|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"TVDad Jim" wrote in news:1123169893.286543.316830
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: How does this repair job eclipse Pete Conrad's saving the entire Skylab program with his TWO repair jobs during the Skylab 2 mission? Assembling a ship-wide parasol AND freeing a solar panel was a heckuva lot more work than pulling two pieces of vinyl out of a heatshield. This repair job eclipses the Skylab repair in consequences, not complexity. The Discovery EVA may have been simpler than the Skylab EVA, but the survival of the Skylab crew wasn't riding on the success of the EVA, as was potentially the case here. The Skylab crew was repairing the *station*, not their *return vehicle*. If they failed, there was no question they could still have returned home safely. That's not to say that Discovery *couldn't* have landed with the gap fillers, only that the aerothermal team had a lot of uncertainty in their analysis results, and the worst-case results were loss of vehicle. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in
: "TVDad Jim" wrote in message oups.com... Maybe I'm being a pedant, but all these AP stories about the cleaning of the tile gap fillers sound a bit over-the-top. Just as important, since NASA was considering work on that thermal blanket, why wasn't that decision made *prior* to this latest spacewalk, so the problem could have been taken care of at the same time, and thus avoid an additional spacewalk? At worst, taking care of a tile gap filler should not have been expected to take more than 30 minutes each. Even allowing time to move, it shouldn't have taken more than a couple of hours. Considering the pre-breathing and other prep time for a spacewalk, how could it possibly have been more efficient to take care of the gap fillers in one spacewalk and the blanket in another? Efficiency is not the point. The fact is, the folks worried about the thermal blanket didn't know prior to EVA-3 what they would even have the crew *do* to the thermal blanket - they were considering several mutually- incompatible options, all of which had the *potential* to make the situation worse. So the MMT was not inclined to rush them into a decision in order to squeeze the thermal blanket task in at the end of EVA-3, and possibly do more harm than good. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
There is probably a NASA webpage about this, but where can I find diagrams
of the fuselage structure of the orbiter? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gerace" wrote in
: There is probably a NASA webpage about this, but where can I find diagrams of the fuselage structure of the orbiter? This might help: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/sodb/ -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Skylon wrote: I thought the Russians had in the past had to do some on-orbit repairs of Soyuz (replaced an antena or something to that effect). They had to reattach a thermal blanket that had come free from a Soyuz RV once. Pat |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gerace" wrote in message ... I don't understand how removing material from the spaces between the tiles is supposed to make the heatshield better. Something sticking up as far as the gap filler could break the laminar flow. This would cause turbulence, which would bring a lot more heated air in contact with the tiles. In other words, it could cause the tiles to get hotter than they otherwise would. The gap fillers provide some thermal protection, but the additional heat load from these two gaps would be minimal at best, so there is no need to fill the spaces. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ... Efficiency is not the point. The fact is, the folks worried about the thermal blanket didn't know prior to EVA-3 what they would even have the crew *do* to the thermal blanket - they were considering several mutually- incompatible options, all of which had the *potential* to make the situation worse. So, then, you *delay the EVA* until a decision has been made. It would have taken no more time either way, and delay would have been less risky (since it would have eliminated the need for a separate EVA). |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
"TVDad Jim" wrote in news:1123169893.286543.316830 : How does this repair job eclipse Pete Conrad's saving the entire Skylab program with his TWO repair jobs during the Skylab 2 mission? Assembling a ship-wide parasol AND freeing a solar panel was a heckuva lot more work than pulling two pieces of vinyl out of a heatshield. This repair job eclipses the Skylab repair in consequences, not complexity. The Discovery EVA may have been simpler than the Skylab EVA, but the survival of the Skylab crew wasn't riding on the success of the EVA, as was potentially the case here. The Skylab crew was repairing the *station*, not their *return vehicle*. If they failed, there was no question they could still have returned home safely. Right. So long as the failure didn't involve screwing up some pretty hairy prox ops. So long as the failure didn't involve getting caught in an extending solar wing. Not to mention the fact that Discovery has an airlock - the whole crew wasn't exposed to E/IVA risks. Not to mention the Discovery crew has a nice safe ISS right next door... Sorry, the Skylab 2 crew had much more at stake. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... Sorry, the Skylab 2 crew had much more at stake. Hell, that was before a lot of these reporters were even born. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Derek Lyons wrote: Right. So long as the failure didn't involve screwing up some pretty hairy prox ops. So long as the failure didn't involve getting caught in an extending solar wing. Not to mention the fact that Discovery has an airlock - the whole crew wasn't exposed to E/IVA risks. Not to mention the Discovery crew has a nice safe ISS right next door... Sorry, the Skylab 2 crew had much more at stake. Wasn't the first EVA Paul Weitz hanging out the Apollo CSM hatch with his legs held by Joe Kerwin. And while he's clearing debris Pete Conrad was at the controls holding the Apollo steady and trying to dock? -A.L. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - May 26, 2005 | [email protected] | History | 0 | May 26th 05 04:47 PM |
Space Access Update #111 04/05/05 2nd try | Henry Vanderbilt | Policy | 11 | April 27th 05 11:53 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 4th 05 05:21 AM |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Policy | 145 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |