Space junk problem rising to new heights [EAS jettison, mid-2007]

"George" wrote:


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

I would imagine the problem is mounting it to the cargo bay - it
requires a unique handling fixture, which takes up volume and mass on
the uphill run. Volume and mass to and from the ISS are at an
*extreme* premium over the next few years.


So what is more important, volume and mass issues, or concerns that
throwing this object overboard will result in catastrophe? Apparently the
former.

Given that it has been shown that the fears of catastrophe are
somewhat over stated, all I can say is 'duh'.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"George" wrote:


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

I would imagine the problem is mounting it to the cargo bay - it
requires a unique handling fixture, which takes up volume and mass on
the uphill run. Volume and mass to and from the ISS are at an
*extreme* premium over the next few years.


So what is more important, volume and mass issues, or concerns that
throwing this object overboard will result in catastrophe? Apparently
the
former.

Given that it has been shown that the fears of catastrophe are
somewhat over stated, all I can say is 'duh'.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Only somewhat? Considering our investment here, and the lives involved,
why put it at risk at all?

George

Derek Lyons wrote:
I would imagine the problem is mounting it to the cargo bay - it
requires a unique handling fixture, which takes up volume and mass on
the uphill run.


When shipping stuff to the station, you need very efficient mounting
fixtures that can be released easily while in space (and in many cases,
requires automated released from the cabin so the arm can pick it up and
transport it without requiring EVA).

However, to return stuff to earth, couldn't they use industrial straps
(either metal or fabric) to strap the module in place ? Heck, industrial
tie-wraps. The folks back on the ground can then use whatever heavy tools
to cut those loose. You might need a couple of support beams , but those
could be deployed over whatever hardware that was used to carry the upmass.
(with the beams stowed on the side during the trip up).


I think that this is an exercise in proving that the shuttle isn't needed,
to demonstrate that they can jettison large bulky items. Just imagine what
happens the day one such item doesn't totally disintegrate and falls into
someone's farm/backyard.

John Doe wrote:
[...]
I think that this is an exercise in proving that the shuttle isn't needed,
to demonstrate that they can jettison large bulky items.

Mr. Oberg clearly makes that point, as there will be assemblies
discarded after the Shuttle gets parked-for-display.

/dps

Another thing, news says a Cosmos spacecraft was deliberately destroyed in
orbit recently.. why? Surely if they had deorbited it it would have burned
up, Now presumably, there is a cloud of debris.

Are you talking about this one?
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061120/55824706.html

If so, the rumor seems to be of a deorbit, not destruction in-orbit.

"George" wrote in news:aHH8h.4418$k6.3115
@bignews8.bellsouth.net:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"George" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

I would imagine the problem is mounting it to the cargo bay - it
requires a unique handling fixture, which takes up volume and mass on
the uphill run. Volume and mass to and from the ISS are at an
*extreme* premium over the next few years.

So what is more important, volume and mass issues, or concerns that
throwing this object overboard will result in catastrophe? Apparently
the former.

Apparently. Chris Bennetts covered the issues with manifesting a payload
carrier in his post. There's no easy way to add one to a flight before STS-
120, when the EAS *must* be moved.

Given that it has been shown that the fears of catastrophe are
somewhat over stated, all I can say is 'duh'.

Only somewhat? Considering our investment here, and the lives involved,
why put it at risk at all?

There is risk either way, if you're foolish enough to insist on returning
EAS strapped into the payload bay without a proper payload carrier. Its
tanks are full of anhydrous ammonia, which is fairly toxic.


--
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 in message
...
"George" wrote in news:aHH8h.4418$k6.3115
@bignews8.bellsouth.net:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"George" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

I would imagine the problem is mounting it to the cargo bay - it
requires a unique handling fixture, which takes up volume and mass on
the uphill run. Volume and mass to and from the ISS are at an
*extreme* premium over the next few years.

So what is more important, volume and mass issues, or concerns that
throwing this object overboard will result in catastrophe? Apparently
the former.

Apparently. Chris Bennetts covered the issues with manifesting a payload
carrier in his post. There's no easy way to add one to a flight before
STS-
120, when the EAS *must* be moved.

Given that it has been shown that the fears of catastrophe are
somewhat over stated, all I can say is 'duh'.

Only somewhat? Considering our investment here, and the lives involved,
why put it at risk at all?

There is risk either way, if you're foolish enough to insist on returning
EAS strapped into the payload bay without a proper payload carrier. Its
tanks are full of anhydrous ammonia, which is fairly toxic.


--
JRF

If you'll review what I've said here, you'll note that I never said
anything about the details of how it should be done. As for the toxic
substances, there are lots of things on the shuttle that are toxic, the OMS
propellant, for instance, which is monomethyl hydrazine.

George

"George" wrote in
:

If you'll review what I've said here, you'll note that I never said
anything about the details of how it should be done.

Understood. I'm just pointing out that there are only two ways to do it,
one of which (a proper payload carrier) is probably not logistically
feasible, the other (strapping EAS in the payload bay) merely shifts the
risk from ISS to the shuttle and its post-landing crew.

As for the toxic
substances, there are lots of things on the shuttle that are toxic,
the OMS propellant, for instance, which is monomethyl hydrazine.

Yes, and you'll notice that all such tanks containing toxic substances are
very well bolted in, not merely strapped down in the payload bay.

--
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 in message
...
"George" wrote in
:

If you'll review what I've said here, you'll note that I never said
anything about the details of how it should be done.

Understood. I'm just pointing out that there are only two ways to do it,
one of which (a proper payload carrier) is probably not logistically
feasible, the other (strapping EAS in the payload bay) merely shifts the
risk from ISS to the shuttle and its post-landing crew.

Why can't they use the one they used to get it there in the first place?
As for risks to the post-landing crew, I'm sure they are well-trained in
handling toxic substances (Level A - FESCBA protection would be the way to
go). If not, there's a problem with their ground crew that should be
remedied.

As for the toxic
substances, there are lots of things on the shuttle that are toxic,
the OMS propellant, for instance, which is monomethyl hydrazine.

Yes, and you'll notice that all such tanks containing toxic substances
are
very well bolted in, not merely strapped down in the payload bay.

But then, I never said anything about using straps.

George

"George" wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"George" wrote in
:

If you'll review what I've said here, you'll note that I never said
anything about the details of how it should be done.

No, you handwave vague horrors and accusations.

Understood. I'm just pointing out that there are only two ways to do it,
one of which (a proper payload carrier) is probably not logistically
feasible, the other (strapping EAS in the payload bay) merely shifts the
risk from ISS to the shuttle and its post-landing crew.

Why can't they use the one they used to get it there in the first place?

You've already been told that, but choose to ignore it.

As for risks to the post-landing crew, I'm sure they are well-trained in
handling toxic substances (Level A - FESCBA protection would be the way to
go). If not, there's a problem with their ground crew that should be
remedied.

More handwaving, vague horrors, and accusations.


As for the toxic
substances, there are lots of things on the shuttle that are toxic,
the OMS propellant, for instance, which is monomethyl hydrazine.

Yes, and you'll notice that all such tanks containing toxic substances
are very well bolted in, not merely strapped down in the payload bay.

But then, I never said anything about using straps.

You keep suggesting merely loading, without even attempting to
understand what is involved, which amounts to the same thing.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL