Monitoring ISS Air-to-Ground

(bob haller) wrote:

Maybe because they investigated and determined it wasn't an issue?


Then why schedule the area for inspection at all?

Normal prudence. Having found no other evidence, it makes sense to
inspect the area so long as you are outside anyway, while it didn't
make sense to take the risk of a special trip. (As Jorge pointed out,
the pressure hull isn't actually visible from the outside, so taking a
look was unlikely to yield useful information.)

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

Derek Lyons wrote:
make sense to take the risk of a special trip. (As Jorge pointed out,
the pressure hull isn't actually visible from the outside, so taking a
look was unlikely to yield useful information.)

If you are concerned about debris hit, then taking a look from the outside
will yield valuable information because if the outside blankets/shields are
damaged, then you may want to consider your options since some debris is
likely stuck inside.

Personally, if this were to happen, I think that extracting the shielding and
putting in new one for that area might be useful since not only would you fix
the "dent", but you could also bring back the damaged shield components for
study of "real life" performance of the various layers.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


And exactly how do you investigate something when you have no leads,
no evidence, no indications?

Well first a directy visual inspection is in order. When something
unexplained
occurs do you??

A wait for a disaster or

B investigate all likely possibilties?

That's the problem, without any other information, you can't determine WHAT
IS LIKELY!

EXCUSE ME theres that unknown noise! That audio evidence of SOMETHING not
right.

No, it's simply evidence that something happened that we don't know about.




How hard is this to understand?

D.

OBVIOUSLY VERY HARD FOR YOU!

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

A direct visual inspection of what? Remember we have no idea
currently what caused the sound.

No they should be looking at the outside, and recording all sounds in the
area
in case it reoccurs, which it did.


Ah, I see. We have no evidence that it has anything to do with the
"outside" and yet you're willing to the increased risk of an EVA?



Big problems almost invariably leave a trace of their existence. The
sound didn't.

WHEN will the trace evidence be in? As long as its not a show stopper
thats ok.

Hey foam loss isnt a problem since it hasnt caused one yet

Hey the noise isnt a problem since it hasnt caused one yet/

Hey the o ring burn thru isnt a problem since it hasnt caused one yet

Thank you for completely proving Derek's point.

The o-ring problem LEFT evidence. There was an increasing database of
evidence that something was wrong.

The fact that it wasn't investigated and something done obviously was a
problem.

On the other hand, so far there's no additional evidence besides, "I heard
something."



Hey this is my opinion

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

In other words, they should look outside for utterly no reason
whatsoever.

D.

Ahh you dont get it, and I am wasting my time. The unknown noise is the
reason.

No Bob, you're missing.

Let me put words into Derek's mouth.

Let's assume that NORAD had been tracking a wrench dropped my some Mir
mission and noted it was going to violate ISS's box. But before they could
warn NASA, they lost track of it. Then a BANG happens.

When Norad tries tracking the wrench again, now they're picking up multiple
objects?

Now, I now I'd agree and probably Derek would to, that you've got pretty
good reasons for wanting to take a look.

No contrast this with an astronaut pushing away from his work area and
idlely hitting a wrench and not realizing it. What's worse, he's got good
aim and it goes straight throught hatch in the module he's in. It drifts
down into the next module with some decent velocity and hits the "floor"
making a nice metalic "bang" and then bounces off into another direction.

Should we now do an EVA?

Well how about the lives lost in various countries as the pieces
deorboted?
Here we have the photo of NY city. This one rivals the destruction of 9-11

Oh yeah right. Get over it.



Yes sir I am well familiar with that.

===============================
Derek, if such the unthinkable occured do you believe nasa as a agency
would
survive?

Yes

Would manned space survive?


Yes.

But s.s.s. would never survive your crowing afterwards.

===============================

Nasa and russia has a responsiblity to everyone on earth to operate that
station as safely as possible. Since it could do damage to anyone in its
ground
track.


Yeah call me chicken little, many did BEFORE coulumbia



Hey this is my opinion

John Doe wrote in :

Derek Lyons wrote:
make sense to take the risk of a special trip. (As Jorge pointed
out, the pressure hull isn't actually visible from the outside, so
taking a look was unlikely to yield useful information.)

If you are concerned about debris hit, then taking a look from the
outside will yield valuable information because if the outside
blankets/shields are damaged, then you may want to consider your
options since some debris is likely stuck inside.

A debris strike was considered one possible cause after the first incidence
of noise. After the second, it is not considered highly credible. The odds
of two debris strikes in the same area of the hull are pretty astronomical.

--
JRF

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

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
A debris strike was considered one possible cause after the first incidence
of noise. After the second, it is not considered highly credible. The odds
of two debris strikes in the same area of the hull are pretty astronomical.

But don't "astronomical odds" become really big odds once your are up in the
sky ????

:-) :-)

That doesn't remove the fact that being able to survey the outside of the
station at "regular" intervals would be useful to motitor the station's health
and potentially spot small problems that had not been noticed.

John Doe wrote in :

That doesn't remove the fact that being able to survey the outside of
the station at "regular" intervals would be useful to motitor the
station's health and potentially spot small problems that had not been
noticed.

No doubt. But there's no realistic way to gain that capability prior to
shuttle return-to-flight, at least for the Russian segment.


--
JRF

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

Noted that again you desire the appearance of safety, not actual safety.


Ahh the problem is that this mirrorsclosely the dont bother taking pictures of
columbia on its final mission.

Kinda a dont look policy.

I HOPE AND PRAY nothing bad happens! But imagine nasa tryng to explain a day
from now a dead crew and out of control station with no possiblity of repair,
and patrts going to be deorbiting randomly across the globe....

NO MATTER WHAT caused the problem the lack of a go take a look will be like the
no photos needed.......

Lets hope we dont find out.
Hey this is my opinion

(bob haller) wrote:

Noted that again you desire the appearance of safety, not actual safety.


Ahh the problem is that this mirrorsclosely the dont bother taking pictures of
columbia on its final mission.

Ahh... The problem is any problems with pressure hull would not be
visible, quite unlike the problems with Columbia. (Making the
generous assumption that the RCC damage would have been visible, which
is *not* a given.)

Kinda a dont look policy.

Kinda like your 'ignore the facts and repeat myself endlessly' policy?

NO MATTER WHAT caused the problem the lack of a go take a look will be like the
no photos needed.......

Only in your drug addled fantasy world.

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