|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Won't the gap filler burn off?
....when exposed to that kind of heat & turbulence?
Or is it made to take the heat, thereby making it suitable as a "gap filler"....hmmmmm....kinda answered my own question.... I guess the smart thing to do would be to not send this post...but, well....you know...! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Burnham Treezdown wrote: ...when exposed to that kind of heat & turbulence? Or is it made to take the heat, thereby making it suitable as a "gap filler"....hmmmmm....kinda answered my own question.... I guess the smart thing to do would be to not send this post...but, well....you know...! Nobody knows as this is the first time it's been photographed on orbit. All the gap-filler protrusions they've seen have been after the shuttle has landed, and they've been smaller than the ones on Discovery now. The counter-argument to the EVA being discussed (and now it seems approved) is that some of it might burn off, hence the usually smaller protrusions on post-landing inspection. I'm personally nervous about the way this is being thrown into the EVA. "Ho-hum, no big deal to add this". - First EVA to try and repair any spacecraft's heat shield. - First EVA under an orbiter. - First EVA to TOUCH anything down there. - Thrown in as part of a busy EVA already. - Not one of the repair methods that they were even slated to try on this mission, much less actually do. No sweat, right? I just hope its the first task on the EVA, as I'd rather not have a worn out spacewalker try this. Dear Lord, please don't let them **** up. -A.L. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Lotosky" wrote in message
oups.com... I'm personally nervous about the way this is being thrown into the EVA. "Ho-hum, no big deal to add this". - First EVA to try and repair any spacecraft's heat shield. - First EVA under an orbiter. - First EVA to TOUCH anything down there. - Thrown in as part of a busy EVA already. - Not one of the repair methods that they were even slated to try on this mission, much less actually do. One of the stated goals of the mission is to evaluate in-space repair techniques so this is within those boundaries. Its not like they decided to do something completely unrelated to this mission. The people are already up there, already trained, have more experience than anyone else in doing this kind of thing, because they just did it during EVA #1 - why waste the taxpayers dollars by waiting for another Shuttle flight to actually try out what they learned during EVA #1? JD |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Lotosky wrote
Nobody knows as this is the first time it's been photographed on orbit. All the gap-filler protrusions they've seen have been after the shuttle has landed, and they've been smaller than the ones on Discovery now. The counter-argument to the EVA being discussed (and now it seems approved) is that some of it might burn off, hence the usually smaller protrusions on post-landing inspection. I'm personally nervous about the way this is being thrown into the EVA. "Ho-hum, no big deal to add this". - First EVA to try and repair any spacecraft's heat shield. - First EVA under an orbiter. - First EVA to TOUCH anything down there. - Thrown in as part of a busy EVA already. - Not one of the repair methods that they were even slated to try on this mission, much less actually do. No sweat, right? I just hope its the first task on the EVA, as I'd rather not have a worn out spacewalker try this. I'm with you... it sounds terribly risky. My biggest concern is that I read that they were going to try and just pull the gap filler out. And if that does not work they are going to cut off the part that is jutting out. Now I'm no heat shield expert -- but it sure seems risky to be tugging on those gap fillers. Does any one know if tugging on a gap filler can cause a tile to pop out, crack or loosen its bond? What then? I'd vote for leaving them alone or cutting them off. (We do get to vote here on S.S.S., no? ;-) Regards, David |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 22:36:39 -0700, "DMF" wrote:
I'm with you... it sounds terribly risky. On the other hand, this kind of thing is more what NASA's glory days were all about - heroic, untried, improvised solutions to emergencies. I realize this is nowhere near the scale of Apollo 13 but it's a big improvement from "Duh, we can't do anything about it" as seen on the last shuttle flight. Remember, NASA was suffering from terrible PR after the Hubble was launched and found to have the defective mirror. Once the astronauts went up there and fixed it everybody loved NASA again - "Our boys STILL got it!" Although we don't know if there actually would be any serious consequences from the exposed gap filler, a successful EVA under semi-spontaneous conditions to fix it, followed by a safe landing, just might negate some of the current doubts and bashing. Except for certain people on this newsgroup, of course. Can't expect miracles. My biggest concern is that I read that they were going to try and just pull the gap filler out. And if that does not work they are going to cut off the part that is jutting out. Now I'm no heat shield expert -- but it sure seems risky to be tugging on those gap fillers. Yeah, tugging around the edge of a tile doesn't seems a little risky - but then, they've got the Tile Repair kit right there, what better way to test it out? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Has this extra EVA been scheduled?
L. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Burnham Treezdown wrote...
Yeah, tugging around the edge of a tile doesn't seems a little risky - but then, they've got the Tile Repair kit right there, what better way to test it out? Here's a link to a local news report (KPIX SF) where they interviewed a guy named Dan Leiser of NASA/Ames who helped develop the gap fillers. They said he preferrs cutting the gap fillers off. I wonder what the argument is for pulling them out (maybe if they are loose they can be pulled out without too much force). Regards, David |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Lotosky" wrote:
All the gap-filler protrusions they've seen have been after the shuttle has landed, and they've been smaller than the ones on Discovery now. The counter-argument to the EVA being discussed (and now it seems approved) is that some of it might burn off, hence the usually smaller protrusions on post-landing inspection. Which, on the face of it seems stupid. Compare the postlanding dimensions of the protrusion with the prelaunch dimensions and you have the inflight size. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Joe Delphi" wrote:
One of the stated goals of the mission is to evaluate in-space repair techniques so this is within those boundaries. Its not like they decided to do something completely unrelated to this mission. The people are already up there, already trained, have more experience than anyone else in doing this kind of thing, because they just did it during EVA #1 - why waste the taxpayers dollars by waiting for another Shuttle flight to actually try out what they learned during EVA #1? OK - let's see what they did in EVA #1 and how it compares to the newly planned EVA. - First EVA to try and repair any spacecraft's heat shield. Hmm... No work done with the gap fillers on EVA #1. - First EVA under an orbiter. Hmm... Didn't go under the orbiter or out on the arm/boom during EVA #1. - First EVA to TOUCH anything down there. Hm... The tiles from EVA #1 have yet to be evaluated to ensure that there was no induced damage. Tell me again exactly how they gained so much experience in EVA #1 to apply to EVA #2? D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Burnham Treezdown wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 22:36:39 -0700, "DMF" wrote: I'm with you... it sounds terribly risky. On the other hand, this kind of thing is more what NASA's glory days were all about - heroic, untried, improvised solutions to emergencies. Not noticeably. Most solutions were either tried and trained for beforehand, or extensively tested on the ground before radioing up to the spacecraft, or were simple extensions of existing techniques. None of which apply here. Yeah, tugging around the edge of a tile doesn't seems a little risky - but then, they've got the Tile Repair kit right there, what better way to test it out? What better way? The way they already plan to - by putting the 'repaired' tile into an arcjet facility. Only idiots would place the lives of the astronauts and the irreplaceable Shuttle itself in danger for an utterly un-needed 'test'. 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 |
IEEE SPECTRUM magazine: Apollo 13, We Have a Solution | Jim Oberg | History | 199 | May 10th 05 11:11 PM |
USC engineers say solid particles may burn more safely and efficiently in space than gaseous fuels | Neutron | Science | 0 | July 17th 04 11:46 AM |
[UPDATE] Some quick facts about Cassini's SOI burn | OM | History | 10 | July 4th 04 04:01 AM |
[UPDATE] Some quick facts about Cassini's SOI burn | OM | Policy | 4 | July 1st 04 02:44 PM |
Apollo 13 - Midcourse Corrective Burn with LM Engine | Richard Brideau | History | 5 | September 7th 03 10:17 PM |