A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

'Elektron' repair fails



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old September 18th 04, 06:22 AM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Explorer8939 wrote:
Big laugh. There is no US O2 generator on ISS. There is a CO2 scrubber
in the US Lab but that died after a couple of weeks (it hasn't worked
in ages).


CDRA may not be problem fee, but it is still operational. The way I have
heard, they just minimize its use because it has a low MTBF.

There is an O2 supply in the US Quest airlock, but that apparently is
out of order.


I am not sure of the use of Quest O2 for ECLSS has been implemented or not
(but I suspect it should have been functional by 8A). I do not know it has
ever been used for ECLSS purposes (but I it has been used for EVA ops and has
been refilled once or twice. (not sur for second time).

However, with the shuttle grounded, there is no way to replenish those tanks,
so it is logical that NASA would want to reserve that O2 for EVA ops if O2 is
available from other sources for cabin air.

Basically, US ECLSS suffers from the same fate as a lot of other US
space technology, lots of systems engineering, great viewgraphs, but
the damned thing doesn't work.


The last sentence should be "the damned thing hasn't been debugged yet".
Remember that in many cases, ECLSS systems can't be debugged until they are in
orbit because 0g can't be simulated on ground.
Ads
  #42  
Old September 18th 04, 06:31 AM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek Lyons wrote:
There is considerable difference between heat and the fire that
occurred on MIR.


If materials become too hot in an O2 rich environment, it will burn. If the
chemical reaction is not controlled and happens too quickly, then the O2
candle will become too hot and burn.

So 'effin what? There was never a search to determine clearly what
caused the fire.


And how, may I ask, can you make such a statement ? Were you working for the
russians and directly involved with the russian O2 candle management at the
time it happened ?

That's an assumption utterly unsupported by any evidence. In fact,
what evidence is available indicates that the Russians did no such
thing.


And what evidence do you have to support your assertion ?

The fact that there is now betterc ontrol over expiration dates for candles
indicates that SOME changes were made to O2 candle handling and management.
Did they fix all of the possible causes, I don't know and I suspect you don't know.

The fact that some ISS crewmembers were, at one time, nervous about using
candles that were CLOSE to their expiry dates indicates that there is still
nervousness, but when they were used, they didn't turn into flame throwers.
  #43  
Old September 20th 04, 06:28 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Explorer8939" wrote in message
m...
Basically, US ECLSS suffers from the same fate as a lot of other US
space technology, lots of systems engineering, great viewgraphs, but
the damned thing doesn't work.


I know. I just like to see others pointing this out since Derek is
constantly bashing the Russian ECLSS components that are working, at least
part of the time. The US could potentially do better, but the US track
record is rather poor at the moment. All the US money gets spent before
operational hardware is proven to work.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.



  #44  
Old September 20th 04, 06:30 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Doe" wrote in message ...
Explorer8939 wrote:
Big laugh. There is no US O2 generator on ISS. There is a CO2 scrubber
in the US Lab but that died after a couple of weeks (it hasn't worked
in ages).


CDRA may not be problem fee, but it is still operational. The way I have
heard, they just minimize its use because it has a low MTBF.


Sounds like Elektron, which gets bashed for the same reason. It works, but
seems to break down far more often than anyone would like.

Basically, US ECLSS suffers from the same fate as a lot of other US
space technology, lots of systems engineering, great viewgraphs, but
the damned thing doesn't work.


The last sentence should be "the damned thing hasn't been debugged yet".
Remember that in many cases, ECLSS systems can't be debugged until they

are in
orbit because 0g can't be simulated on ground.


But when you have a system like the US CO2 scrubber not being used because
it breaks down, how can you ever debug and improve the system? It seems
counterintuitive.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.



  #45  
Old September 21st 04, 12:45 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Explorer8939" wrote in message
om...
Basically, US ECLSS suffers from the same fate as a lot of other US
space technology, lots of systems engineering, great viewgraphs, but
the damned thing doesn't work.


I know. I just like to see others pointing this out since Derek is
constantly bashing the Russian ECLSS components that are working, at least
part of the time.


sigh No, I'm not bashing the Russian components. I'm pointing out
that that Russian systems aren't the all perfect all wonderful (all
singing, all dancing) things they are all too often believed to be by
many.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
  #46  
Old September 21st 04, 02:20 AM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek Lyons wrote:
sigh No, I'm not bashing the Russian components. I'm pointing out
that that Russian systems aren't the all perfect all wonderful (all
singing, all dancing) things they are all too often believed to be by
many.


I don't recall anyone ever saying the russians systems were problem free.

But I recall many exagerating the russians problems and making each small
problems looks like the end of the world.
  #47  
Old September 21st 04, 06:55 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Doe wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
sigh No, I'm not bashing the Russian components. I'm pointing out
that that Russian systems aren't the all perfect all wonderful (all
singing, all dancing) things they are all too often believed to be by
many.


I don't recall anyone ever saying the russians systems were problem free.


The you are a drug addled idiot.

Bbo allerH posts on how we should replace all US systems with Russian
ones on a weekly basis, and he's not alone. Nearly every slashdot
discussion on space brings the 'Russian Stuff is Perfect' crowd out of
the woodwork. Google back during the period right after the Soyuz
TMA-1 incident, and notice the vast number of folks trying to downplay
and handwave away the significance of the incident. Google back right
after Columbia, and you see the same thing.

And every damm one of them convinced that Russian hardware is utterly
safe, and utterly proven.

But I recall many exagerating the russians problems and making each small
problems looks like the end of the world.


Near complete failure of an important life support system after a
lengthy series of significant problems is hardly a small matter.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
  #48  
Old September 21st 04, 02:53 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Explorer8939" wrote in message
om...
Basically, US ECLSS suffers from the same fate as a lot of other US
space technology, lots of systems engineering, great viewgraphs, but
the damned thing doesn't work.


I know. I just like to see others pointing this out since Derek is
constantly bashing the Russian ECLSS components that are working, at

least
part of the time.


sigh No, I'm not bashing the Russian components. I'm pointing out
that that Russian systems aren't the all perfect all wonderful (all
singing, all dancing) things they are all too often believed to be by
many.


No they're not, but the US components aren't all they're cracked up to be
either. Certainly different philosopies were used to create these
components, but it's not clear that either US or Russian components have an
edge over each other.

Remember Armageddon?

Lev Andropov : Excuse me, but I think I know how to fix this.
Watts : Move it! You don't know the components!
Lev Andropov : [annoyed] Components. American components, Russian
Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!

I'm not saying there is much truth in the "all made in Taiwan" part, just
that the overall reliability of the "components" seems to be about the same.
They all seem to need constant monitoring and tend to break down at
inappropriate times.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.



  #49  
Old September 21st 04, 03:03 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

Bbo allerH posts on how we should replace all US systems with Russian
ones on a weekly basis, and he's not alone.


Bob Haller isn't an engineer, nor has he worked on the space program. His
opinions are based on how he "feels" and how potential failure will appear
to the press, not on any sort of rational thought process.

Nearly every slashdot
discussion on space brings the 'Russian Stuff is Perfect' crowd out of
the woodwork.


I steer clear of slashdot. From what I remember of the discussions there,
Bob H. would fit in quite well.

Google back during the period right after the Soyuz
TMA-1 incident, and notice the vast number of folks trying to downplay
and handwave away the significance of the incident. Google back right
after Columbia, and you see the same thing.


TMA-1 was a serious problem, but the backup landing mode worked just fine.
Unfortunately, there isn't much of a backup when an impact creates a huge
hole in your TPS prior to re-entry. This would be a problem for Soyuz as
well, but the particular cause of the debris doesn't exist for Soyuz. A
hole in the TPS would have to be caused by something other than falling
debris, especially considering Soyuz is protected by an aerodynamic shell
during launch.

And every damm one of them convinced that Russian hardware is utterly
safe, and utterly proven.


Nothing is 100% safe. But the Russians clearly have more experience with
space staions than the US. That's an undisputable fact. This experience
was gained while the US was either doing little to nothing in space (post
Skylab, but pre Shuttle), or while the US was occupied with short duration
shuttle flights. The US began to regain some experience during shuttle-Mir,
and it's no doubt that the shuttle greatly contributed to the ability of the
Russians to keep Mir operational during (and after) Shuttle-Mir.

But I recall many exagerating the russians problems and making each small
problems looks like the end of the world.


Near complete failure of an important life support system after a
lengthy series of significant problems is hardly a small matter.


No it's not. Unfortunately the US doesn't have much in the way of ECLSS
hardware on ISS that's able to help with this situation. The hardware that
is there either requires constant shuttle resupply (O2) or is also prone to
breakdowns (CO2 removal).

In hindsight, clearly it is a failure of the US space program to rely so
highly on Russian ECLSS.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.



  #50  
Old September 21st 04, 03:23 PM
bob haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Bob Haller isn't an engineer, nor has he worked on the space program. His
opinions are based on how he "feels" and how potential failure will appear
to the press, not on any sort of rational thought process.


Perhaps I represent the common man here. In any case shuttle ISS is a shambles
currently just waiting to kill again.

Caution should be the watchword as another MAJOR screw up may take man out of
nasa forever.

Maybe thats how it should be?
HAVE A GREAT DAY!
 




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
Progress on RCC Repair? ed kyle Space Shuttle 0 January 6th 04 08:38 PM
Simple paintbrush can repair damaged tiles... Brian C. Space Shuttle 0 October 9th 03 04:22 PM
MSNBC (Oberg): NASA returns to roots for tile repair James Oberg Space Shuttle 0 September 19th 03 03:33 PM
MSNBC (Oberg): NASA returns to roots for tile repair James Oberg History 0 September 19th 03 03:33 PM
No RCC Repair Kit for Next Shuttle Flight? ed kyle Space Shuttle 4 August 27th 03 02:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.