XPost: sci.space.shuttle, sci.space.policy
From: jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg.retro.com
"Meszéna Géza" wrote in
news:O1bgc.9310$N9.3961@news.chello.at:
> Would it be possible to finish the ISS by exclusively unmanned Shutle
> flights?
It is possible, but not terribly practical. Some of the areas to be
automated would seriously push the state-of-the-art.
> This would remove the need for obeying the CAIB recommendations. Under
> the existing 98% reliability, whith some luck, you can deliver the 25
> fligths necessary for comleting the Station without losing another
> vehicle.
Automating the shuttle will be more expensive, take longer, and be more
technically challenging than meeting the CAIB recommendations.
> If we are not so lucky, we will lose some of them. Of course,
> the current reliablity must be maintained, otherwise we will lose all
> the three remaining OV too soon.
The trouble is, the shuttle crew is counted as a "level of redundancy" in
many systems; they are the last line of defense for troubleshooting many
types of malfunctions and for taking over manually when automated systems
fail. Removing the crew will almost certainly decrease the reliability of
the fleet and increase the odds of losing vehicles, unless heroic efforts
are made to upgrade the "smarts" and reliability of automated systems.
> It will takes some efforts, and money, to convert them unmanned. My
> guess is that safety of the proximity oparations is the only
> significant issue. Can it be a show-stopper?
It is probably the biggest issue, but not the only significant one. It is
probably not a show-stopper, but would definitely be one of the cost and
schedule drivers.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
