Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007]

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"George" wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"George" wrote in
:

If you'll review what I've said here, you'll note that I never said
anything about the details of how it should be done.

No, you handwave vague horrors and accusations.

I don't think the risk of something striking the ISS is vague. I think it
is very real, and should not be taken lightly. As for accusations, perhaps
you can elaborate on exactly who I've accused of what.

Understood. I'm just pointing out that there are only two ways to do
it,
one of which (a proper payload carrier) is probably not logistically
feasible, the other (strapping EAS in the payload bay) merely shifts
the
risk from ISS to the shuttle and its post-landing crew.

Why can't they use the one they used to get it there in the first place?

You've already been told that, but choose to ignore it.

As for risks to the post-landing crew, I'm sure they are well-trained in
handling toxic substances (Level A - FESCBA protection would be the way
to
go). If not, there's a problem with their ground crew that should be
remedied.

More handwaving, vague horrors, and accusations.

Get over yourself, Derek.

As for the toxic
substances, there are lots of things on the shuttle that are toxic,
the OMS propellant, for instance, which is monomethyl hydrazine.

Yes, and you'll notice that all such tanks containing toxic substances
are very well bolted in, not merely strapped down in the payload bay.

But then, I never said anything about using straps.

You keep suggesting merely loading, without even attempting to
understand what is involved, which amounts to the same thing.

I understand that it involves mounting it to a cargo pallet, which might
not be feasible since there is already other ISS cargo planned for the
needed space. So what? Figure it out. What are we paying these engineers
such over-priced salaries for, anyway, if not to troubleshoot and come up
with answers? I think tossing it overboard is the wrong answer, but that
is just my opinion.

George

Jim Oberg wrote:
It's also dense. It is, in fact, denser than the space station

Maybe a good solution for this type of problem is to devise an
attachment which would make a jettisoned object less dense.
Essentially a "space parachute" that would be strapped on and deployed
once the object was clear of the station. One efficient design would
be an inflatable balloon.

Hmm, looks like this idea was patented two years ago:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6830222.html

none will have the down-cargo capacity of the Columbia-class winged orbiters

"Columbia-class"; nice wording Mr Oberg. I like it!

George wrote:

I don't think the risk of something striking the ISS is vague. I
think it is very real, and should not be taken lightly.

You complain about that risk, but you don't consider the risk of the
alternative. You have to pick one.

I understand that it involves mounting it to a cargo pallet, which
might not be feasible since there is already other ISS cargo planned
for the needed space. So what? Figure it out.

They did. Throwing it away is the only sensible answer.

What are we paying these engineers such over-priced salaries for,
anyway, if not to troubleshoot and come up with answers? I think
tossing it overboard is the wrong answer, but that is just my
opinion.

Consider this: the only way to return the EAS to Earth on the shuttle
would be to manifest another logistics mission with an ICC in the
payload bay. That would add the risk of an extra shuttle mission,
including launch and re-entry risks.

Is the risk of pushing the EAS away from the space station greater than
the risk of an extra shuttle mission to return it?

--Chris

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:44:44 +1100, Chris Bennetts
wrote:

I understand that it involves mounting it to a cargo pallet, which
might not be feasible since there is already other ISS cargo planned
for the needed space. So what? Figure it out.

They did. Throwing it away is the only sensible answer.

Is the risk of pushing the EAS away from the space station greater than
the risk of an extra shuttle mission to return it?

Another poster briefly suggested relocating EAS to somewhere else on
ISS until such time as a Shuttle mission can accomodate its return.
Why is this not an option? It's getting to be a damned big Truss up
there, there isn't a vacant spot they can bolt the thing to for a year
or so?

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

Another poster briefly suggested relocating EAS to somewhere else on
ISS until such time as a Shuttle mission can accomodate its return.
Why is this not an option? It's getting to be a damned big Truss up
there, there isn't a vacant spot they can bolt the thing to for a year
or so?


Certainly a possibility. Stowing it on an ESP (External Stowage
Platform) somewhere would be the most likely option.

--Chris

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:44:44 +1100, Chris Bennetts
wrote:

I understand that it involves mounting it to a cargo pallet, which
might not be feasible since there is already other ISS cargo planned
for the needed space. So what? Figure it out.

They did. Throwing it away is the only sensible answer.

Is the risk of pushing the EAS away from the space station greater than
the risk of an extra shuttle mission to return it?

Another poster briefly suggested relocating EAS to somewhere else on
ISS until such time as a Shuttle mission can accomodate its return.
Why is this not an option?

Because there will never be a time when another mission can accomdate
it's return. This has been posted several times now.

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

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

"George" wrote:

I understand that it involves mounting it to a cargo pallet, which might
not be feasible since there is already other ISS cargo planned for the
needed space. So what? Figure it out. What are we paying these engineers
such over-priced salaries for, anyway, if not to troubleshoot and come up
with answers? I think tossing it overboard is the wrong answer, but that
is just my opinion.

Ah yes - *you* think it's the wrong answer, but when told that your
answer won't work... You simply ignore that answer because you don't
like it and fails to coincide with your preconcieved notions.

Here's a clue for you: You are entitled to answers (and you've
already got them in spades), you are not however entitled to answers
that you agree with.

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

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

Why can't the early ammonia servicer not be left on P6 ?

Once P6 is removed from Z1, couldn't it permanently be strapped to Z1 ?
Surely there is room there ?

Also, are there any plans to transfer the ammonia in EAS to the new ammonia
system to reduce the amount of nasty stuff being returned to earth and give
the station more spare ammonia ? They could then reduce the amount of
ammonia needed to be shipped up to the station in the remaining truss
segments, freeing valuable upmass capacity.

"Chris Bennetts" wrote in message
...
George wrote:

I don't think the risk of something striking the ISS is vague. I
think it is very real, and should not be taken lightly.

You complain about that risk, but you don't consider the risk of the
alternative. You have to pick one.

I understand that it involves mounting it to a cargo pallet, which
might not be feasible since there is already other ISS cargo planned
for the needed space. So what? Figure it out.

They did. Throwing it away is the only sensible answer.

Must be wonderful to have the money to spend on multi-million dollar
equipment only to throw it out the back door with the styrofoam coffee
cups. No wonder space exploration is so expensive.

What are we paying these engineers such over-priced salaries for,
anyway, if not to troubleshoot and come up with answers? I think
tossing it overboard is the wrong answer, but that is just my
opinion.

Consider this: the only way to return the EAS to Earth on the shuttle
would be to manifest another logistics mission with an ICC in the payload
bay. That would add the risk of an extra shuttle mission, including
launch and re-entry risks.

Is the risk of pushing the EAS away from the space station greater than
the risk of an extra shuttle mission to return it?

--Chris

Do we really know that it would take an extra shuttle mission to get the
job done? If they are taking cargo to the ISS, why can't they return cargo
back once the cargo they brought up is dropped off? It seems to me that
they could construct a modification to one of the cargo pallets that is
already planned to be used that would allow them to attach the EAS to it
and then bring it back to earth.

George

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"George" wrote:

I understand that it involves mounting it to a cargo pallet, which might
not be feasible since there is already other ISS cargo planned for the
needed space. So what? Figure it out. What are we paying these
engineers
such over-priced salaries for, anyway, if not to troubleshoot and come up
with answers? I think tossing it overboard is the wrong answer, but that
is just my opinion.

Ah yes - *you* think it's the wrong answer, but when told that your
answer won't work... You simply ignore that answer because you don't
like it and fails to coincide with your preconcieved notions.

Here's a clue for you: You are entitled to answers (and you've
already got them in spades), you are not however entitled to answers
that you agree with.

D.

Is that a fact? Well, who died and put you in charge?

George