Nobody seems to have solved the problem of getting heavy stuff back after
the Shuttle retires. OK, I've heard all sorts of schemes...
Inflatable heat shields and parachutes.

Modified atv/htvs
etc etc.

When asked recently, the indication seemed to be we are waiting for the
commercial sector to do it.. Hmm, oh yeah, I can see that around the
corner.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff - bria...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!

There was a requirement to return heavy stuff - like racks for
refurbishment or after they'd been replaced with different racks.
That requirement was quietly lined out as ISS was descoped post
Columbia.

I need to point out the value of studying used and/or failed hardware
in engineering development?

On Mar 9, 12:57 pm, "Brian Gaff" <bria...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Nobody seems to have solved the problem of getting heavy stuff back after
the Shuttle retires. OK, I've heard all sorts of schemes...
Inflatable heat shields and parachutes.

Modified atv/htvs
etc etc.

When asked recently, the indication seemed to be we are waiting for the
commercial sector to do it.. Hmm, oh yeah, I can see that around the
corner.

What heavy stuff? There is no requirement to return heavy stuff. Only
experiment samples.

CMG's? Nope, they are now expendable and a new version is being
designed.

On Mar 9, 7:31 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:

There was a requirement to return heavy stuff - like racks for
refurbishment or after they'd been replaced with different racks.
That requirement was quietly lined out as ISS was descoped post
Columbia.

Rack weren't going to be refurbed, just switch our and replaced. Only
thing lost here are the return rack for museum pieces.

I need to point out the value of studying used and/or failed hardware
in engineering development?

Use telemetry like every other spacecraft

It is not a big lost

Rack weren't going to be refurbed, just switch our and replaced. Only
thing lost here are the return rack for museum pieces.

On Mar 9, 12:57 pm, "Brian Gaff" <bria...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Nobody seems to have solved the problem of getting heavy stuff back after
the Shuttle retires. OK, I've heard all sorts of schemes...
Inflatable heat shields and parachutes.

Modified atv/htvs
etc etc.

When asked recently, the indication seemed to be we are waiting for the
commercial sector to do it.. Hmm, oh yeah, I can see that around the
corner.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff - bria...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!

What heavy stuff? There is no requirement to return heavy stuff. Only
experiment samples.

CMG's? Nope, they are now expendable and a new version is being
designed.

charliexmurphy@yahoo.com wrote:

On Mar 9, 12:57 pm, "Brian Gaff" <bria...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Nobody seems to have solved the problem of getting heavy stuff back
after
the Shuttle retires. OK, I've heard all sorts of schemes...
Inflatable heat shields and parachutes.

Modified atv/htvs
etc etc.

When asked recently, the indication seemed to be we are waiting for the
commercial sector to do it.. Hmm, oh yeah, I can see that around the
corner.

What heavy stuff? There is no requirement to return heavy stuff. Only
experiment samples.

There was a requirement to return heavy stuff - like racks for
refurbishment or after they'd been replaced with different racks.
That requirement was quietly lined out as ISS was descoped post
Columbia.

CMG's? Nope, they are now expendable and a new version is being
designed.

I need to point out the value of studying used and/or failed hardware
in engineering development?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Mar 9, 7:31 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:

There was a requirement to return heavy stuff - like racks for
refurbishment or after they'd been replaced with different racks.
That requirement was quietly lined out as ISS was descoped post
Columbia.

Rack weren't going to be refurbed, just switch our and replaced. Only
thing lost here are the return rack for museum pieces.


I need to point out the value of studying used and/or failed hardware
in engineering development?

Use telemetry like every other spacecraft

It is not a big lost

Rack weren't going to be refurbed, just switch our and replaced. Only
thing lost here are the return rack for museum pieces.

One of the issues discovered with Mir was that when unable to return
large pieces, the station tends to fill up and become extremely
cluttered. This was one of the reasons behind the CBM large hatches as
well as the MPLM system that allowed stuff to be brough DOWN as well as UP.

The problem is that with things on the USA segment having been designed
to fit through CBM, it is unclear how much can be loaded in a Progress
for disposal.

charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 9, 7:31 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:

There was a requirement to return heavy stuff - like racks for
refurbishment or after they'd been replaced with different racks.
That requirement was quietly lined out as ISS was descoped post
Columbia.

Rack weren't going to be refurbed, just switch our and replaced. Only
thing lost here are the return rack for museum pieces.

Some indeed were to be refurbished, or at a minimum the frames etc...
reused.

I need to point out the value of studying used and/or failed hardware
in engineering development?

Use telemetry like every other spacecraft

You think telemetry is an adequate substitute for physical analysis?
You think telemetry even covers a tenth of the parameters of interest?

The problem is that the racks (many of them) aren't bookshelves that
you can stick any ol' thing into, they are complete integrated pieces
of equipment.

I.E. the main box of your computer is the equivalent to an ISS rack.

Why are there so many people who think "COTS" can realistically build an
automated vehicle in a couple of years ?
Since NASA has no automated docking/berthing capabilities, some private
contractor has no template to use when building their own.

It is one thing to build a composite craft for a 3 minute joy ride to
mach 3 and free fall back down, it is quite different and far more
involved to build a craft capable of accelerating to mach 25, survive in
space for at least a few weeks, and have all the guidance, rocketry to
perform automated docking. (and probably needs radar or some other
measurement device.

One of the issues discovered with Mir was that when unable to return
large pieces, the station tends to fill up and become extremely
cluttered. This was one of the reasons behind the CBM large hatches as
well as the MPLM system that allowed stuff to be brough DOWN as well as UP.

The problem is that with things on the USA segment having been designed
to fit through CBM, it is unclear how much can be loaded in a Progress
for disposal.

One would think that they would now design stuff to be sent up that does
fit through the Progress hatches and then be loaded onto existing racks.
(aka: ship IKEA style to be mounted onto existing racks).

On Mar 10, 1:10 am, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:

I need to point out the value of studying used and/or failed hardware
in engineering development?

Use telemetry like every other spacecraft

You think telemetry is an adequate substitute for physical analysis?
You think telemetry even covers a tenth of the parameters of interest?


Yes, because it works for all the automated probes and spacecraft.

No one has complained about never seeing the hardware before. Same goes
for MIR. Saylut, and Skylab