A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

"Unprecedented" repair in space?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 5th 05, 06:12 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old August 5th 05, 06:22 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old August 5th 05, 06:36 AM
Neil Gerace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There is probably a NASA webpage about this, but where can I find diagrams
of the fuselage structure of the orbiter?


  #14  
Old August 5th 05, 06:52 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old August 5th 05, 07:12 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old August 5th 05, 03:57 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old August 5th 05, 04:00 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old August 5th 05, 04:56 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old August 6th 05, 01:39 AM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old August 6th 05, 05:10 AM
Skylon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:55 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.