A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

MSNBC: "Space station mission opposed"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 24th 03, 09:39 PM
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC: "Space station mission opposed"

In article ,
wrote:
The least they could have done was send canaries.


Perhaps that is why they sent the Spaniard! :-)

Nick


  #22  
Old October 25th 03, 05:44 AM
Kevin Willoughby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC: "Space station mission opposed"

In article ,
says...
Consider Apollo 13 (basing myself on the movie, assuming that particular
passage is not too inacurate). Did the removal of all the sen[s]ors from the
astronauts's bodies in any way jeoperdize their lives ?


hmmm... a related question: did the lack of bio-med data interfere with
the ability of the folks in Houston to diagnose and treat the bladder
infection?

As I understand it, Haise's infection was not known to the Flight
Surgeon. It it had been known, the confusion about urine dumps could
have been resolved.


(And I have to ask, if those sensors were still active, at a time where there
was an urgent need to conserve any power, didn't leaving those sensors on
actually jeoperdize their life by reducing the chances they would make it to
earth ?)


Engineers learn to make trade-offs. Is it better to improve A if B is
denigrated or vice-versa?

Frex: In Apollo 13, there was a deliberate decision to retain the
useless SM. Jettisoning it would have allowed the LM's limited rockets
to bring the crew home quicker (a good thing) but would have exposed the
CM heat shield to non-understood the cold of deep space (a bad thing).
So what do you do? Bring it home sooner and risk a heat shield failure?
Protect the heat shield and risk running out of consumables? You have to
make the trade-off and hope/pray.


Consider the air you breathe when you walk in manhattan, or what you breathen
in crowded subways/trains. People survive this. NASA seems to underestimate
the human body's capabilities.


Conversely, there is now some serious debate about the health effects of
breathing in Manhattan during the latter half of September, 2001. Did
the debris of the World Trade Center disaster result in unhealthy air?
The debate is in progress...
--
Kevin Willoughby
oSpam

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins
  #24  
Old October 25th 03, 06:03 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC: "Space station mission opposed"

I do not wish to pursue this unfortunate discussion further, or have any
more "Fawlty Towers" flashbacks. Just drop it before it's too late.

JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX
****************
* JOKE *
****************
* SERIOUS *
****************
* SARCASTIC *
****************
* OTHER? *
****************


"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
The least they could have done was send canaries.


Perhaps that is why they sent the Spaniard! :-)

Nick




  #25  
Old October 25th 03, 06:14 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC: "Space station mission opposed"

Great---now it's "Princess Bride" flashbacks.

But seriously, if these problems were just an isolated bit of teething
trouble in adapting to the new circumstances, maybe it could be treated as a
wait-and-see set of inconveniences. But it's apparently a progressive
deterioration of ISS hardware due to lack of sufficient cargo capability to
maintain the station and replace broken equipment. What else is past due
for maintenance or replacement, ready to break down at any moment? And
that's not all---

Does anybody remember when the station unexpectedly lost it's entire
quadruply-redundant computer system (what was it? Conflicts with partially
tested robot arm software?) I've personally seen EVA support hardware for
the US airlock that wouldn't make the shelf at Wal-Mart (a popular US
department store chain, in case that doesn't translate). I'm sure there are
many more examples of hacked-together, fix-it-when-we-get-to-orbit
workmanship, but it's already past my bedtime. And that was when ISS was
well-supplied and in its "prime", with regular shuttle flights. How long is
it going to take for the ISS to simply run out of luck?

JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX
****************
* JOKE *
****************
* SERIOUS *
****************
* SARCASTIC *
****************
* OTHER? *
****************


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

Once again, it's clear that NASA can't buy a clue:


Not even remotely.
---clip---



  #26  
Old October 25th 03, 06:33 PM
TKalbfus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC: "Space station mission opposed"

Smell fatigues very quickly, but the space station is not that small a
volume. If one module stinks every time they enter it, there is a problem
in that module. But the fatigue goes away when they are in a different
module.


The thing to do about stink is to let the air out of the module and it won't
stink anymore. Astronauts will be in spacesuits of course.

Tom
  #27  
Old October 26th 03, 03:43 AM
Sh'maal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC: "Space station mission opposed"

The warnings and objections are real. Note however there was not a NOGO on
the flight, only the increment and the return flight (manifest). The med-ops
folks (CHeCs, TEPC, TVIS, etc) have a low priority on manifest, to obtain a
higher priority their equipment must be declared by them to have a higher
criticality. However when it is declared to have a higher criticality then
it must also pass a more rigorous design review (MTBF analysis, MTTR, etc).
The trade-off is that if the equipment is mission critical then it must be
shown that it will work. A casual examination of the the documentation on
NASA watch shows that the med-ops declared criticality matches the
equipment's operability.


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

Once again, it's clear that NASA can't buy a clue:


Not even remotely.

"However, in what some medical personnel described this week as a

chilling
echo of the decision-making leading up to the Columbia space shuttle
disaster, arguments in favor of scrubbing the latest crew replacement
mission and temporarily shuttering the space station were overruled by
managers concerned with keeping the facility occupied. "


Fascinating how you swallow 'warnings' without the slightest bit of
skepticism.

Are these objections real? Or are the docs crying wolf to cover their
asses in the off chance that something does go wrong?

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.



  #29  
Old October 27th 03, 08:07 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC: "Space station mission opposed"


"Sh'maal" wrote in message
...
A casual examination of the the documentation on
NASA watch shows that the med-ops declared criticality matches the
equipment's operability.


Are the environmental and medical systems in question in this report really
low-criticality, or are they assigned that status as a kind of
under-the-table waiver?

JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX
****************
* JOKE *
****************
* SERIOUS *
****************
* SARCASTIC *
****************
* OTHER? *
****************


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 Space Shuttle 150 July 28th 04 07:30 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
International Space Station Marks Five Years In Orbit Ron Baalke Space Shuttle 2 November 20th 03 04:09 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.