| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Space - Shuttle Forum » In two years time...
Page 8 of 10 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Alan Erskine |
 Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<charliexmurphy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c13b5256-dc12-49a1-811e-cedf9fea0767@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Mar 10, 4:40 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com
wrote:
Charlie, just kf Maxon and save the rest of us. OK? Please? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jorge R. Frank |
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
charliexmurphy@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: On Mar 10, 12:21 pm, Dr J R Stockton <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
A crew of two for an ISS assembly flight? No way, no how. Not going to
happen.
The Shuttle crew never do any ISS assembly until they have docked to
ISS.
Docking takes more than 2 people
Yup, requires 3(+1) due mainly to all the prox ops tools being hosted on
laptop PCs, and the critical reliance on the shuttle's closed-circuit TV
system. And that doesn't even count the people operating the docking
mechanism itself.
Sure, it could be automated to need fewer people. The Apollo CSM could
do it with just the CMP. But that was because Apollo had a design
requirement for the CMP to be able to do it by himself, and a blank
check to implement it. With the shuttle, every development problem
resulted in an operational workaround that increased crew workload, and
that was accepted because the crew was always going to be there and you
had plenty of them to help. Shuttle automation isn't going to happen.
Not worth the investment for a system set to retire in two years.
Quote: then there would be several people available. IIRC, there's been
at least one two-man space-walk that left ISS empty, and several done
with three ISS crew and no Shuttle.
And modules are routin
ssembled
onto ISS by one arm operator.
wrong, more than one person is present at the operator station
Yup, there's both an R1 and R2 for shuttle robotics, M1 and M2 for
station robotics.
Quote: There'd be no need to train CDR or PLT to do the assembly; a couple if
ISS crew can have had AMS-assembly training beforehand.
Not viable
That is the issue, the station crew is worrying about running the ISS,
not assembly
Don't even know which ISS crew is going to be there during the AMS
shuttle flight
Relying on the ISS crew for AMS assembly would also require that AMS
have everything frozen and ready for procedures development a lot
earlier, so that the ISS crew can be trained before they fly. If the AMS
shuttle flight is at the end of FY10, the ISS crew is going to be
launching a couple months before that, and their training flow is
crowded enough that AMS would need to be able to deliver everything tied
up neatly with a bow on top no later than, say, early spring.
All due respect to the AMS team, no way they can pull that off even if
they started now. They'll be doing quite well to support training a
shuttle crew flying at the end of FY10. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Doe |
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Quote: had plenty of them to help. Shuttle automation isn't going to happen.
Not worth the investment for a system set to retire in two years.
Wouldn't it have been smart to start developping it for Shuttle the day
Bush announced the end of Shuttle so that NASA could use the Shuttle's
remaining flights to test such a system.
If you're going to need auytomated docking post shuttle, the if the
post-shuttle plans had been serious, they would have begun to develop
and test automated docking ASAP. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider) |
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Doe" <jdoe@doe.org> wrote in message
news:47d5f054$0$10324$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Quote: Jorge R. Frank wrote:
had plenty of them to help. Shuttle automation isn't going to happen.
Not worth the investment for a system set to retire in two years.
Wouldn't it have been smart to start developping it for Shuttle the day
Bush announced the end of Shuttle so that NASA could use the Shuttle's
remaining flights to test such a system.
Sure. And with what checkbook?
Quote:
If you're going to need auytomated docking post shuttle, the if the
post-shuttle plans had been serious, they would have begun to develop
and test automated docking ASAP.
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian Thorn |
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:35:01 -0400, John Doe <jdoe@doe.org> wrote:
Quote: Jorge R. Frank wrote:
had plenty of them to help. Shuttle automation isn't going to happen.
Not worth the investment for a system set to retire in two years.
Wouldn't it have been smart to start developping it for Shuttle the day
Bush announced the end of Shuttle so that NASA could use the Shuttle's
remaining flights to test such a system.
Nope. The Shuttle is just too different (gi-normous in comparison) to
anything else coming down the pike. The tech probably wouldn't be all
that transferrable.
And SSP had its hands full with return-to-flight as it was.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Doe |
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brian Thorn wrote: (re automated docking to ISS)
Quote: Nope. The Shuttle is just too different (gi-normous in comparison) to
anything else coming down the pike. The tech probably wouldn't be all
that transferrable.
Is it really ?
When you consider the telemetry equipment, whatever hardware is needed
on the ISS to guide the vehicle, and harware on the vehicle to "see" the
docking port and calculate how to get to it, wouldn't that be quite
similar ?
I understand that implementing the "how to get to it" would be different
since the shuttle has differents RCS, mass etc, but wouldn't the core of
the system be transferable to that CEV/Orion/whatever ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:53 am |
|
|
|
|
On Mar 11, 9:07 am, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com>
wrote:
Quote: "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfr...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in messagenews:-4GdnQWm86JRcUjanZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com...
charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
Docking takes more than 2 people
Yup, requires 3(+1) due mainly to all the prox ops tools being hosted on
laptop PCs, and the critical reliance on the shuttle's closed-circuit TV
system. And that doesn't even count the people operating the docking
mechanism itself.
Sure, it could be automated to need fewer people. The Apollo CSM could do
it with just the CMP. But that was because Apollo had a design requirement
for the CMP to be able to do it by himself, and a blank check to implement
it. With the shuttle, every development problem resulted in an operational
workaround that increased crew workload, and that was accepted because the
crew was always going to be there and you had plenty of them to help.
Shuttle automation isn't going to happen. Not worth the investment for a
system set to retire in two years.
Docking was something added to the shuttle after the fact. With Apollo, it
was pretty much a requirement from day one.
From what I remember reading, the whole docking versus berthing decision
wasn't really settled until the US brought the Russians on board. That
pretty much meant that the shuttle needed to adopt the Russian docking
system in order to dock to Mir. Once that was decided, it naturally carried
over to shuttle/ISS dockings.
Yes, at on time, the station arm was going to grab the orbiter and
berth it |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| maxson@mission51l.com |
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 11, 11:01 am, "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfr...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
Quote: Derek Lyons wrote:
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Docking was something added to the shuttle after the fact. With Apollo, it
was pretty much a requirement from day one.
Huh? How late is 'after the fact'?
Actual work on a shuttle docking mechanism did not start until 1992,
when preparations for Shuttle-Mir began.
As I saw illustrations of the
Shuttle docked to various things as early as the mid 70's. It doesn't
make sense for it to have been added 'after the fact' as it was
intended to service a space station from day one.
They were just that, illustrations. No actual work done on any of those
concepts.
I agree that it's completely necessary and rational to draw a
distinction between pie-in-the-sky and actual work, especially
authorized and funded work.
JTM |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jeff Findley |
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:-4GdnQWm86JRcUjanZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com...
Quote: charliexmurphy@yahoo.com wrote:
Docking takes more than 2 people
Yup, requires 3(+1) due mainly to all the prox ops tools being hosted on
laptop PCs, and the critical reliance on the shuttle's closed-circuit TV
system. And that doesn't even count the people operating the docking
mechanism itself.
Sure, it could be automated to need fewer people. The Apollo CSM could do
it with just the CMP. But that was because Apollo had a design requirement
for the CMP to be able to do it by himself, and a blank check to implement
it. With the shuttle, every development problem resulted in an operational
workaround that increased crew workload, and that was accepted because the
crew was always going to be there and you had plenty of them to help.
Shuttle automation isn't going to happen. Not worth the investment for a
system set to retire in two years.
Docking was something added to the shuttle after the fact. With Apollo, it
was pretty much a requirement from day one.
From what I remember reading, the whole docking versus berthing decision
wasn't really settled until the US brought the Russians on board. That
pretty much meant that the shuttle needed to adopt the Russian docking
system in order to dock to Mir. Once that was decided, it naturally carried
over to shuttle/ISS dockings.
Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| maxson@mission51l.com |
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 10, 9:32 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: The work was started in1979 like I said.
Sure. Talk is cheap. SLC-6 work maybe, but not VLS work -- unless you
can provide a description of the shuttle work actually performed, **by
date**.
Quote: Landing strip extension
OMRF
pad mount
MST
PCR
PPF
SRB facility
ET storage
SAB
Shuttle work on those was performed after Reagan's inauguration.
That's fact. It was all in vain too. The filament-wound-cases needed
for polar orbit ruptured during testing at MSFC, to mention only one
of the post-Carter design problems.
JTM |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Derek Lyons |
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Quote: Docking was something added to the shuttle after the fact. With Apollo, it
was pretty much a requirement from day one.
Huh? How late is 'after the fact'? As I saw illustrations of the
Shuttle docked to various things as early as the mid 70's. It doesn't
make sense for it to have been added 'after the fact' as it was
intended to service a space station from day one.
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 |
|
| Jorge R. Frank |
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Derek Lyons wrote:
Quote: "Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Docking was something added to the shuttle after the fact. With Apollo, it
was pretty much a requirement from day one.
Huh? How late is 'after the fact'?
Actual work on a shuttle docking mechanism did not start until 1992,
when preparations for Shuttle-Mir began.
Quote: As I saw illustrations of the
Shuttle docked to various things as early as the mid 70's. It doesn't
make sense for it to have been added 'after the fact' as it was
intended to service a space station from day one.
They were just that, illustrations. No actual work done on any of those
concepts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Derek Lyons |
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
Quote: Derek Lyons wrote:
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Docking was something added to the shuttle after the fact. With Apollo, it
was pretty much a requirement from day one.
Huh? How late is 'after the fact'?
Actual work on a shuttle docking mechanism did not start until 1992,
when preparations for Shuttle-Mir began.
As I saw illustrations of the
Shuttle docked to various things as early as the mid 70's. It doesn't
make sense for it to have been added 'after the fact' as it was
intended to service a space station from day one.
They were just that, illustrations. No actual work done on any of those
concepts.
When the work was done is irrelevant - the capability was intended
from the start is my point. Providing those capabilities way delayed,
not added.
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: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:D4qdnQ_FuO0uMUvanZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@giganews.com...
Quote: Derek Lyons wrote:
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Docking was something added to the shuttle after the fact. With Apollo,
it was pretty much a requirement from day one.
Huh? How late is 'after the fact'?
Actual work on a shuttle docking mechanism did not start until 1992, when
preparations for Shuttle-Mir began.
As I saw illustrations of the
Shuttle docked to various things as early as the mid 70's. It doesn't
make sense for it to have been added 'after the fact' as it was
intended to service a space station from day one.
They were just that, illustrations. No actual work done on any of those
concepts.
Which is why the rendezvous and proximity operations (RPOP) software is
running on a laptop instead of on the shuttle's computers.
I suppose it's never been clear to me exactly how the commander or pilot
flies the docking operations. I know there is a centerline camera in the
ODS, so does that mean that the commander or pilot in one of the front seats
is flying the docking with this camera view and the RPOP software running in
front of him? If so, then he/she has no clear view out of a window to help
guide them during docking, right?
In an Apollo CSM, I thought the guy flying the CSM could look right out the
window and see the docking target on the LM, Skylab, and etc.
Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:55 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Mar 11, 5:41 pm, John Doe <j...@doe.org> wrote:
Quote: They "docked" various pieces such as the european lab and the spacehab.
But this was done on the ground before the flight.
That is not "docked" but attached. big difference |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 8 of 10 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:19 pm
|
|