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

Monitoring ISS Air-to-Ground



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #42  
Old April 12th 04, 10:22 AM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Monitoring ISS Air-to-Ground

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Actually, under the original assembly sequence, the Russians/Europeans
would have provided the SPP and ERA by now.


But it would still be very usefull to have a full function arm being able to
roam onto their modules. Consider how such an arm woudl have helped ahen the
progress banged into Mir when they tried and tried to find out what had
happened and what sort of damage (and where) had occured.

Having the foresight to say that Russia would fail to provide the SPP would
probably offend the Russians. They'd probably charge extra for the
privilege of installing the grapple fixtures on their hardware.


However, since the arm is provided by Canada, couldn't Canada had simply
offered to provide the grapple fixtures for all initial modules (including
the russian ones) ? It would probably have been to Canada advantage to deal
more on a peer to peer with USA and Russia instead of appearing as a
subcontractor of the USA.

There may have been many reasons for the USA (and Russia) to limit the
mingling of systems between russia and USA segments since some isolation is
good in order to preserve redundancy for life critical systems.

But for something like the arm, while it is fair to base it on a single
segment's computer/telecom infrastructure, there is really no
disadvantage/danger of allowing the arm to travel on either segments sice it
is not a life critical system (like ECLSS or electrical power are).
  #43  
Old April 12th 04, 12:05 PM
bob haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Monitoring ISS Air-to-Ground


No. That the noise *is* skin buckling is the only possibility you
have mentioned, without being able to actually provide any evidence of
the same.

D.
--


It came from a news artice that sunlight might be reflecting off a solar panel
overheating the skin and causing the noise.

In any case I say again the dont worry about it management safety motto has got
to go. The next noise might be the last we ever hear from ISS.

If something bad happens nasa has to at least appear to have been pro active
following up possibilties. NOT waiting till july to investigate the outside...
Hey this is my opinion
  #44  
Old April 12th 04, 02:31 PM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Monitoring ISS Air-to-Ground

John Doe wrote in :

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Actually, under the original assembly sequence, the
Russians/Europeans would have provided the SPP and ERA by now.


But it would still be very usefull to have a full function arm being
able to roam onto their modules.


You mean the ERA *isn't* a full-function arm? I'm shocked! I thought the
ERA would be able to roam the entire Russian segment, using grapple
fixtures located throughout the Russian segment (see TD9702, p. 8-11,12).

Having the foresight to say that Russia would fail to provide the SPP
would probably offend the Russians. They'd probably charge extra for
the privilege of installing the grapple fixtures on their hardware.


However, since the arm is provided by Canada, couldn't Canada had
simply offered to provide the grapple fixtures for all initial modules
(including the russian ones) ?


Russia still would probably have charged Canada for the privilege of
putting grapple fixtures on their modules.

But for something like the arm, while it is fair to base it on a
single segment's computer/telecom infrastructure, there is really no
disadvantage/danger of allowing the arm to travel on either segments
sice it is not a life critical system (like ECLSS or electrical power
are).


Aren't you forgetting that the SPP was to have an SSRMS grapple fixture,
which would have allowed the SSRMS to reach the aft end of the Russian
segment? The problem here is not lack of foresight, it's the Russians'
inability to deliver the SPP.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #46  
Old April 12th 04, 03:48 PM
bob haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Monitoring ISS Air-to-Ground


Bob, you *are* aware that the outer skin is just a debris shield, separated
from the pressure hull by a layer of aluminum honeycomb, a few cm of
vacuum, *another* layer of carbon-plastic honeycomb, a few *more* cm of
vacuum, *then* the pressure hull?

--
JRF


YES BUT, if nasa was originally concerned about the hull why did it suddenly
become a non issue? plus we were supposed to look then couldnt for good
reasons. but the delay till july? if something bad happens that will appear
careless

Hey this is my opinion
  #49  
Old April 12th 04, 05:37 PM
bob haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Monitoring ISS Air-to-Ground


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

D.


Then why schedule the area for inspection at all?
Hey this is my opinion
 




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
System to monitor heat panels could safeguard future spacecraft (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Space Shuttle 0 July 15th 04 06:14 PM
ISS On-Orbit Status, 20-02-2004 Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 February 21st 04 03:59 PM
ISS On-Orbit Status, 11-01-2004 Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 January 12th 04 11:35 AM
Pressure monitoring in station BigSkier Space Station 2 December 1st 03 05:19 PM
WashPost: “Space Station Mission Opposed” James Oberg Space Station 3 October 23rd 03 01:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 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.