RMS Extension Boom

Could the boom be used for other "over the side" tasks, such as closing the ET
umbilical doors? I know there's already a contingency procedure for this, but
it's considered unlikely to work. Would using the boom help?
--
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

LooseChanj wrote in
m:

Could the boom be used for other "over the side" tasks, such as
closing the ET umbilical doors? I know there's already a contingency
procedure for this, but it's considered unlikely to work. Would using
the boom help?

There are long-term plans for using the boom for underside EVAs, yes. The
main remaining unsolved problem is worksite stabilization: whenever the EVA
crewmember presses his hands on the worksite, it imparts loads on the boom
that cause it to flex. NASA is examining a number of potential solutions to
the problem, most involving stabilizing struts with adhesive pads on the
end to secure either the boom tip, or the EVA crewmember himself, to the
site.

For near-term ISS flights, the boom will not be used for underside repairs.
If a repair is required, while docked, the shuttle crew will grapple ISS
with the shuttle arm, then undock the shuttle and use the arm (still
grappled to ISS) to flip it over, presenting the underside to an EVA
crewmember on the end of the station arm.

There are some concerns with worksite stabilization with this technique as
well, but it isn't as bad because the arms aren't nearly as long as the
arms with the boom added. STS-114 may attempt the grapple-undock part as a
test, without the flipping-the-shuttle-over part. They may also hot-fire a
vernier RCS jet while attached to the station with the arm, to simulate
kickloads from an EVA crewmember.

This technique will be used for any underside repairs required prior to
ISS-1J. After that, the Japanese lab gets in the way of flipping the
shuttle over.

So, prior to the next non-ISS flight, or prior to ISS-1J, whichever comes
first (and the next HST flight almost certainly will), NASA must have a
solution to the worksite stabilization problem with the RMS boom extension.

In the unlikely event that a shuttle needed repair on an ISS flight before
that, and for whatever reason could not reach ISS, NASA would probably
attempt an EVA repair with the boom anyway, and accept the risk that the
repair might be unsuccessful due to 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.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 04:00:05 +0000, Jorge R. Frank wrote:

... NASA is examining a number of potential solutions to
the problem, most involving stabilizing struts with
adhesive pads on the end to secure either the boom tip, or the EVA crewmember
himself, to the site.

AAAACCCKKKK! HE TOUCHED THE TILES!

*ahem*

Will the try to use a variant of the electrically-heated
pads that were planned for that work-platform thingie?

"Chuck Stewart" wrote in
news
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 04:00:05 +0000, Jorge R. Frank wrote:

... NASA is examining a number of potential solutions to
the problem, most involving stabilizing struts with
adhesive pads on the end to secure either the boom tip, or the EVA
crewmember himself, to the site.

Will the try to use a variant of the electrically-heated
pads that were planned for that work-platform thingie?

Possibly. They're looking at a lot of options; I don't know the details.

--
JRF

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