Jim O exclusive facts/analysis of spacewalk

My new msnbc analysis at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4424650
and also see Friday's 'Daily Planet' (www.discovery.ca) show for
video of my interview on the walk.

My new msnbc analysis at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4424650
and also see Friday's 'Daily Planet' (www.discovery.ca) show for
video of my interview on the walk.


Sad after Columbia nasa still doesnt get it.

Like I said before rewarding the screw ups like linda ham with safety oversite
jobs sent exactly the wrong message to all involved.

All the involved managers should of been fired.

I guess its only a matter of time till we loose more lives. The danger is
another nasa screw up may end US manned space for my lifetime The american
public may sour to a agency the repeatedly has unnecessary accidents where
people die.

JimO wrote:
My new msnbc analysis at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4424650
and also see Friday's 'Daily Planet' (www.discovery.ca) show for
video of my interview on the walk.

I realise that you need to add sensationalism to any stories published on a
media outlet such as Microsoft's MSNBC.

However, does the requirement to have 2 "user interface" laptops operational
really necessary when you have 0 crewmembers in the station and much of the
systems had been shutdown ? What would those laptops have been able to perform
with nobody inside to pointy-click the menus ?

Secondly, were lives endangered because of the glitch in the suit ? Media
seem to want to turn this into a dramatic event (you did use the word
"dramatic" in your MSNBC article, didn't you ?)

Lets say that the russians did notice lower than normal cooling performance
from the start, if they monitored it carefully and stopped the EVA as soon as
it became unconfortable,.is there really anything wrong with this ?

The EVA was more akin to shovling snow in your driveway during a snowstorm
rather than walking across antarctica.

Seriously, in case of emergency, how long would it take for the crewmember to
"run" back to the Piers airlock from anywhere in the SM ?

John Doe writes:
Lets say that the russians did notice lower than normal cooling performance
from the start, if they monitored it carefully and stopped the EVA as soon as
it became unconfortable,.is there really anything wrong with this ?

I don't think that heat stroke (or similar) is something you want to
get while you're in a suit. Something like this can sneak up on you.
One minute you're playing golf (or installing something on ISS) and
the next you're unconscious with a core temperature far higher than it
should be. People die every year due to the heat. Just ask the
French (or the NFL).

The EVA was more akin to shovling snow in your driveway during a snowstorm
rather than walking across antarctica.

Without cooling, it's more like shoveling dirt in July while wearing a
head to toe snowmobile suit. Those suits are well insulated (against
the cold), so they must be actively cooled to reject body heat.

Seriously, in case of emergency, how long would it take for the crewmember to
"run" back to the Piers airlock from anywhere in the SM ?

It's hard to "run" if you're unconscious.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

"JimO" writes:

My new msnbc analysis at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4424650
and also see Friday's 'Daily Planet' (www.discovery.ca) show for
video of my interview on the walk.

I find it interesting that both the US and the Russians seem to have
done "stupid" things on this space walk. I don't know about Russian
flight rules, but you'd think if the ground saw a problem with the
suit, they'd call off the space walk at the beginning, and try again
another day. Same with the US, violating one of its own safety rules,
at the last minute, just so the space walk could be performed.

This sounds a bit like "go fever".

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Seriously, in case of emergency, how long would it take for the crewmember
to
"run" back to the Piers airlock from anywhere in the SM ?

I think the point is without two redundant watchdogs a serious problem might
occur and go unnoticed. By the time its critical they might be unable to get
back inside and do anything.

This sounds a bit like "go fever".

Jeff

Yeah family of both the challenger and columbia crews know what go fever can
do

The statement in the MSNBC piece has an inaccuracy:

The loss of the backup computer should have resulted in termination of
the spacewalk. As the document explained, “the flight rule requires a
minimum of two active PCS's attached to core data busses for Caution &
Warning support.” That is, there must be two separate ways — a prime
and a backup path — for automatically detected hazards (such as a
fire, leak or short circuit) to be announced to the station’s telemetry
system for notifying Earth.

The purpose of the PCS rule is to provide the IVA crew a way to list C&W
events and react to them. Since they were on an EVA, the status of the
laptop in the SM was not truly critical to the crew. Ground Telemetry
can still see all C&W events and be able to react to them even if all
PCS computers were offline. Also, The Audio system still annunciates C&W
events even if all PCS's are offline. IMO the flight rule should say "an
IVA crew must have 2 active PCS's...", to an EVA crew its irrelevant. I
agree the ground made a procedure call mistake in turning off the power
feeding the SM PCS, but its an easy one to make, since the Russian power
distribution is not as well understood on the US side and the crew does
not always plug in the PCS laptops to the ports the ground thinks they
are using.

best regards,
some fool engineer in houston

JimO wrote:
My new msnbc analysis at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4424650
and also see Friday's 'Daily Planet' (www.discovery.ca) show for
video of my interview on the walk.

jeff findley wrote:
I don't think that heat stroke (or similar) is something you want to
get while you're in a suit. Something like this can sneak up on you.

Was cooling totally inop, or just partially inop ? Did it cool parts of the
body very well, but another part wasn't cooled properly ?

Was the head kept cool ?

Also, remember that they are not spending a whole afternoon in bright
sunshine, they alternate every 45 minutes between very hot and very cold.

I remain unconvinced that there was really a real danger. The only question
that should be asked is whether ground put pressure on the crewmember to
continyeu the spacewalk and ignore the problem, or whether the crewmember felt
comfortable enough to continue and the minute he signaled it was no longer
confortable, then they returned. That is the real issue.

Hallerb wrote:
I think the point is without two redundant watchdogs a serious problem might
occur and go unnoticed. By the time its critical they might be unable to get
back inside and do anything.

Those laptops are not watchdogs. They are glorified dumb terminals that
display stuff and allow commands to be entered.