|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Progress on RCC Repair? | ed kyle | Space Shuttle | 0 | January 6th 04 07:38 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 |