STS-114 Mission Update Thread (Part 5)

[scottb50]

The only thing I can think is the star tracker opening disturbs the airflow enough that it's not a problem on that side. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lunatio_gordin]

Those are some awesome pictures. Man, i wish i could have watched it. bit busy this week...

 

[dougbaker]

Ok, no more shuttle. Great what do you replace it with?<br />Is there anything that is cheap, simple, and available anytime soon? - I don't think so.<br />So you use what you have until you can replace with something better.<br />So what is better?<br />I know newer is always better, but what are the newer but simpler and cheaper solutions to the problems of space flight. You still have same basic physics. It is hard to climb to orbit and requires a lot of energy. You still have heating when you return. You still need environmental systems. You still need a power system. So far the current plan (I know the report has not been released) is shuttle derived boosters. So no more shuttle but still using the same lift hardware.<br />I have seen some preliminary drawings/pictures for the CEV (crew exploration vehicle) . But how does the design for the CEV solve the same problems in a better way?<br /><br />So the tiles are fragile, what do you replace them with? Apollo style ablative material?<br />Yes, reusable was supposed to be cheaper and turned out not to be that way. So you build with the required redundant systems and then throw it away each time you use it? You need some flexibility, so do you build a different spacecraft for each use? How long and how much money would that cost? At least the shuttle has shown to be versatile; it can do many jobs, on-orbit lab, cargo hauler, satellite repair, EVA platform. I can’t believe the CEV could fix the Hubble telescope, rescue a satellite, and haul supplies for whatever.<br /><br />So yes we need a replacement, but just don’t fall for the trap that because it is new it must be better, or the grass is always greener on the other side.<br /><br />Will it be easy to build the replacement, no, will there be technical challenges, yes. Will the new really be cheaper and better? Too early to tell. <br /><br />Last, we spend a lot of effort and money fixing what we have, at least we should use to recover the investment.<br />

 

[bushuser]

To continue swerving off-topic....<br /><br />The outline of the CEV is not even fixed yet, but it is definitely simpler, with much more limited capability, than the Shuttle ["The Most Complicated Machine Ever Built"]<br /><br />It makes sense to me that the CEV is a better candidate for reusability than the shuttle. No APU's, no fuel cells, no hydraulics. One version we've seen doesn't even have aero control surfaces of any kind. It should be easier to refurbish than what we've got now, with so many fewer things to break...and test.<br /><br />A tile system is going to be more robust if is launched in-line. If you tile the CEV, the area covered will be much smaller than the shuttle's bottom, making repairs faster and cheaper. Or, you can design an ablative shield which bolts on for each mission.<br /><br />I understand "reusable" has become a dirty word. But I think lessons learned from the Shuttle can be applied to the future. One on the big lessons--keep it simple, stupid!

 

[emerrill]

Interestingly enough, I've looked at whatever pics I can find, and it appears that Discovery is the only orbiter to have that black, asymmetric out cropping, and it appears to have had it since first flight.<br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Maybe it was a problem area they saw on Columbia or a manufacturing defect that exposed that area to higher temps and was corrected on the last two ships. Does seem pretty strange and I'm sure there is a very good reason for it. All we need to do is find someone who knows what it is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emerrill]

"Maybe it was a problem area they saw on Columbia or a manufacturing defect that exposed that area to higher temps and was corrected on the last two ships. Does seem pretty strange and I'm sure there is a very good reason for it. All we need to do is find someone who knows what it is."<br /><br />I don't see what it would have to do with Columbia. It appears that discovery is the only ship to have had it, and its had it since its maiden flight (best I can tell).<br /><br />I agree, I'm sure its there for a good reason, but now I'm curious <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

So am I! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[botch]

There are lots of little differences between the shuttles if you look closely.<br />The thermal insulation pattern along the wing flaps are different between some of the shuttles.<br />The verticle stabilizer is shaped differently at the top aswell (some are smooth and some are squared off)<br />I'll post pictures to ilustrate as soon as I can find them.<br /><br />Also, what was with the large black coloured section on columbia's upper wing surface? It covers the first delta in the double delta shape. Were they expecting higher temperatures there?

 

[botch]

here's the differences I was talking about. Does anyone know why these differences exist? <br /><br />Flaps:<br />

 

[botch]

Verticle stabilizer:

 

[franson_space]

Why is this article so wrong?<br /><br />http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050803%2F1642535835.htm&sc=1501&photoid=20050803TXDC120&ewp=ewp_news_0805discovery_repairs&floc=NW_1-T<br /><br />It makes NASA look stupid.<br /><br />"Robinson was barely back inside the shuttle and out of his spacesuit when Mission Control informed the crew there was a chance that a fourth spacewalk might be needed Friday to deal with a torn thermal blanket below a cockpit window.<br /><br />The concern is that a 20-inch section of the blanket could rip away during re-entry, whip backward and slam into the shuttle, perhaps causing grave damage. Engineers expect to know by Thursday evening whether the danger is real and whether any blanket trimming is required.<br /><br />There was no immediate response from the exhausted but exhilarated astronaut."<br /><br />That's not true, the potential repair on the blanket was aware to all before. Why do they write it as if it's like they sent up a faulty shuttle?

 

[botch]

The article doesn't seem so bad to me. I've read some that are much worse.

 

[franson_space]

You don't mind inaccuracies cause you've 'seen worse'?

 

[botch]

The article doesn't say or infer anything that suggests that NASA is doing anything unsafe, it's simply reporting that they're looking into a potential problem. Nothing wrong with that. <br />The truth is NASA doesn't know whether the blanket poses a debris risk, which means that there is a potential for damage. NASA will investigate the insulation and will procede with contingencies appropriate to their findings.<br /><br />In what way is this article wrong about this process?

 

[franson_space]

It's inaccurate, but that seems to be lost on you.<br /><br />Did Steve get back in the airlock, the crew congratulate him, then the call went up, errrr well done but we just spotted another damaged area, crew go damn!<br /><br />Did not happen like that, it is wrong, false, inaccurate. JEEZ!

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I agree with you Franson. It's poor, dramatisised reporting...and if you listen to Marcia Dunn's questions at Post-MMT conferences you get to know what she's all about.<br /><br />Ironically, the worst tabloid in the UK did one of the better jobs on reporting yesterday's EVA 3 than the majority of US papers (mainly cause the US papers are that same AP feed or terrible editorials).<br /><br />http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005350730,00.html

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Florida Today believe the PAL Ramp was a "patch" too, now.<br /><br />http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050803/NEWS02/508030359/1007 <br /><br />"The main focus is on a pillow-sized piece of foam that broke free from a ramp that runs next to fuel pipes and cables, protecting them from turbulent airflow on the violent ride to space. Alterations or repairs made to that ramp are being looked at as a possible contributor to the foam loss, as is is every other change made to the tank."

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="orange">1207: "It makes sense to me that the CEV is a better candidate for reusability than the shuttle. No APU's, no fuel cells, no hydraulics" </font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">S_G: "Probably correct except for the no fuel cells. I have not seen a version with solar panels. "</font><br /><br />I was going to make a post to correct his fuel-cell misstatement -- but instead I'll make one to clarify yours... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Like Apollo, the CEV will <b>possibly</b> have batteries in the crew module and fuel-cells in the service-module equivalent. However, given that all statements so far seem to indicate that the crew-module will be considerably larger than the Apollo CM -- it's entirely possible that they'll simply go with fuel cells in the crew module. My bet would be on the batteries though -- or at least that there will be the <b>option</b> of having betteries in the crew module as opposed to FC's. This is based on the fact that batteries have a much better storage life. If an ISS-bound CEV crew module will be stationed on the ISS for months at a time, fuel cells become a problem due the reactant evaporation issue.<br /><br />Contrary to the 1207's implication, the fuel cells are not one of the orbiters' problem children. Modern fuel cells would be even less of an issue. Beyond long-term storage, the primary advantage that batteries have over fuel cells is that up to a given range of suppliable power, they are lighter and less massive than fuel cells because of the FC requirement for reactant tanks/plumbing/etc. Once you go over 'X' Watt-hours of power requirements, then the balance tips towards fuel cells and widens rapidly as the need for juice increases.<br /><br />Of course what I found while researching G-X3 is that the power requirements of modern electronics has dropped by almost an order of magnitude since Gemini/Apollo days (~1500 watts max power usage to less than 200 watts). For th

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I go with the experts who say it could have been a problem."</font><br /><br />Anything is possible. However, everywheere I saw quotes that seemed to originate with someone who had an engineering background, it was generally stated as essentially: "We really don't know enough to know if it has a possibility of being a problem -- but we really don't know enough to be able to 100% discount entirely the possibility that it <b>might</b> be a problem". In short, they sound less like an expert stating "This is a problem that we ought to fix", and more like an expert stating "I don't know that this is a problem that needs to be fixed, but if you <b>don't</b> fix it and there's a problem on re-entry, you didn't hear <b>me</b> telling you not to fix it."<br /><br />All that I'm saying is that I think the issue was overblown. I may well have been incorrect in my statement that this is probably a common issue. Have we had the data in the past to know that this has *not* been a frequent occurrance on previous flights?

 

[bushuser]

Thanks, SG & mrmorris, for that information. <br />I never considered the reduced power needs of modern electronics. I suppose this means there's also less demand for cooling of the equipment.<br /><br />How would RPG's compare to batteries and fuel cells?<br />I presume lower power, longer life, but what about weight?<br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

What a weak tribute to STS-107. Just speeches, quoting JFK, and passages from the bible. That's it?

 

[spacefire]

.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

To answer my own question.<br /><br />No rollout for Atlantis, earliest is 0001 Sunday.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I see your grammar has improved <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />