Russian freight launch to ISS fails to orbit

[Johno]

If you're going to go for the complexity of a hardsuit (which incidentally is in my opinion a great idea) there's a very strong argument for taking it that one step further and completely doing your EVA via a telepresence-type system. After all, the hardsuit is basically a small manned spacecraft with manipulators controlled by the pilot; but you have the disadvantage of needing a pressurised cabin. If you basically create a VR-controlled robot instead, the whole thing can be made smaller and more efficient.

I have a friend who is a flight director, and he says that it's amazing we have never lost an astronaut/cosmonaut on an EVA. Quite simply, it is the most dangerous activity humans have EVER done, and the crews dice with death every time they leave the airlock. It's worth mentioning that in many of the EVAs done in constructing the ISS, if something had gone fatally wrong and an astronaut or cosmonaut had failed to survive an EVA, recovery of the body may have been extremely difficult (if not impossible).

To me it seems logical that the best option in all circumstances is to minimise the amount of time spent outside the spacecraft by humans. Telepresence is a really good way to do that.

[rdfox]

Telepresence is all well and good, and as I mentioned earlier, DEXTRE on the ISS is a great step towards the ideal of keeping the crew inside at all times, but there's always going to be jobs that require someone outside. At that point, either a space activity suit or a hardsuit (particularly a legless hardsuit 'pod') is going to be valuable as ways to make EVAs safer than they currently are.

[DoctorEvo]

If the peak possible tumble rates were higher than the LES was qualified for, it'd require at least one new qualification test to make sure it'd pull the CM free into a safe condition for recovery system deployment at those rates. After all, if the shorter stack could tumble such that the parachute shroud lines could end up wrapped around the CM, it'd be a very bad day for the crew in an abort. (In other words, it's about what effect the shorter SM would have on the potential peak tumble rates of the complete stack, not what effect it'd have on the LES performance.)

Hmm. Well in that case, a shorter SM would have LESS lateral forces on it, thus causing an INCREASE in aerodynamic stability...

Of course, the reduced mass would shift the CG aft as well (destabilizing things), but this shouldn't be significant for either S-IC or S-II flight phases, and S-IVB flight is wholly exoatmospheric, and the LES has dropped by then anyways.

There is the issue of moments of inertia, but I don't know what to make of that. Again, I think it'd be insignificant until S-IVB flight.

Heh. Actually, the drawings on Encyclopedia Astronautica shows it having a *lot* more internal volume than you might expect, even in the twelve-man configuration. Then again, as small and light as the Gusmobile was, you've got a *lot* of extra volume and mass when you enlarge it to mate with an S-IVB...

A WHOLE S-IVB, or a tapered adapter like Apollo had?

Ironically, other than the pintle mounting, the ascent engine was basically a scaled-down version of the SPS engine; they were both built for 100% reliability with no more moving parts than absolutely necessary. (Two, on the ascent engine--ball valves for the hydrazine and N2O4.)

There's a reason Glushko had a hardon for hypergols...

I believe it was, for two simple reasons. First, due to the asymmetric sector assignments of the SM, the center of mass would shift during flight, and, indeed, during the burns. Second, starting about 20 seconds after S-II ignition, the SPS became the abort motor, and for that, you'd need more control authority than you could get from the RCS alone, for detumbling after separation.

Hmm. I always figured gimbaled engines as a replacement for dedicated aft-facing vernier thrusters, not as a supplement. But I guess chuffing away with your RCS to keep your wonky-loaded CSM lined up isn't quite as efficient as gimbaling... (still, I wonder how much weight they could've saved from it... eh, I guess up-rating the thrusters for abort probably would largely defeat that purpose)

But Soyuz's engine doesn't gimbal, I know that much.

It was either for the Earth survey, or somehow related to the solar mission. I've seen the photo of Area 51 that the Skylab 4 crew got into trouble for taking, and it's pretty lousy--there were already better images of it in public NASA archives from other Earth-survey missions, so espionage wasn't going to be all that do-able.

I don't see how that could help at all with solar observation... unless they were listening for radio noise and were trying to maximize their time over radio-quiet extreme Southern latitudes...

Given the exertion involved in an EVA, I can also see wanting to have a bit of extra margin for safety.

Yes, but I wonder if the extra exertion from the extra pressure might defeat the purpose...

Meh, probably not.

Also, I worked it out, and alveolar ppO₂ at sea level is 2.7 PSI delivered when waste-gas dilution is taken into account. Thus, the ACTUAL pure-oxygen pressure needed to match this would be 4.4 PSI absolute.

Well, it's the last-resort firefighting option on every spacecraft I know of. It's not ideal, but if all else fails, opening the cabin vent *will* put out the fire...

Not necessarily. Some stuff burns just fine in a vacuum. And odds are, if displacing the oxygen away from it doesn't do it (ESPECIALLY in the presence of a fire suppressant), evacuating the chamber won't either.

I was thinking more of it being like a classic socket set, where you've got one drive with interchangeable bits/heads that can be swapped out as needed. Given the need for the drive to be a zero-net-torque one in a microgravity environment, this could make life a lot simpler for the EVA crew instead of having to carry a dozen drivers.

I thought they pretty much already carried a regular socket set... one hand drill, and a bunch of heads for it.

I think a hand drill is more simple and modular than a fixed 'R2-D2' deal.

That... will be a tough nut to crack.

I dunno, I'm still leaning towards the front. It just seems like it'd be too difficult trying to move tiny fiddly parts too far away from that cozy space right in front of you with unwieldy pressure gloves.

Heh, did you see the lunar rover planned for Constellation? It was going to have a pressurized cabin, and *no* airlock, per se... instead, the EVA suits would have a back hatch for entry, and lock onto the aft hatches of the cabin, so they'd stay outside the cabin, but with entry from inside. They might well be willing to look into something along those lines for spacecraft not intended for atmospheric entry...

Hmm.

I think some sketches are in order.

Yes, but shipping containers generally aren't *dragged* around on skids; they're either carried around on a crane or forklift, or on a wheeled chassis. Harder to move on skids, after all. Actually, if you could equip it with proper carrier slings, a large forklift might be a good choice for handling an S-II; 40-foot containers are frequently handled that way in container ports.

There we go. Do they really have forklifts that big?

That might actually be more problematic than near a road; rail clearances are pretty rigid. Honestly, the best option might be landing it right by some sort of port or beach where it could be loaded directly onto a Ro/Ro ship. (Hmm, would an S-II have fit into a war-surplus LST?)

No... I don't think it'd fit through the doors of an LST. Probably not a RORO either. There might be a FEW ROROs with wide-enough doors, but your average RORO won't cut it.

I'm thinking maybe land it near a river and then just load it onto a barge.

[rdfox]

Hey, good to see you back, I was afraid the Routing Monster had eaten you or something...

A WHOLE S-IVB, or a tapered adapter like Apollo had?

They had designs that would have mated with the standard Apollo SLA (or even an Apollo SM--McDonnell, understandably, tried to downplay *that* option!), the Titan III, and directly to the top of the S-IVB, apparently. If they went with the full S-IVB... damn, that's a hell of a lot of volume they'd have there.

Hmm. I always figured gimbaled engines as a replacement for dedicated aft-facing vernier thrusters, not as a supplement. But I guess chuffing away with your RCS to keep your wonky-loaded CSM lined up isn't quite as efficient as gimbaling... (still, I wonder how much weight they could've saved from it... eh, I guess up-rating the thrusters for abort probably would largely defeat that purpose)

The LM ascent stage *did* use that technique, though. I believe the SPS had pretty limited gimbal range, too, so that even if the gimbal system failed, you could still conduct a successful TEI burn with RCS steering.

Not necessarily. Some stuff burns just fine in a vacuum. And odds are, if displacing the oxygen away from it doesn't do it (ESPECIALLY in the presence of a fire suppressant), evacuating the chamber won't either.

I think the other reason you might do that is to clear out the smoke and fumes after the fire is out.

I thought they pretty much already carried a regular socket set... one hand drill, and a bunch of heads for it.

Ah, I wasn't sure on that. For some reason, I thought they used separate drills with fixed heads.

I dunno, I'm still leaning towards the front. It just seems like it'd be too difficult trying to move tiny fiddly parts too far away from that cozy space right in front of you with unwieldy pressure gloves.

Most likely. ...you might be able to pull off the modular box that's worn only when needed, but you'd need to have a permanent pressure hatch on the inside on the pod in that case.

There we go. Do they really have forklifts that big?

http://www.taylormachineworks.com/THDC-TXC-TETCP%20series%20Table.htm lists a whole line of loaded-container handling forklifts. They're considered pretty important in container ports.

No... I don't think it'd fit through the doors of an LST. Probably not a RORO either. There might be a FEW ROROs with wide-enough doors, but your average RORO won't cut it.

I'm thinking maybe land it near a river and then just load it onto a barge.

Wasn't sure. You might have to make a custom RORO to handle it, if you wanted to get it back quicker than by using a barge, but barge would be the most likely route.

[DoctorEvo]

Hey, good to see you back, I was afraid the Routing Monster had eaten you or something...

Heh, school, and I decided to go active again with Incredibots too... but yeah, I'm probably not going to be posting as frequently for a while. This discussion is too interesting to disengage from altogether, though.

They had designs that would have mated with the standard Apollo SLA (or even an Apollo SM--McDonnell, understandably, tried to downplay *that* option!), the Titan III, and directly to the top of the S-IVB, apparently. If they went with the full S-IVB... damn, that's a hell of a lot of volume they'd have there.

Sheesh... that's like, 7 meters I think? Yeah, no wonder they figured could squeeze more crew than the shuttle!

The LM ascent stage *did* use that technique, though. I believe the SPS had pretty limited gimbal range, too, so that even if the gimbal system failed, you could still conduct a successful TEI burn with RCS steering.

Well, naturally. The RCS WAS rated to steer the whole stack, so there's no reason it shouldn't be able to steer it under thrust unless the CG is just WAAAY out. Heck, if it was in-trim enough that you only needed 50% of maximum RCS authority, you could get away with firing aft-RCS only and suffer virtually no propellant waste over a gimbaled burn.

I ran the numbers earlier and I think I figured about half a degree of SPS gimbal equates to a 100% RCS-couple duty cycle. So yes, I guess gimbaling would present considerably more control authority than the 100-lb thrusters alone.

I think the other reason you might do that is to clear out the smoke and fumes after the fire is out.

Yeah, it would be the best way to purge everything. Even the fire retardants themselves have the potential to be irritant. That can wait, though.

Ah, I wasn't sure on that. For some reason, I thought they used separate drills with fixed heads.

Well, from what I can find, it looks like the driver they use has a chuck for interchangeable heads, so I can only assume they actually use it. Apparently it uses NiMH batteries and has a special skinny handle and trigger for gloved usage, too.

Most likely. ...you might be able to pull off the modular box that's worn only when needed, but you'd need to have a permanent pressure hatch on the inside on the pod in that case.

Naturally. Internal-opening, about 75-150 in² in area... should be enough to keep it from being opened prematurely. And if the airlock comes unsecured during pressurization, at least the inside door will still be closed.

[rdfox]

Sheesh... that's like, 7 meters I think? Yeah, no wonder they figured could squeeze more crew than the shuttle!

6.6 meters. Lemme check...

Ah, here we are. From Encyclopedia Astronautica (full details here: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bigemini.htm), the re-entry module was to be a Gemini-B with an extension of the conical cabin to the same 154-inch (3.91m) diameter as the Apollo CM, which would be able to accomodate up to ten additional passengers (one row of four, one of six) with ECS and comms gear beneath the floor. Then there was to be a 'retrograde module' similar to the standard Gemini one, with solid-fuel retrorockets, water and oxygen tankage, and a pass-through tunnel to the 'maneuvering and cargo module' that would be a rough equivalent to, but much bigger than, the Soyuz Orbital Module. The Air Force configuration would have a cylindrical 180-inch (4.57m) version that matched the base diameter of the retrograde module and would mate directly with the top stage of the Titan 3G (a short version with less than a tenth the payload was proposed for the MOL's Titan 3M), while the NASA version would be only about half the length, but would continue the conical flare all the way out to the S-IVB's 260-inch diameter for a total of 1310 cubic feet of pressurized volume in the MCM. Oh, what could have been, huh?

Well, naturally. The RCS WAS rated to steer the whole stack, so there's no reason it shouldn't be able to steer it under thrust unless the CG is just WAAAY out. Heck, if it was in-trim enough that you only needed 50% of maximum RCS authority, you could get away with firing aft-RCS only and suffer virtually no propellant waste over a gimbaled burn.

I ran the numbers earlier and I think I figured about half a degree of SPS gimbal equates to a 100% RCS-couple duty cycle. So yes, I guess gimbaling would present considerably more control authority than the 100-lb thrusters alone.

I can't easily find any data on the gimbal limits of the SPS (but then, my Google-fu is weak), other than one reference to what looks like a chart showing the effective thrust at a one-second-of-arc angle--although that seems implausibly low, and it might be a case of someone mistranscribing a degree symbol as a double-quotation mark.

Well, from what I can find, it looks like the driver they use has a chuck for interchangeable heads, so I can only assume they actually use it. Apparently it uses NiMH batteries and has a special skinny handle and trigger for gloved usage, too.

Ah, makes sense. I hadn't seen anything on the driver since the very first Hubble repair mission in '93, so my memory is hazy at best--and probably outdated, too.

Naturally. Internal-opening, about 75-150 in² in area... should be enough to keep it from being opened prematurely. And if the airlock comes unsecured during pressurization, at least the inside door will still be closed.

Yeah. That's a nice design. I'd assume that the outer hatch would probably be on the top, instead of the front, so that one can more easily access it in the soft arm? (You might need to use a Boeing-style plug door as the outer hatch, the sort that opens inwards slightly, then pivots and slides outwards, to help keep it self-sealing when you're working inside the glove box...)

[DoctorEvo]

Oh, what could have been, huh?

Well, we eventually got the Shuttle, for what it's worth... ;D

I can't easily find any data on the gimbal limits of the SPS (but then, my Google-fu is weak), other than one reference to what looks like a chart showing the effective thrust at a one-second-of-arc angle--although that seems implausibly low, and it might be a case of someone mistranscribing a degree symbol as a double-quotation mark.

My Google-fu initially suggests 5 degrees.

Ah, makes sense. I hadn't seen anything on the driver since the very first Hubble repair mission in '93, so my memory is hazy at best--and probably outdated, too.

Oh yeah, I forgot the coolest part - an LCD screen with selectable torque and RPM settings.

Yeah. That's a nice design. I'd assume that the outer hatch would probably be on the top, instead of the front, so that one can more easily access it in the soft arm? (You might need to use a Boeing-style plug door as the outer hatch, the sort that opens inwards slightly, then pivots and slides outwards, to help keep it self-sealing when you're working inside the glove box...)

Well, if the airlock is modular, then you might not even NEED a dedicated outer door - perhaps just swing open the entire box to load/unload it. Latch it in place w/ object inside, pressurize it, knock on it some to make sure it's secure, and then open the inner door to grab the object. A safeguard for the outer door/unlatching the airlock makes sense... maybe some simple camlocks would suffice - designed such that their closed resistance becomes significantly greater if they are under pressure.

[rdfox]

Well, we eventually got the Shuttle, for what it's worth... ;D

Very true! Still... I really do like the Gusmobile, it's a little sports car of a spacecraft, and it's hard to resist the thought of that kind of crew capacity and cargo volume in a vehicle with a mass no greater than that of the Apollo CSM! (Plus it would have brought back the Rogallo wing, so it might well have been made so that the reentry module was refurbishable and thus semi-reusable, too...)

My Google-fu initially suggests 5 degrees.

Sounds reasonable. I did manage to find that they had two separate gimbal motor sets for redundancy's sake, which seems a bit extravagant in terms of weight, but then, the CSM wasn't exactly designed to be as light as possible, was it?

Oh yeah, I forgot the coolest part - an LCD screen with selectable torque and RPM settings.

All that, and a zero-torque-on-the-wrist system? I WANT ONE OF THOSE IN MY TOOL BOX! It would make working on my Buick *so* much easier...

Well, if the airlock is modular, then you might not even NEED a dedicated outer door - perhaps just swing open the entire box to load/unload it. Latch it in place w/ object inside, pressurize it, knock on it some to make sure it's secure, and then open the inner door to grab the object. A safeguard for the outer door/unlatching the airlock makes sense... maybe some simple camlocks would suffice - designed such that their closed resistance becomes significantly greater if they are under pressure.

Mmm, good point. Actually, if we make it a cylindrical box (with hemispherical end, maybe, to make pressurization an even easier job?), it could probably be done as a 'bayonet mount,' like many camera lenses--insert the end into the slots in the locking ring, twist clockwise 15 degrees (righty-tighty, remember!), and it locks into small detents in the locking ring to stay in place. Include a small inflatable gasket that inflates as the first step of the pressurizing process, and you've got a simple pressure-tight connection that can be easily made and broken, and can be locked into place by the method involved in camera ones--a small spring-loaded pin that goes into a locking hole on the male side of the mount, which is disengaged by depressing a button on the box while twisting it. (A good example of the sort of mount can be seen in these two photos from Wiki, of the standard Leica mounting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leica-doubleur-p1020785.jpg (female side) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leica-doubleur-p1020786.jpg (male side).) Simple, reliable, inexpensive, and it would tend to be self-sealing if done right.

Of course, if we're going to have the ability to get the arms out of the sleeves, there'd presumably be enough space to 'sit down' to get your hands into the glove box, so we might want to include a window to let you see what you're doing, plus a light to help with that. I'm starting to think this box would end up being placed just above the beltline and take up a good chunk of the 'torso' of the pod. (Quick question--what do we do about the glove box gloves when the box isn't mounted, so they don't get in the way?)

[DoctorEvo]

Very true! Still... I really do like the Gusmobile, it\'s a little sports car of a spacecraft, and it\'s hard to resist the thought of that kind of crew capacity and cargo volume in a vehicle with a mass no greater than that of the Apollo CSM! (Plus it would have brought back the Rogallo wing, so it might well have been made so that the reentry module was refurbishable and thus semi-reusable, too...)

And by my reckoning, would\'ve probably cost about half as much per launch as the Shuttle wound up costing, albeit with almost no parallel payload capacity. Sounds like Big-G would\'ve made a better schoolbus, but a worse pickup truck.

Sounds reasonable. I did manage to find that they had two separate gimbal motor sets for redundancy\'s sake, which seems a bit extravagant in terms of weight, but then, the CSM wasn\'t exactly designed to be as light as possible, was it?

Heh. Sounds like maybe another artifact of the direct-ascent lineage.

All that, and a zero-torque-on-the-wrist system? I WANT ONE OF THOSE IN MY TOOL BOX! It would make working on my Buick *so* much easier...

Zero torque on the wrist? No, I don\'t think so...

Sheesh, that\'d be hard to do. The best method I can think of right now is something that just friggin\' tack-welds itself to the spacecraft hull once you get it positioned, and that seems a little . . . yeah. Otherwise you\'d pretty much need either special fittings on EVERY SINGLE FASTENING PONT to index into, or give the tool its own dedicated RCS system (which is . . . yeah).

Mmm, good point. Actually, if we make it a cylindrical box (with hemispherical end, maybe, to make pressurization an even easier job?

We\'re talking like 5 PSI here. I think general handling and abuse is going to be a much bigger issue than the air pressure on our box\'s structure.

it could probably be done as a 'bayonet mount,' like many camera lenses--insert the end into the slots in the locking ring, twist clockwise 15 degrees (righty-tighty, remember!), and it locks into small detents in the locking ring to stay in place.

Yeah, I considered that. It is tidy and quick... but I feel like it\'s a no-exceptions two-handed job. A rock-in-and-latch deal could probably be manipulated with one hand.

I dunno, tough decision.

Include a small inflatable gasket that inflates as the first step of the pressurizing process, and you\'ve got a simple pressure-tight connection that can be easily made and broken

Too complicated. I\'m thinking just a simple, short (~1/2') plug seal (I picked a plug seal over say, a flat gasket seal to place more resistance load on the camlocks/detent when under pressure relative to when unpressurized), probably with the male end on the airlock.

and can be locked into place by the method involved in camera ones--a small spring-loaded pin that goes into a locking hole on the male side of the mount, which is disengaged by depressing a button on the box while twisting it.

I was thinking I\'d use airlock pressure rather than elastic pressure to engage any detent/camlock/locking pins, so that there\'d be (at the very least) a pronounced resistance to opening it while pressurized, which\'d be practically nonexistent while unpressurized. With as much plug-seal play and area and pressure as I was planning on, my camlock(s) could probably be configured such that their pressurized resistance was greater than could possibly be opened without depressurization. Of course, a dedicated pressure-switch-actuated locking pin would be even safer, but it\'d be more complicated as well (i.e. another thing to break, possibly leaving you with an awkward bulge stuck on your frontside).

In any case, having such tangible feedback built in (i.e. letting the user 'feel' the pressure state of the airlock) would eliminate the need for any special instrumentation to monitor airlock operation.

Of course, if we\'re going to have the ability to get the arms out of the sleeves, there\'d presumably be enough space to 'sit down' to get your hands into the glove box, so we might want to include a window to let you see what you\'re doing, plus a light to help with that. I\'m starting to think this box would end up being placed just above the beltline and take up a good chunk of the 'torso' of the pod. (Quick question--what do we do about the glove box gloves when the box isn\'t mounted, so they don\'t get in the way?)

Well, I wouldn\'t want the airlock hardware to consume any significant space when not in use, so I think a permanent 'HAZMAT-safe' barrier with some hokey little gloves poking through it would be out of the question. Maybe if there are concerns of possible HAZMAT contamination, you could put the part (and any tools and other associated bits) into a special transparent HAZMAT bag that you could work through before putting it in the airlock. Or you could just, y\'know, not bring it inside...

[rdfox]

And by my reckoning, would\'ve probably cost about half as much per launch as the Shuttle wound up costing, albeit with almost no parallel payload capacity. Sounds like Big-G would\'ve made a better schoolbus, but a worse pickup truck.

True. Of course, Big G was designed to be a school bus or minivan, not a pickup, since it was intended for routine operational missions to a space station like Skylab. With the INT-21, they could have put stations up without needing a pickup truck to assemble them in orbit...

Zero torque on the wrist? No, I don\'t think so...

Sheesh, that\'d be hard to do. The best method I can think of right now is something that just friggin\' tack-welds itself to the spacecraft hull once you get it positioned, and that seems a little . . . yeah. Otherwise you\'d pretty much need either special fittings on EVERY SINGLE FASTENING PONT to index into, or give the tool its own dedicated RCS system (which is . . . yeah).

I\'d always read that part of the reason that they didn\'t use a standard one was because it had to include a flywheel that would spin the opposite way to prevent it from just spinning the operator in place an leaving the bolt still tightened down...

Yeah, I considered that. It is tidy and quick... but I feel like it\'s a no-exceptions two-handed job. A rock-in-and-latch deal could probably be manipulated with one hand.

I dunno, tough decision.

Point taken. Eh, I\'ll just quote Joe Kelly on this one. 'Well, we\'ll see how it goes in testing.'

Too complicated. I\'m thinking just a simple, short (~1/2') plug seal (I picked a plug seal over say, a flat gasket seal to place more resistance load on the camlocks/detent when under pressure relative to when unpressurized), probably with the male end on the airlock.

Makes sense. I was thinking male end on the box for the bayonet mount concept, so...

In any case, having such tangible feedback built in (i.e. letting the user 'feel' the pressure state of the airlock) would eliminate the need for any special instrumentation to monitor airlock operation.

Good thinking. At most, you\'d just need a red/green LED inside the suit so that you could confirm the pressure was equalized.

Well, I wouldn\'t want the airlock hardware to consume any significant space when not in use, so I think a permanent 'HAZMAT-safe' barrier with some hokey little gloves poking through it would be out of the question. Maybe if there are concerns of possible HAZMAT contamination, you could put the part (and any tools and other associated bits) into a special transparent HAZMAT bag that you could work through before putting it in the airlock. Or you could just, y\'know, not bring it inside...

Well, I wasn\'t thinking for HAZMAT reasons, but you originally suggested avoiding dust contamination of the component. Unless you had some method of positive-pressure to keep dust out of the box, you\'d need to enforce clean room conditions inside the pod, which would be a major pain in the ass for the astronaut...

[DoctorEvo]

I\'d always read that part of the reason that they didn\'t use a standard one was because it had to include a flywheel that would spin the opposite way to prevent it from just spinning the operator in place an leaving the bolt still tightened down...

That flywheel would load up with angular momentum like a city tram in downtown Tokyo. I mean, it might be possible to unscrew a single bolt before it got COMPLETELY loaded up, but the power consumption would be insane, and after you get the bolt out, your flywheel would still be spinning until you found somewhere to dump all that momentum (perhaps... by screwing that same bolt back in again?).

Yeah, not practical. It\'s way easier to just anchor the tool (or more likely, yourself) to whatever module you\'re working on and transfer all that angular impulse directly back into the hull. Yet another reason why trying to work on something without directly or indirectly grappling to it is purely sci-fi level engineering.

Good thinking. At most, you\'d just need a red/green LED inside the suit so that you could confirm the pressure was equalized.

Probably not even. I mean, for the inside door, it\'d probably just flop open once pressure equalizes unless you had it latched closed. I\'d say that\'s pretty clearly indicative right there. The outside would be only slightly less pronounced, but you\'re still gonna know if there\'s any pressure still pushing on it if you use any sort of pressure-tightened latch (camlock, pressure-actuated locking pins, or a tapered detent).

Well, I wasn\'t thinking for HAZMAT reasons, but you originally suggested avoiding dust contamination of the component. Unless you had some method of positive-pressure to keep dust out of the box, you\'d need to enforce clean room conditions inside the pod, which would be a major pain in the ass for the astronaut...

I think you suggested that.

Anyways, the airlock is already going to need a circuit/valve bleeding air in to pressurize it, and I can\'t see it being that difficult to just add a filter to this and keep it running whenever the box was open.

Of course, most modern spacesuits have their own filtration systems (usually integrated into the scrubber circuit), and approach clean-room conditions anyways, so I didn\'t really think it\'d be an issue.

[rdfox]

A thought I just had that might be of value, particularly in a 'legless' pod: For those situations where you need to travel a significant distance before you can latch onto an RMS (be it because the arm has to 'walk' over and it\'d take a lot of time to drop you off for each step, or because the RMS doesn\'t have any grapples in the convenient area, having some sort of wheeled socket that one can latch onto a transfer rail and run along under electric motors to travel, similar to the 'trolley' that Canadarm 2 can use to travel along the ISS\'s truss when needed, but smaller.

[DoctorEvo]

A thought I just had that might be of value, particularly in a 'legless' pod: For those situations where you need to travel a significant distance before you can latch onto an RMS (be it because the arm has to 'walk' over and it\'d take a lot of time to drop you off for each step, or because the RMS doesn\'t have any grapples in the convenient area, having some sort of wheeled socket that one can latch onto a transfer rail and run along under electric motors to travel, similar to the 'trolley' that Canadarm 2 can use to travel along the ISS\'s truss when needed, but smaller.

What about just installing a rail on the RMS leading up to the elbow, where you can just tether yourself to and go along for the ride instead of having to be repeatedly picked up and dropped off?

[rdfox]

What about just installing a rail on the RMS leading up to the elbow, where you can just tether yourself to and go along for the ride instead of having to be repeatedly picked up and dropped off?

Interesting thought. That\'d give you the best of both worlds, since you could also use the rail trolley for situations where the arm wouldn\'t be convenient anyway!

[Alchemist]

What\'s the problem causing so frequent russian spacecraft crashes last few years? It\'s the same issue that was with the last launch of Challenger: when the decision to abort-recheck-replace is made not by competent engineers (who know that this is really dangerous problem) but by some guys that care only about their money ('if we postpone the flight we will lose so much money! ... and in case of crash we will still be making new rocket and I will have 1 more chance to put half of the money in my pocket' - That\'s the way business is set in Russia nowadays :\'(, especially if it gets money from the state budget). And if it multiplies with the workers\' attitude 'Not so good part? Who will notice it? Anyway for these money I wont spend my time remaking it. I\'ll have more problems if i won\'t make planned number of products' the chance of something getting wrong if it\'s not triple checked is too big.

That\'s what happens if you remove the compenent that stabilised the soviet system & replace it with free market/democracy without bringing all the components that stabilise this system.

[DoctorEvo]

Interesting thought. That\'d give you the best of both worlds, since you could also use the rail trolley for situations where the arm wouldn\'t be convenient anyway!

Really, the way I see it, the arm itself is for situations where getting there WITHOUT it is inconvenient. I think just crawling around by hand is probably actually the fastest way to get around for spacewalkers right now, but there aren\'t always handrails or handles to grab onto - which is where the RMS usually comes in. A handrail running up the arm would let you clip on and shuffle your way up to the elbow in practically no time.

What\'s the problem causing so frequent russian spacecraft crashes last few years? It\'s the same issue that was with the last launch of Challenger: when the decision to abort-recheck-replace is made not by competent engineers (who know that this is really dangerous problem) but by some guys that care only about their money ('if we postpone the flight we will lose so much money! ... and in case of crash we will still be making new rocket and I will have 1 more chance to put half of the money in my pocket' - That\'s the way business is set in Russia nowadays :\'(, especially if it gets money from the state budget). And if it multiplies with the workers\' attitude 'Not so good part? Who will notice it? Anyway for these money I wont spend my time remaking it. I\'ll have more problems if i won\'t make planned number of products' the chance of something getting wrong if it\'s not triple checked is too big.

That\'s what happens if you remove the compenent that stabilised the soviet system & replace it with free market/democracy without bringing all the components that stabilise this system.

And WHEN was the last time a cosmonaut died on a mission?

OH RIGHT... :

[sluissa]

Re; Space Activity Suit gloves:

Two words: Shrink Wrap.

[sparkmaster]

What\'s the problem causing so frequent russian spacecraft crashes last few years? It\'s the same issue that was with the last launch of Challenger: when the decision to abort-recheck-replace is made not by competent engineers (who know that this is really dangerous problem) but by some guys that care only about their money ('if we postpone the flight we will lose so much money! ... and in case of crash we will still be making new rocket and I will have 1 more chance to put half of the money in my pocket' - That\'s the way business is set in Russia nowadays :\'(, especially if it gets money from the state budget). And if it multiplies with the workers\' attitude 'Not so good part? Who will notice it? Anyway for these money I wont spend my time remaking it. I\'ll have more problems if i won\'t make planned number of products' the chance of something getting wrong if it\'s not triple checked is too big.

That\'s what happens if you remove the compenent that stabilised the soviet system & replace it with free market/democracy without bringing all the components that stabilise this system.

The wholly ironic thing about your statement is that the Soviet programs were even more affected by budgetary problems then was the US one.

See: N1 development and testing; Buran program (which may have been the straw that broke Gorbachev\'s back).

Back on topic, did they ever specify exactly what the problem was, aside from some mysterious upper stage failure?

[DoctorEvo]

According to Wikipedia, a fault detected in the engine diagnostics triggered an engine shutdown and abort. No specifics on WHAT the fault was.

[Alchemist]

Really, the way I see it, the arm itself is for situations where getting there WITHOUT it is inconvenient. I think just crawling around by hand is probably actually the fastest way to get around for spacewalkers right now, but there aren\'t always handrails or handles to grab onto - which is where the RMS usually comes in. A handrail running up the arm would let you clip on and shuffle your way up to the elbow in practically no time.

And WHEN was the last time a cosmonaut died on a mission?

OH RIGHT... :

Luckily, there is still enought attention paid to manned flights to prevent such crashes, because this would be too much ipact on the space program.

But when there is not enought control it is getting similar to Kerbal

The wholly ironic thing about your statement is that the Soviet programs were even more affected by budgetary problems then was the US one.

See: N1 development and testing; Buran program (which may have been the straw that broke Gorbachev\'s back).

In Gorbachev\'s time, yes. But before... was there anything similar to what we now consider economics? In the state that could direct large part of its production resources to such things like superweapons and space program... Not by spending money but by ordering factories to produce these things... If convinced enought that it is needed.

Anyway, while Korolev personally controled the entire space program there were advances in such level projects as flights to Moon and Mars. Without such leader these were never finished

Really effective project development in Russia is possible only if there is a leader that really wants it, fully understands it and ca convince goverment/sponsors. And when in USSR such project leading gave more problems than advantages only such men were leading the high level projects, nowadays these projects give their leaders access to large amounts of money, so there are too many experts in corruption, not in egineering.

The main problem isn\'t not enought money, it\'s the money doesn\'t get where it should

[DoctorEvo]

Tell me, do you have any REAL statistics showing that launch failures are any more frequent than they used to be amongst Russian launches? I figure if you\'re going to use this issue as a political mouthpiece, you AT LEAST ought to back it up with some relevant data.

I keenly await your response.

[sparkmaster]

In Gorbachev\'s time, yes. But before... was there anything similar to what we now consider economics? In the state that could direct large part of its production resources to such things like superweapons and space program... Not by spending money but by ordering factories to produce these things... If convinced enought that it is needed.

Anyway, while Korolev personally controled the entire space program there were advances in such level projects as flights to Moon and Mars. Without such leader these were never finished

Really effective project development in Russia is possible only if there is a leader that really wants it, fully understands it and ca convince goverment/sponsors. And when in USSR such project leading gave more problems than advantages only such men were leading the high level projects, nowadays these projects give their leaders access to large amounts of money, so there are too many experts in corruption, not in egineering.

The main problem isn\'t not enought money, it\'s the money doesn\'t get where it should

Funding wise, thats wholely incorrect. He had to compete for funding (which was less then NASA\'s in the first place) with Chelomei and Glushko, among others. It also helps that one of the guys on the industrial board which supervised 'Heavy Machine Building' had his son as an engineer on Chelomei\'s team. Anyway, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding as how the Soviet economic model was implemented. It\'s not like money was abolished at all. Money was a huge part of why Korolev had such struggles, he simply didn\'t have the funding. And to keep the funding he did have, he had to come up with success after success.

Read up a little about N1 development. They were so tight on funding that they couldn\'t afford an all-up test stand. They essentially put everything together and hoped it worked the first time.

The Soviets had the same problems with political apathy and public relations that the Americans had, but it was much more of a problem because they didn\'t have a central space management agency. It was a collection of little fiefdoms (with their contractors and subcontractors) each angling for their slice of the pie.

[halocon720]

Mods, please shut down this thread, it's been dead for almost a year, and I'm just notifying you.

[NovaSilisko]

It WAS dead until you dredged it up just to let us know it's dead... Stop doing that.