A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

'Elektron' repair fails



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old September 25th 04, 12:46 AM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Kingdon wrote:
The thing about ECLSS is that it requires various ducts, connections,
software, and the like.


Destiny has it all. Remember that it has dehumidifiers, CRDA, air quality
stuff etc, as well as central ventilation system, as well as the valves to
release O2/N2 from Quest into cabin. (Although I think that each module exched
for node 1 also has the capability to release O2/N2).

not expecting to see a retrofit which involves running a water line
(for example) to an existing rack in the Lab or such.


There are water lines through the CBM hatches. I think that they will
eventually want to pull the water from the dehumidifier in Destiny to the O2
generator. Currently that water is bagged and brought manually to the russian
segment. (there are no water lines aft of Node 1).


Could one design ECLSS in a more "appliance" like way? For example,
having the astronauts carry the water over in a bag and put it into an
oxygen generator manually from time to time?


That is what is being done right now.

Could one run semi-ad-hoc lines fairly easily using things like
flexible tubing


Yes they "could". However, it is unlikely for the US segment since everything
has been so carefully planned, not sure they will need "ad-hoc" and not sure
they will tolerate ad-hoc, especially if it needs to cross CBM hatches.

getting through a hatch. The standard ISS solution, as I understand
it, is a through-hull on each side, followed by an EVA to hook them
up.


nop. the proper way is to use the connections that are already in the CBM that
stay within the pressurized volume. There are a whole bunch of connections
already planned/provided between CBM hatches with the "jjumpers" installed
from inside the vestibule (pressurized volume).

Not sure that NASA would want new holes drilled in that section though since
it would invalidate the "air tight" testing that was done on earth pior to launch.

Fortunatly, there are already connectors for water, air, O2, N2, water, video,
power, data etc etc etc.
Ads
  #72  
Old September 25th 04, 02:57 AM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek Lyons wrote:
Advantage: Unproven. The US has long history of preparing repair
procedures, planning alternate missions, providing backups....


Unfortunatly, the USA doesn't have a long standing mentality of improvising
repair procedures and requires lots of pressure to change this. 2 man EVA were
"impossible" until they became absolutely necessary, at which point NASA
agreed to "bend its rules".

When Don Petit suggested he take apart a pump assembly to get some part needed
to find the other one, he had to push NASA to allow him to thiker with abroken
part because NAS procedures didn't mention any procedure to take that
component apart and thus thought it was impossible.

NASA has evolved to some extent when it comes to allow crew to perform
autonomous tasks that have not been rehearsed 50,000 times and documented into
a 4" thick manual. But it still has some way to go.
  #73  
Old September 29th 04, 08:37 AM
Revision
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"rk"
OK, perhaps NASA doesn't like to improvise repair
procedures as a fundamental way of doing business.
Why would improvization be such a goal and a virtue?


Improvisation is a matter of necessity. Do these random remarks have a
point?


  #74  
Old September 29th 04, 11:40 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Revision" [email protected] wrote:
"rk"
OK, perhaps NASA doesn't like to improvise repair
procedures as a fundamental way of doing business.
Why would improvization be such a goal and a virtue?


Improvisation is a matter of necessity.


Speaking as one who has maintained equipment far from support and with
limited resources; A routine need to improvise is a sign of poor
design and engineering. If it becomes a necessity, it's a sign that
something is badly wrong.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
  #75  
Old September 29th 04, 11:55 PM
bob haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Speaking as one who has maintained equipment far from support and with
limited resources; A routine need to improvise is a sign of poor
design and engineering. If it becomes a necessity, it's a sign that
something is badly wrong.

D.


this describes the entire station project
End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts....
 




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
Progress on RCC Repair? ed kyle Space Shuttle 0 January 6th 04 08:38 PM
Simple paintbrush can repair damaged tiles... Brian C. Space Shuttle 0 October 9th 03 04:22 PM
MSNBC (Oberg): NASA returns to roots for tile repair James Oberg Space Shuttle 0 September 19th 03 03:33 PM
MSNBC (Oberg): NASA returns to roots for tile repair James Oberg History 0 September 19th 03 03:33 PM
No RCC Repair Kit for Next Shuttle Flight? ed kyle Space Shuttle 4 August 27th 03 02:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.