. Advantages: the next FH is probably going to be ready before the next D-IVH. Disadvantages: FH is not man-rated (although F9 will be), FH has only flown once, and FH has not carried Orion, nor was it designed to.

15 - 13 but with Falcon Heavy. Self explanatory.

14 - Launch crew on CRS-16. Like the options for using CRS-16 as a return ship, except modifying it on the ground to add seats, basic ECLSS, and other basic amenities, many of which can probably be ripped from Dragon 2. It's better than crewing DM-1 because it's a proven platform, but worse than crewing DM-1 because it wasn't designed for this.

 

I think I covered most of the possible options... Almost none are actually practical, though given all the unwillingness to take risks (not necessarily a bad thing). I know more than half of these are utterly ridiculous, but thoughts?

The Orion spacecraft isnt currently designed for long duration flights, probably better to launch a soyuz on an american or international lv empty if it comes to that, not delta IVh, the next one being launched is at VAFB, it would be dangerous to send that rocket to the ISS from there

Edited October 12, 2018 by insert_name

[kerbiloid]

Maybe a valve on the 1st stage caused the crash.

https://translate.google.com.tr/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.interfax.ru/russia/633029&edit-text=

[CatastrophicFailure]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

Maybe a valve on the 1st stage caused the crash.

https://translate.google.com.tr/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.interfax.ru/russia/633029&edit-text=

SO if I'm thinking this right, it's the bit that creates the big plume of vapor in this shot?

Dang, that's alotta pressure. 

[kerbiloid]

3 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

SO if I'm thinking this right, it's the bit that creates the big plume of vapor in this shot?

According to this link
https://translate.google.com.tr/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=http://kik-sssr.ru/IP_4_Turatam_old_Razdel_1.htm&edit-text=
the 1st stage blocks get pushed away by the oxygen tanks venting, so probably yes.

[YNM]

15 minutes ago, insert_name said:

probably better to launch a soyuz on an american or international lv empty if it comes to that

Atlas V 5m fairing can fit a soyuz. Ariane 5 can as well.

[kerbiloid]

9 minutes ago, YNM said:

Atlas V 5m fairing can fit a soyuz.

Soyuz is 2.2 m wide and 7.5 m long.
So, maybe across.

[YNM]

37 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

So, maybe across.

Atlas V :

Ariane 5 :

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, YNM said:

Atlas V :

All of them are twice bigger in length and diameter than Soyuz.

[Nightside]

17 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

All of them are twice bigger in length and diameter than Soyuz.

So there is room for  a spare.

[YNM]

48 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

All of them are twice bigger in length and diameter than Soyuz.

Spare room for whatever bodged* payload adapter solution they came up with.

 

* : only months, they aren't going to standardize or certify it for future use.

Edited October 12, 2018 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

Just now, YNM said:

Spare room for whatever bodged payload adapter solution they came up with.

FH would allow to spare 30 t moar.

[YNM]

29 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

FH would allow to spare 30 t moar.

Why would you waste so much lifting capability ?

Alternatively they can just use one expendable F9. 

F9/FH fairing :

32 minutes ago, Nightside said:

So there is room for  a spare.

Maybe a Soyuz and a Progress at once ?

Also, Kourou has handled both Soyuz (rocket) and Ariane V. So maybe they're more used to it somehow, we just need to cross the lines.

Edited October 12, 2018 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

6 minutes ago, YNM said:

Why would you waste so much lifting capability ?

Alternatively they can just use one expendable F9. 

It's much easier to check what was wrong with one joint on one rocket rather than invent adaptations of incompatible rockets.

[YNM]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

It's much easier to check what was wrong with one joint on one rocket rather than invent adaptations of incompatible rockets.

Well I hope Roskosmos is able to truly iron out all the problems and quickly get us another Soyuz.

If they can't do it though... yeah.

[kerbiloid]

11 minutes ago, YNM said:

Well I hope Roskosmos is able to truly iron out all the problems and quickly get us another Soyuz.

If they can't do it though... yeah.

I'm sure they can do this with a 0.985 reliability coefficient (2017) rocket.

[MaverickSawyer]

Hey, I'd ride on a Soyuz tomorrow. After all, we know that the LES works across a pretty wide range of the flight envelope, now don't we.  

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

4 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

After all, we know that the LES works across a pretty wide range of the flight envelope, now don't we.  

A promo action of LES manufacturer went OK.
The TMA bonus feature with the shroud engines works.

 

Edited October 12, 2018 by kerbiloid

[BNSF1995]

4 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Okay, let's talk about implications... If Soyuz is not cleared for flight before December (or early January if we want to be a bit risky) then the fuel tanks of Soyuz MS-09 will be dangerously corroded by the fuel they carry and the crew will have to come home, which is not good for the station, as a lot of the crew's work is maintenance. Also this isn't as important but I think we'd all like to keep our streak of having someone in space at all times.

So we need to keep the station constantly manned. We have a few options. Generally the list becomes more impractical as you go further down, but that's a trend, not a rule.

1 - Just send Soyuz MS-11 according to schedule. Soyuz is really reliable. If the investigation is finished in time, or even if it's not fully concluded, the failure is probably a related to a manufacturing defect. Increasing inspections at the factory should be sufficient. Chances are that MS-11 will not fail. But the chance is there.

2 - Send Soyuz MS-11 on schedule but unmanned. If we're being really risk averse or the investigation takes too long, MS-09 will have exceeded its warranty and will need to be jettisoned. An unmanned MS-11 could serve as a return vehicle and a buffer until more crew could arrive, although the crew of MS-09 would be in for a really long mission. And it would cause more crew scheduling issues, notably a big wave for the crew lineup and pushing of the last American bought seats to later flights.

3 - Jettison MS-09 and wait with no escape ship. There has not been an incident on the ISS causing need for an evacuation. There have been a few close calls, though. Simply waiting for a spacecraft with return seats to arrive is an option, the chances that something catastrophic will happen are rather low. This also extends the MS-09 crew mission time. And also will make the officials wary.

4 -  Jettison MS-09 and wait with CRS-16 as an escape ship. Wait for unmanned MS-11 to return the crew. Dragon 1 is a proven re-entry platform with 15 CRS re-entries and IIRC 2 test flight re-entries with no failures (but possibly some parachute anomalies). In the event that the crew need to go back while waiting for a proper return module, they could borrow CO2 scrubbers and oxygen replenishers from MS-09 if they can get them out and rig up some padding for use as seats. They might not even need extra oxygen if they can land quickly enough. But Dragon 1 was never intended for crew, this will again make the officials wary. If needed, instead of only being used as an emergency descent vehicle, CRS-16 could be the planned descent vehicle, but there is no way that would clear NASA review. If this does, then it could also be fitted with seats and scrubbers before launch.

5 -  Jettison MS-09. Keep an escape ship on standby (Dragon 1), send MS-11 manned, return crew of MS-09 on MS-11, MS-11 on MS-12, and MS-12 on DM-2. Same idea as 4, but chaining the Soyuz return times until DM-2, with its up to 7 seats, would arrive with only 2 on board, providing ample return room. Same cons as 4. Dragon 2 will have been tested on DM-1 and the inflight abort so it will be proven by now.

6 - 4 but with DM-1 as an escape ship. Slightly better than 4, actually, as Dragon 2 was designed to carry crew, but will not have undergone a re-entry test.

7 - 5 but with DM-1 as the return ship. The daisy chaining of Soyuz descent flights could be ended earlier using DM-1 as the planned return pod. Same cons as 6.

8 - Fast-track commercial crew and launch a replacement crew on DM-2 or the second flight of Starliner. Very possible, Boeing was in talks for this before the launch failure even happened. Both Dragon and Starliner can seat 7 if need be. You'd have to get them up before 2019 (not happening) or else use an interim spacecraft as an emergency descent pod, like in option 4. It could be CRS-16 or DM-1. If the need extremely arises, the inflight abort could even be launched as DM-2. Boeing isn't doing an inflight abort, and SpaceX did a pad abort already, although that was ages ago.

9 - REALLY fast-track CC and launch a replacement crew on DM-1 or Starliner flight 1. Not happening. Legislation and common sense will not allow SpaceX or Boeing to fly crew on the first flight of an unproved vehicle.

10 - Vent propellant tanks on Soyuz MS-09 and refuel later. If the problem is corrosion and the spacecraft can last longer if it weren't for the fuel, either vent or burn all of the fuel (ISS hyper-reboost?) but keep it attached and refuel it later. I don't know if this is possible. It certainly wasn't designed for in-orbit refueling so I doubt this will be considered. But, if the Soyuz/Progress ports are androgynous then you could use another Soyuz or Progress to de-orbit MS-09.

11 - Ask China to launch a Shenzhou. I read that the docking ports on Shenzhou are similar to the APAS-89, which are similar to the APAS-95, which are similar to the IDA... I think. I could be wrong. If (very big if) the Chinese have a Shenzhou lying around, then the docking port might be able to be ripped out and replaced with an ISS compatible one, or even modified. An adapter could also be built, going Chinese port on Shenzhou -> Chinese port -> Adapter structure -> ISS compatible port -> ISS. But at this point I'm grasping at straws, and IIRC NASA is banned from collaborating with China. China would also need to be paid somehow. And Shenzhou can only carry 2.

12 - Launch Orion on a Delta-IV Heavy with crew to replenish ISS crew. REALLY not going to happen, but if aliens came and told us to do this or the world would be destroyed then we could pull it off... I know that the Orion for EM-1 is at least somewhat near to being done, but I don't know how close the next D-IVH is... And D-IVH is not man rated. But it has gone its whole life without a big failure and has carried Orion (albeit without a service module - a big deal, probably can't dock without one) before. The service module for EM-1 is in storage IIRC, and you could launch it with only a little bit of fuel as to not overwhelm D-IVH.

13 - Launch Orion on D-IVH with 1 or 0 crew. Same as the above but just as a return vehicle for the crew of MS-09.

14 - 12 but with Falcon Heavy. Advantages: the next FH is probably going to be ready before the next D-IVH. Disadvantages: FH is not man-rated (although F9 will be), FH has only flown once, and FH has not carried Orion, nor was it designed to.

15 - 13 but with Falcon Heavy. Self explanatory.

14 - Launch crew on CRS-16. Like the options for using CRS-16 as a return ship, except modifying it on the ground to add seats, basic ECLSS, and other basic amenities, many of which can probably be ripped from Dragon 2. It's better than crewing DM-1 because it's a proven platform, but worse than crewing DM-1 because it wasn't designed for this.

 

I think I covered most of the possible options... Almost none are actually practical, though given all the unwillingness to take risks (not necessarily a bad thing). I know more than half of these are utterly ridiculous, but thoughts?

15 - Cobble together some surplus Apollo hardware and adapt the CM to use the APAS system

11 is very, very unlikely to happen. China isn't part of the ISS program, and China also hates America. Why would it assist a space station with American assets?

Edited October 12, 2018 by BNSF1995

[MinimumSky5]

Also, you can't just attach the bottom node of the service module of the Soyuz capsule to the Atlas payload adaptor and press launch. Payloads are designed around the rocket they launch on, and it would be a huge task to retrofit either the Soyuz or the Atlas to play nicely with each other. By the time that was done, Starliner and Dragon V2 would be flying regularly. 

And no, please don't load our astronauts into the Dragon V1. There are so many ways that could go wrong. 

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

16 — Reject the Apollonian heresy and return to the true path of Gemini.

 

[Nibb31]

5 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Okay, let's talk about implications... If Soyuz is not cleared for flight before December (or early January if we want to be a bit risky) then the fuel tanks of Soyuz MS-09 will be dangerously corroded by the fuel they carry and the crew will have to come home, which is not good for the station, as a lot of the crew's work is maintenance. Also this isn't as important but I think we'd all like to keep our streak of having someone in space at all times.

So we need to keep the station constantly manned. We have a few options. Generally the list becomes more impractical as you go further down, but that's a trend, not a rule.

1 - Just send Soyuz MS-11 according to schedule. Soyuz is really reliable. If the investigation is finished in time, or even if it's not fully concluded, the failure is probably a related to a manufacturing defect. Increasing inspections at the factory should be sufficient. Chances are that MS-11 will not fail. But the chance is there.

2 - Send Soyuz MS-11 on schedule but unmanned. If we're being really risk averse or the investigation takes too long, MS-09 will have exceeded its warranty and will need to be jettisoned. An unmanned MS-11 could serve as a return vehicle and a buffer until more crew could arrive, although the crew of MS-09 would be in for a really long mission. And it would cause more crew scheduling issues, notably a big wave for the crew lineup and pushing of the last American bought seats to later flights.

3 - Jettison MS-09 and wait with no escape ship. There has not been an incident on the ISS causing need for an evacuation. There have been a few close calls, though. Simply waiting for a spacecraft with return seats to arrive is an option, the chances that something catastrophic will happen are rather low. This also extends the MS-09 crew mission time. And also will make the officials wary.

4 -  Jettison MS-09 and wait with CRS-16 as an escape ship. Wait for unmanned MS-11 to return the crew. Dragon 1 is a proven re-entry platform with 15 CRS re-entries and IIRC 2 test flight re-entries with no failures (but possibly some parachute anomalies). In the event that the crew need to go back while waiting for a proper return module, they could borrow CO2 scrubbers and oxygen replenishers from MS-09 if they can get them out and rig up some padding for use as seats. They might not even need extra oxygen if they can land quickly enough. But Dragon 1 was never intended for crew, this will again make the officials wary. If needed, instead of only being used as an emergency descent vehicle, CRS-16 could be the planned descent vehicle, but there is no way that would clear NASA review. If this does, then it could also be fitted with seats and scrubbers before launch.

5 -  Jettison MS-09. Keep an escape ship on standby (Dragon 1), send MS-11 manned, return crew of MS-09 on MS-11, MS-11 on MS-12, and MS-12 on DM-2. Same idea as 4, but chaining the Soyuz return times until DM-2, with its up to 7 seats, would arrive with only 2 on board, providing ample return room. Same cons as 4. Dragon 2 will have been tested on DM-1 and the inflight abort so it will be proven by now.

6 - 4 but with DM-1 as an escape ship. Slightly better than 4, actually, as Dragon 2 was designed to carry crew, but will not have undergone a re-entry test.

7 - 5 but with DM-1 as the return ship. The daisy chaining of Soyuz descent flights could be ended earlier using DM-1 as the planned return pod. Same cons as 6.

8 - Fast-track commercial crew and launch a replacement crew on DM-2 or the second flight of Starliner. Very possible, Boeing was in talks for this before the launch failure even happened. Both Dragon and Starliner can seat 7 if need be. You'd have to get them up before 2019 (not happening) or else use an interim spacecraft as an emergency descent pod, like in option 4. It could be CRS-16 or DM-1. If the need extremely arises, the inflight abort could even be launched as DM-2. Boeing isn't doing an inflight abort, and SpaceX did a pad abort already, although that was ages ago.

9 - REALLY fast-track CC and launch a replacement crew on DM-1 or Starliner flight 1. Not happening. Legislation and common sense will not allow SpaceX or Boeing to fly crew on the first flight of an unproved vehicle.

10 - Vent propellant tanks on Soyuz MS-09 and refuel later. If the problem is corrosion and the spacecraft can last longer if it weren't for the fuel, either vent or burn all of the fuel (ISS hyper-reboost?) but keep it attached and refuel it later. I don't know if this is possible. It certainly wasn't designed for in-orbit refueling so I doubt this will be considered. But, if the Soyuz/Progress ports are androgynous then you could use another Soyuz or Progress to de-orbit MS-09.

11 - Ask China to launch a Shenzhou. I read that the docking ports on Shenzhou are similar to the APAS-89, which are similar to the APAS-95, which are similar to the IDA... I think. I could be wrong. If (very big if) the Chinese have a Shenzhou lying around, then the docking port might be able to be ripped out and replaced with an ISS compatible one, or even modified. An adapter could also be built, going Chinese port on Shenzhou -> Chinese port -> Adapter structure -> ISS compatible port -> ISS. But at this point I'm grasping at straws, and IIRC NASA is banned from collaborating with China. China would also need to be paid somehow. And Shenzhou can only carry 2.

12 - Launch Orion on a Delta-IV Heavy with crew to replenish ISS crew. REALLY not going to happen, but if aliens came and told us to do this or the world would be destroyed then we could pull it off... I know that the Orion for EM-1 is at least somewhat near to being done, but I don't know how close the next D-IVH is... And D-IVH is not man rated. But it has gone its whole life without a big failure and has carried Orion (albeit without a service module - a big deal, probably can't dock without one) before. The service module for EM-1 is in storage IIRC, and you could launch it with only a little bit of fuel as to not overwhelm D-IVH.

13 - Launch Orion on D-IVH with 1 or 0 crew. Same as the above but just as a return vehicle for the crew of MS-09.

14 - 12 but with Falcon Heavy. Advantages: the next FH is probably going to be ready before the next D-IVH. Disadvantages: FH is not man-rated (although F9 will be), FH has only flown once, and FH has not carried Orion, nor was it designed to.

15 - 13 but with Falcon Heavy. Self explanatory.

14 - Launch crew on CRS-16. Like the options for using CRS-16 as a return ship, except modifying it on the ground to add seats, basic ECLSS, and other basic amenities, many of which can probably be ripped from Dragon 2. It's better than crewing DM-1 because it's a proven platform, but worse than crewing DM-1 because it wasn't designed for this.

 

I think I covered most of the possible options... Almost none are actually practical, though given all the unwillingness to take risks (not necessarily a bad thing). I know more than half of these are utterly ridiculous, but thoughts?

Dragon 1 cannot unberth without someone on the station closing the hatch and controlling the arm, so any options involving Dragon 1 are a no go -

Any option involving leaving the crew without an evacuation vehicle (Soyuz) are a no go.

Any option involving a vehicle that is not yet ready to transport crew (Dragon 2, Starliner or Orion) or to operate in vicinity of the ISS (Shenzhou) is a no go.

The shelf life problem with MS-09 is not just about fuel, so #10 is a no go.

In your list, only #1 and #2 are options at this point. There are other opportunities that involve shuffling around the Progress launch that was scheduled for November.

However, resuming Soyuz launcher operations assumes that the investigation determines that the problem was a one off and is not systemic. Given the reliability issues that Russia has been having over the past years, I wouldn't be very confident with that sort of conclusion, and neither would NASA. And don't forget the concerns about hole in the MS-09 for which there still hasn't been a satisfactory explanation. Who knows if Soyuz is still safe at this point? What if there is another hole (or other manufacturing problem) on the next Soyuz ?

There seems to be a deep-rooted systemic problem with Russian quality control that has to be addressed, and that can take a lot of time.

 

Edited October 12, 2018 by Nibb31

[CatastrophicFailure]

So clearly, after discussing all the options here, the only logical solution at this point is to wait until BFR is flying, and simply launch the crew a new space station. 

[Nibb31]

5 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

So clearly, after discussing all the options here, the only logical solution at this point is to wait until BFR is flying, and simply launch the crew a new space station. 

I know you're joking, but I don't see BFR ever docking to the ISS. It is large and would put a lot of stress on the structure. It's probably too "dirty" too (thruster gas pollution). We also don't even know if there is a docking adapter in any of the recent designs. At any rate, it would have to go through years of certification with NASA before it would be certified for operating in vicinity of the ISS, at which point the ISS will be near its end-of-life.

[CatastrophicFailure]

1 minute ago, Nibb31 said:

I know you're joking, but I don't see BFR ever docking to the ISS. It is large and would put a lot of stress on the structure. It's probably too "dirty" too (thruster gas pollution). We also don't even know if there is a docking adapter in any of the recent designs. At any rate, it would have to go through years of certification with NASA before it would be certified for operating in vicinity of the ISS, at which point the ISS will be near its end-of-life.

Hence, we send the crew up a new station. Clearly.