Power situation in the ISS Russian Segment has degraded

Anyway, everybody is free to take its own conclusions.

I really wish we had a microgravity researcher here. They want absolute calm
for best crystal growth. One thing is no important experiments when a orbiter
is at station. Right now thats easy.The docking and extra astronauts moving
dtuff about ruins crystal growth.

You can add all the vibration inducing things you want, as long as your willing
to accept ever declining crystall growth results. Isnt that a maajor reason for
being there?

Hubbes gyros arent a good analogy. True they point with precision. But power
producing they arent.

In news:Hallerb typed:
Anyway, everybody is free to take its own conclusions.

I really wish we had a microgravity researcher here. They want
absolute calm for best crystal growth. One thing is no important
experiments when a orbiter is at station. Right now thats easy.The
docking and extra astronauts moving dtuff about ruins crystal growth.

You can add all the vibration inducing things you want, as long as
your willing to accept ever declining crystall growth results. Isnt
that a maajor reason for being there?

Hubbes gyros arent a good analogy. True they point with precision.
But power producing they arent.

So the power they generate to actually roll and pitch and yaw the
telescope is immaterial? Power is power, regardless of how it's used.
Flywheels *can* be used for power generation and still provide a quiet
environment.
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.
Rec.Skiing.Alpine.Moderated is up and working! Join in!

In news:Hallerb typed:
So the power they generate to actually roll and pitch and yaw the
telescope is immaterial? Power is power, regardless of how it's
used. Flywheels *can* be used for power generation and still
provide a quiet

This is worlds less than spinning up and down constantly providing
electrical power

So, you're wrong but refuse to admit it by splitting hairs.
Interesting denial process you have there, Bob. :-/
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.
Rec.Skiing.Alpine.Moderated is up and working! Join in!

So, you're wrong but refuse to admit it by splitting hairs.
Interesting denial process you have there, Bob. :-/
--
Mike

Ahh tell you what. Go find a microgravity crystall growth person and ask them
what they would like.

Then report back here.

In news:Hallerb typed:
So, you're wrong but refuse to admit it by splitting hairs.
Interesting denial process you have there, Bob. :-/
--
Mike

Ahh tell you what. Go find a microgravity crystall growth person and
ask them what they would like.

Then report back here.

Look, Bob, the ISS has three large and powerful flywheels in
operation. They are spun up using power and release that power by
spinning down, offset by thrusters. Hubble has operating flywheels that
spin up using power and spin down releasing that power. You cannot deny
the stability of the telescope using those positioning flywheels. What
makes you think that electrical storage flywheels would be any more
vibration causing that positional flywheels. If the positional
flywheels are adequate for highly stable operations, why couldn't power
storage flywheel be just as vibration free?

I challenge you to prove or provide cites that power storage
flywheels are worse for microgravity research than positional flywheels.
Remember, power in to spin up and power out to spin down. What's the
difference, Bob?
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

I challenge you to prove or provide cites that power storage
flywheels are worse for microgravity research than

I chjallenge you to find a microgravity reseatrcher who thinks adding more
vibration sources is a good idea.

Forbid breathing?

Very humorous. My point was that the more vibration devices you add thew worse
the science return.

Crystall growth should of been a man tended free flyer.

NASA dodsnt like this for obvious reasons.

So Bob, evasions aside, and I made no statements about the
preferences of micro-gravty research requirements. Are you willing to
admit that flywheels exist and function supporting a micro-gravity
research environment on ISS. Th

I will agfree with you here.

But adding power producuing flywheels and oher things that increase vibration
can make the station useless or inferior for crystall growth.

That was MY point.

***So now, if power storage flywheel devices could be added to ISS
that did not increase the current state of vibration on the station,
would they be acceptable?***
--

Yes provided they are affordable.

Hallerb wrote:
***So now, if power storage flywheel devices could be added to ISS
that did not increase the current state of vibration on the station,
would they be acceptable?***
--


Yes provided they are affordable.

/lurk

This whole situation reminds me of my days in the local BBS scene.
Nobody really likes to read one liners. I sometimes wonder if Bob really
even reads entire posts to get the whole meaning of a message, or if he
just skips to the end to get the jist of things. In a way, I feel bad
for Mr. Haller. It seems he has far too much time to browse usenet and
write all these one liners, so what makes it so hard to take some of
that time to write a little bit more? Bob, you seem like you might be a
good person to have a nice heated debate with offline, as I imagine that
you probably have a fairly easy time of communicating your feelings in
real time. So, for the sake of everyone around...why don't you quit
starting new threads and take the time to continue the ones you've
already started? I think everyone here knows exactly where you stand on
most topics, so is it nessecary to keep bringing the same things up over
and over again? Why don't we talk about what you would like to see in
order for the Fleet to return to action.

For arguements sake, let us assume that the shuttles will be back -
after all, who wants to see the Chineese and the Russians as the only
nations putting man in space? I doubt most of America's populus would
accept second place in space. NASA and the space program are a matter of
national pride. IMHO, it's not about money, research or making a buck.
The space program is a great way for America to use her industrial base,
her engineering abilities and her desire to be the greatest country in
the world. Would we have been better off without the shuttle? Prehaps we
would've, but I for one can't say for certain. Could the money from NASA
be spent elsewhere, on more worthy projects? Have we learned nothing of
value from our near five decade run in space? I don't think anyone
(well, save for the conspiracy whackos) could say no. The bottom line
is that the shuttles will be back. It is only a matter of when and what
is done before they return to flight. I feel confident in the abilities
of NASA to get the job done. Prehaps there have been management ****ups
in the past, and I'm sure there will be more in the future. But in
Memory of the Apollo 1 Three, The Challenger 7 and The Columbia 7, we
owe it to ourselves to continue on. The question now is, what must be
done before RTF? Be realistic here Bob, and please...don't respond with
a single line, or even five. In fact...take at least 10 minutes to write
your reply to me. I am not in any kind of hurry, so why should you be?

Terry Schanno
TCFN Systems Team Leader
Board member, Twin Cities Freenet
(remove SPAM from the email address to reply)