Space station crew hears crunching sound

stmx3 wrote in
:

[snip]
ISS should, or MUST have a facility for total self video inspection -
there may be damage to a module and they cant see it, that's just not
right.

I know nothing could have been done about this since columbia, but
it's the same lesson.

Perhaps the docked Progress can undock briefly, observe the area, and
re-dock?

Sounds like a job suited for the SPRINT Aero Cam.

AERCam, actually. ISS inspection was its original purpose, but the ISS
program didn't want to pay to continue development.

In fact, shuttle inspections could benefit from it as well.
http://spaceboy.nasda.go.jp/lib/shut.../g/doi_098.jpg

To some degree, but it has some serious disadvantages. Shuttle RCC
inspections require depth resolution, which requires laser sensors as well
as cameras. The proposed RMS boom extension has the advantage of providing
a semi-stable platform for the lasers - given the RMS joint angles, the
position of the laser can be known fairly precisely. That's not the case
for AERCam/SPRINT. AERCam also has the disadvantage of requiring continuous
manual piloting, while the RMS survey can be paused at just about any
point. AERCam is much less massive than the boom, but given that the boom
is going to be required anyway, it's not really an "either/or" question,
it's a "does AERCam add enough value to be worth the weight penalty in
addition to the boom?" The answer, at least IMO, is no.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
stmx3 wrote in
:


[snip]

ISS should, or MUST have a facility for total self video inspection -
there may be damage to a module and they cant see it, that's just not
right.

I know nothing could have been done about this since columbia, but
it's the same lesson.

Perhaps the docked Progress can undock briefly, observe the area, and
re-dock?


Sounds like a job suited for the SPRINT Aero Cam.


AERCam, actually. ISS inspection was its original purpose, but the ISS
program didn't want to pay to continue development.


In fact, shuttle inspections could benefit from it as well.
http://spaceboy.nasda.go.jp/lib/shut.../g/doi_098.jpg


To some degree, but it has some serious disadvantages. Shuttle RCC
inspections require depth resolution, which requires laser sensors as well
as cameras. The proposed RMS boom extension has the advantage of providing
a semi-stable platform for the lasers - given the RMS joint angles, the
position of the laser can be known fairly precisely. That's not the case
for AERCam/SPRINT. AERCam also has the disadvantage of requiring continuous
manual piloting, while the RMS survey can be paused at just about any
point. AERCam is much less massive than the boom, but given that the boom
is going to be required anyway, it's not really an "either/or" question,
it's a "does AERCam add enough value to be worth the weight penalty in
addition to the boom?" The answer, at least IMO, is no.


Thanks for the correction.
I liked AERCam/SPRINT because it looked so Star Warsy. I can still see
uses for it on ISS and Shuttle. It would be much more versatile than
any boom; you can upgrade the little guy to give it all sorts of
sensors...maybe make it modular to change out Laser with visual, for
example. You could fly two at the same time. Even if it is
fly-by-wire, a crewmember could fly it or an onboard computer could.
Not sure what "fuel" capacity it has, but with use and revision, it
could become a useful tool. Much more so than Robonaut.

Attach a cable to AERCam and it can use it to go rescue drifting
astronauts who didn't follow proper tether protocol. No need for
Safer...save a little weight there. Use it to retrieve lost tools.
Retrieve external experiments...

Of course I'm stretching here, but it seemed like the AERCam would have
been a point of evolution leading to other great utilities.

stmx3 wrote in
:

I liked AERCam/SPRINT because it looked so Star Warsy. I can still
see uses for it on ISS and Shuttle. It would be much more versatile
than any boom; you can upgrade the little guy to give it all sorts of
sensors...maybe make it modular to change out Laser with visual, for
example.

Its compactness is both an advantage and a disadvantage, however. Any
sensor suite you care to put on it has to fit within its moldline, and the
sensors have to have low power consumption to allow reasonable battery
lifetime. The boom, on the other hand, is powered by the orbiter, and
accommodates a camera, two lasers, and an EVA foot restraint all at once.
It is also planned to be used as the basis for standalone repair
capability, which AERCam can't do.

You could fly two at the same time.

Not the current model; it's single frequency. It would be a fairly trivial
upgrade, of course.

Even if it is
fly-by-wire, a crewmember could fly it or an onboard computer could.

The latter is a *far* from trivial upgrade; it requires a sensor suite that
can perform highly precise relative navigation to a completely passive
surface (the underside of the orbiter has no navaids, and is highly
unlikely to get any). It also requires autonomous prox ops capability,
which the US does not yet have.

Attach a cable to AERCam and it can use it to go rescue drifting
astronauts who didn't follow proper tether protocol. No need for
Safer...save a little weight there.

Yikes! Have you ever flown AERCam? Its control authority is way too low
for that... there's no way it could catch up to an astronaut drifting away
at even modest pushoff rates (1-3 fps) before it ran out of tether and/or
N2. If I were an astronaut, I certainly wouldn't give up my SAFER for it.

Use it to retrieve lost tools.
Retrieve external experiments...

And that will require a manipulator, more development costs and power
demands. Simply using the SSRMS/SPDM would be much simpler.

Of course I'm stretching here, but it seemed like the AERCam would
have been a point of evolution leading to other great utilities.

It's seductive, I'll grant you that. I had a lot of fun flying it around
in the simulator during STS-87 training. The problem with the boom for many
people is that it's too simple and low-tech.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
stmx3 wrote in
:


I liked AERCam/SPRINT because it looked so Star Warsy. I can still
see uses for it on ISS and Shuttle. It would be much more versatile
than any boom; you can upgrade the little guy to give it all sorts of
sensors...maybe make it modular to change out Laser with visual, for
example.


Its compactness is both an advantage and a disadvantage, however. Any
sensor suite you care to put on it has to fit within its moldline, and the
sensors have to have low power consumption to allow reasonable battery
lifetime. The boom, on the other hand, is powered by the orbiter, and
accommodates a camera, two lasers, and an EVA foot restraint all at once.
It is also planned to be used as the basis for standalone repair
capability, which AERCam can't do.


You could fly two at the same time.


Not the current model; it's single frequency. It would be a fairly trivial
upgrade, of course.


Even if it is
fly-by-wire, a crewmember could fly it or an onboard computer could.


The latter is a *far* from trivial upgrade; it requires a sensor suite that
can perform highly precise relative navigation to a completely passive
surface (the underside of the orbiter has no navaids, and is highly
unlikely to get any). It also requires autonomous prox ops capability,
which the US does not yet have.


Attach a cable to AERCam and it can use it to go rescue drifting
astronauts who didn't follow proper tether protocol. No need for
Safer...save a little weight there.


Yikes! Have you ever flown AERCam? Its control authority is way too low
for that... there's no way it could catch up to an astronaut drifting away
at even modest pushoff rates (1-3 fps) before it ran out of tether and/or
N2. If I were an astronaut, I certainly wouldn't give up my SAFER for it.


Use it to retrieve lost tools.
Retrieve external experiments...


And that will require a manipulator, more development costs and power
demands. Simply using the SSRMS/SPDM would be much simpler.


Of course I'm stretching here, but it seemed like the AERCam would
have been a point of evolution leading to other great utilities.


It's seductive, I'll grant you that. I had a lot of fun flying it around
in the simulator during STS-87 training. The problem with the boom for many
people is that it's too simple and low-tech.



Oh, I admit that nearly everything I wrote was speculation/science
fiction. You have a good deal of knowledge about the AERCam/SPRINT.
And I've know doubt that the boom will be able to accomplish it's
mission. I just don't think the boom is a versatile piece of hardware.
It's custom made for particular problems...a brute force solution that
NASA needs right now.

But I know a few JSC engineers that, if you give them a wishlist of
capabilities and the AERCam/SPRINT, they'll take the ball (pun intended)
and run with it. Sure, they'll come back and say it'll be heavier, we
need X amount of dollars, propulsion will need a total redesign, etc.
But, it would be an evolving project that, IMO, will have utility
throughout the next several generations of manned spacecraft.

As for SAFER, I hope they have all the bugs worked out. I know I'd
tinkle my diaper if I had to use it.

Thanks for the awesome info. I appreciate your comments.

stmx3 wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
stmx3 wrote in
:

Of course I'm stretching here, but it seemed like the AERCam would
have been a point of evolution leading to other great utilities.

It's seductive, I'll grant you that. I had a lot of fun flying it
around in the simulator during STS-87 training. The problem with the
boom for many people is that it's too simple and low-tech.

Oh, I admit that nearly everything I wrote was speculation/science
fiction. You have a good deal of knowledge about the AERCam/SPRINT.
And I've know doubt that the boom will be able to accomplish it's
mission. I just don't think the boom is a versatile piece of
hardware.
It's custom made for particular problems...a brute force solution
that NASA needs right now.

It solves two problems, actually... standalone inspection, and potentially
standalone repair as well (once the worksite stabilization problem is
solved). I agree that it's a rather narrowly focused solution to the
problem, but I also think that focus is something that NASA badly needs
right now.

But I know a few JSC engineers that, if you give them a wishlist of
capabilities and the AERCam/SPRINT, they'll take the ball (pun
intended) and run with it.

I know a few, too. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were the same
people. :-) I have nothing against them or their project, I just wish
people would not oversell it. AERCam is kinda like a Rorschach test for
engineers; people look at it and see what they want to see. It's a great
tool for high-res inspection of small areas, or low-res inspection of large
areas. It would probably work great for ISS, since it's a good match for
their needs.

But what the shuttle program really needs is high-res inspection of large
areas, with depth resolution, and that inherently takes a long time. AERCam
has limited battery life and must be hand-flown, so it's a poor fit for
that problem. To be fair, the boom will also have to be hand-flown, at
least for RTF, but you can at least pause the inspection at any time just
by halting the arm and putting the brakes on. Then you can walk (er, float)
away and do whatever it is you need to do. Do that with AERCam, and it
will drift away due to residual rates and orbital mechanics - you can't
stop watching it. It also (currently) requires an EVA to deploy and
retrieve it, but that can be solved with a custom Hitchhiker cannister. And
of course, it's utterly useless for repair.

Sure, they'll come back and say it'll be
heavier, we need X amount of dollars, propulsion will need a total
redesign, etc. But, it would be an evolving project that, IMO, will
have utility throughout the next several generations of manned
spacecraft.

Exactly! And it should be pursued that way - as an *experimental* program,
not unduly tied down by requirements to be "operational". NASA has had
difficulty drawing the line between the two in the past, sometimes with
catastrophic results.

As for SAFER, I hope they have all the bugs worked out. I know I'd
tinkle my diaper if I had to use it.

So would most astros, I imagine. In the world of "oh, ****" moments, it
probably ranks worse than having to use the reserve chute while skydiving,
but not as bad as having to eject from a fighter.

My understanding is that the specific bugs from the STS-86 mishap report
have been addressed.

The ironic thing is that AERCam borrows quite a bit of hardware from SAFER.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
stmx3 wrote in
:


Jorge R. Frank wrote:

stmx3 wrote in
:


Of course I'm stretching here, but it seemed like the AERCam would
have been a point of evolution leading to other great utilities.

It's seductive, I'll grant you that. I had a lot of fun flying it
around in the simulator during STS-87 training. The problem with the
boom for many people is that it's too simple and low-tech.

Oh, I admit that nearly everything I wrote was speculation/science
fiction. You have a good deal of knowledge about the AERCam/SPRINT.
And I've know doubt that the boom will be able to accomplish it's
mission. I just don't think the boom is a versatile piece of
hardware.
It's custom made for particular problems...a brute force solution
that NASA needs right now.


It solves two problems, actually... standalone inspection, and potentially
standalone repair as well (once the worksite stabilization problem is
solved). I agree that it's a rather narrowly focused solution to the
problem, but I also think that focus is something that NASA badly needs
right now.


But I know a few JSC engineers that, if you give them a wishlist of
capabilities and the AERCam/SPRINT, they'll take the ball (pun
intended) and run with it.


I know a few, too. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were the same
people. :-) I have nothing against them or their project, I just wish
people would not oversell it. AERCam is kinda like a Rorschach test for
engineers; people look at it and see what they want to see. It's a great
tool for high-res inspection of small areas, or low-res inspection of large
areas. It would probably work great for ISS, since it's a good match for
their needs.

But what the shuttle program really needs is high-res inspection of large
areas, with depth resolution, and that inherently takes a long time. AERCam
has limited battery life and must be hand-flown, so it's a poor fit for
that problem. To be fair, the boom will also have to be hand-flown, at
least for RTF, but you can at least pause the inspection at any time just
by halting the arm and putting the brakes on. Then you can walk (er, float)
away and do whatever it is you need to do. Do that with AERCam, and it
will drift away due to residual rates and orbital mechanics - you can't
stop watching it. It also (currently) requires an EVA to deploy and
retrieve it, but that can be solved with a custom Hitchhiker cannister. And
of course, it's utterly useless for repair.



Complete agreement. I think many of the "fixes" manufactured for RTF
will evolve over time, procedures will be endlessly revised, etc. NASA
needs something now and the boom will do. I can't imagine trying to get
an HA or safety buy-in for SPRINT without several flight tests. (But I
think medical would like it if you show them the clip of the little
black hypodermic-laden sphere from Star Wars!)

Along the same lines, whatever became of the little flying PDA for
crewmembers working inside. I seem to remember this being a little fan
driven guy who could take voice commands, go relay instructions, return
to its charging stand and make grilled cheese sandwiches. Hmmm...now
that would be cool to.

Sure, they'll come back and say it'll be
heavier, we need X amount of dollars, propulsion will need a total
redesign, etc. But, it would be an evolving project that, IMO, will
have utility throughout the next several generations of manned
spacecraft.


Exactly! And it should be pursued that way - as an *experimental* program,
not unduly tied down by requirements to be "operational". NASA has had
difficulty drawing the line between the two in the past, sometimes with
catastrophic results.


Complete agreement.


As for SAFER, I hope they have all the bugs worked out. I know I'd
tinkle my diaper if I had to use it.


So would most astros, I imagine. In the world of "oh, ****" moments, it
probably ranks worse than having to use the reserve chute while skydiving,
but not as bad as having to eject from a fighter.

My understanding is that the specific bugs from the STS-86 mishap report
have been addressed.

The ironic thing is that AERCam borrows quite a bit of hardware from SAFER.

Ha! Maybe that explains why it never got far!

JimO wrote:

Actually, the February EVA was already scheduled in that very area, the
back end of the SM where the cameras can't see. It was connected with
assembly/testing of gear associated with ESA's ATV docking, now expected
early in 2005.

Last thing I heard was that they were pretty on schedule for a september -04
launch. Do you know any details to this sudden delay?

Sincerely
Bjørn Ove Isaksen

ESA's ATV docking, now expected early in 2005.

Last thing I heard was that they were pretty on schedule for a september -04
launch.

Well, I heard the rumor of a delay before (maybe on this group), but
also without details. For whatever it is worth,
http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html still shows Sep, but
that probably just means there hasn't been an official announcement.

Sept. Ariane 5 ATV 1 Launch window: TBD
Launch site: ELA-3, Kourou, French Guiana

The Arianespace Ariane 5 rocket will launch the European Space
Agency's first Automated Transfer Vehicle, named Jules Verne. The ATV
is a cargo-carrying spacecraft to deliver supplies and equipment to
the orbiting International Space Station. [Sept. 25]