|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Systems reliability
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |