A question for the Shuttle experts.

[Phantom]

I was wondering tonight, are the MMUs considered as standard equipment for the shuttle? Or are they issued on a per mission basis?

[Ineti]

I did some research, but I can't find a good answer to your question.

There is a lot of good EVA information here.

I think the MMUs were phased out in favor of the EMU, but I could very well be wrong.

And it's just a guess, but I imagine they wouldn't include one on board if there wasn't a mission-specific need for one. I don't know of an in-orbit emergency plan. All the public info on that website covers aborts during ascent.

[StyroFoam Man]

This message has been removed on request by the
poster

[calguard66]

Saw a short story on the issue of in-orbit self repair of the shuttle.

Essentially, there is no capability whatsoever. Normal EVA gear is limited to what they might need in the cargo bay, to open a stuck door or manuver an unruly piece of gear. No "over the side" capability, no manuvering units, no handholds on the underside of the shuttle... and no replacement tiles in stock, or other repair parts.

Each tile is unique, so it would be impossible to guess which might fail... it is likely that an astronaut would cause more damage than he would fix trying an unprepared EVA with makeshift gear anyway.

They make the shuttle as robust as they can, and hope nothing goes wrong.

[Phantom]

I knew that once damaged the integrity of the tiles was breached, my question stems from a description, from a NASA engineer, on how they could investigate the damage. Which was to have someone go out for a "walk", disconnect the tether line, while the shuttle is 'reversed' and rolled so the astronaut doing the EVA could see and film the damaged area, then be retrieved. This just sounded strange and way too danagerous for a damage inspection.

I just thought that it might be a good idea to have an MMU, or whatever the new designation or device is, on board for just such an emergency. If they knew the tiles were damaged they could've waited for a retrieval ship to be sent, instead of trying re-entry.

Does anyone know if the astronauts were informed about the piece of insulation hitting the left wing?

BTW, thanks for taking the time to look.

[Ineti]

Originally posted by Phantom
If they knew the tiles were damaged they could've waited for a retrieval ship to be sent, instead of trying re-entry.

That could have been a long wait. The shuttles can't be slapped together and shot off just like that.

Maybe the Russians could have sent up something to help, though; even a Soyuz to act as a lifeboat would suffice.

Oh, hmm.....except that a Soyuz can't carry seven. Maybe a couple Soyuzes...

[Bill Harris]

Originally posted by StyroFoam Man

HOWEVER that doesn't mean we should give up on damaged shuttles in orbit. The NASA of 1970 was able to get Apollo 13 home with much less technology. Untill we get rid of the pension-grubbing middle-manager types running NASA the space program is in danger.

If the heat shield had been damaged, as they feared it might have been, there would have been no way to recover the Apollo 13 crew. No ifs, ands or $.

[Dan Stack]

I heard a press conference yesterday that indicates there was an extreme contingency - I didn't catch all the details so someone else should feel free to correct me... Supposedly, if they had known there was a problem that meant they had to protect the left wing, they could have re-entered in such a way to shield it. That would have scrapped the shuttle and made it unlandable but the crew would have had the possibility to bail.

Anyone else hear this report and able to explain better?

[Bill Harris]

Originally posted by Ineti

Maybe the Russians could have sent up something to help, though; even a Soyuz to act as a lifeboat would suffice.

Oh, hmm.....except that a Soyuz can't carry seven. Maybe a couple Soyuzes...

A Soyuz has a capacity of three. Even is they could be sent up unmanned (and I'm not sure they can), you'd need a mimimum of three to evacuate Columbia.

You also have the problem of not being able to dock Columbia to the Soyuz. (No docking port on this mission.) And that Columbia only had two spacesuits on board.

[Brian K]

There was a proposal back when the shuttle was in the build up for an ablative material that could be filled into the gaps of missing tiles.

Essentially, this gel would burn off during rentry much like the old heat shields. I think it was canned because the heat dispersion was too uneven or unrealiable...can not remember exactly.

[Phantom]

Originally posted by Ineti
That could have been a long wait. The shuttles can't be slapped together and shot off just like that.

The engineer that was being interviewed said that they could scramble a launch in 12 days.

And yes I had heard of the contingency plan. Something about setting re-entry so that most of the heat was taken up by the opposite side of the damage (in this case the right side.) Not sure how it would be done, however.

[Chang]

well, everyone of of these ideas may have worked, and their are alot more that may have worked, but you never know, they could not have stayed on the ISS long enough for someone to come and help repair, not enough food, they would starve, so mqny possiblitys, and yet, most would not have worked.

[Aldaron]

Then it seems like several things need to be done:

The ISS needs to be stocked with enough food/water/oxygen to last a shuttle crew (plus the normal ISS crew) for 12 days (the time it takes to scratch a shuttle mission together).

And enough EMUs/suits need to be aboard to allow a visual inspection of the "bottom" of the shuttle whilst in orbit - if damage is incurred, at least they can dock with the ISS and either make repairs there (if possible) or wait for a rescue mission.

Either way, I think it's a good argument for getting the ISS up and running as soon as possible.

[Ensign Arrgh]

I'd say 12 to 14 or even 16 days in excess of mission time, so that if something blows during reentry the other shuttle can be rushed in space... Or did you mean that they would have to be carrying the supplies for the backup shuttle (while making them heavier, I guess it would make the launch preparation time shorter)?

Maybe they should consider building one or two smaller shuttles with less crew, and possibly needing less preparation time for technical problems while the other one is in orbit (IIRC, the French had in the late 80s the Hermes spaceplane on the drawing boards, which was essentially a smaller Space Shuttle, was it continued by the European Space Program, or did it remain on the boards)

[C5]

Sadly, the Hermes program was picked up for a while by the European Space Agency before being cancelled for wichever rentability reason. They must have thought it was more profitable to invest into Ariane 5 (the 99.5% sure rocket that blows up every two launches)...

Yeah, Europe has a scrappy spatial program too...