What is the lowest cost solution for environmental control systems for space stations?

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

You're full of ****.


No flames please, it is only a matter of opinions.


Fascinating that you snipped in order to attach my claim to a
different portion of the message, one that in fact was answered in
full.

It was niether a flame, nor an an opinion. It was a statement of
fact.



There was nothing wrong with your opinion or claim to a different portion of
the message. It was what you wrote at the end of it that was the issue.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

Lousy example as MIR was not modular, it was sectional.


Okay, sectional then.


On the other hand, that modular form allowed the former USSR
to put up about 14 different Soyut (If memory serves) space stations.

Bull****. None of the Salyut/Almaz/etc stations were modular.

Most as small as skylab was, but still nothing to ignore.

Each and every one of them a tiny fraction of the size of Skylab.


Still a lot more than we had. As for the size, do you have figures for
those?


They have a great deal of experience in this which is one of the
reasons we partnered with them.

Thats the theory. The reality is that they don't have the experience
that most folks think they do. The reality is that we partnered with
them as a misguided political and social program.


Okay, you got that one. I have to agree with you on that. It was just
claimed they had a lot of experience in these areas.

"Renee Keller" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

Lousy example as MIR was not modular, it was sectional.


Okay, sectional then.


On the other hand, that modular form allowed the former USSR
to put up about 14 different Soyut (If memory serves) space stations.

Bull****. None of the Salyut/Almaz/etc stations were modular.

Most as small as skylab was, but still nothing to ignore.

Each and every one of them a tiny fraction of the size of Skylab.


Still a lot more than we had. As for the size, do you have figures for
those?


They have a great deal of experience in this which is one of the
reasons we partnered with them.

Thats the theory. The reality is that they don't have the experience
that most folks think they do. The reality is that we partnered with
them as a misguided political and social program.


Okay, you got that one. I have to agree with you on that. It was just
claimed they had a lot of experience in these areas.



Of course, using that "misguided political and social program" we are
now able to maintain the ISS while the U.S. returns the Shuttle
to flight.

I don't see how Lyons can claim that the Russians don't have a great
deal of experience in space station construction and operation.
They certainly have a lot more experience than the U.S.

The question of how effectively they have been able to use it
and whether they lost some of it by poor record keeping is
a valid one. Denying the Russians have a great amount of
experience is simply denying both history and the state of
current ISS operations.

Mike Walsh

"Mike Walsh" wrote:

The question of how effectively they have been able to use it
and whether they lost some of it by poor record keeping is
a valid one. Denying the Russians have a great amount of
experience is simply denying both history and the state of
current ISS operations.

If they are not able to effectively use it, then for all intents and
purposes they don't have it. The state of current ISS operations
includes multiple pieces of Russian equipment of dubious
functionality, that too suggest that lack the experience so many here
claim they have.

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

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Mike Walsh" wrote:

The question of how effectively they have been able to use it
and whether they lost some of it by poor record keeping is
a valid one. Denying the Russians have a great amount of
experience is simply denying both history and the state of
current ISS operations.

If they are not able to effectively use it, then for all intents and
purposes they don't have it. The state of current ISS operations
includes multiple pieces of Russian equipment of dubious
functionality, that too suggest that lack the experience so many here
claim they have.

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

And some multiple pieces of Russian equipment that seem quite
essential to the operation of the ISS. Plus working space suits.

Plus a working space transportation system.

I would also say that a lot of the problems of the Russians have
come about because of bad management and a lack of
coordination between groups. I did get around to reading
Dragonfly.

Mike Walsh

"Mike Walsh" wrote:

snipped handwaving and point evading nonsense.

I would also say that a lot of the problems of the Russians have
come about because of bad management and a lack of
coordination between groups.

Which would not exist if they had the experience claimed.

The evidence is quite clear that the Russian experience both lesser
and less useful than many believe. Believe what you will, but I'll
believe the evidence.

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

Mike Walsh wrote:
I would also say that a lot of the problems of the Russians have
come about because of bad management and a lack of
coordination between groups. I did get around to reading
Dragonfly.

What problems have the Russian really had on ISS ?

Were any of Elektron's problems "management" related ?

Was the Progress docking problem "management" related ?

Was the twisted water/coolant pipe in the EVA suit "management" related ?

Glitches are inevitable, no matter if US, Russian or whatever.

The real measure is how one learns from those glitches and how one reacts to
the glitch.

The Russians seem to be far more pragmatic with risk evaluation whereas the
Americans seem to be more paranoid. Are the russians too "pragmatic" while the
americans too "paranoid" ? Perhaps. I hope that with experience, the americans
will learn to be less paranoid.

They have already moved a long way, for instance, allowing 2 man EVA without
anyone inside the ISS. Initially they said it couldn't be done but eventually
they agreed that it was not a problem.

With time, I suspect that the americans will not see the russians as being too
"unsafe" because the americans will have moved towards being more pragmatic,
while the russians will have moved to be a bit more "secure". The the contrast
betwene the two will fade some.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Mike Walsh" wrote:

snipped handwaving and point evading nonsense.

Yes, my posting of things that the Russians are doing right now that
demonstrates some
of their current capabilities in space. For some reason you regard that as
point evading nonsense.


I would also say that a lot of the problems of the Russians have
come about because of bad management and a lack of
coordination between groups.

Which would not exist if they had the experience claimed.

Experience eliminates bad management? Not in my experience.

And just who are we comparing them with? Are you using NASA
as an example of good management?

From what I have read I would assume that NASA keeps better records
than the Russians did. I would credit that as a management positive for
them.


The evidence is quite clear that the Russian experience both lesser
and less useful than many believe.

I am sure that is true and that there are people who believe the
Russians have greater experience and greater useful capabilities
than they actually have. They certainly have a great deal of
experience and have demonstrated their capability to launch
and operate a number of space stations in the past and are
now providing essential support to the ISS.

Believe what you will, but I'll
believe the evidence.

D.
--

What evidence? Can you provide some?

References would be appreciated as I can't really expect you to
post reams of detailed information. I have read comments of yours
in other threads where you made reference to MIR layouts that
indicate you have reviewed sources of information that I have
not seen.

You do have a tendency to make flat statements and then when
questioned about them say things like "I'll believe the evidence"
without saying what the evidence might be and where it
can be found.

Mike Walsh

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
Mike Walsh wrote:
I would also say that a lot of the problems of the Russians have
come about because of bad management and a lack of
coordination between groups. I did get around to reading
Dragonfly.


Was the Progress docking problem "management" related ?


I would say that the Progress near-collision followed by the
actual collision was definitely management related. It was also
a lack of coordination between the two groups of Russian
management, one responsible for the Cosmonauts and
the other Mission Control Group that had most of the
authority.


Mike Walsh

"Mike Walsh" wrote:


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Mike Walsh" wrote:

snipped handwaving and point evading nonsense.

Yes, my posting of things that the Russians are doing right now that
demonstrates some of their current capabilities in space. For some
reason you regard that as point evading nonsense.

Yes, it is. The point is the things they are doing wrong and having
problems with, and you won't adress them.

The simple fact is, the Russian segments of ISS are near copies of MIR
equipment, and contain many of the same flaws and problems. (Witness
the endless problems with their life support equipment.) Where is
their experience? Why is it not in evidence?


I would also say that a lot of the problems of the Russians have
come about because of bad management and a lack of
coordination between groups.

Which would not exist if they had the experience claimed.

Experience eliminates bad management? Not in my experience.

Experienced management leads to a reduction of mistakes.

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