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
  #61  
Old September 22nd 04, 11:31 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jeff Findley" wrote:
Nothing is 100% safe. But the Russians clearly have more experience with
space staions than the US. That's an undisputable fact.


What is disputable is whether that experience is in fact worth
anything. It provided them with a bin of spare designs and parts to
base Zarya and Zvezda on, but beyond that the advantage is what?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
Ads
  #62  
Old September 23rd 04, 04:25 PM
Jim Kingdon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The big question is whether work on the USA side ECLSS systems has
completely stopped with all the gear stowed in some wharehouse, or
whether there is stull R&D and testing work being done. In other
words: is NASA taking advantage of this very long delay to ensure that
the systems that will eventually go up are extremely reliable ?


Well, I don't know what work is currently going on, but the key word
here is "eventually". Unless something has changed, the US ECLSS
equipment is all planned for the Hab module (or Node 3, or whatever it
is called this week). Which isn't even on the assembly sequence (I
was looking at http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/future/index.html ).

I won't say it is impossible to do work now to improve equipment which
won't be used for 5-10 years, but I will say that having someone who
is using (or soon will use) the stuff you are building tends to
improve the quality of the engineering. At least, that's been true on
projects I've worked on.
  #63  
Old September 24th 04, 02:32 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"bob haller" wrote in message
...

dangerous unsafe unit. WE DO NOT KNOW WHICH APPLIES.

But the possibility remains that it is still quite safe to operate.


Yep. and columbia, foam shedding is safe


Proof positive that anyone can make an unjustified assumption. You're doing
exactly that in assuming that Elektron has the potential to "explode". You
simply don't know one way or the other.

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



  #64  
Old September 24th 04, 02:36 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"bob haller" wrote in message
...

So does a fully charged cell phone dropped in the toilet, but that

doesn't
mean that the toilet is going to explode.

Jeff


cell phones dont intentionally break down hydrogen and oxygen...


No, but they have battery packs that can release quite a bit of current.
Add that to H20 and a few impurities (which can surely be found in an
unflushed toilet), and you could certainly generate H2 and O2.

Hell, I produced H2 and O2 from H2O back in second grade. All you need is
water, a battery, some wire, and a bit of salt. A "proper" setup will
generate H2 in one container and O2 in another. I'm sure you can find a
description of this experiment on the web.

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



  #65  
Old September 24th 04, 02:39 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
Nothing is 100% safe. But the Russians clearly have more experience with
space staions than the US. That's an undisputable fact.


What is disputable is whether that experience is in fact worth
anything. It provided them with a bin of spare designs and parts to
base Zarya and Zvezda on, but beyond that the advantage is what?


They have the operational experience to know that things break. This means
they know they have to plan for such events. It also means that they don't
"freak out" as much as their US counterparts when something goes wrong.

Of course, you'll point out that given their history with submarines, they
appear to be less concerned with loss of hardware and loss of life than
their US counterparts. I can't dispute that.

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



  #66  
Old September 24th 04, 02:41 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jim Kingdon" wrote in message
news
Well, I don't know what work is currently going on, but the key word
here is "eventually". Unless something has changed, the US ECLSS
equipment is all planned for the Hab module (or Node 3, or whatever it
is called this week). Which isn't even on the assembly sequence (I
was looking at http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/future/index.html ).

I won't say it is impossible to do work now to improve equipment which
won't be used for 5-10 years, but I will say that having someone who
is using (or soon will use) the stuff you are building tends to
improve the quality of the engineering. At least, that's been true on
projects I've worked on.


I've been waiting for someone "in the know" to tell us the state of future
US ECLSS. I knew it was bad. I keep hoping that the US will find a way to
get ECLSS up earlier than the "HAB", but it doesn't look promising.

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



  #67  
Old September 24th 04, 04:39 PM
Jim Kingdon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I've been waiting for someone "in the know" to tell us the state of future
US ECLSS. I knew it was bad. I keep hoping that the US will find a way to
get ECLSS up earlier than the "HAB", but it doesn't look promising.


I'm not in the know, but I can provide mostly-uninformed speculation
;-).

The thing about ECLSS is that it requires various ducts, connections,
software, and the like. It isn't just like an experiment rack where
you plug it in, provide it with power, and it is ready to go. So I'm
not expecting to see a retrofit which involves running a water line
(for example) to an existing rack in the Lab or such. I could be
wrong on this: maybe the existing lines go more places than I realize
(I suppose Node 1, at least, would need to have plenty of them so that
they can go to the eventual Hab).

Could one design ECLSS in a more "appliance" like way? For example,
having the astronauts carry the water over in a bag and put it into an
oxygen generator manually from time to time? Possible, but it is a
lot easier to do that kind of task without spilling in 1 g than
weightlessness. Certainly the oxygen candles are an example of this
kind of solution.

Could one run semi-ad-hoc lines fairly easily using things like
flexible tubing (all the rage in terrestrial plumbing these days, at
least for some things)? Maybe, although I'm sure it wouldn't be a
small task to run it behind the racks and it would perhaps get in the
way if it is in front of the racks. I guess the biggest problem is
getting through a hatch. The standard ISS solution, as I understand
it, is a through-hull on each side, followed by an EVA to hook them
up. Well, if the US LAB (for example) doesn't have the through-hulls,
adding them on orbit seems .... unlikely. The Mir solution of course
was just to run things through the hatch and having to unplug it if
you ever need to close the hatch. I'm not sure even Mir did this for
things like water and gas lines. And of course in cases like the
crash and air leak, all the cables through the hatch were considered a
problem.

But yes, if anyone actually knows more about studies of
ECLSS-before-Hab, I'd be eager to hear more about what problems of
this sort came up, and what the proposed solutions were.
  #68  
Old September 24th 04, 06:46 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jim Kingdon" wrote in message
news
I guess the biggest problem is
getting through a hatch. The standard ISS solution, as I understand
it, is a through-hull on each side, followed by an EVA to hook them
up.


For some things I think this is true. For others, you run the lines to
fittings that attach with short connections in the vestibule area of the
CBM's. That way you can work in shirt sleeves, but can still close the
hatches without disconnecting anything. MPLM's use this feature of the
CBM's, so documentation on MPLM to ISS interfaces go into some detail about
these connections.

One has to wonder if there are any existing or "extra" water connections at
the various CBM's throughout the station that could be used for this
purpose.

But water is "easy" compared to dealing with the H2. You'd also need a
connection to vaccuum so you could vent H2. I'm sure you'd want this to be
a dedicated connection so there is zero chance of cabin air mixing with the
H2 and going "boom".

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



  #69  
Old September 25th 04, 12:01 AM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jeff Findley wrote:
Of course, you'll point out that given their history with submarines, they
appear to be less concerned with loss of hardware and loss of life than
their US counterparts. I can't dispute that.


Fair point. However, a submarine and the station do have significant differences:

Submarine has a LOT of people tightly speezed. Station doesn't. As a result,
the systems on a submarine are of a much larger scale, so if they go bezerk,
the problem will equally be of higher scale.

Here is a question: movies will often show smokers in a sub. Is that really
tolerated ? Are the air scubbers so good that they do handle all that stuff ?

Submarines are surrounded by far more pressure from SALT WATER, as opposed to
a mere 14.7psi of vacuum. When it comes to salt water an batteries, which is,
from what I was told, a huge potential for disaster in a sub, the station
doesn't have that. In fact, doesn't the station rely on NiCad batteries
instead of lead acid as submarines do ? (or do submarines now also have
NiCad/NiMh batteries ?)

The space station also does not have a nuclear reactor, nor does it have a
slealth mission that requires it stay submerged no matter what.

How many lived were lost in subs because the captain would not order the
submarine to surface ?
  #70  
Old September 25th 04, 12:29 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
Nothing is 100% safe. But the Russians clearly have more experience with
space staions than the US. That's an undisputable fact.


What is disputable is whether that experience is in fact worth
anything. It provided them with a bin of spare designs and parts to
base Zarya and Zvezda on, but beyond that the advantage is what?


They have the operational experience to know that things break.


Advantage: Unproven. The US knows full well that things break as
well.

This means they know they have to plan for such events.


Advantage: Unproven. The US has long history of preparing repair
procedures, planning alternate missions, providing backups....

It also means that they don't "freak out" as much as their US counterparts
when something goes wrong.


Unproveable emotional statement.

Of course, you'll point out that given their history with submarines, they
appear to be less concerned with loss of hardware and loss of life than
their US counterparts. I can't dispute that.


The weird part is they were inconsistent as hell with that attitude.

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




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 02:18 AM.


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.