Reliability of ECLSS on station

Now that the station is at 6 crewmembers, will anyone here find out if
they start to have problems with any O2 generator or CO2 scrubber ?

I haven't heard much about Elektron for a few years. Has it been problem
free since the last time it was changed ? Have they finally made it
reliable ?

Has the USA published a order of O2 use should their O2 generator fail ?
Would they release O2 from the Quest tanks before borrowing O2 candles
from the russians ?

Considering the size of the complex now and 6 crewmember status, would
O2 released from a progress at aft end of station propagate quickly
enough to support 6 or would it result in too high an O2 concentration
in the aft side of the station and not enough on the forward section ?

I would hope the distribution question has been thought of, but they do have
monitors for this.
I'd imagine what they might do would be driven by necessity rather than
protocol.
Electron seems a lot better than in the beginning from what I've heard,
though if it has to work in the higher amp modes this may well not be the
ase I suppose.

I'd be more interested in why that water purifier went wrong myself.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Now that the station is at 6 crewmembers, will anyone here find out if
they start to have problems with any O2 generator or CO2 scrubber ?

I haven't heard much about Elektron for a few years. Has it been problem
free since the last time it was changed ? Have they finally made it
reliable ?

Has the USA published a order of O2 use should their O2 generator fail ?
Would they release O2 from the Quest tanks before borrowing O2 candles
from the russians ?

Considering the size of the complex now and 6 crewmember status, would
O2 released from a progress at aft end of station propagate quickly
enough to support 6 or would it result in too high an O2 concentration
in the aft side of the station and not enough on the forward section ?

Hmm, I hope the water purifier fault is well understood as well.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Now that the station is at 6 crewmembers, will anyone here find out if
they start to have problems with any O2 generator or CO2 scrubber ?

I haven't heard much about Elektron for a few years. Has it been problem
free since the last time it was changed ? Have they finally made it
reliable ?

Has the USA published a order of O2 use should their O2 generator fail ?
Would they release O2 from the Quest tanks before borrowing O2 candles
from the russians ?

Considering the size of the complex now and 6 crewmember status, would
O2 released from a progress at aft end of station propagate quickly
enough to support 6 or would it result in too high an O2 concentration
in the aft side of the station and not enough on the forward section ?

Brian Gaff wrote:
Hmm, I hope the water purifier fault is well understood as well.


As long as the shuttle flies, the water purifier is not on the critical
list because the shuttle brings plenty of fresh water.

Shuttle also has the ability to recharge the QUEST tanks with plenty of
O2 and N2. Once shuttle stops, I read that NASA intends to use Progress
to ship some tanks that would be physically moved to Quest and plugged
into the pumps to load the quest tanks. Not sure how much O2/N2 they can
bring on each progress.

What is ESA's commitment with regards to ATV ? How many can be expected
and at what frequency ?

Consider that after Comumbia, the station's crew was reduced to 2
because there weren't sufficiuent progress vehicles to support 3,
despite a modest increase in progress flight rates. So a progress-only
supply line would require a 3 fold increase in flight rate to support 6
crewmembers.

So, having a "loop" that is as close to "closed loop" as possible
probably becomes extrememly important to give the station more autonomy,
and once you start to rely on those systems, when there will be a
failure, it becomes quite important.

In that sense however, the loss of shuttle will be good for humankind
because it will force NASA/Russia to have truly reliable ECLSS systems
and if they do achieve this, it will be a great leap forward for the
purposes of a long duration flight to Mars.

John Doe wrote:

Consider that after Comumbia, the station's crew was reduced to 2
because there weren't sufficiuent progress vehicles to support 3,
despite a modest increase in progress flight rates. So a progress-only
supply line would require a 3 fold increase in flight rate to support 6
crewmembers.

The situation is different now with ATV nearing operational status and
HTV, well who knows what the hell is up with HTV.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:

The situation is different now with ATV nearing operational status and
HTV, well who knows what the hell is up with HTV.


what is the committed frequency of ATV post 2010 ? say ATV were the only
trasnport to station. How long would 6 crew members last on 1 ATV ?

The Japanese seem confident they can launch HTV later this year. (so
probably early 2010).

Again, what launch frequency have they comitted to ? Is HTV rouhly the
same capacity as an MPLM or much less ?

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 03:26:12 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:


Consider that after Comumbia, the station's crew was reduced to 2
because there weren't sufficiuent progress vehicles to support 3,
despite a modest increase in progress flight rates. So a progress-only
supply line would require a 3 fold increase in flight rate to support 6
crewmembers.

The situation is different now with ATV nearing operational status and
HTV, well who knows what the hell is up with HTV.

First flight is scheduled for September, isn't it?

Brian

On Jun 3, 6:44*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 03:26:12 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

Consider that after Columbia, the station's crew was reduced to 2
because there weren't sufficient progress vehicles to support 3,
despite a modest increase in progress flight rates. So a progress-only
supply line would require a 3 fold increase in flight rate to support 6
crewmembers.

The situation is different now with ATV nearing operational status and
HTV, well who knows what the hell is up with HTV.

First flight is scheduled for September, isn't it?

The current manifest is still showing September 1st as the launch
date:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/st..._manifest.html

Interestingly enough, this is also the first flight of the H-IIB
rocket. You'd think they'd want the damn thing to do a couple test
launches before launching something as important as the HTV....
-Mike