Author Topic: ISS Solar Array Tear - What Next? (Read 49435 times)

rdale · « **Reply #60 on:** 10/31/2007 02:05 am »

I can't imagine any other satellites with the need to furl and unfurl the arrays repeatedly...

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #61 on:** 10/31/2007 05:26 am »

Let's not point fingers guys. Sometimes things don't go as planned and pieces can fall apart. We also have to remember that these arrays are almost four years older than they were when STS-119 had this task and was slated to fly in early 2004. It makes a big difference. Let's sit back and watch NASA and their friends work their magic. They've done an amazing job getting this complex assembled and working. I'm actually excited to see how they work this out. All the best to them all...

ckiki lwai · « **Reply #62 on:** 10/31/2007 09:32 am »

Could the P6 have been installed right after P5 was installed, without retracting the P6 solar arrays?
Or are the P6 solar arrays not strong enough to be moved or are there clearance problems?
If possible it would have saved us a lot of trouble.

Jim · « **Reply #63 on:** 10/31/2007 10:34 am »

Quote

shuttlelegs - 30/10/2007 10:55 PM

Is this the end of line of such a solar array ? More rigid ones such as the ones which replaced the Hubbles solar arrays more likely to be used in the future if the need appears

No. this array is an advancement. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water

Jim · « **Reply #64 on:** 10/31/2007 10:35 am »

Quote

yoda - 30/10/2007 10:45 PM

If the two sides of the hinge could be aligned, maybe a wire or thin rod could be inserted to reattach the ripped or separated segment, like a long door pin. Could an EVA accomplish this?

Is it possible the solar array panels were misaligned when stowed for movement, then as the panels were pulled out accordian style, the hinge was caught on part of its stowage box, causing the rip?

There is no "hinge" it is a fold

Jim · « **Reply #65 on:** 10/31/2007 10:35 am »

Quote

rdale - 30/10/2007 11:05 PM

I can't imagine any other satellites with the need to furl and unfurl the arrays repeatedly...

there are some

Jim · « **Reply #66 on:** 10/31/2007 10:37 am »

Quote

ckiki lwai - 31/10/2007 6:32 AM

Could the P6 have been installed right after P5 was installed, without retracting the P6 solar arrays?
Or are the P6 solar arrays not strong enough to be moved or are there clearance problems?
If possible it would have saved us a lot of trouble.

they needed to be retracted for the move. Too unwieldy

jaredgalen · « **Reply #67 on:** 10/31/2007 11:26 am »

Quote

Jim - 31/10/2007 12:35 PM
There is no "hinge" it is a fold

If it is just a fold then the eyelets for the guidewires, are they attached adhesively and not part of a hinge mechanism?

My first thought was that it was a fold and not a 'hinge' and that the wire had snagged, tugged and ripped along the fold like perforated paper.

But looking closer I keep wanting to call it a hinge!

brihath · « **Reply #68 on:** 10/31/2007 12:05 pm »

Quote

rdale - 30/10/2007 11:05 PM

I can't imagine any other satellites with the need to furl and unfurl the arrays repeatedly...

I would imagine Keyhole satellites. They make significant orbital adjustments.

Jim · « **Reply #69 on:** 10/31/2007 01:57 pm »

Quote

brihath - 31/10/2007 9:05 AM

Quote
rdale - 30/10/2007 11:05 PM

I can't imagine any other satellites with the need to furl and unfurl the arrays repeatedly...

I would imagine Keyhole satellites. They make significant orbital adjustments.

Orbital adjustment is not a reason to retract an array. The ISS doesn't

brihath · « **Reply #70 on:** 10/31/2007 02:11 pm »

Quote

Jim - 31/10/2007 10:57 AM

Quote
brihath - 31/10/2007 9:05 AM

Quote
rdale - 30/10/2007 11:05 PM

I can't imagine any other satellites with the need to furl and unfurl the arrays repeatedly...

I would imagine Keyhole satellites. They make significant orbital adjustments.

Orbital adjustment is not a reason to retract an array. The ISS doesn't

What are the reasons for retracting an array? You stated other satellites do.

Analyst · « **Reply #71 on:** 10/31/2007 03:37 pm »

Quote

brihath - 31/10/2007 5:11 PM

What are the reasons for retracting an array? You stated other satellites do.

HST servicing: Solar array replacement.
Satellite retrieval by shuttle: Eureca and Japanese satellite in the mid 1990ies.

Analyst

rdale · « **Reply #72 on:** 10/31/2007 03:50 pm »

HST is already up there and there won't be any more satellite retrievements by the shuttle... So back to the original post - what future satellites will be affected by the array problems on ISS? My list remains pretty short :>

brihath · « **Reply #73 on:** 10/31/2007 03:57 pm »

Quote

rdale - 31/10/2007 12:50 PM

HST is already up there and there won't be any more satellite retrievements by the shuttle... So back to the original post - what future satellites will be affected by the array problems on ISS? My list remains pretty short :>

My thoughts too. I was thinking in terms of operational systems, and treated Hubble as a special case, as it was designed for on orbit servicing. Forgot about Eureca...it was a while ago.

Jim · « **Reply #74 on:** 10/31/2007 04:28 pm »

Quote

rdale - 31/10/2007 12:50 PM

HST is already up there and there won't be any more satellite retrievements by the shuttle... So back to the original post - what future satellites will be affected by the array problems on ISS? My list remains pretty short :>

No "NASA" spacecraft.

MILSTAR was a spacecraft that used these type arrays

Speedracer · « **Reply #75 on:** 10/31/2007 07:15 pm »

[[Someone moved this from the FD9 thread]]]

Also, if you want gloom & doom journalism, go pick up a copy of USA Today, and look at page 3.

spacedreams · « **Reply #76 on:** 10/31/2007 07:05 pm »

Quote

ckiki lwai - 31/10/2007 3:32 AM Could the P6 have been installed right after P5 was installed, without retracting the P6 solar arrays? Or are the P6 solar arrays not strong enough to be moved or are there clearance problems? If possible it would have saved us a lot of trouble.

P6 installation could have and should have been done on 13A.1. It was originally planned that way

And to answer your other question, the retraction was required due to translational loads during relocation

Speedracer · « **Reply #77 on:** 10/31/2007 07:11 pm »

What if.... They could use the Station's Canadarm-2 to latch on to the shuttle, then maneuver it to the location via the CETA (sp?) cart, then the shuttle's arm might reach the affected area? I know there's space, room, maneuverability, etc. but still its a thought.

MKremer · « **Reply #78 on:** 10/31/2007 07:14 pm »

Quote

Speedracer - 31/10/2007 3:11 PM

What if.... They could use the Station's Canadarm-2 to latch on to the shuttle, then maneuver it to the location via the CETA (sp?) cart, then the shuttle's arm might reach the affected area? I know there's space, room, maneuverability, etc. but still its a thought.

If they've already determined they couldn't translate with P6 on the SSRMS and had to do handoffs while moving the MT, there's no way anyone is going to suggest not only undocking the Shuttle (a non-starter to begin with without all the Shuttle crew onboard and the way the APAS docking system works), but then trying to move its 110 tons using the SSRMS and MT.

Speedracer · « **Reply #79 on:** 10/31/2007 07:19 pm »

There's always this stuff...