John Doe wrote in :

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
Now, with a HST flight you have:
Success - Get to station no problem.
Foam Strike - No repair capability. Result LOV

Hasn't CAIB recommented stand-alone repair capability ?

Yes, R6.4-1. The second paragraph recommends such capability be ready prior
to the first non-ISS flight. That implies that NASA doesn't need the
capability if they cancel all non-ISS flights, which is evidently O'Keefe's
interpretation.

My understanding was that they would temporarily "waive" this
requirement for flights to ISS since ISS would be able to help with
inspections and repairs. But eventually, the shuttle should have its
own repair ability. Is that correct ?

Essentially, yes. The fourth paragraph of R6.4-1 states that the ultimate
objective of standalone repair capability is for all flights, including ISS
flights that, for whatever reason, cannot reach ISS (either pre-docking or
post-undocking).

It's pretty clear to me that the CAIB would not have added that fourth
paragraph if they really intended for NASA to be able to evade the second
by cancelling all non-ISS flights.

If the Shuttle is to travel only to ISS, why is Nasa bothering with a
special boom addition to the shuttle's arm ?

The boom is required for RCC inspections. The resolution and depth
measurement requirements for RCC inspection are so tight that the
cameras/sensors must be placed very close to the RCC. Neither the SRMS nor
the SSRMS alone can get close enough to reach all the RCC panels on both
wings. The only alternative is EVA inspection, which NASA is pretty
desperate to avoid due to severe timeline impacts.

--
JRF

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