|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Monitoring ISS Air-to-Ground
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Monitoring ISS Air-to-Ground
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Monitoring ISS Air-to-Ground
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Monitoring ISS Air-to-Ground
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |