|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007]
"George" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message I would imagine the problem is mounting it to the cargo bay - it requires a unique handling fixture, which takes up volume and mass on the uphill run. Volume and mass to and from the ISS are at an *extreme* premium over the next few years. So what is more important, volume and mass issues, or concerns that throwing this object overboard will result in catastrophe? Apparently the former. Given that it has been shown that the fears of catastrophe are somewhat over stated, all I can say is 'duh'. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007]
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "George" wrote: "Derek Lyons" wrote in message I would imagine the problem is mounting it to the cargo bay - it requires a unique handling fixture, which takes up volume and mass on the uphill run. Volume and mass to and from the ISS are at an *extreme* premium over the next few years. So what is more important, volume and mass issues, or concerns that throwing this object overboard will result in catastrophe? Apparently the former. Given that it has been shown that the fears of catastrophe are somewhat over stated, all I can say is 'duh'. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL Only somewhat? Considering our investment here, and the lives involved, why put it at risk at all? George |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007]
Derek Lyons wrote:
I would imagine the problem is mounting it to the cargo bay - it requires a unique handling fixture, which takes up volume and mass on the uphill run. When shipping stuff to the station, you need very efficient mounting fixtures that can be released easily while in space (and in many cases, requires automated released from the cabin so the arm can pick it up and transport it without requiring EVA). However, to return stuff to earth, couldn't they use industrial straps (either metal or fabric) to strap the module in place ? Heck, industrial tie-wraps. The folks back on the ground can then use whatever heavy tools to cut those loose. You might need a couple of support beams , but those could be deployed over whatever hardware that was used to carry the upmass. (with the beams stowed on the side during the trip up). I think that this is an exercise in proving that the shuttle isn't needed, to demonstrate that they can jettison large bulky items. Just imagine what happens the day one such item doesn't totally disintegrate and falls into someone's farm/backyard. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007]
John Doe wrote: [...] I think that this is an exercise in proving that the shuttle isn't needed, to demonstrate that they can jettison large bulky items. Mr. Oberg clearly makes that point, as there will be assemblies discarded after the Shuttle gets parked-for-display. /dps |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007]
Another thing, news says a Cosmos spacecraft was deliberately destroyed in
orbit recently.. why? Surely if they had deorbited it it would have burned up, Now presumably, there is a cloud of debris. Are you talking about this one? http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061120/55824706.html If so, the rumor seems to be of a deorbit, not destruction in-orbit. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007]
"George" wrote in news:aHH8h.4418$k6.3115
@bignews8.bellsouth.net: "Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "George" wrote: "Derek Lyons" wrote in message I would imagine the problem is mounting it to the cargo bay - it requires a unique handling fixture, which takes up volume and mass on the uphill run. Volume and mass to and from the ISS are at an *extreme* premium over the next few years. So what is more important, volume and mass issues, or concerns that throwing this object overboard will result in catastrophe? Apparently the former. Apparently. Chris Bennetts covered the issues with manifesting a payload carrier in his post. There's no easy way to add one to a flight before STS- 120, when the EAS *must* be moved. Given that it has been shown that the fears of catastrophe are somewhat over stated, all I can say is 'duh'. Only somewhat? Considering our investment here, and the lives involved, why put it at risk at all? There is risk either way, if you're foolish enough to insist on returning EAS strapped into the payload bay without a proper payload carrier. Its tanks are full of anhydrous ammonia, which is fairly toxic. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007]
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ... "George" wrote in news:aHH8h.4418$k6.3115 @bignews8.bellsouth.net: "Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "George" wrote: "Derek Lyons" wrote in message I would imagine the problem is mounting it to the cargo bay - it requires a unique handling fixture, which takes up volume and mass on the uphill run. Volume and mass to and from the ISS are at an *extreme* premium over the next few years. So what is more important, volume and mass issues, or concerns that throwing this object overboard will result in catastrophe? Apparently the former. Apparently. Chris Bennetts covered the issues with manifesting a payload carrier in his post. There's no easy way to add one to a flight before STS- 120, when the EAS *must* be moved. Given that it has been shown that the fears of catastrophe are somewhat over stated, all I can say is 'duh'. Only somewhat? Considering our investment here, and the lives involved, why put it at risk at all? There is risk either way, if you're foolish enough to insist on returning EAS strapped into the payload bay without a proper payload carrier. Its tanks are full of anhydrous ammonia, which is fairly toxic. -- JRF If you'll review what I've said here, you'll note that I never said anything about the details of how it should be done. As for the toxic substances, there are lots of things on the shuttle that are toxic, the OMS propellant, for instance, which is monomethyl hydrazine. George |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007]
"George" wrote in
: If you'll review what I've said here, you'll note that I never said anything about the details of how it should be done. Understood. I'm just pointing out that there are only two ways to do it, one of which (a proper payload carrier) is probably not logistically feasible, the other (strapping EAS in the payload bay) merely shifts the risk from ISS to the shuttle and its post-landing crew. As for the toxic substances, there are lots of things on the shuttle that are toxic, the OMS propellant, for instance, which is monomethyl hydrazine. Yes, and you'll notice that all such tanks containing toxic substances are very well bolted in, not merely strapped down in the payload bay. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007]
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ... "George" wrote in : If you'll review what I've said here, you'll note that I never said anything about the details of how it should be done. Understood. I'm just pointing out that there are only two ways to do it, one of which (a proper payload carrier) is probably not logistically feasible, the other (strapping EAS in the payload bay) merely shifts the risk from ISS to the shuttle and its post-landing crew. Why can't they use the one they used to get it there in the first place? As for risks to the post-landing crew, I'm sure they are well-trained in handling toxic substances (Level A - FESCBA protection would be the way to go). If not, there's a problem with their ground crew that should be remedied. As for the toxic substances, there are lots of things on the shuttle that are toxic, the OMS propellant, for instance, which is monomethyl hydrazine. Yes, and you'll notice that all such tanks containing toxic substances are very well bolted in, not merely strapped down in the payload bay. But then, I never said anything about using straps. George |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007]
"George" wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ... "George" wrote in : If you'll review what I've said here, you'll note that I never said anything about the details of how it should be done. No, you handwave vague horrors and accusations. Understood. I'm just pointing out that there are only two ways to do it, one of which (a proper payload carrier) is probably not logistically feasible, the other (strapping EAS in the payload bay) merely shifts the risk from ISS to the shuttle and its post-landing crew. Why can't they use the one they used to get it there in the first place? You've already been told that, but choose to ignore it. As for risks to the post-landing crew, I'm sure they are well-trained in handling toxic substances (Level A - FESCBA protection would be the way to go). If not, there's a problem with their ground crew that should be remedied. More handwaving, vague horrors, and accusations. As for the toxic substances, there are lots of things on the shuttle that are toxic, the OMS propellant, for instance, which is monomethyl hydrazine. Yes, and you'll notice that all such tanks containing toxic substances are very well bolted in, not merely strapped down in the payload bay. But then, I never said anything about using straps. You keep suggesting merely loading, without even attempting to understand what is involved, which amounts to the same thing. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007] | Jim Oberg | Space Shuttle | 85 | December 15th 06 08:47 AM |
Jettisoned space junk -- how big? | Jim Oberg | Space Station | 48 | June 29th 06 06:56 PM |
Jettisoned space junk -- how big? | Jim Oberg | History | 59 | June 29th 06 06:56 PM |
Space Shuttle internet interest reaches new heights | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 18th 05 04:12 AM |
Space Shuttle internet interest reaches new heights | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | August 18th 05 04:12 AM |