-
EVA Q&A
by
trebloc
on 13 May, 2010 14:27
-
Anyone know when the shortest shuttle EVA was?
-
#1
by
AnalogMan
on 13 May, 2010 14:44
-
April 8, 1984 during STS-41C - duration 2 hours 38 mins.
-
#2
by
psloss
on 13 May, 2010 15:44
-
April 8, 1984 during STS-41C - duration 2 hours 38 mins.
Is this via Wikipedia? Severe trivia, but the mission report says 2 hrs, 57 mins. (This was the first Solar Max EVA, ended in order to try a rotating grapple after the initial EVA capture attempts failed.)
-
#3
by
AnalogMan
on 13 May, 2010 16:27
-
April 8, 1984 during STS-41C - duration 2 hours 38 mins.
Is this via Wikipedia? Severe trivia, but the mission report says 2 hrs, 57 mins. (This was the first Solar Max EVA, ended in order to try a rotating grapple after the initial EVA capture attempts failed.)
My source was
NASA JSC Oral History Project Walking to Olympus: An EVA Chronologyhttp://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/walking/EVAChron.pdfGuess that'll teach me
-
#4
by
psloss
on 13 May, 2010 16:37
-
April 8, 1984 during STS-41C - duration 2 hours 38 mins.
Is this via Wikipedia? Severe trivia, but the mission report says 2 hrs, 57 mins. (This was the first Solar Max EVA, ended in order to try a rotating grapple after the initial EVA capture attempts failed.)
My source was NASA JSC Oral History Project Walking to Olympus: An EVA Chronology
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/walking/EVAChron.pdf
Guess that'll teach me
Question is, what was their source? For EVA-1, they have:
STS 41-C Flight Crew Report, (no date);
“Black Sunday. . . Fat Tuesday,” William Gregory, Aviation Week & Space Technology, April 16, 1984, p. 13;
“Orbiter Crew Restores Solar Max,” Craig Covault, Aviation Week & Space Technology, April 16, 1984, pp. 18-20;
“NASA Believes EVAs Valid Despite Recovery Problem,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, April 1984, pp. 21-24;
“Repair Mission Became High Drama,” Space News Roundup, NASA JSC, April 27, 1984, pp. 1-2.
Would be interested to see if the flight crew report has durations or whether there were multiple sources for their number. Not sure if the mission report is authoritative, but not sure these sources are necessarily, either.
-
#5
by
anik
on 13 May, 2010 17:18
-
For Shuttle spacewalks till 1992 NASA has used other official rule for definition of EVA duration than now. EVAs were counted from a switching spacesuits to battery power to a switching spacesuits back to Shuttle power. With using of this official rule, the shortest Shuttle spacewalk has lasted 2 hours 57 minutes (it has begun at 14:18 and ended at 17:15 UTC on April 8th, 1984).
-
#6
by
psloss
on 13 May, 2010 17:36
-
For Shuttle spacewalks till 1992 NASA has used other official rule for definition of EVA duration than now. EVAs were counted from a switching spacesuits to battery power to a switching spacesuits back to Shuttle power. With using of this official rule, the shortest Shuttle spacewalk has lasted 2 hours 57 minutes (it has begun at 14:18 and ended at 17:15 UTC on April 8th, 1984).
Thanks, anik.
-
#7
by
JayP
on 13 May, 2010 20:05
-
For Shuttle spacewalks till 1992 NASA has used other official rule for definition of EVA duration than now. EVAs were counted from a switching spacesuits to battery power to a switching spacesuits back to Shuttle power. With using of this official rule, the shortest Shuttle spacewalk has lasted 2 hours 57 minutes (it has begun at 14:18 and ended at 17:15 UTC on April 8th, 1984).
Did the STS-80 spacewalk attempt switch to battery power? If so, it would definetly quallify as the shortest EVA under this rule.
-
#8
by
psloss
on 13 May, 2010 20:24
-
For Shuttle spacewalks till 1992 NASA has used other official rule for definition of EVA duration than now. EVAs were counted from a switching spacesuits to battery power to a switching spacesuits back to Shuttle power. With using of this official rule, the shortest Shuttle spacewalk has lasted 2 hours 57 minutes (it has begun at 14:18 and ended at 17:15 UTC on April 8th, 1984).
Did the STS-80 spacewalk attempt switch to battery power? If so, it would definetly quallify as the shortest EVA under this rule.
Don't believe so; stopped attempting to open the hatch.
-
#9
by
anik
on 13 May, 2010 20:37
-
Did the STS-80 spacewalk attempt switch to battery power?
No, a switching of spacesuits to battery power in that spacewalk was planned after an opening of hatch, which was not performed.
-
#10
by
Robotbeat
on 13 May, 2010 21:35
-
Did the STS-80 spacewalk attempt switch to battery power?
No, a switching of spacesuits to battery power in that spacewalk was planned after an opening of hatch, which was not performed.
Speaking of, what is the average or peak power that the spacesuit batteries provide?
Also, what capacity (Watt-hours)?
-
#11
by
AnalogMan
on 13 May, 2010 22:48
-
Did the STS-80 spacewalk attempt switch to battery power?
No, a switching of spacesuits to battery power in that spacewalk was planned after an opening of hatch, which was not performed.
Speaking of, what is the average or peak power that the spacesuit batteries provide?
Also, what capacity (Watt-hours)?
This is the info I have:
Extra-Vehicular Mobility Unit
• EMU battery operates at 16.8 V
• Capacity = 26.6 A-hr
• Produces ~64 W of power (average)
• Useful power supplied for ~7 hours @ 3.8 A
(These silver-zinc batteries have limited 170-day life once activated, with only 6 on-orbit charge/discharge cycles normally allowed - capacity drops with each cycle.)
-
#12
by
Robotbeat
on 13 May, 2010 22:49
-
Thank you!
-
#13
by
carmelo
on 13 May, 2010 22:56
-
Is true that the real reason because the EVA of STS-5 was cancelled was that William Lenoir was terribly sick,and mission control had fear that he vomit in the helmet killing himself?
-
#14
by
psloss
on 13 May, 2010 23:10
-
Is true that the real reason because the EVA of STS-5 was cancelled was that William Lenoir was terribly sick,and mission control had fear that he vomit in the helmet killing himself?
No, the EVA was canceled due to problems with both suits and anyways Lenoir got better prior to the EVA day.
-
#15
by
MBK004
on 14 May, 2010 00:13
-
Is true that the real reason because the EVA of STS-5 was cancelled was that William Lenoir was terribly sick,and mission control had fear that he vomit in the helmet killing himself?
I think you've confused yourself with the postponement of the EVA on Apollo 9 since Rusty Schweickhart was sick.
-
#16
by
dks13827
on 14 May, 2010 01:41
-
Is true that the real reason because the EVA of STS-5 was cancelled was that William Lenoir was terribly sick,and mission control had fear that he vomit in the helmet killing himself?
I think you've confused yourself with the postponement of the EVA on Apollo 9 since Rusty Schweickhart was sick.
I recall that STS 5 EVA postponement, then the suit problems cancelled the EVA ( they were in the airlock !!). Glad that didnt happen on the moon !!!!
-
#17
by
Aobrien
on 14 May, 2010 02:33
-
Is true that the real reason because the EVA of STS-5 was cancelled was that William Lenoir was terribly sick,and mission control had fear that he vomit in the helmet killing himself?
I think you've confused yourself with the postponement of the EVA on Apollo 9 since Rusty Schweickhart was sick.
I recall that STS 5 EVA postponement, then the suit problems cancelled the EVA ( they were in the airlock !!). Glad that didnt happen on the moon !!!!
Apollo 9 didn't land on the moon. It was an Earth orbital test of the LM
-
#18
by
carmelo
on 14 May, 2010 15:12
-
But ,for the suits of STS-5, what type of problems?
-
#19
by
psloss
on 14 May, 2010 15:20
-
But ,for the suits of STS-5, what type of problems?
From the mission report:
http://web.archive.org/web/19991001202915/http://members.aol.com/WSNTWOYOU/STS5MR.HTMThe major anomaly of the STS-5 flight involved the EMU (extravehicular mobility unit) that were to be worn during the extravehicular activity. The first failure was found in the EV-2 (Allen) suit when faulty fan operation was noted. The fan produced a motorboating noise and then stopped running. Inflight troubleshooting was unsuccessful in restoring proper fan operation. Shortly thereafter, the EV-1 (Lenoir) suit encountered pressure regulation problems. The suit would only pressurize to 3.8 psi instead of the normal 4.3 psia. Here again, normal operation of the suit pressure regulator could not be restored after troubleshooting.
