Shuttle Emergency Undock Procedure

[slidelock]

Is anyone here familiar with the Shuttle Emergency Undock Procedure? Can they "blow and go?" or is the procedure more complicated than that? Specifically how long would it take to accomplish in an emergency?

 

[usn_skwerl]

Friendly bump.<br /><br />Good question. Anyone have an answer? <br /><br />I tried looking, found ISS emergency procedures in a PDF, ran a search in it, and found nothing of orbiter emergency undock, just Soyuz...S_G, Jim, anyone? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"There are limits on the ISS/Orbiter rotation rates which would prevent a safe undock. If the rates are a safe undock can be made fairly quickly. "<br /><br />The Joint Expedited Undock Scenario (JEUS or 'juice') can be done in as little as 20 minutes, 30 is reasonable in the middle of an EVA. S_G is correct that the rates have to be a certain limit to prevent recontact but that is about the only constraint. There are even options in "any attitude". Crews go to their own vehicles taking space suits with them if needed, close hatches and punch off.

 

[slidelock]

"Punch off", does that involve the OMS or are there pyros involved in JEUS? Would it be possible to get a copy of that procedure and a risk analysis without filing a FOI request? Just call this a shameless bump. Thanks

 

[mi2again]

There also explosive bolts as a backup

 

[jammers]

If the explosive bolts had to be used, would the docking adapter still be usable, or would the bolts have to replaced?

 

[slidelock]

How long would this take to accomplish using undock and RCS procedures? Explosive bolts?

 

[mi2again]

The APAS would be still attached to the station. The separation plane is below the APAS

 

[slidelock]

Has a risk analysis been done on these two methods?

 

[mi2again]

always

 

[slidelock]

Great, how do I get a copy? FOIA I suppose. Or could somebody summarize it for me? Or perhaps I should rely on blind trust.

 

[mi2again]

What are you looking for?<br />The backup system exists because of risks in the primary

 

[slidelock]

Perhaps my posts weren't as clear as I would have liked. I would like a summary of the risk analysis of using JEUS, particularly the explosive bolt scenario. If no one has it, I will cheerfully file a FOIA, but I was hoping somebody had one.

 

[scottb50]

I don't see why it has to be controversial. What hidden agenda are you looking for?<br /><br />I would think there is the normal latching system and explosive bolts if it fails. Shuttle thrusters should be more then enough to get away from the ISS unless it is spinning uncontrollably. I would also think a failure in ISS control could be corrected by an attached Shuttle or even a Soyus before either had to depart in an emergency. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[slidelock]

Scott. I am not looking for controversy. I simply began to wonder how long it would take to do an emergency egress from the ISS in the event of something like an uncontrollable fire or catastrophic hull rupture. Knowing that NASA tries to do thorough planning for any forseeable events. I thought there should be detailed plans for any scenario which would mandate an emergency decouple from ISS. I think those plans would be interesting to read as well the risk analysis. Somehow I seem to have stepped on some toes with this thread. That was something I hadn't intended to do. As for the FOIA, it is my understanding that any unusual request for information requires a FOIA. That is simply the way .gov works these days. As an example, to get a copy of my own dental X-rays from the VA, I had to file a FOIA rather than a simple release of information. I cant imagine why.

 

[l3p3r]

Slidelock; <br /><br />if you find out be sure to let us know <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[l3p3r]

i should clarify: If he finds out more <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />such as formal procedures, checklists, risk assessments etc<br />would be an interesting read! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[slidelock]

FOIA out monday. I will ask for:formal procedures, checklists, risk assessments and training manuals for the JEUS Procedure after I have established contact with the PAO Office.<br /> Personally, I would want to egress ISS in less than 20 to 30 minutes in the event of a catastrophic hull breach or fire. btw what is the atmosphere on ISS? O2 or air? I am still sorry I have stepped on toes here, but NASA is a government beauracracy with the ususal budget concerns, beauracratic rules and internal and external politics. Safety as a primary goal maybe the policy, but the practice likely falls short of that just as it does in any beauracracy anywhere. I will ask that the FOIA response be submitted electronically in the WORD format, although the latter may be pushing the envelope considerably! <br /><br />

 

[mi2again]

Air. <br />"I am still sorry I have stepped on toes here, but NASA is a government beauracracy with the ususal budget concerns, beauracratic rules and internal and external politics. Safety as a primary goal maybe the policy, but the practice likely falls short of that just as it does in any beauracracy anywhere"<br /><br />Not applicable here. Shuttle, ISS and EVA ops are overly conservative. There are many procedures that deal with crew safety such as this. Just as today's EVA had a time determine by time it would take to return to the airlock plus a signifnicant margin.<br /><br />You aren't going to uncover anything. The procedure exists and the risk assessment was performed. <br /><br />Aside from launch fever, NASA is overly conservative with onorbit ops

 

[mi2again]

51-L

 

[Huntster]

ISS has an Earth-normal atmosphere (see Section 2.4), as I believe all modern U.S. and Russian craft have since Apollo 1. See also Table 1-1 in that same link for additional numbers.<br /><br />Instead of trying to 'uncover' something, just say "I'm curious as to what the plan is." I am. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mi2again]

Apollo only had Earth normal on the pad. On orbit, it was 5 psia pure 02. Skylab was 5 psia with 60% N2

 

[Huntster]

>>Apollo only had Earth normal on the pad.<br /><br />Ah, I see, I completely misread that table in the above link. So Apollo was gradually ramped up to 100% O2 during the first day on-orbit. I'm surprised then that the pure oxygen environment was continued...another necessity of design?<br /><br />That link above, however, says that Skylab had 70% O2 at 5 psi. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mi2again]

"here was no launch fever for 51L. There were no Launch Commit Criteria items that were violated. All design centers gave a go for the launch. No one at KSC knew of the SRB o-ring issue."<br /><br /> That just BS spin. The shuttle program had launch fever. They had a schedule to keep. It is documented that the design center pressured its contractor into giving a go. <br /><br />launch fever is a broad term and not just applicable on launch day. It applies to STS-107 too since the program kept launching vs dealing with the foam.

 

[mi2again]

"I said there was no launch fever at KSC and you could not dispute that so you changed the subject to "the program"<br /><br />I didn't change anything. I never said KSC, I said NASA. But anyways, KSC was implicated also since it was part of the shuttle program. Just because there wasn't any "violations", doesn't mean they should have launched. Just as the Atlas that was launched into a thunderstorm, which wasn't a violation. The ice on Complex 39 B was enough of a justification to scrub the launch, per the Rogers' Commission