Musgrave's Spacewalk Scenerio

[TB]

Now that Story Musgrave's "spacewalk inspection" theory was given time on
the ABC Special about Columbia, it seems according to him that it was quite
possible for an astronaut to actually inspect the leading edges and even the
underside of the Shuttle while in orbit. I just don't understand how an
astronaut without a maneuvering backpack could get under the Shuttle.
There's no handholds and I imagine that's the most obvious handicap to such
an EVA. Is he being a bit too flippant about such a scenario or was it
actually possible?

T.B.

[Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to \s\]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:21:06 GMT, "TB" > wrote:

>Now that Story Musgrave's "spacewalk inspection" theory was given time on
>the ABC Special about Columbia, it seems according to him that it was quite
>possible for an astronaut to actually inspect the leading edges and even the
>underside of the Shuttle while in orbit. I just don't understand how an
>astronaut without a maneuvering backpack could get under the Shuttle.
>There's no handholds and I imagine that's the most obvious handicap to such
>an EVA. Is he being a bit too flippant about such a scenario or was it
>actually possible?

He was talking about an EVA to inspect the leading edge, but of course nobody
knew at the time that's where the problem was, everyone thought it was
underneath, perhaps near the landing gear doors.

But to my knowledge, no, without a SAFER unit or the EVA crewmember going
tetherless, there's no way to get underneath the orbiter except near the ET
doors in back, and even that's a risky kludge.

[David Corsi]

Story has mocked up and detailed a scenario he feels (and he should know)
where one astronauts uses the body of another astronaut as a handhold to
crawl over the edge and view the leading edge and some of the underbelly.
You have to remember however that most everyone at NASA felt the foam hit
far under the wing, near the land gear doors and even Story has yet to
explain how he could as he said "place human eyes 4 inches from the problem"
if the damage had been to the door area. Now the truth is if they had sent
the astronauts to go at least look "over" the edge they would have been
stunned to see the problem was with the edge and not the underbelly and
Story's method would have gotten them a close and personal look at
devesating damage.

"TB" > wrote in message
. ..
> Now that Story Musgrave's "spacewalk inspection" theory was given time on
> the ABC Special about Columbia, it seems according to him that it was
quite
> possible for an astronaut to actually inspect the leading edges and even
the
> underside of the Shuttle while in orbit. I just don't understand how an
> astronaut without a maneuvering backpack could get under the Shuttle.
> There's no handholds and I imagine that's the most obvious handicap to
such
> an EVA. Is he being a bit too flippant about such a scenario or was it
> actually possible?
>
> T.B.
>
>

[Jorge R. Frank]

"TB" > wrote in
:

> Now that Story Musgrave's "spacewalk inspection" theory was given time
> on the ABC Special about Columbia, it seems according to him that it
> was quite possible for an astronaut to actually inspect the leading
> edges and even the underside of the Shuttle while in orbit. I just
> don't understand how an astronaut without a maneuvering backpack could
> get under the Shuttle. There's no handholds and I imagine that's the
> most obvious handicap to such an EVA. Is he being a bit too flippant
> about such a scenario or was it actually possible?

He's taking advantage of hindsight. The damage is now known to have been on
the leading edge; during the flight, it was thought to have been farther on
the underside, near the landing gear doors.

Musgrave's procedure would have been for one EVA astronaut to tether
himself to a latch on the payload bay door (hey, maybe even the very latch
that Tom Wheeler claims is the "hole"...), put his feet on the door and
stand upside down, then a second EVA crewmember would tether himself to the
first and stand on his shoulders. That gets the second crewmember's
eyeballs to the leading edge, but not nearly far enough to see the landing
gear doors.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[ElleninLosAngeles]

I thought Story M. was getting a bit riled up and perhaps started to
exaggerate for emphasis. Originally, the idea that the astronauts
would do a spacewalk all the way underneath the shuttle and wander all
over looking at tiles was deemed too difficult without handholds.
Without handholds they would be flapping about aimlessly and end up
kicking/standing on the fragile tiles. I believe Story was talking
about a spacewalk to look at the RCC panels on the edge - for this he
is thinking they could have been tethered to the cargo bay door area
and then peer over the edge. They would remain on top of the orbiter
and just look over the edge. This would be more feasible but no one
seemed to think at NASA that the foam hit the leading edge so they
wouldn't have been interested in looking there anyway. Also, everyone
seemed to believe the RCC panels were nearly indestructible.

[Joe D.]

"TB" > wrote in message . ..
> There's no handholds and I imagine that's the most obvious handicap to such
> an EVA. Is he being a bit too flippant about such a scenario or was it
> actually possible?
>
It's not just Musgrave. At the CAIB's request, NASA officially looked at
contingency repairs and found a repair EVA (not just inspection) theoretically
possible. See below.

I agree the hindsight of knowing the damage site makes it easier. I'm sure
NASA would have tried this had the TPS damage assessment been
more serious looking or the ascent photography better.

An inspection/ repair EVA is definitely a highly improvised risk. But every
flight is already prepared to go underneath the aft vehicle to fix a stuck
ET umbilical door. Risky as that is, at least they have a procedure for it,
so it's not like there's been no planning for EVAs beyond the payload bay.
----------------

http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/current.html

"They inventoried everything that was on board the Columbia," Gehman said.
"There are two EVA suits. They devised a successful way to get out to the area of
the damage without further damage to the TPS (thermal protection system). They
devised a way that they thought they could work out there and they ... came up with
a patch that they would jam stuff in the hole."

-- Joe D.

[Jorge R. Frank]

"Joe D." > wrote in
:

> http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/current.html
>
> "They inventoried everything that was on board the Columbia," Gehman
> said. "There are two EVA suits. They devised a successful way to get
> out to the area of the damage without further damage to the TPS
> (thermal protection system).

Unfortunately, that's not what the NASA presentation to the CAIB said. It
specifically stated that the repair EVA carried high risk of further
vehicle damage. (I will be charitable and assume Mr. Gehman simply confused
the repair EVA with the lower-risk inspection EVA).
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Andrey Serbinenko]

I understand that using a device like a pair of sticky-pad gloves to allow
an EVA person to kind of crawl to any part of the vehicle is out of the
question, but I'm wondering why. Do adhesives work in space?
Or another though along same lines: obviously handrails cannot be provided
just anywhere they might need them, but perhaps a set of spot electro-magnets
can be planted just under the tile surface of the orbiter that can be
activated on demand and used with magnetic gloves or a removable magnetic
handrail.

Jorge R. Frank > wrote:
> "TB" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Now that Story Musgrave's "spacewalk inspection" theory was given time
>> on the ABC Special about Columbia, it seems according to him that it
>> was quite possible for an astronaut to actually inspect the leading
>> edges and even the underside of the Shuttle while in orbit. I just
>> don't understand how an astronaut without a maneuvering backpack could
>> get under the Shuttle. There's no handholds and I imagine that's the
>> most obvious handicap to such an EVA. Is he being a bit too flippant
>> about such a scenario or was it actually possible?
>
> He's taking advantage of hindsight. The damage is now known to have been on
> the leading edge; during the flight, it was thought to have been farther on
> the underside, near the landing gear doors.
>
> Musgrave's procedure would have been for one EVA astronaut to tether
> himself to a latch on the payload bay door (hey, maybe even the very latch
> that Tom Wheeler claims is the "hole"...), put his feet on the door and
> stand upside down, then a second EVA crewmember would tether himself to the
> first and stand on his shoulders. That gets the second crewmember's
> eyeballs to the leading edge, but not nearly far enough to see the landing
> gear doors.
>
>

[Jorge R. Frank]

Andrey Serbinenko > wrote in
:

> I understand that using a device like a pair of sticky-pad gloves to
> allow an EVA person to kind of crawl to any part of the vehicle is out
> of the question, but I'm wondering why. Do adhesives work in space?

They work. It's important to keep context here: for a hypothetical post-
return-to-flight repair EVA, some form of worksite stabilization is
required, and adhesive pads are one concept being considered. You don't
want adhesive gloves, though - there are some times you need the gloves
*not* to stick to something. But for a hypothetical STS-107 "what-if"
scenario, such materials were not available to the crew.

> Or another though along same lines: obviously handrails cannot be
> provided just anywhere they might need them, but perhaps a set of spot
> electro-magnets can be planted just under the tile surface of the
> orbiter that can be activated on demand and used with magnetic gloves
> or a removable magnetic handrail.

Most of the areas where you'd need the electromagnets are not accessible
from the inside during flight, so you'd need to put them in place before
launch, and you'd need at *lot* of them. And they'd have to be very strong
electromagnets to work through the thickness of the tile. So the weight
penalty would be extremely high. Not a practical idea. You're better off
using a boom or truss to anchor the EVA crewmember to the RMS, and use
adhesive pads to control boom flex.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Joe D.]

"Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote in message ...
> I understand that using a device like a pair of sticky-pad gloves to allow
> an EVA person to kind of crawl to any part of the vehicle is out of the
> question, but I'm wondering why. Do adhesives work in space?

The original Martin Marietta repair kit (never fully developed) included a
work platform an MMU-equipped astronaut would maneuver into position. Then
adhesive pads would hold it in place on the orbiter belly. The pad
adhesion could be controlled via electric currents. See sidebar
in this Orlando Sentinel article:

http://tinyurl.com/75q9

Except for one Hubble servicing mission, all future shuttle flights
will go to ISS, so it's possible an elaborate self-contained repair
capability might not be needed. However even ISS-bound flights
can fail to reach ISS due to booster underperformance, etc, or the
docking machinery could fail. So they probably need at least some
minimal self-contained inspection/repair capability.

-- Joe D.

[LooseChanj]

On or about Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:36:45 -0700, Joe D. >
made the sensational claim that:
> Except for one Hubble servicing mission, all future shuttle flights
> will go to ISS, so it's possible an elaborate self-contained repair
> capability might not be needed.

Would a Hubble retrieval mission count as "servicing"? That'd make it two.
I wonder if they'll decide to just strap some sort of retro package, to avoid
a retrieval mission.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

[Jorge R. Frank]

LooseChanj > wrote in
om:

> On or about Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:36:45 -0700, Joe D.
> > made the sensational claim that:
>> Except for one Hubble servicing mission, all future shuttle flights
>> will go to ISS, so it's possible an elaborate self-contained repair
>> capability might not be needed.
>
> Would a Hubble retrieval mission count as "servicing"? That'd make it
> two. I wonder if they'll decide to just strap some sort of retro
> package, to avoid a retrieval mission.

A retro package probably can't be completed before the next servicing
mission, which is the only one planned prior to the retrieval mission.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[jeff findley]

"Joe D." > writes:
>
> Except for one Hubble servicing mission, all future shuttle flights
> will go to ISS, so it's possible an elaborate self-contained repair
> capability might not be needed. However even ISS-bound flights
> can fail to reach ISS due to booster underperformance, etc, or the
> docking machinery could fail. So they probably need at least some
> minimal self-contained inspection/repair capability.

Question: What do you do if your destination was ISS, but an abort to
orbit put you in an orbit too low to get there?

Answer: You're essentially back to the non-ISS destination scenario.

Conclusion: We need a solution (at least a back-up solution) that
works for non-ISS destinations.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Jorge R. Frank" > wrote in message
...
> Andrey Serbinenko > wrote in
>>
> Most of the areas where you'd need the electromagnets are not accessible
> from the inside during flight, so you'd need to put them in place before
> launch, and you'd need at *lot* of them. And they'd have to be very strong
> electromagnets to work through the thickness of the tile.

Is there even enough ferrous metal around to allow them to "stick"?


>So the weight
> penalty would be extremely high. Not a practical idea. You're better off
> using a boom or truss to anchor the EVA crewmember to the RMS, and use
> adhesive pads to control boom flex.
>
> --
> JRF
>
> Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
> check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
> think one step ahead of IBM.

[Jorge R. Frank]

LooseChanj > wrote in
:

> On or about 10 Jul 2003 14:54:38 GMT, Jorge R. Frank
> > made the sensational claim that:
>> A retro package probably can't be completed before the next servicing
>> mission, which is the only one planned prior to the retrieval
>> mission.
>
> Wasn't there some debate in this froup about what was planned for
> Hubble, deorbit vs. retrieval? Given what you say here, was there
> ever any other plan than retrieval?

None that appeared in the manifest, at least. But the manifest only goes
out so far in the future; it's possible they had other plans back then.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Joe D.]

"jeff findley" > wrote in message ...
> "Joe D." > writes:
> >
> > Except for one Hubble servicing mission, all future shuttle flights
> > will go to ISS, so it's possible an elaborate self-contained repair
> > capability might not be needed. However even ISS-bound flights
> > can fail to reach ISS due to booster underperformance, etc, or the
> > docking machinery could fail. So they probably need at least some
> > minimal self-contained inspection/repair capability.
>
> Question: What do you do if your destination was ISS, but an abort to
> orbit put you in an orbit too low to get there?
>
> Answer: You're essentially back to the non-ISS destination scenario.
>
> Conclusion: We need a solution (at least a back-up solution) that
> works for non-ISS destinations.
>
Yes that's what I said. However you could also argue the probability is so
low that self-contained *repair* (not inspection) isn't worth the effort. Inspection
is probably easier, e.g. AERCam, etc, which is why I said self-contained repair, not inspection.

You'd have to have an abort to orbit, combined with a serious foam strike or
orbital debris damage on the *same* flight, and the resultant damage would have to be so
serious that repair (not just inspection) was needed.

The underperformance would also have to be in the exact narrow window
of ATO, not TAL or once around. The latter two don't allow time
for inspection, yet incur essentially full heating and would result in loss of vehicle for
serious TPS damage, no matter what the on-board repair provisions.

With the post-Columbia modifications there shouldn't be any serious foam
strikes in future flights, plus there's only been one ATO, STS-51-F. That was a
sensor problem that's since been fixed.

It seems the chance of those combined circumstances on the same ascent
(ATO, not TAL, not AOA, plus serious TPS damage requiring repair) would be pretty
low post-Columbia, hence it's logical to focus on ISS for most inspection and repairs.

But nonetheless it can always happen so having some contingency plan, no matter
how primitive, would make sense.

-- Joe D.

"James Oberg" > wrote in message
. ..
|
| The NASA-developed spacewalk plan had one crewman extending his feet --
| wrapped in towels -- down from the outer rim of the PLB door, until he
| contacted the wing, and the second crewman crawling along his body (head
to
| foot) until his lower legs, attached to the first crewman's lower legs,
were
| in place -- and his head would then have been a few feet 'above' the lower
| wing, viewing it upside down. So he could have SEEN any of the candidate
| damage areas, including the RCC panels, for a on-the-scene assessment of
the
| actual damage. And quite by randomness, he would have been able to REACH
the
| areas where the damage actually occurred.


Musgrave indicated the other night it would have been the easiest spacewalk
he had ever attempted. Too bad it wasn't tried but then Shuttle Program
Management was *sure* there was no significant damage to the orbiter from
the foam strike. Based on the wonderful Boeing "Crater" analysis, I suppose.

[Charleston]

"Joe D." > wrote in message
...
> "jeff findley" > wrote in message
...
> > "Joe D." > writes:
> > >
> > > Except for one Hubble servicing mission, all future shuttle flights
> > > will go to ISS, so it's possible an elaborate self-contained repair
> > > capability might not be needed. However even ISS-bound flights
> > > can fail to reach ISS due to booster underperformance, etc, or the
> > > docking machinery could fail. So they probably need at least some
> > > minimal self-contained inspection/repair capability.
> >
> > Question: What do you do if your destination was ISS, but an abort to
> > orbit put you in an orbit too low to get there?
> >
> > Answer: You're essentially back to the non-ISS destination scenario.
> >
> > Conclusion: We need a solution (at least a back-up solution) that
> > works for non-ISS destinations.
> >
> Yes that's what I said. However you could also argue the probability is so
> low that self-contained *repair* (not inspection) isn't worth the effort.
Inspection
> is probably easier, e.g. AERCam, etc, which is why I said self-contained
repair, not inspection.
>
> You'd have to have an abort to orbit, combined with a serious foam strike
or
> orbital debris damage on the *same* flight, and the resultant damage would
have to be so
> serious that repair (not just inspection) was needed.
>
> The underperformance would also have to be in the exact narrow window
> of ATO, not TAL or once around. The latter two don't allow time
> for inspection, yet incur essentially full heating and would result in
loss of vehicle for
> serious TPS damage, no matter what the on-board repair provisions.
>
> With the post-Columbia modifications there shouldn't be any serious foam
> strikes in future flights, plus there's only been one ATO, STS-51-F. That
was a
> sensor problem that's since been fixed.
>
> It seems the chance of those combined circumstances on the same ascent
> (ATO, not TAL, not AOA, plus serious TPS damage requiring repair) would be
pretty
> low post-Columbia, hence it's logical to focus on ISS for most inspection
and repairs.
>
> But nonetheless it can always happen so having some contingency plan, no
matter
> how primitive, would make sense.
>
Gee, a limit of crew size to say five, combined with a working agreement
with the Russians for emergency Soyuz response comes up again. Granted
multiple launches would be necessary. Without an awesome on orbit repair
kit, you can dump the ISS cargo in the low orbit, and use one of those lower
heat profile reentrys. You know those profiles that exist depending on what
day you read this newsgroup;-)

Daniel

[Terrell Miller]

> wrote in message
...

> Musgrave indicated the other night it would have been the easiest
spacewalk
> he had ever attempted. Too bad it wasn't tried but then Shuttle Program
> Management was *sure* there was no significant damage to the orbiter from
> the foam strike. Based on the wonderful Boeing "Crater" analysis, I
suppose.

....and he also mentioned that there was absolutely no way to *repair* any of
the damage. Inspect, maybe (though he tends to exaggerate a lot). Repair,
nope. Rescue mission or bust...

--
Terrell Miller


"We pay for love, but the hate comes free"
-Gordon Sumner

[Kent Betts]

"Jorge R. Frank
> He's taking advantage of hindsight

Perhaps. Adm. Gehman also has questions about the quality of the
post=debris engineering analysis. The foam cannon clearly
demonstrates that high speed foam can deliver a whack. Since the
weight and the velocity were estimated early in the mission, it seems
that the engineers doing the analysis never really got their heads
around the concept that significant force had been delivered to the
wing. A little more appreciation of the magnitude of this force,
which is reasonable to expect from the slide-rule set, might have
quickened their efforts to perform a visual inspection.

[Joe D.]

"jeff findley" > wrote in message ...
> > writes:
> > Musgrave indicated the other night it would have been the easiest spacewalk
> > he had ever attempted. Too bad it wasn't tried but then Shuttle Program
> > Management was *sure* there was no significant damage to the orbiter from
> > the foam strike. Based on the wonderful Boeing "Crater" analysis, I suppose.
>
> Bad management, mostly. Crater predicted damage only to tiles. It
> was always assumed that the RCC was stronger than the tiles. If
> Crater predicted the tiles were o.k., it was assumed the RCC would be
> o.k. also.

The problem is Crater did not predict the tiles were OK -- it predicted
major damage, far worse than anything previous.

How the Boeing team's "no flight risk" assessment arose out of this has yet to be
explained.

-- Joe D.