|
Science Forum Index » Space - Station Forum » ISS is an experiment
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:52 pm |
|
|
|
|
We should look at the ISS as an experiment. If we learn
ways NOT to build and operate solar arrays that's just fine.
Sooner or later we will have to build large structures and ships on
orbit and refuel them. This is what the russians began and ISS is an
extension of these experiments. If all these things worked the first
time they wouldn't be experiments.
The experiments are NOT JUST the things that go on INSIDE the destiny
module. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian Thorn |
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:52:13 -0700, jonesrob@emporia.edu wrote:
Quote: We should look at the ISS as an experiment. If we learn
ways NOT to build and operate solar arrays that's just fine.
P6 is doing great for something that sat out several years longer than
it was supposed to before being refolded and re-extended.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| LooseChanj |
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On or about Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:52:33 GMT, Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> made the sensational claim that:
Quote: P6 is doing great for something that sat out several years longer than
it was supposed to before being refolded and re-extended.
Didn't they have trouble deploying those arrays the first time, all those
years ago?
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Derek Lyons |
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
LooseChanj <LooseChanj@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: On or about Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:52:33 GMT, Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> made the sensational claim that:
P6 is doing great for something that sat out several years longer than
it was supposed to before being refolded and re-extended.
Didn't they have trouble deploying those arrays the first time, all those
years ago?
Nothing really significant IIRC.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jeff Findley |
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4728b61f.44732125@news.supernews.com...
Quote: LooseChanj <LooseChanj@aol.com> wrote:
On or about Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:52:33 GMT, Brian Thorn
bthorn64@suddenlink.net> made the sensational claim that:
Didn't they have trouble deploying those arrays the first time, all those
years ago?
Nothing really significant IIRC.
I thought it was the re-folding of the arrays that caused some trouble. It
required an EVA and an astronaut poking the array with a hockey stick like
tool. It would be interesting to find out if the failed location on the
array correlates with a location that wouldn't fold correctly and needed
some prodding with the hockey stick.
Jeff
--
"When transportation is cheap, frequent, reliable, and flexible,
everything else becomes easier."
- Jon Goff |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian Thorn |
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:18:07 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
<jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Quote: Didn't they have trouble deploying those arrays the first time, all those
years ago?
Nothing really significant IIRC.
I thought it was the re-folding of the arrays that caused some trouble.
Both. P6 did have that "springy" incident when it was originally
unfurled too quickly. They learned from that and unfurled all the rest
much more slowly.
Then this is the same array that gave 116 fits last December.
Quote: It
required an EVA and an astronaut poking the array with a hockey stick like
tool. It would be interesting to find out if the failed location on the
array correlates with a location that wouldn't fold correctly and needed
some prodding with the hockey stick.
I think NASASpaceflight.com's play-by-play indicated it was indeed in
the same place... Panel 11. If this is true, then someone really
screwed up by not stopping at the panel before and waiting for good
lighting before proceeding. But NSF.com, while an excellent resource,
tends to be breathless reports at first followed by lots of "oh,
neverminds" later.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
