Am I following this right ?ESM is apparently late, with a requirement of tolerating 30 days on the pad and 100 days on the SLS.They've just been informed of a new requirement, of tolerating 120 days on the pad and 310 days attached to SLS.Is that correct ?
"capable of tolerating [...] 120 days of pad exposure time and 310 days of being attached"Does any other spacecraft (past, current or realistically envisioned) come close to meeting these?
Quote from: sdsds on 11/08/2016 07:28 pm"capable of tolerating [...] 120 days of pad exposure time and 310 days of being attached"Does any other spacecraft (past, current or realistically envisioned) come close to meeting these?For Shuttle, launch pad stay time was up to 180 days. The limit was governed by the SRBs though which could be kept vertically stacked for up to one year, but of which only 180 days maximum was allowed in the mated configuration.
Quote from: sdsds on 11/08/2016 07:28 pm"capable of tolerating [...] 120 days of pad exposure time and 310 days of being attached"Does any other spacecraft (past, current or realistically envisioned) come close to meeting these?What are the limiting pieces of spacecraft hardware or systems that are expected to be limiting?What dictates such extended durations? Does the ESM design accommodate these stay times?
More on this potential failure mode from the NAC HEO Cmte slides. What is meant by, "alternate fatigue spectrum?"