Comments on: What Buzz Aldrin and Gene Cernan have in common with Bubba the Love Sponge http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/05/17/what-buzz-aldrin-and-gene-cernan-have-in-common-with-bubba-the-love-sponge/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=what-buzz-aldrin-and-gene-cernan-have-in-common-with-bubba-the-love-sponge Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: LowBidder http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/05/17/what-buzz-aldrin-and-gene-cernan-have-in-common-with-bubba-the-love-sponge/#comment-348130 Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:19:55 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4711#comment-348130 The Amine Swingbed project website is here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/Amine_Swingbed.html
Great Technology: Technology was developed by Hamilton Sundstrand; Great Vision: funded by ISS Program;
Poor Execution: the system was built by Jacobs under the ESC Contract. At startup it had a system failure (pump failure). Now it’s a very expensive ($10+Million) weightless paperweight. When is NASA going to learn you can’t always go to the lowest bidder?

]]> By: pathfinder_01 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/05/17/what-buzz-aldrin-and-gene-cernan-have-in-common-with-bubba-the-love-sponge/#comment-346454 Fri, 20 May 2011 06:32:08 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4711#comment-346454 cool

]]> By: Justin Kugler http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/05/17/what-buzz-aldrin-and-gene-cernan-have-in-common-with-bubba-the-love-sponge/#comment-346432 Thu, 19 May 2011 23:20:26 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4711#comment-346432 No, that’s a commercial proposal by Paragon. The Amine Swingbed was developed at JSC and is NASA-funded.

]]> By: pathfinder_01 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/05/17/what-buzz-aldrin-and-gene-cernan-have-in-common-with-bubba-the-love-sponge/#comment-346424 Thu, 19 May 2011 21:59:37 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4711#comment-346424 Justine, Intresting. I know they had planed one for Orion due to its constraints of volume and needing a long flight time. How will the new system work with the old? I know the old system can turn C02 into water and methane using left over hydrogen from oxygen production(recoverimg water).

Is it related to this plane:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/04/07/03.xml&headline=NASA%20May%20Test%20Advanced%20Life%20Support%20On%20ISS&next=10

]]> By: Justin Kugler http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/05/17/what-buzz-aldrin-and-gene-cernan-have-in-common-with-bubba-the-love-sponge/#comment-346409 Thu, 19 May 2011 17:09:17 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4711#comment-346409 When there’s more I can say, I’d be more than happy to. Since they’re already manifested and simply moved over when the new office was created, I can mention that there is going to be an Amine Swingbed demonstrator on Station. It is much smaller than existing CO2 removal systems and has the benefit of being self-replenishing because the carbon dioxide is flushed to vacuum.

]]> By: common sense http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/05/17/what-buzz-aldrin-and-gene-cernan-have-in-common-with-bubba-the-love-sponge/#comment-346401 Thu, 19 May 2011 15:54:41 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4711#comment-346401 @ Justin Kugler wrote @ May 19th, 2011 at 7:32 am

“Many of the projects they are looking at are in the pre-decisional phase, so I really can’t say much about them.”

Too bad. I’d love to hear about those. Specifically.

Best of luck with the NPO.

]]> By: Justin Kugler http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/05/17/what-buzz-aldrin-and-gene-cernan-have-in-common-with-bubba-the-love-sponge/#comment-346382 Thu, 19 May 2011 11:32:43 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4711#comment-346382 common sense,
We have stood up a Technology Development Office in ISS Payloads to marshal all of the NASA space tech research that can be done on Station and coordinate those projects with OCT and the new hybrid exploration/space ops directorate that Gerst will be managing. Many of the projects they are looking at are in the pre-decisional phase, so I really can’t say much about them.

NASA will also be selecting the Non-Profit Organization to manage the ISS National Lab, probably this month. The NPO will be specifically geared towards pairing researchers and commercial developers with financial backers and prioritizing on-orbit science of benefit to the nation. My office has been pathfinding for them – with no budget – for the past two years so the NPO can hit the ground running.

If you look at the FY12 budget proposal, the NPO is intended to eventually manage all science on the Station, such that NASA itself would become a user of the National Lab while providing the sustaining engineering for the USOS. Slowly, but surely, we’re moving towards a model where NASA can free up its limited resources for BEO exploration, while still being able to take advantage of LEO through commercial ventures.

]]> By: common sense http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/05/17/what-buzz-aldrin-and-gene-cernan-have-in-common-with-bubba-the-love-sponge/#comment-346374 Thu, 19 May 2011 05:05:55 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4711#comment-346374 @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 7:40 pm

“Safety is about a management structure that deals with the KNOWN limitations of the hardware and measures the risk associated with that hardware with the mission involved.”

I agree but with the foam shedding there is no real possible risk mitigation. You know when you know and obviously when you know well it is too late. I do not think, except for a redesign, they could come up with a set of design rules that if you follow you won’t get in trouble. The foam shedding is fairly random and is a flawed design. Remember that they’ve know all along about it and they thought it was no big deal. It is not about operating within specs, it is that the design does not work. Maybe it is the best they could do back then yet the design well… does not work. The only way to deal with a TPS impact would be to send a rescue mission of some sort. I do not know all the other flaws but this one is critical and pretty obvious.

Talking of a 737 it’s akin to fly the 737 even though you know you ingested a bird or two and still try to make the HOU-SFO trip. That would be a bad idea. At least usually you can make it back with a 737. And with an Airbus you can even land on water ;) Not so with a Shuttle, once you’re committed you go all the way up, up, up.

]]> By: Robert G. Oler http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/05/17/what-buzz-aldrin-and-gene-cernan-have-in-common-with-bubba-the-love-sponge/#comment-346354 Wed, 18 May 2011 23:40:45 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4711#comment-346354 common sense wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 3:07 pm

it is worth almost no time here really (grin) but I would say this about safety.

If NASA HSF was operating a Piper Tripacer they would figure out a way to operate it unsat.

Safety is about a management structure that deals with the KNOWN limitations of the hardware and measures the risk associated with that hardware with the mission involved.

There is always going to be foam “migrating” or what is their new phrase “being liberated” from the tank…but the issue is 1) how to measure the worth of the mission vrs the risk and 2) to deal with the risk.

Where NASA HSF is losing people and having one near miss after the other is that they have no adherence to good engineering/management discipline. That wont change with the hardware. Here is a hint. No 737 out of Hobby would have taken off with the issue that the shuttle is flying with now…ie a shorted component and no idea why.

Robert G. Oler

]]> By: DCSCA http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/05/17/what-buzz-aldrin-and-gene-cernan-have-in-common-with-bubba-the-love-sponge/#comment-346340 Wed, 18 May 2011 20:38:12 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4711#comment-346340 @Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 6:43 am
This writer has read it. Twice. Shuttle engineering is what it is. How it is/was managed is the variable. The CAIB report revealed the ‘in family’ management culture at NASA remains a problem and that mind set has thoroughly infected layers of decision-making at the agency. And the real tragedy of it all is similar deficiencies were revealed in the Rogers Commission report as well. It’s past time to clear out the deadwood.

]]>