Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?

bob haller wrote:


nasa doesnt want to admit the station is becoming a hazard.


People seldom want to 'admit' things that aren't true, Bob.


deorbiting iss would cut more jobs from the agency


It would, in fact, kill pretty much the entire manned space program.


waivers for hardware now over twice its certified lifetimes , doesnt help.


You get those 'waivers' by inspecting the hardware, Bob. You know,
food is still good past those dates on the tins, too.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

bob haller wrote:


just a single question answered by you, should explain the answer,

why design the station and its modules to have a life expectancy? certified for X years in space.

then write safety waivers when the modules are reaching their end of life?


Your question is predicated on a fallacy stemming from your ignorance
about how engineering design works. You don't 'design something to
have a life expectancy'. You design it to last AT LEAST some lifetime
at reasonable confidence limits (usually 3 sigma). Then in actual
operation as you approach that limit you inspect and refurbish as
required (in the military this is called a SLEP) and now you can add
to that 'expected life span.

For example, the typical fighter aircraft is designed to have a 'life
span' of 6000 flight hours. The original F/A-18 Hornet has been
SLEPed at least twice and the current fleet average for flight hours
is probably around 9000 hours; 50% more than the "certified" life.


has anyone ever owned a car or other complex thing thats gets more reliable as it ages?


Do you know what the "certified life" on a car is? Around 5 years or
50,000 miles.


why was the station designedv for a limited life expectancy??


Because we don't know of any parts that we can guarantee will last
FOREVER with a 99.7% certainty.


waivers did work well for o ring erosion and foam loss causing damage to shuttles.......


Bull****. Cite the waivers.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

unfortunnately i will be proved right, when a major accident occurs..........

oh i guess we ran it too long......

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 6:04:41 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...


nasa doesnt want to admit the station is becoming a hazard. deorbiting iss would cut more jobs from the agency

waivers for hardware now over twice its certified lifetimes , doesnt help.

so claim everything is fine.....just like before columbia..

You have no cites to back any of this up. Without any evidence to back
this up, it just sounds like more of your chicken little paranoia.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

just a single question answered by you, should explain the answer,

why design the station and its modules to have a life expectancy? certified for X years in space.

then write safety waivers when the modules are reaching their end of
life?

What safety waivers Bob? Cite? I don't recall anything being reported
on this issue.

has anyone ever owned a car or other complex thing thats gets more
reliable as it ages?

I recently sold my '91 Ford Crown Victoria with 160k+ miles on it. When
I owned it (the past 8 years), I never took it to a repair shop. I put
over 100k on that car myself and knew every sort of problem that might
crop up. Spare parts were plentiful and cheap. I did all the
maintenance myself (both preventative, and otherwise). It would have
gone for another 160k miles if I had been so inclined to rebuild the
motor.

So tell me, what major part of ISS is predicted to fail that cannot be
replaced or worked-around? You mentioned the sticky airlock door on
Mir, but ISS has no less than three airlocks.

why was the station designedv for a limited life expectancy??

Why do your "toasters" exceed their limited life expectancy and are not
turned off?

waivers did work well for o ring erosion and foam loss causing damage
to shuttles.......

What waivers? Cite?

they are keeping ISS going to protect jobs.......

It's also returning useful science at this point and serving as a
customer for commercial services which will be essential going forward.
If commercial stations are to ever fly, they need the sort of commercial
services flying to ISS today (cargo) and tomorrow (crew).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

theres no current ability to replace modules. the shuttle ended that ability,.

so how long do you believe ISS will remain operation? 2 years? 5 years? 20 years?

by now ISS should of been deorbited years ago

In article ,
says...

unfortunnately i will be proved right, when a major accident occurs..........

oh i guess we ran it too long......

Whatever chicken little. You don't have any cites to back up your
assertions.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


waivers for hardware now over twice its certified lifetimes , doesnt help.

You know, that's not automatically a bad thing.
In some cases, you simply don't know what a lifetime should be, so you're
conservative. You get to that point, look at it and say, "Hmm, that's not so
bad."

You know, car clutches have a "lifetime". I've typically gotten a LOT more
(in some cases 2x as much) mileage out of them.
But I guess I'm about to die in my car.


so claim everything is fine.....just like before columbia..

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
waivers did work well for o ring erosion and foam loss causing damage to
shuttles.......


I'm going to cut to the chase, because I think you have a point, but are not
making it.
The problem is WHY you're giving the waivers.

The waivers for the O-ring erosion should NEVER have happened. There really
was no excuse to allow ANY burn-through. That was NOT in the spec and
allowing it for no good reason was a BAD decision.

Foam-loss, is a lot more complicated. I do think NASA should have taken it a
bit more seriously, but, to quote Frank Borman in From the Earth to the
Moon, that was a failure of imagination. NASA believed, incorrectly, that a
foam strike on the RCC was a non-event. When they started testing after
Columbia, the impact recreation completely surprised the engineers involved
in the testing. It was NOT an expected result at all. So in an essence, as
far as I know, there was no waiver for foam strikes on the RCC itself. The
waivers were for foam strikes to the tiles.

https://www.spaceflightnow.com/shutt...707impacttest/ for an
interesting write-up.

I'll also note that early on in the ISS flight manifest NASA did estimate
the chances of a LOCV.

Now, compare that to say a car. Looking around, it seems it's in the
ballpark to replace a clutch on Subaru's at 135k miles (base on some quick
googling). I've routinely gotten over 150k miles on a clutch. I suspect
Subaru recommends an even shorter interval. Sometimes... things last longer
than planned. It's not a bad thing.

So really, what you seem to be arguing (with no evidence) is that NASA is
making waiver decisions in the mode of the O-ring decision.
Show your evidence.
Otherwise, my suspicion is that if a catastrophic accident occurs, it will
be for a reason that's NOT expected at all and that no waiver will make a
difference.

Part of the problem with you Bob is that you're like a stopped clock. You
may end up being right twice a day, but for the wrong reason.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

theres no current ability to replace modules. the shuttle ended that
ability,.

so how long do you believe ISS will remain operation? 2 years? 5 years? 20
years?

by now ISS should of been deorbited years ago


Hmm. I guess that BEAM that was just deployed is a myth.
And I guess the Russian modules are a myth.

Sorry, this is BS.

The reason we haven't replaced modules is because a) we haven't had a need
and b) because given the LAYOUT of the station, it would be fairly
problematic.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...

theres no current ability to replace modules. the shuttle ended that ability,.

Bull****! Cygnus, without the pressurized module and some extra fuel
and oxidizer tanks, would make a fine tug (just like Russia has done
with the Progress propulsion module for delivering smaller modules to
ISS and the TKS tug before it for both Mir and ISS). Launch the new
module along with the Cygnus tug on a Delta IV Heavy, or if you want to
save money and can wait until it's flying, a Falcon Heavy. If Russia
can launch modules this way, so can the US. It's not that hard!

so how long do you believe ISS will remain operation? 2 years?
5 years? 20 years?

In 2014, ISS got a program extension until 2024, so no earlier than
that. So, 8 years from now is the lower limit.

From the ISS Wikipedia page:

The report presents a statement from an unnamed Russian engineer
who believes that, based on the experience from Mir, a thirty-year
life should be possible, except for micrometeorite damage, because
the Russian modules have been built with on-orbit refurbishment
in mind.

Note that the first ISS module, Zarya, was launched on November 20,
1998. So upper limit of perhaps 2028, which is 12 years from now.

So 8 to 12 years, give or take, based on continued funding (that's the
2024 date) and continuing experience with how the modules and systems
are aging (that's the 2028 date).

by now ISS should of been deorbited years ago

According to initial plans, yes. But plans change! Especially because
SLS/Orion is lumbering along so damn slowly. With nothing else to
actually f-ing do in space, deorbiting ISS would end the American
presence in space for years to come. That would be a stupid move.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.