 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / July 2007Seems like a lot of clutter in ISS
Live shots from the ISS always show a lot of naked cables and whatnot strung haphazardly all over the place. This seems strange to see. Ordinary home building codes require wiring to be concealed in the walls or protected by armor. Look at your car. Not only is wiring out of sight, but you are hard put to even find an exposed screw. Cars are chickenfeed cheap compared to anything about the space station, so why isn't it highly finished? I would expect to see smooth walls, neatly fared instrument panels and controls, large view screens and some furniture for the occupants to sit comfortably. There's not much in the way of spaciousness, decor or color schemes, either. Every airliner cabin is carefully done by interior decorators. Why wasn't some token amount of money alloted to the budget for these details when this multi-billion dollar project was planned? > Live shots from the ISS always show a lot of naked cables and whatnot > strung haphazardly all over the place. This seems strange to see. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Why wasn't some token amount of money alloted to the budget for these > details when this multi-billion dollar project was planned? There was a lot of money spent on stuff like this. Partly I'm guessing some of what you're seeing is the Russian section which as I understand it does this more so than the American section.  SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: >> Live shots from the ISS always show a lot of naked cables and whatnot >> strung haphazardly all over the place. This seems strange to see. >> >> Ordinary home building codes require wiring to be concealed in the walls >> or protected by armor. Look at your car. Not only is wiring out of sight, >> but you are hard put to even find an exposed screw. That's because ordinary homes and cars are required to deal with common and ordinary idiots. The ISS is designed to operated by professionals. (Visit a warship and see how much is resembles the interior of ISS and how much it doesn't resemble an ordinary house or automobiles.) >> Cars are chickenfeed cheap compared to anything about the space station, so >> why isn't it highly finished? I would expect to see smooth walls, neatly >> fared instrument panels and controls, large view screens and some furniture >> for the occupants to sit comfortably. Mommy! Mommy! That mean ol' man has produced a future different from what the movies _promised_! They _promised_ me! >> There's not much in the way of spaciousness, decor or color schemes, >> either. Every airliner cabin is carefully done by interior decorators. >> Why wasn't some token amount of money alloted to the budget for these >> details when this multi-billion dollar project was planned? Arlines have to cover up how uncomfortable airline travel really is - as well as compete with each other for business. Ditto for the manufacturers. >There was a lot of money spent on stuff like this. Mostly on human factors I imagine, and less on psychology. Even so, this isn't a consumer grade 'vehicle' but a professional workaday enviroment. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > Live shots from the ISS always show a lot of naked cables and whatnot > strung haphazardly all over the place. This seems strange to see. It started all nice and clean and streamlined. But as they add more and more experiments, there are more and more laptops and tablet PCs that get attached to the walls and you then get ethernet and other cables running from them to somewhere inside the racks. You need to think of the ISS more of a glorified computer room than of a commercial airliner. Unity doesn't have the "computer clutter", but it has storage clutter. (which is why an MPLM should really be permanently attached). > You need to think of the ISS more of a glorified computer room than of a > commercial airliner. > > Unity doesn't have the "computer clutter", but it has storage clutter. > (which is why an MPLM should really be permanently attached). If someone had the money to spend on upgrading an MPLM for permanent attachment to ISS. It's not necessarily hard to do this, but it would take time and money, which are two things NASA is short on with the shuttle retirement looming in the near future and any "extra" money in the budget being thrown at Ares/CEV. Jeff Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) > If someone had the money to spend on upgrading an MPLM for permanent > attachment to ISS. It's not necessarily hard to do this, but it would take > time and money, NASA has had plenty of time since 2003 to add the same type of shielding that other modules of the same size were given. NASA has had plenty of time to add whatever electrical additions would be needed to allow am MPLM to stay at the station more or less permanently (even if used only as storage area and not meant to be habitable permanently). And when you consider that this type of work was already done to Unity, Destiny, node2, columbus etc, it should be considered fairly "COTS" by now. Lack of vision is the real cause here. People inside NASA worked very hard to get rid of the shuttle in as permanent a way as possible. >> If someone had the money to spend on upgrading an MPLM for permanent >> attachment to ISS. It's not necessarily hard to do this, but it would [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Lack of vision is the real cause here. People inside NASA worked very > hard to get rid of the shuttle in as permanent a way as possible. You are an absolute idiot. There's a LOT more to mod'ding an module for permanent attachment than simply "adding electrical additions." If you had designed module interfaces like some people (*cough* ahem, me for instance) you'd know that. By the time you ripped out the MPLM berthing mechanisms and drilled new interfaces into the endcones and hatch mounts, and then pulled out the standoff structures for rewiring and plumbing (there's more to permanent modules than just wiring you know - the ARS, ACS and THC subsystems have tendrils throughout the U.S./European/Japanese segments) and then re-qualified the entire design and rebuild, you've spent a LOT of money. But I'm sure you knew all that and just chose to talk out of your a.s, as usual. Right, JF? SignatureFear is the path to the dark side... Fear leads to anger... Anger leads to hate... Hate leads to banjos... Banjos lead to suffering! > You are an absolute idiot. There's a LOT more to mod'ding an module for > permanent attachment than simply "adding electrical additions." If you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > U.S./European/Japanese segments) and then re-qualified the entire design > and rebuild, you've spent a LOT of money. Woopty Doo ! You're a great example of why NASA always spends so much money for simple tasks. MPLMs are just for STORAGE. You don't need fancy plumbing, you don't need fancy ECLSS or fancy extra fixtures for a module that is only accessed from time to time for a few minutes to put stuff in and take stuff out. Why would you need to pull out the CBM and rip it apart (unless you are a contractor wanting to increase the amount of NASA money going your way?) Let me ask you this: Is PMA3 equipped with all the fancy stuff that you'd insist on putting on MPLMs ? Yet, PMA3 has been up there for a long time and has been used as a storage area for a long time. and even if you absolutely must add connections, wouldn't they happen within the pressurised confines of the CBM assembly where the location for each hole already standardized ? Does seem to me that you'd need to rip the CBM apart to add standard connectors for whatever you need to add. >> You are an absolute idiot. There's a LOT more to mod'ding an module for >> permanent attachment than simply "adding electrical additions." If you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Woopty Doo ! You're a great example of why NASA always spends so much > money for simple tasks. You're still the biggest regular idiot on these newsgroups. > MPLMs are just for STORAGE. You don't need fancy plumbing, you don't > need fancy ECLSS or fancy extra fixtures for a module that is only > accessed from time to time for a few minutes to put stuff in and take > stuff out. Um, yes you do. It's in the Level 2 ECLSS requirements (and probably the Level 1 requirements too) that you have to have to ability to verify the temperature, pressure and composition of the atmosphere inside any pressurized volume before you open the hatch. But I'm sure you already know that, right? Because pressure vessels can leak, but you know that, right? And things inside pressure vessels can leak, offgas and outgas poisoning the atmosphere, and some of those substances can be toxic at levels of a few parts per million or less, but you know that right? > Why would you need to pull out the CBM and rip it apart (unless you are > a contractor wanting to increase the amount of NASA money going your way?) See above, brainiac. The CBM isn't equipped to do any remote atmosphere control or monitoring let alone full-time FDS (fire detection and suppression) on a full-time basis. None of its active components are rated to meet the 15 year continuous life specs. But you know that already, right? > Let me ask you this: Is PMA3 equipped with all the fancy stuff that > you'd insist on putting on MPLMs ? Yet, PMA3 has been up there for a > long time and has been used as a storage area for a long time. Yes. > and even if you absolutely must add connections, wouldn't they happen > within the pressurised confines of the CBM assembly where the location > for each hole already standardized ? They're not standardized, dumbass. They vary from module to module. Does seem to me that you'd need to > rip the CBM apart to add standard connectors for whatever you need to add. Indeed. You're starting to catch on. And that cannot be done on-orbit. SignatureFear is the path to the dark side... Fear leads to anger... Anger leads to hate... Hate leads to banjos... Banjos lead to suffering! > You're still the biggest regular idiot on these newsgroups. Thank you Mr very professional NASA employee. > Um, yes you do. It's in the Level 2 ECLSS requirements (and probably > the Level 1 requirements too) that you have to have to ability to verify > the temperature, pressure and composition of the atmosphere inside any > pressurized volume before you open the hatch. If this capability is missing as you state with all your professionalism expected of a NASA employee, then could you explain how they accomplish those very tasks after berthing an MPLM that was just moved from vacuum of space ? > know that, right? Because pressure vessels can leak, but you know that, > right? Yep. And an MPLM can also leak between the time it launches at sea level until the time it is berthed to the station and crews ready to open hatch. Yet, NASA seems perfectly happy to perform this task. So either they already have the capability to test the pressure inside an MPLM or verify pressure differential via equalisation valve, or NASA is breaking rules by wrecklessly opening a hatch into a potentially vacuum MPLM. > See above, brainiac. The CBM isn't equipped to do any remote atmosphere > control or monitoring let alone full-time FDS (fire detection and > suppression) on a full-time basis. CBM isn't involved in "monitoring". If there is a data link across the CBM, then it is equipment inside the module that sends data back to the other side. > None of its active components are > rated to meet the 15 year continuous life specs. But you know that > already, right? By the time a shuttle would bring an MPLM to the station as a last flight, the station wouldn't be expected to remain in orbit for 15 years. Are you going to leave space hardware to rot on earth even though it might have given the crews up there useful purpose for a few years at the very least ? So what if an MPLM gets perforated ? They close and lock that hatch forever and leave that module disused until station deorbit. But until that happens, they at least have some use for it. > They're not standardized, dumbass. They vary from module to module. Thank you for your typical NASA professionalism. You should note that Unity's nadir hatch was designed to berth a full function module and should have all the connectors present. And the port hatch which has already accepted many MPLMs has all the connectors used by MPLMs, including air supply, data and power at the very least. > Indeed. You're starting to catch on. And that cannot be done on-orbit. MPLMs are all rotting on the ground right now. Wasted hardware that could be put to some good use even if they don't last 15 years. Even if an MPLM is used as a glorified rubbish bin, it would still be a lot of help to the crews who could get rid of disused equipment/racks in the station to reduce the clutter. MPLM are not meant to be living quarters and need not have the same standards as living quarters. >> You're still the biggest regular idiot on these newsgroups. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If this capability is missing as you state with all your professionalism > expected of a NASA employee, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a NASA employee. If you bothered to comprehend and read instead of just spout horseshit you'd have picked up on that by now. And for that matter, if you knew anything about the history of the SSF/Alpha/ISS you'd know that NASA didn't design a darn thing about them except the Level 1 requirements and various NASA-STD's used as design references. > then could you explain how they accomplish > those very tasks after berthing an MPLM that was just moved from vacuum > of space ? Google is your friend. The documents describing how this is done are readily available. The problem is, these verification methods were not meant as permanent, long-term solutions to meeting the requirements, only methods to meet them for the 7 - 10 days of a typical STS service or logistics flight. If you had any clue about real design methodology and requirements verification, you might have realized that. (Snipped rest of blather - do your own research, Mezei) SignatureFear is the path to the dark side... Fear leads to anger... Anger leads to hate... Hate leads to banjos... Banjos lead to suffering! >> then could you explain how they accomplish >> those very tasks after berthing an MPLM that was just moved from vacuum [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > or logistics flight. If you had any clue about real design methodology > and requirements verification, you might have realized that. Hint to John: try googling this: "mplm site:www.spaceref.com" as I remember reading a very interesting document there which detailed a lot of the procedures for the MPLM. And John, try not to get Herb too riled up. He's one of the good guys who has actually worked on designing the very hardware you're saying is "easy" to modify or use for long periods of time in orbit. If you choose not to believe Herb, then that's your loss, not his. Jeff Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) > And John, try not to get Herb too riled up. He's one of the good guys who > has actually worked on designing the very hardware you're saying is "easy" > to modify or use for long periods of time in orbit. If you choose not to > believe Herb, then that's your loss, not his. based on what he has said he worked on early designs on SFF. Not the space station itself. Secondly, he insists that an MPLM must be fully rated for the full life of the ISS. By the book thinking, instead of realising that the ISS is nearing end of life already and an MPLM would not need to stay there 15 years. And if his level proprofessionalism truly reflects NASA mentality, it is no wonder the USA manned space programme in in such shambles and about to shutdown in a couple of years. If they refuse any concept that doesn't come from them and always work so hard to find ways to prevent stuff from happening instead of finding ways to get stuff happening, then it explains a lot about NASA. Recall that after Columbia, the NASA experts here were quick to ridicule anyone who suggested the addition of a segment to the arm , stating it would be impossible and that bringing a crewmember close to tiles would undoubtedly damage the tiles etc etc. (all excuses to not do it). No apologies from them once they were proven wrong and all the stuff they said was impossible to do ended up being done without much of a problem. So, once Shaltegger has set in his mind that it is impossible to leave an MPLM in space, he will concuct every possible excuse he can find, just like those other experts who concuncted every possible excuse to say it would be impossible to use the arm with an extension to insect/repaid shuttle tiles. > based on what he has said he worked on early designs on SFF. Not the > space station itself. Hey genius, guess what the majority of "ISS" actually IS? It's the U.S.-designed and -built Lab, U.S.-built Unity node (originally Node 2 for SSF), U.S.-designed and -built PMAs, U.S.-designed and -built truss structure, PV arrays, TCS radiators and associatated hardware, just about ALL of which was designed for Space Station Freedom before the Russians were brought aboard to "save" the program. The majority of the final ISS configuration will consist of the hardware designed and planned for SSF. Which I most certainly did work on, by the way. > Secondly, he insists that an MPLM must be fully > rated for the full life of the ISS. By the book thinking, instead of > realising that the ISS is nearing end of life already and an MPLM would > not need to stay there 15 years. ISS is nowhere near end of life. (Snipped more idiotic blather). Get out of your parents' basement and look around at the real world sometime. SignatureFear is the path to the dark side... Fear leads to anger... Anger leads to hate... Hate leads to banjos... Banjos lead to suffering! Have you ever been in a lab? :-) Besides, I think things have evolved over time, and a lot of what is there now, was either going to be somewhere else, or not envisaged at the design stage of the components. I do sometimes feel it might be nice to send in the health and safety folk and see what they say though. Still, its hard to trip and fall in zero G, I suppose. Brian SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Live shots from the ISS always show a lot of naked cables and whatnot > strung haphazardly all over the place. This seems strange to see. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Why wasn't some token amount of money alloted to the budget for these > details when this multi-billion dollar project was planned? > Live shots from the ISS always show a lot of naked cables and whatnot > strung haphazardly all over the place. This seems strange to see. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There's not much in the way of spaciousness, decor or color schemes, > either. Every airliner cabin is carefully done by interior decorators. The astronauts don't care if the drapes on the windows match the seats or such. Ever see a single guy's apartment? Many look like a space station... :-) <snip> > and some furniture for the > occupants to sit comfortably. Umm, am I the only one who sees a problem with this? George ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >George I dunno George, I guess we could add seatbelts. I was wondering when somebody was gonna catch that one. You get the cupie doll. SignatureJim in Houston NoSpAmjamesgoodrum@sbcglobal.netNosPAm Nurse's creed: Fill what's empty, empty what's full, and scratch where it itches!! RN does NOT mean Real Nerd! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.