|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Safe Haven?
The NASA Return to Flight report mentions that ISS should have some
sort of safe haven that would allow a Shuttle crew to survive at ISS for 84 days. However, if this is a requirement, how will the station office meet this requirement? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Safe Haven?
Explorer8939 wrote:
The NASA Return to Flight report mentions that ISS should have some sort of safe haven that would allow a Shuttle crew to survive at ISS for 84 days. However, if this is a requirement, how will the station office meet this requirement? Start by keeping a greater amount of consumables at the station, which, safe-haven or not, would probably have been done in case the Shuttle is again grounded. Will they modify an MPLM to become permanently attached to station to provide sufficient space for storing the additional inventory of consumables ? They'll probably have to take a serious look at ECLSS, and if the toilet could handle "long term" use by so many people. I'd worry also about the exercise equipment since that seems to have been problematic since the start, and if you'd suddently going to run TVIS 20 hours a day instead of 6, the problems with the threadmill will probably arise real fast. It probably also depends on whether the shuttle remains "turned on" during this period, or if it is partially shutdown in a dormant state. Normally, it is the shuttle which supplements the station's ECLSS during docked operations with a flexible duct piping in fresh air to Destiny from Shuttle. They may want to find a way to do the reverse. Are the air duct connectors part of CBM between Destiny and PMA2 usable in any way to supply the shuttle with fresh air ? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Safe Haven?
Yes, there are many, many technical issues to work out if ISS is to
provide a safe haven one day for a stricken Shuttle - as is described in the Return to flight plan. My point, however, is whether or not the ISS Program Office is actually working any of these issues. We may instead have the Shuttle people planning on a safe haven, and the ISS office not at all. JOhn Doe wrote in message ... Explorer8939 wrote: The NASA Return to Flight report mentions that ISS should have some sort of safe haven that would allow a Shuttle crew to survive at ISS for 84 days. However, if this is a requirement, how will the station office meet this requirement? Start by keeping a greater amount of consumables at the station, which, safe-haven or not, would probably have been done in case the Shuttle is again grounded. Will they modify an MPLM to become permanently attached to station to provide sufficient space for storing the additional inventory of consumables ? They'll probably have to take a serious look at ECLSS, and if the toilet could handle "long term" use by so many people. I'd worry also about the exercise equipment since that seems to have been problematic since the start, and if you'd suddently going to run TVIS 20 hours a day instead of 6, the problems with the threadmill will probably arise real fast. It probably also depends on whether the shuttle remains "turned on" during this period, or if it is partially shutdown in a dormant state. Normally, it is the shuttle which supplements the station's ECLSS during docked operations with a flexible duct piping in fresh air to Destiny from Shuttle. They may want to find a way to do the reverse. Are the air duct connectors part of CBM between Destiny and PMA2 usable in any way to supply the shuttle with fresh air ? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Safe Haven?
Explorer8939 wrote:
in the Return to flight plan. My point, however, is whether or not the ISS Program Office is actually working any of these issues. Whether the shuttle stays powered on or not during the 80+ days doesn't change the requirement that there be enough consumables to support 7 people for that amount of time. For ISS flights, there is not much point in hauling such supplies with every launch, reducing payload. So it makes sense to store those consumables on the ISS and have them part of normal consumables for ISS crews. (And would act as a bigger buffer should the shuttle get grounded again). For the shuttle, the question becomes how much of it stays powered on. Is it OK to operate the shuttle toilet for 7 people for 80 days dumping waste in the very near vicinity of station ? Would they use the shuttle's CO2 removal capability for that duration, or rely on the station's systems ? If they use the shuttle's, would they store non-renewable filters on station, or would they design shuttle filters that are compatible with ther equipment in Quest used to renew the EVA filters ? Another issue to consider is whether, during normal times, the 3 ISS crew members would cycle through the consumables before their expiry period, or whether storing enough for 7 people/80 days would result in spoilt consumables having to be disposed of and replaced. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Safe Haven?
Whether the shuttle stays powered on or not during the 80+ days doesn't change the requirement that there be enough consumables to support 7 Beyond which one requirement should be the shuttle isnt available at all. This might cover a emergency when its been evacuated and detached and sent on a one way trip to the ocean, like MIR. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Safe Haven?
There are many, many technical details to be worked out before ISS
could host a stricken shuttle's crew for 80+ days. However, my question isn't about the techno-weenie problems, but rather, why the heck the Space Shuttle program has levied a requirement on the ISS program office, and is the ISSPO actually working on this new requirement? There IS an official ISSPO response to the CAIB, and in that report, there is no mention of the ISS safe haven concept. John Doe wrote in message ... Explorer8939 wrote: in the Return to flight plan. My point, however, is whether or not the ISS Program Office is actually working any of these issues. Whether the shuttle stays powered on or not during the 80+ days doesn't change the requirement that there be enough consumables to support 7 people for that amount of time. For ISS flights, there is not much point in hauling such supplies with every launch, reducing payload. So it makes sense to store those consumables on the ISS and have them part of normal consumables for ISS crews. (And would act as a bigger buffer should the shuttle get grounded again). For the shuttle, the question becomes how much of it stays powered on. Is it OK to operate the shuttle toilet for 7 people for 80 days dumping waste in the very near vicinity of station ? Would they use the shuttle's CO2 removal capability for that duration, or rely on the station's systems ? If they use the shuttle's, would they store non-renewable filters on station, or would they design shuttle filters that are compatible with ther equipment in Quest used to renew the EVA filters ? Another issue to consider is whether, during normal times, the 3 ISS crew members would cycle through the consumables before their expiry period, or whether storing enough for 7 people/80 days would result in spoilt consumables having to be disposed of and replaced. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Safe Haven?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Safe Haven?
Thanks for the new name. However, my question remains: is this an
ISSPO requirement, and if so, why wasn't it included in the ISSPO response to the CAIB report? "Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ... (Al Jackson) wrote in om: (Explorer8939) wrote in message . com... The NASA Return to Flight report mentions that ISS should have some sort of safe haven that would allow a Shuttle crew to survive at ISS for 84 days. However, if this is a requirement, how will the station office meet this requirement? Actually it is still in the loop. "ISS Safe Haven" has been renamed "ISS Contingency Shuttle Crew Support (CSCS). Right. It was renamed CSCS to avoid confusion with an earlier, unrelated "Safe Haven" analysis (on the ability of ISS to support a crew of six with only one Soyuz). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Safe Haven?
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AIAA: "SAFE LAUNCHES FOR CEV" | rk | Space Shuttle | 1 | June 20th 04 06:44 PM |
No safe haven at Hubble.... | Blurrt | Space Shuttle | 20 | May 10th 04 06:37 PM |
Of all the ways that a shuttle mission can go wrong... | JazzMan | Space Shuttle | 4 | March 13th 04 06:01 PM |
Don't Desert Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 54 | March 5th 04 05:38 PM |
Columbia Investigators Fire Foam Insulation at Shuttle Wing, Blowing Open 2-Foot Hole; The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit. | Jay | Space Shuttle | 32 | July 12th 03 02:41 AM |