Quote from: robertross on 02/08/2012 01:38 amGreat article Pete. I didn't know they were thinking of moving the other EVA up to Feb 2013. I have a few theories though...Please share, because I don't have any info. The only reason I can think of for having two EVAs so close together is that they might be getting ready to relocate the PMM, Cupola & PMA-3.
Great article Pete. I didn't know they were thinking of moving the other EVA up to Feb 2013. I have a few theories though...
Quote from: arkaska on 02/08/2012 06:05 pmBut to be fair, ISS was still facing the same reliability problems with Soyuz before Shuttle retired. If Soyuz was grounded for some reason ISS would be de-crewed no matter if Shuttle was flying or not. So the debate over Russian reliability in conduction with Shuttle retirement is a bit misdirected in my opinion.Soyuz was always critical to ISS, that much is true. However, a grounding of Soyuz did not immediately mean abandoning the ISS.Depending on the nature of the failure there were several possibilities. There would be at least one, possibly two, Soyuz up there already and would have, eventually, needed to be flown home.With Shuttle in the mix, crews could have been rotated on the orbiter while keeping one or two Soyuz still there (and evaluating them for any life extension, etc)At the very worse, if ISS had to be de-crewed from a constant presense, Shuttle allowed a man-tended capability for up to two or so weeks at a time. Without shuttle, there is one fundamental truth. We are totally reliant on the Russians
But to be fair, ISS was still facing the same reliability problems with Soyuz before Shuttle retired. If Soyuz was grounded for some reason ISS would be de-crewed no matter if Shuttle was flying or not. So the debate over Russian reliability in conduction with Shuttle retirement is a bit misdirected in my opinion.
Quote from: arkaska on 02/08/2012 06:00 pmThey have said they won't reduce the crew but the science conducted up there will be greatly reduced. No new science will be flown and only essential equipment will be flown on Progress.There is no guarantee crew will not be reduced and the "science" is already being impacted by not having a transportation method there. Remember Shuttle was to provide much of that. Progress, ATV and HTV were to augment shuttle. There has been no change in the frequency of these flights to help fill the gap created by loss of shuttle.
They have said they won't reduce the crew but the science conducted up there will be greatly reduced. No new science will be flown and only essential equipment will be flown on Progress.
copying over content from a locked thread:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24433.msg715523#msg715523Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/29/2011 05:32 PMAnother meaty FRR-based article from Chris G:NASA Reviews New Procedures for STS-134/Endeavour Mission - by Chris Gebhardt:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/03/nasa-new-procedures-sts-134-mission/----------------------------------Nice.Of course I have to point this one out (which I read about on L2, and was hoping it came out on the public side - thanks Chris):'As noted by the MOD presentation from the Flight Director, “2B PVTCS has a slow ammonia leak that will eventually result in loss of 2B cooling. Tasks on EVA 1 and EVA 2 configure cooling systems (ETCS/EETCS/PVTCS) to fill the 2B PVTCS using ammonia from the Loop B ATA.” 'Something to discuss on the ISS thread, commercial shuttle, and possibly include on the HLV block 0 payloads thread as required: The need for ISS logistics support in the long run, and perhaps sooner
But Soyuz life-time is still only about 1 year, how much extension could they possibly make on-orbit? I think this is a bigger and longer running problem then the Shuttle retirement. I was a big mistake to cancel the CRV without a replacement planned. Maybe they should have started commercial crew earlier, the need still existed before Shuttle retired as the Shuttle couldn't bring up long term crew members without relying on Soyuz for emergency return.
I guess I'm a bit cynical and not as concerned as I maybe should be. However, until the years end I do not think science is affected to much because of delayed commercial. Except in one case, down mass, which is a huge concern. And I don't think Dragon can make up for all that. Especially the ability to bring down entire racks if the need be. (and let's not even go to external ORUs)
Quote from: robertross on 02/08/2012 07:01 pmAs noted by the MOD presentation from the Flight Director, “2B PVTCS has a slow ammonia leak that will eventually result in loss of 2B cooling. Tasks on EVA 1 and EVA 2 configure cooling systems (ETCS/EETCS/PVTCS) to fill the 2B PVTCS using ammonia from the Loop B ATA.” 'Something to discuss on the ISS thread, commercial shuttle, and possibly include on the HLV block 0 payloads thread as required: The need for ISS logistics support in the long run, and perhaps sooner IIRC when they topped up the PVTCS is was less then 10 pounds of ammonia required. So I do not think there is a need to replace it (or they would have addressed it already) and I think they mentioned something like 2-3 years between topping it off. So I do not think any of the upcoming EVAs will deal with this.
As noted by the MOD presentation from the Flight Director, “2B PVTCS has a slow ammonia leak that will eventually result in loss of 2B cooling. Tasks on EVA 1 and EVA 2 configure cooling systems (ETCS/EETCS/PVTCS) to fill the 2B PVTCS using ammonia from the Loop B ATA.” 'Something to discuss on the ISS thread, commercial shuttle, and possibly include on the HLV block 0 payloads thread as required: The need for ISS logistics support in the long run, and perhaps sooner
Might be fun to bump L2 presentations of reference, Robert. No biggy, but always worth a reread.
Quote from: arkaska on 02/08/2012 11:06 pmQuote from: robertross on 02/08/2012 07:01 pmAs noted by the MOD presentation from the Flight Director, “2B PVTCS has a slow ammonia leak that will eventually result in loss of 2B cooling. Tasks on EVA 1 and EVA 2 configure cooling systems (ETCS/EETCS/PVTCS) to fill the 2B PVTCS using ammonia from the Loop B ATA.” 'Something to discuss on the ISS thread, commercial shuttle, and possibly include on the HLV block 0 payloads thread as required: The need for ISS logistics support in the long run, and perhaps sooner IIRC when they topped up the PVTCS is was less then 10 pounds of ammonia required. So I do not think there is a need to replace it (or they would have addressed it already) and I think they mentioned something like 2-3 years between topping it off. So I do not think any of the upcoming EVAs will deal with this.I had a quick look at the SSP FRR Flight Directors Office presentation (dated March 31, 2011) which noted that the slow leak, as it existed then, gave a predicted loop B shutdown in April 2013 (an interval of 24 months). It does not say how long it had been leaking up to the point of the FRR, but a 2-3 year topping off interval seems plausible. This would place the next top-up between May 2013 and May 2014.
People need to acknowledge we are in a strategically bad position with respect to ISS. Everyone said get rid of Shuttle because the Russians do not have any "problems" and "commercial" was just around the corner supposedly. ...ISS is suffering and people should not try to gloss over that and spin the situation.
NASA have said that commercial need to get up and running this year in order for station to continue six crew operations next year. [...]Maybe I'm being over dramatic, but whether I am or am not, the worst part of it is, this is all just so unnecessary - if we'd kept Shuttle around until 2014, we could have reduced all the risk on ISS from commercial failures, and allowed them to get fully up & running before handing them the keys.
Thanks for all the nice comments guys, glad you enjoyed it. I myself was thinking that ISS manifests might slow down after Shuttle....how wrong I was! Quote from: alexw on 02/08/2012 04:08 amBTW, this article really is packed with remarkable detail. One needs an annotated timeline to keep track of it all!For that, I recommend anik's excellent schedule:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61
BTW, this article really is packed with remarkable detail. One needs an annotated timeline to keep track of it all!
1) Which EVA (R31 or US 18) will R&R the MBSU?
2) I'm assuming it is US EVA 18, and if so, what will Russian EVA 31 do?
In the STS-116 EVA checklist there are contingencies EVA's to R&R the MBSU's. They are listed as follows:MBSU REMOVE AND REPLACE – 2A2B MBSU REMOVE AND REPLACE – 3A3BMBSU REMOVE AND REPLACE – 1A1BMBSU REMOVE AND REPLACE – 4A4BWhich one of these is the MBSU-1 mentioned in article?
I had a quick look at the SSP FRR Flight Directors Office presentation (dated March 31, 2011) which noted that the slow leak, as it existed then, gave a predicted loop B shutdown in April 2013 (an interval of 24 months). It does not say how long it had been leaking up to the point of the FRR, but a 2-3 year topping off interval seems plausible. This would place the next top-up between May 2013 and May 2014.
Quote from: JimOman on 02/09/2012 04:23 am1) Which EVA (R31 or US 18) will R&R the MBSU?US EVA-18. Quote from: JimOman on 02/09/2012 04:23 am2) I'm assuming it is US EVA 18, and if so, what will Russian EVA 31 do?Relocation of GStM-2 cargo boom from Pirs module to Zarya module and installation of Obstanovka experiment on Zvezda module.
Great summary of this years schedule.Now I might start to dream again about a new FPWG manifest
Thought you might be interested in this version dated March 3, 2012