Rubbish crisis?

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Correct. RCO (Remote Controlled Orbiter) is an IFM that must be
installed at ISS.

The shuttle avionics cannot operate at below 8 psi, BTW. For a slow
leak, the orbiter can use its oxygen tanks to "feed the leak" for a
while and maintain 8 psi.

Considering that the RCO cable only weighs around 2.3 kg, is there any
particular reason that the Shuttle should have to pick it up from the
ISS? One can foresee situations where the crew could be debilitated to
the point of not being able to successfully control the reentry and
landing without being dead or fatally injured (onboard fire resulting in
air contamination before docking to the ISS for instance or on the
Hubble repair mission) and the ability to hook the cable up and allow
ground control to land the orbiter without crew intervention at the
earliest possible opportunity could be a life saver.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Correct. RCO (Remote Controlled Orbiter) is an IFM that must be installed
at ISS.

The shuttle avionics cannot operate at below 8 psi, BTW. For a slow leak,
the orbiter can use its oxygen tanks to "feed the leak" for a while and
maintain 8 psi.

Considering that the RCO cable only weighs around 2.3 kg, is there any
particular reason that the Shuttle should have to pick it up from the ISS?
One can foresee situations where the crew could be debilitated to the
point of not being able to successfully control the reentry and landing
without being dead or fatally injured (onboard fire resulting in air
contamination before docking to the ISS for instance or on the Hubble
repair mission) and the ability to hook the cable up and allow ground
control to land the orbiter without crew intervention at the earliest
possible opportunity could be a life saver.

So imagine a scenario where the crew has time to don their ACES and yet not
be able to land the shuttle?



Pat



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
Considering that the RCO cable only weighs around 2.3 kg, is there any
particular reason that the Shuttle should have to pick it up from the ISS?
One can foresee situations where the crew could be debilitated to the
point of not being able to successfully control the reentry and landing
without being dead or fatally injured (onboard fire resulting in air
contamination before docking to the ISS for instance or on the Hubble
repair mission) and the ability to hook the cable up and allow ground
control to land the orbiter without crew intervention at the earliest
possible opportunity could be a life saver.


So imagine a scenario where the crew has time to don their ACES and yet not
be able to land the shuttle?


Probability of that is very small indeed.
But it is _over_ 0.0%.
Considering that that's the case, why not stick something that only
weighs 2.3 kg along on every Shuttle mission?
You don't even have to make multiple copies of it; you can just take the
same cable from the orbiter that just returned and stick it into the one
that's getting ready to go up next.
This sort of logic completly baffles me.
If there's going to be a problem on a Shuttle flight, the very fact that
it occurs is going to make it a unexpected problem, and if it's
unexpected, then how can you define the specifics of it, and what might
be needed to fix it?
Obviously, if the vertical fin falls off on ascent, then you've got a
real problem...and carrying a spare vertical fin back in the cargo bay
and hoping the astronauts can attach it via a EVA on-orbit doesn't make
sense from a weight or probability point of view...but this cable weighs
under six pounds, and if you can't find somewhere in your total lift
payload to squeeze an extra six pounds in, you are cutting it way too
close to the line.
Who thought that duct tape was a really necessary thing to send along on
Apollo 13?
But it was light, and you never knew what might come up, so what the hell?
Maybe the duct tape might help....as indeed it did.


Pat

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Correct. RCO (Remote Controlled Orbiter) is an IFM that must be installed
at ISS.

The shuttle avionics cannot operate at below 8 psi, BTW. For a slow leak,
the orbiter can use its oxygen tanks to "feed the leak" for a while and
maintain 8 psi.
Considering that the RCO cable only weighs around 2.3 kg, is there any
particular reason that the Shuttle should have to pick it up from the ISS?
One can foresee situations where the crew could be debilitated to the
point of not being able to successfully control the reentry and landing
without being dead or fatally injured (onboard fire resulting in air
contamination before docking to the ISS for instance or on the Hubble
repair mission) and the ability to hook the cable up and allow ground
control to land the orbiter without crew intervention at the earliest
possible opportunity could be a life saver.

So imagine a scenario where the crew has time to don their ACES and yet not
be able to land the shuttle?

1) The RCO IFM takes hours to install. It is NOT intended for emergency
situations.
2) Once installed, a piloted landing is not possible (RCO "hotwires"
switches that the crew would need for a piloted landing).

Therefore NASA decided that the RCO IFM would only be performed while
docked to ISS so that the crew could stay behind on the station.
Therefore there was no reason not to leave the cable itself on ISS.

125/400 will have its own RCO cable if the need arises.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

2) Once installed, a piloted landing is not possible (RCO "hotwires"
switches that the crew would need for a piloted landing).

It can't be uninstalled?

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

2) Once installed, a piloted landing is not possible (RCO "hotwires"
switches that the crew would need for a piloted landing).

It can't be uninstalled?

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

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

Upon reflection on the topic, it seems curious to me that the Remote
Control Option is not a part of the Shuttle control system. And that it
could be turned-on from the ground. (I recognize safety issues in this,
and from my pov, they don't veto the idea.)

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Mar 25]

"Martha Adams" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

2) Once installed, a piloted landing is not possible (RCO "hotwires"
switches that the crew would need for a piloted landing).

It can't be uninstalled?

Upon reflection on the topic, it seems curious to me that the Remote
Control Option is not a part of the Shuttle control system. And that it
could be turned-on from the ground. (I recognize safety issues in this,
and from my pov, they don't veto the idea.)

If I had to guess, I'd say it was because adding into the Shuttle as a
permanent option would require some expensive hardware changes and
verification.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

2) Once installed, a piloted landing is not possible (RCO "hotwires"
switches that the crew would need for a piloted landing).

It can't be uninstalled?

Not quickly or easily. The control panels must be unscrewed and pulled
and the RCO cable patched into the appropriate switches from behind.
Once the cable is installed, the panels themselves can't be reinstalled
since the cable is in the way.

It is one or the other, period, and the choice is made while docked to ISS.

Derek Lyons wrote:
"Martha Adams" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

2) Once installed, a piloted landing is not possible (RCO "hotwires"
switches that the crew would need for a piloted landing).
It can't be uninstalled?
Upon reflection on the topic, it seems curious to me that the Remote
Control Option is not a part of the Shuttle control system. And that it
could be turned-on from the ground. (I recognize safety issues in this,
and from my pov, they don't veto the idea.)

If I had to guess, I'd say it was because adding into the Shuttle as a
permanent option would require some expensive hardware changes and
verification.

Yes.

RCO was never intended to be part of the orbiter's control system. It
was intended to be a "cheap" "long-bet" insurance policy, to provide
some hope of recovering the orbiter in the event that TPS damage
requires it to be abandoned.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

2) Once installed, a piloted landing is not possible (RCO "hotwires"
switches that the crew would need for a piloted landing).

It can't be uninstalled?

Not quickly or easily. The control panels must be unscrewed and pulled
and the RCO cable patched into the appropriate switches from behind.
Once the cable is installed, the panels themselves can't be reinstalled
since the cable is in the way.

It is one or the other, period, and the choice is made while docked to ISS.

Which doesn't follow from your first paragraph - just because it
cannot be undone quickly or easily does not mean it cannot be undone.


Though I would not be surprised if there was no procedure for undoing
it because of the low likelihood of need for such a procedure.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL