A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Systems reliability



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 21st 04, 10:27 AM
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Systems reliability

Well, from all the waivers that Shuttles flew with, and the apparent high
failure rate of systems on the ISS, one of the main things humans seem to be
in need of are reliable systems, full stop. I mean things like Voyager and
other interplanetary probes seemed reliable, probably because no life
support systems, or human interface equipment was needed.

I do hope that a great deal is done on this aspect before men start
spending time on the moon, let alone Mars.


On the Iss we continually hear of leaking gas, failed batteries and
controllers, The Electron unit,laptops, and sundry other minor items. We
also generate trash on an alarming scale, which they conveniently burn in
the atmosphere, but on the moon, what do you do? are we destined to see land
fill sites on there as well?

Brian


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004


  #2  
Old March 21st 04, 02:41 PM
Hallerb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Systems reliability




Well, from all the waivers that Shuttles flew with, and the apparent high
failure rate of systems on the ISS, one of the main things humans seem to be
in need of are reliable systems, full stop. I mean things like Voyager and
other interplanetary probes seemed reliable, probably because no life
support systems, or human interface equipment was needed.

I do hope that a great deal is done on this aspect before men start
spending time on the moon, let alone Mars.


On the Iss we continually hear of leaking gas, failed batteries and
controllers, The Electron unit,laptops, and sundry other minor items. We
also generate trash on an alarming scale, which they conveniently burn in
the atmosphere, but on the moon, what do you do? are we destined to see land
fill sites on there as well?

Brian


Agreed a mars program espically cant be run like ISS. It will just kill crews.

ISS never had part by part intergration testing like apollo did. Plus merging 2
incompatible systems like russian and american with all the patch cables and
complexity is a bad idea too.

For mars we really need a moon station first. just to find the problems and fix
them befiore they are months away.
  #3  
Old March 21st 04, 09:13 PM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Systems reliability

Hallerb wrote:
For mars we really need a moon station first. just to find the problems and fix
them befiore they are months away.


Nop. The station is a far better testbed than a moon station. Why ? Moon has
gravity and thus will invalidate much of the testing of systems.

Gravity changes everything from flow of lubricants, behaviour of bubbles in
liquids, movement of hot air etc.
  #4  
Old March 21st 04, 09:56 PM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Systems reliability

Hallerb wrote:
Well last I heard Mars has gravity. Since the stay will hopefully be more than
a flag and footprints we need a long term testbed.


It isn't the stay on Mars that is the big problem, but the transit to and from
which is. Another one is landing and taking off from Mars which has some
atmosphere (moon doesn't) and higher gravity than moon.
  #5  
Old March 21st 04, 10:48 PM
Hallerb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Systems reliability


Gravity changes everything from flow of lubricants, behaviour of bubbles in
liquids, movement of hot air etc.


Well last I heard Mars has gravity. Since the stay will hopefully be more than
a flag and footprints we need a long term testbed.
  #6  
Old March 21st 04, 11:33 PM
Hallerb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Systems reliability


It isn't the stay on Mars that is the big problem, but the transit to and
from
which is. Another one is landing and taking off from Mars which has some
atmosphere (moon doesn't) and higher gravity than moon.


Its ALL a issue. from leaving the earth till safe return.

Any fauilure along the way can kill people and the program.

The biggest advantage to the moon base is managing a base away from easy return
to earth or easy resupply.

Managing such a base wether it be moon or mars may be more of a challege than
the tech end.

We can create a moon base much easier than a mars base. While we plan a mars
expedition we should build the moon base just for experience. Besides the moon
exploration wise has barely been touched....
  #7  
Old March 22nd 04, 04:21 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Systems reliability

"Brian Gaff" wrote:
On the Iss we continually hear of leaking gas, failed batteries and
controllers, The Electron unit,laptops, and sundry other minor items.


Frankly, I suspect that's simply a fact of life. I wonder if we'd be
better off planning the logistics of a Mars mission around repairable
equipment and semi-consumables rather than attempting to make every
damm thing 110% reliables. There's going to be a weight and crew time
usage hit, but what will the cost differential be?

Frankly IMO, long term space mission planning should be like planning
a military campaign. Small minds talk tactics, or technology.
Mediocre minds talk strategy, or engineering. Great minds talk
logistics. All too often the 'sexy' engineering or 'l33t' technology
is considered more important than the dull-but-vital matter of
logistics planning.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
  #9  
Old March 22nd 04, 08:43 AM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Systems reliability

In message , Derek Lyons
writes
"Brian Gaff" wrote:
On the Iss we continually hear of leaking gas, failed batteries and
controllers, The Electron unit,laptops, and sundry other minor items.


Frankly, I suspect that's simply a fact of life. I wonder if we'd be
better off planning the logistics of a Mars mission around repairable
equipment and semi-consumables rather than attempting to make every
damm thing 110% reliables. There's going to be a weight and crew time
usage hit, but what will the cost differential be?


But surely they plan to take duct tape and spare laptops and things you
can fix - and redundant engines in the same way as the Cassini probe?
Isn't the reason for making things 99.99999% reliable that there are so
many systems something is still going to break? If you're really unlucky
it's something you can't fix because the nearest supply is 100 million
km away, or Mars orbit insertion is two minutes away.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
  #10  
Old March 22nd 04, 02:30 PM
JimO
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Systems reliability


"Derek Lyons" wrote
Frankly IMO, long term space mission planning should be like planning
a military campaign. Small minds talk tactics, or technology.
Mediocre minds talk strategy, or engineering. Great minds talk
logistics. All too often the 'sexy' engineering or 'l33t' technology
is considered more important than the dull-but-vital matter of
logistics planning.



I'm working on a long essay on exactly this angle, Derek.

Re great minds and logistics, is that quotable? grin

Jim O
joberg at houston dot rr dot com



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Questions on the RCS systems JazzMan Space Shuttle 4 October 9th 03 04:08 AM
OSP: reliability and survivability Edwin Kite Space Science Misc 77 September 26th 03 06:36 AM
Which STS systems would you reuse? Chuck Stewart Space Shuttle 25 September 10th 03 04:24 AM
OSP: reliability and survivability Edwin Kite Space Shuttle 9 September 9th 03 01:02 AM
Low Bidder Air Traffic Control PlanetJ Space Shuttle 5 August 22nd 03 06:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.