Re: Stick/CEV Propulsion News
- From: henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henry Spencer)
- Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 16:27:46 GMT
In article <43483772.4077975@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Derek Lyons <fairwater@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Of course it goes without saying that the whole thing is made *much*
>easier by designing for maintenance in the first place - real
>maintenace, not just swapping high level LRUs as is common now. This
>is a whole engineering discipline in and of itself, and most be
>considered from the time you first put pencil to paper.
Indeed so.
You'd also have to take some care to avoid a mistake NASA has made
repeatedly in the past: deciding that some failures were likely and
others weren't, and therefore designing only *parts* of the system for
maintenance. Maintenance on Skylab was made appreciably harder by the
need to fix various things which hadn't really been meant for in-flight
maintenance, and to get places on the exterior which had no EVA handrails
because there was nothing there that astronauts were expected to fix.
Unfortunately, the lesson didn't sink in -- similar problems have come
up for (I think) every last one of the Hubble servicing visits, and my
understanding is that there have been some similar issues on ISS.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Stick/CEV Propulsion News
- From: Derek Lyons
- Re: Stick/CEV Propulsion News
- References:
- Stick/CEV Propulsion News
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Stick/CEV Propulsion News
- From: Derek Lyons
- Re: Stick/CEV Propulsion News
- From: Henry Spencer
- Re: Stick/CEV Propulsion News
- From: Derek Lyons
- Stick/CEV Propulsion News
- Prev by Date: Re: commercial uses of the Dtick and the Heavy Lifter
- Next by Date: Re: Stick/CEV Propulsion News
- Previous by thread: Re: Stick/CEV Propulsion News
- Next by thread: Re: Stick/CEV Propulsion News
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|