Timeline for Do space stations have anything that big spacecraft (such as the Space Shuttle and SpaceX Starship) don't have?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14 at 14:48 | comment | added | Organic Marble | @Woody It was the first flight of the RCRS - STS-50 - search for the acronym in this ibiblio.org/apollo/Shuttle/Reports/Mission%20Reports/… It also failed and required an IFM on STS-90 ibiblio.org/apollo/Shuttle/Reports/Mission%20Reports/… There was an IFM class where you got to do the STS-50 procedure in one of the JSC chambers that had the shuttle middeck in it. | |
| Aug 14 at 14:43 | comment | added | Woody | @OrganicMarble ... you have my interest ! Any links on the shuttle "spectacular failure" story? | |
| Aug 14 at 13:55 | comment | added | Organic Marble | @Woody In-Flight Maintenance. See the RCRS section archive.org/download/flight-maps-and-charts/IFM-d10.pdf | |
| Aug 14 at 13:46 | comment | added | Woody | @OrganicMarble ... IFM = ? | |
| Aug 14 at 4:04 | comment | added | Organic Marble | @Woody I know, I worked on a simulation of it for the Shuttle Mission Simulator. The ISS CDRA is a similar device. They use amine beds to absorb the CO2 and then exhaust it into vacuum, using two beds in a cyclic fashion. The shuttle one failed spectacularly on a mission and was recovered by a very cool IFM. | |
| Aug 14 at 2:24 | comment | added | Woody | @OrganicMarble ... the linked document on the Extended Duration Orbiter mentions "regenerative CO2 removal". Apparently that was not "regenerative" as in regenerating oxygen, but “regenerable” as in regenerating the CO2-adsorbent material. According to ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19910065911, the system was actually called the "Regenerable CO2 Removal System (RCRS)". The system had lower mass than the old lithium hydroxide system, but was a long way from regenerating oxygen. | |
| Aug 13 at 22:00 | history | edited | Organic Marble | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Aug 13 at 17:54 | comment | added | Star Captain | Thank you. I better leave that comment there so that other users or readers get it correctly too. | |
| Aug 13 at 17:22 | history | edited | Organic Marble | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 482 characters in body
|
| Aug 13 at 17:21 | comment | added | Organic Marble | @StarCaptain thanks for the clarification. When you said "staying in the spacecraft" in the same sentence as "being able to go to any orbit", I thought you meant on the same mission. I'll remove that part of the answer. | |
| Aug 13 at 15:58 | comment | added | Star Captain | Concerning the first point: I meant you can launch a crewed spacecraft into any orbit, not change the orbit once you're in e.g. LEO. If you go to a space station, you need to go to the orbit the space station is at. The upcoming Polaris Dawn mission for instance wants to investigate the effects of Van Allen radiation on humans. It doesn't go to the ISS, but to a higher orbit. | |
| Aug 13 at 15:23 | history | edited | Organic Marble | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 56 characters in body
|
| Aug 13 at 15:16 | history | edited | Organic Marble | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 86 characters in body
|
| Aug 13 at 15:09 | history | edited | Organic Marble | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 86 characters in body
|
| Aug 13 at 15:03 | history | edited | Organic Marble | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 12 characters in body
|
| Aug 13 at 14:58 | history | answered | Organic Marble | CC BY-SA 4.0 |