Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #530120 > unrolled thread

About the resupply missions in "The Martian".

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-11-03 09:56 -0500
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2015-11-03 22:19 -0500
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 22:45 -0800
        "wget" will download it. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-04 05:26 -0800
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-11-04 00:19 -0700
        Nitro Pro and SumatraPDF.  Not Adobe. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-04 05:09 -0800
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> - 2015-11-04 17:13 +0000
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-11-04 00:03 -0700
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-11-05 09:18 -0500
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2015-11-05 22:39 -0500
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-06 06:24 -0500
            Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-06 07:18 -0500
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-04 05:48 -0500
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> - 2015-11-07 18:59 +0000
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> - 2015-11-08 01:18 +0000
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-11-07 23:43 -0500
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> - 2015-11-08 23:18 +0000
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-11-07 20:58 -0700
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-11-13 16:26 -0500

#530120 — About the resupply missions in "The Martian".

Two instances were discussed in the film where unmanned cargo ships were 
mentioned to send up supplies to extend the time Whatney or the crew of the 
Hermes could survive.

This brought back painful memories while watching the movie. It's such an 
obvious answer. In the space shuttle Columbia disaster NASA rejected a 
possible rescue because Atlantis could not be readied in time within the 16 
days the Columbia's supplies would run out.

So since "nothing could be done anyway" there was no need to do accurate 
imaging to even find out if the wing damage was survivable.

Note in the movie they had to use China to do the resupply mission to the 
Hermes. If NASA had ordered the Columbia imaging, finding the damage 
unsurvivable, all the space-faring nations in the world, which are at least 
five, would have been working hard to send up a cargo mission to meet up 
with Columbia within the 16 day time frame.

But they never were even given a chance to try.

BTW, since this is in regards to "The Martian", for you chemistry heads out 
there, are there some foods, liquids, or common materials that might be on 
the shuttles that could have filtered out the CO2 in air other than the 
lithium canisters? For instance perhaps the solubility of CO2 in water is 
different than in O2 and there could have been a way to separate out the CO2 
from the air that way.


  Bob Clark

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mission to Europa could result in the most important scientific advance in 
human history, dwarfing even the Apollo missions,
to discover life on another world. By commercial space, launch and 
spacecraft costs can be slashed by a factor of 10 or more.
This would be a cost that could be financed privately. And at costs this low 
it can even be done at a profit:

Low cost Europa lander missions.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#530284

"Robert Clark"  wrote in message news:n1ahpv$2k5$2@dont-email.me...
>
>Two instances were discussed in the film where unmanned cargo ships were 
>mentioned to send up supplies to extend the time Whatney or the crew of the 
>Hermes could survive.
>
>This brought back painful memories while watching the movie. It's such an 
>obvious answer. In the space shuttle Columbia disaster NASA rejected a 
>possible rescue because Atlantis could not be readied in time within the 16 
>days the Columbia's supplies would run out.
>
>So since "nothing could be done anyway" there was no need to do accurate 
>imaging to even find out if the wing damage was survivable.
>
>Note in the movie they had to use China to do the resupply mission to the 
>Hermes. If NASA had ordered the Columbia imaging, finding the damage 
>unsurvivable, all the space-faring nations in the world, which are at least 
>five, would have been working hard to send up a cargo mission to meet up 
>with Columbia within the 16 day time frame.
>
>But they never were even given a chance to try.
>
>BTW, since this is in regards to "The Martian", for you chemistry heads out 
>there, are there some foods, liquids, or common materials that might be on 
>the shuttles that could have filtered out the CO2 in air other than the 
>lithium canisters? For instance perhaps the solubility of CO2 in water is 
>different than in O2 and there could have been a way to separate out the 
>CO2 from the air that way.
>

BTW, if you haven't read this:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/the-audacious-rescue-plan-that-might-have-saved-space-shuttle-columbia/

and

http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL2/D13.PDF (though this is coming 
up corrupted for me right now, but may be my browser.)


>
>  Bob Clark
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>A mission to Europa could result in the most important scientific advance 
>in human history, dwarfing even the Apollo missions,
>to discover life on another world. By commercial space, launch and 
>spacecraft costs can be slashed by a factor of 10 or more.
>This would be a cost that could be financed privately. And at costs this 
>low it can even be done at a profit:
>
>Low cost Europa lander missions.
>http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Greg D. Moore                   http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530291

With a quizzical look, Greg (Strider) Moore observed:

[...]

> and
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL2/D13.PDF (though this is coming up 
> corrupted for me right now, but may be my browser.)
>

Is it missing a content-type header?

/dps

-- 
Ieri, oggi, domani

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530325 — "wget" will download it.

Re: www.NASA.GOV/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL2/D13.PDF

@Snidely asked:
> Is it missing a content-type header?

Sadly, the (AmazonS3) server says it's:
  "Content-Type: text/html".

My software ( Jeff-Relf.Me/X.ZIP ) downloads it fine,
because it ignores the "Content-Type: text/html" line.

"wget" will download it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530298

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:

>http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL2/D13.PDF (though this is coming 
>up corrupted for me right now, but may be my browser.)

garbled for me, too, in  Chrome.

Feeding the URL directly into Adobe Reader does work, though.  But I
have to fight my way through tutorials and contracts and cloud sigh-up
tons of crap just to get into Reader.  I guess it auto-updated when I
wasn't watching and the company wants me to use as more than just a
document "Reader".  C'mon, Adobe.

Anyhow, Chrome chokes on it but Adobe Reader DC is fine with it.

What is DC?  The last version I noticed was 10 or 11 or some such.
How did we get to version 600?
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530323 — Nitro Pro and SumatraPDF. Not Adobe.

Re: www.NASA.GOV/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL2/D13.PDF

For me, using my software, it downloads fine.
To view it, I use SumatraPDF, not Adobe.
It looks good.  To edit it, I use Nitro Pro.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530355

In sci.space.policy Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
> Anyhow, Chrome chokes on it but Adobe Reader DC is fine with it.

> What is DC?  The last version I noticed was 10 or 11 or some such.
> How did we get to version 600?

I think it stands for "Data Cloud" - perhaps Adobe have "clouded"
Reader (so to speak).

rick jones
-- 
The computing industry isn't as much a game of "Follow The Leader" as
it is one of "Ring Around the Rosy" or perhaps "Duck Duck Goose." 
                                                    - Rick Jones
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530293

"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:


>BTW, since this is in regards to "The Martian", for you chemistry heads out 
>there, are there some foods, liquids, or common materials that might be on 
>the shuttles that could have filtered out the CO2 in air other than the 
>lithium canisters? For instance perhaps the solubility of CO2 in water is 
>different than in O2 and there could have been a way to separate out the CO2 
>from the air that way.

There's lots of cold available, and low pressure that should make
refrigeration easy.  I'm not sure how "industrial" you have to get to
freeze CO2 out of the air, but it should be workable.  Fire
extinguishers generate CO2 snow fairly cheaply.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530541

I like that idea. According to Wikipedia the solidification point for CO2 is 
−78.5 °C at 1 atm:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

I say solidification point because at 1 atm it goes directly to a solid. 
Actually this is good for our purposes because it will be denser and easier 
to separate out from the gases in air.

The liquidification points for oxygen and nitrogen at 1 atm are −182.962 °C 
and  −195.795 °C respectively:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen


  So you would place the air in a canister and put it out in the payload bay 
and angle the payload bay away from the Sun. You would have a thermometer 
inside and watch until the temperature dropped to below −78.5 °C and pull 
the canister back in before it dropped down below the oxygen and nitrogen 
liquidification points.

You would need to separate out the solid CO2. You could rotate the canister 
to bring the solid CO2 to the outer parts of the canister and siphon the air 
off from the center of the canister. Or you could use a fine grid over the 
opening so only the air could pass through the opening.

A big question here though is when you open the air lock to put something 
out into the vacuum of the payload bay, would this vent air out to vacuum? 
Air would be a precious commodity and I don't know if you would want to lose 
any of it. Perhaps like in a scene from "The Martian" you could cover the 
outside opening of the air lock with a tarp so that the air couldn't escape 
but the thin tarp would allow the temperature to drop.

This problem could be eliminated of course if the shuttle did have onboard 
refrigeration equipment that could reach cryogenic temperatures.

    Bob Clark

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mission to Europa could result in the most important scientific advance in 
human history, dwarfing even the Apollo missions,
to discover life on another world. By commercial space, launch and 
spacecraft costs can be slashed by a factor of 10 or more.
This would be a cost that could be financed privately. And at costs this low 
it can even be done at a profit:

Low cost Europa lander missions.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Greg Goss"  wrote in message news:d9toutF6trjU1@mid.individual.net...

"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:


>BTW, since this is in regards to "The Martian", for you chemistry heads out
>there, are there some foods, liquids, or common materials that might be on
>the shuttles that could have filtered out the CO2 in air other than the
>lithium canisters? For instance perhaps the solubility of CO2 in water is
>different than in O2 and there could have been a way to separate out the 
>CO2
>from the air that way.

There's lots of cold available, and low pressure that should make
refrigeration easy.  I'm not sure how "industrial" you have to get to
freeze CO2 out of the air, but it should be workable.  Fire
extinguishers generate CO2 snow fairly cheaply.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530702

"Robert Clark"  wrote in message news:n1fobg$5q0$2@dont-email.me...
>
>A big question here though is when you open the air lock to put something 
>out into the vacuum of the payload bay, would this vent air out to vacuum?

That is my understanding. It's easier than trying to recapture it.


>Air would be a precious commodity and I don't know if you would want to 
>lose any of it. Perhaps like in a scene from "The Martian" you could cover 
>the outside opening of the air lock with a tarp so that the air couldn't 
>escape but the thin tarp would allow the temperature to drop.
>
>This problem could be eliminated of course if the shuttle did have onboard 
>refrigeration equipment that could reach cryogenic temperatures.
>
>    Bob Clark
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>A mission to Europa could result in the most important scientific advance 
>in human history, dwarfing even the Apollo missions,
>to discover life on another world. By commercial space, launch and 
>spacecraft costs can be slashed by a factor of 10 or more.
>This would be a cost that could be financed privately. And at costs this 
>low it can even be done at a profit:
>
>Low cost Europa lander missions.
>http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Greg Goss"  wrote in message news:d9toutF6trjU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>BTW, since this is in regards to "The Martian", for you chemistry heads 
>>out
>>there, are there some foods, liquids, or common materials that might be on
>>the shuttles that could have filtered out the CO2 in air other than the
>>lithium canisters? For instance perhaps the solubility of CO2 in water is
>>different than in O2 and there could have been a way to separate out the 
>>CO2
>>from the air that way.
>
>There's lots of cold available, and low pressure that should make
>refrigeration easy.  I'm not sure how "industrial" you have to get to
>freeze CO2 out of the air, but it should be workable.  Fire
>extinguishers generate CO2 snow fairly cheaply.

-- 
Greg D. Moore                   http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530725

In article <dtGdnc_O_Id_vaHLnZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, 
mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com says...
> 
> "Robert Clark"  wrote in message news:n1fobg$5q0$2@dont-email.me...
> >
> >A big question here though is when you open the air lock to put something 
> >out into the vacuum of the payload bay, would this vent air out to vacuum?
> 
> That is my understanding. It's easier than trying to recapture it.

Actually on ISS the Quest airlock uses "depress pumps" to recapture some 
of the air.  So, only the last little bit is vented to vaccuum.  

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/quest.html
#.VjyNjH6rR9M

Jeff
-- 
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530726

In article <MPG.30a657f51f68ff619898f3@news.eternal-september.org>, 
jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com says...
> 
> In article <dtGdnc_O_Id_vaHLnZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, 
> mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com says...
> > 
> > "Robert Clark"  wrote in message news:n1fobg$5q0$2@dont-email.me...
> > >
> > >A big question here though is when you open the air lock to put something 
> > >out into the vacuum of the payload bay, would this vent air out to vacuum?
> > 
> > That is my understanding. It's easier than trying to recapture it.
> 
> Actually on ISS the Quest airlock uses "depress pumps" to recapture some 
> of the air.  So, only the last little bit is vented to vaccuum.  
> 
> https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/quest.html
> #.VjyNjH6rR9M

But yea, on the shuttle, I don't believe they did this.  The vehicle was 
designed for short duration missions, so recovering the air lost from 
using the airlock was not a concern when it was designed.

That and the shuttle was horribly "leaky".  Between the leak rate and 
the airlock, that's why the shuttle needed more N2 tanks than one would 
think (since N2 in the air is not consumed by the crew).  

The other problem with a space shuttle trying to stay alive longer than 
the planned mission duration was H2 and O2 for the fuel cells.  Again, 
the shuttle was designed for short duration missions, and when the H2 
and O2 for the fuel cells ran out, you'd be hosed.  

But, on Columbia's fateful mission, it was equipped with the EDO tank 
kit to supply the fuel cells.  Which brings up another point, I believe 
the EDO orbiters were already equipped with a regenerative CO2 removal 
system which used regenerable solid amines.  So, the problem of CO2 
removal wasn't that big of an issue for Columbia, as long as the CO2 
removal system had power to operate.

Jeff
-- 
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530311

In article <n1ahpv$2k5$2@dont-email.me>, 
rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says...
> 
> If NASA had ordered the Columbia imaging, finding the damage 
> unsurvivable, all the space-faring nations in the world, which are at least 
> five, would have been working hard to send up a cargo mission to meet up 
> with Columbia within the 16 day time frame.
> 
> But they never were even given a chance to try.
> 
> BTW, since this is in regards to "The Martian", for you chemistry heads out 
> there, are there some foods, liquids, or common materials that might be on 
> the shuttles that could have filtered out the CO2 in air other than the 
> lithium canisters? For instance perhaps the solubility of CO2 in water is 
> different than in O2 and there could have been a way to separate out the CO2 
> from the air that way.

Extremely doubtful anything on board would absorb enough CO2.  LiOH 
canisters are chemically active.  Trying to substitute with something 
soluble that they would have had on board would have been nearly 
impossible.

Other scenarios (some more plausible than others):

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077581/ns/technology_and_science-
space/t/could-shuttle-crew-have-been-saved/

Jeff
-- 
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530960

On 03/11/15 14:56, Robert Clark wrote:
> Two instances were discussed in the film where unmanned cargo ships were
> mentioned to send up supplies to extend the time Whatney or the crew of
> the Hermes could survive.
[...]
> BTW, since this is in regards to "The Martian", for you chemistry heads
> out there, are there some foods, liquids, or common materials that might
> be on the shuttles that could have filtered out the CO2 in air other
> than the lithium canisters? For instance perhaps the solubility of CO2
> in water is different than in O2 and there could have been a way to
> separate out the CO2 from the air that way.

Lithium (peroxide) canisters do not just absorb carbon dioxide, they 
also produce oxygen:

2 Li2O2 + 2 CO2 → 2 Li2CO3 + O2

ie about half the oxygen previously absorbed and turned into CO2 by the 
astronauts is given off.



One method for getting rid of excess CO2 might be to heat the used 
lithium canisters using eg a mirror and sunlight, and then reuse the 
canisters; but lithium carbonate does not decarboxylate easily, it takes 
about 1300C.


There are several ways to reversibly absorb CO2, including eg the use of 
zeolites, molecular sieves, activated carbon, the mixed-metal-oxide 
system used on the Shuttle, or the amine system used in the Space Station.





-- Peter Fairbrother

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#531076

On 07/11/15 21:24, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> schrieb:
>
>> Lithium (peroxide) canisters do not just absorb carbon dioxide, they
>> also produce oxygen:
>>
>> 2 Li2O2 + 2 CO2 → 2 Li2CO3 + O2
>
> Actually, it is water that is being produced.
>
> The net reaction is
>
> 2 LiO + CO2 --> Li2CO3 + H2O


There is no hydrogen in the input to your reaction to produce the water 
in the output of your reaction. It does not balance, in atomic terms.




Some early spacecraft canisters used lithium hydroxide or hydrated 
lithium hydroxide instead of lithium peroxide, which would produce water:

2 LiOH + CO2 ->  Li2CO3 + H2O

or for hydrated lithium hydroxide:

2 LiOH.H2O + CO2 → Li2CO3 + 3 H2O



Lithium hydroxide is still used in some other 
CO2-scrubbing-of-breathing-gas applications, eg scuba rebreathers and 
submarine emergency systems - but it isn't often used in spacecraft 
nowadays, lithium peroxide is generally preferred.





-- Peter Fairbrother

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#531127

The shuttles may have been changed at some point to use regenerative methods 
to reclaim the oxygen from the CO2, however, Columbia was still using 
lithium hydroxide:

http://io9.com/how-nasa-might-have-been-able-to-rescue-the-columbia-cr-1531638458

  Bob Clark

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mission to Europa could result in the most important scientific advance in 
human history, dwarfing even the Apollo missions,
to discover life on another world. By commercial space, launch and 
spacecraft costs can be slashed by a factor of 10 or more.
This would be a cost that could be financed privately. And at costs this low 
it can even be done at a profit:

Low cost Europa lander missions.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Peter Fairbrother"  wrote in message news:n1m7p3$f0d$1@dont-email.me...

On 07/11/15 21:24, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> schrieb:
>
>> Lithium (peroxide) canisters do not just absorb carbon dioxide, they
>> also produce oxygen:
>>
>> 2 Li2O2 + 2 CO2 → 2 Li2CO3 + O2
>
> Actually, it is water that is being produced.
>
> The net reaction is
>
> 2 LiO + CO2 --> Li2CO3 + H2O


There is no hydrogen in the input to your reaction to produce the water
in the output of your reaction. It does not balance, in atomic terms.

Some early spacecraft canisters used lithium hydroxide or hydrated
lithium hydroxide instead of lithium peroxide, which would produce water:

2 LiOH + CO2 ->  Li2CO3 + H2O

or for hydrated lithium hydroxide:

2 LiOH.H2O + CO2 → Li2CO3 + 3 H2O

Lithium hydroxide is still used in some other
CO2-scrubbing-of-breathing-gas applications, eg scuba rebreathers and
submarine emergency systems - but it isn't often used in spacecraft
nowadays, lithium peroxide is generally preferred.

-- Peter Fairbrother

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#531273

On 08/11/15 04:43, Robert Clark wrote:
>
> The shuttles may have been changed at some point to use regenerative
> methods to reclaim the oxygen from the CO2, however, Columbia was still
> using lithium hydroxide:
>
> http://io9.com/how-nasa-might-have-been-able-to-rescue-the-columbia-cr-1531638458


You are correct in that Columbia used LiOH canisters for primary CO2 
scrubbing (though I don't think anyone suggested regenerative methods 
were used for oxygen regeneration).

NASA qualified a regenerative solid amine bed based CO2 scrubber system 
for the Shuttle, but afaik it was never used in flight.

I've done a bit of research, and contrary to what I had thought (and 
several references saying otherwise), metal-oxide regenerative scrubbers 
were not directly used in Shuttle.

My apologies for the error.

Regenerative Metox scrubbers were used in the later Shuttle/ISS EMUs, 
(early Shuttle IMUs used LiOH) - but Metox was not used in the main 
Shuttle cabin.

On regeneration the CO2 was released back into the cabin or the ISS, and 
finally absorbed by the ISS systems, or occasionally by the Shuttle 
lithium hydroxide system.


On ISS, Metox scrubbers are still used in the NASA ISS EMUs and the 
airlocks, but not in the ISS cabin itself - on regeneration the CO2 is 
again released back into the cabin, and finally absorbed in ISS systems, 
which consist of the zeolite molecular sieve (US CDRA) and amine-based 
(Soviet Vozdukh) regenerative systems, with lithium hydroxide canisters 
for backup.



-- Peter Fairbrother


> "Peter Fairbrother"  wrote in message news:n1m7p3$f0d$1@dont-email.me...
>
> On 07/11/15 21:24, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> schrieb:
>>
>>> Lithium (peroxide) canisters do not just absorb carbon dioxide, they
>>> also produce oxygen:
>>>
>>> 2 Li2O2 + 2 CO2 → 2 Li2CO3 + O2
>>
>> Actually, it is water that is being produced.
>>
>> The net reaction is
>>
>> 2 LiO + CO2 --> Li2CO3 + H2O
>
>
> There is no hydrogen in the input to your reaction to produce the water
> in the output of your reaction. It does not balance, in atomic terms.
>
> Some early spacecraft canisters used lithium hydroxide or hydrated
> lithium hydroxide instead of lithium peroxide, which would produce water:
>
> 2 LiOH + CO2 ->  Li2CO3 + H2O
>
> or for hydrated lithium hydroxide:
>
> 2 LiOH.H2O + CO2 → Li2CO3 + 3 H2O
>
> Lithium hydroxide is still used in some other
> CO2-scrubbing-of-breathing-gas applications, eg scuba rebreathers and
> submarine emergency systems - but it isn't often used in spacecraft
> nowadays, lithium peroxide is generally preferred.
>
> -- Peter Fairbrother
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#531120

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:

>Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> schrieb:
>
>> Lithium (peroxide) canisters do not just absorb carbon dioxide, they 
>> also produce oxygen:
>>
>> 2 Li2O2 + 2 CO2 ? 2 Li2CO3 + O2
>
>Actually, it is water that is being produced.
>
>The net reaction is
>
>2 LiO + CO2 --> Li2CO3 + H2O

You start with two lithium, four oxygen and a carbon.  You end with
two lithium, four oxygen, a carbon and a hydrogen.

There's a serious problem here.

>which is understandable because water is a much lower energy.

-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#532833

There were at least 4 launches to orbit during the proposed 30 day timeframe 
before Columbia would have run out of air scrubbers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_in_spaceflight

The Pegasus listed there is especially relevant since being airlaunched and 
using all solid stages should have shorter prep time. In fact the Pegasus 
could be launched within 7 days of notice, assuming the payload was 
available. The Minotaur 1 also has this capability:

Launch on Need, Part 2: Seven-Day Satellites for the Department of Defense.
"So what sort of launch on need missions have been defined? The Department 
of Defense Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) office has set a goal of 
being able to launch a satellite within seven days. Assuming ORS has 
stockpiled a couple of satellites for a bad day, Orbital Sciences (News - 
Alert) Corporation has several launch platforms it has demonstrated can do 
the job, including the Minotaur family and the air-launched Pegasus.
"Using a combination of surplus Minuteman missile and new-build solid rocket 
motors, Orbital's four stage Minotaur I has put 33 small satellites into 
orbit. The rocket can put up to 580 kilograms into low Earth orbit (LEO) and 
the TacSat-2 launch demonstrated the ability to go from payload load to 
launch in less than six days, plus the ability to keep the vehicle in a 
launch-ready mode for an extending period of time -- you have to have the 
rocket on hand rather than waiting six months to build and ship from the 
factory."
http://satellite.tmcnet.com/topics/satellite/articles/201224-launch-need-part-2-seven-day-satellites-the.htm


Bob Clark


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mission to Europa could result in the most important scientific advance in 
human history, dwarfing even the Apollo missions, to discover life on 
another world. By commercial space, launch and spacecraft costs can be 
slashed by a factor of 10 or more. This would be a cost that could be 
financed privately. And at costs this low it can even be done at a profit:

Low cost Europa lander missions.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"JF Mezei"  wrote in message 
news:5644f103$0$1511$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com...

On 2015-11-12 08:50, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> It's also important to note that all the ones that had orbital
> capability had commercial stages on top (which means they wouldn't fit
> in a silo anymore).

OK, so the ICBM idea is dead.

Say one needed to build from scratch a means to deliver O2/N2 and CO2
filters and a bit of food and water to a stranded vehicle. Basic
survival stuff until a bigger rocket can do a rescue.

How small/big a rocket and space tug would be needed ?  Is
Soyuz/progress the smallest that can do this ? Or could something
smaller and simpler get such supplies up to orbit ?

Totally different question:

In the case of Columbia:  Say Russia had sent an unmanned  Soyuz to
rendez vous with Columbia. The orbital module would have supplies,
filters etc.

Could shuttle EVA suits get inside the orbital module, or too big to fit
through hatch ?

And with the ability to return 3 to earth (which would lessen ECLSS load
on shuttle and thus extend autonomy), could they transfer crewmembers
using their launch/entry suits ? (with a remaining crew using real EVA
suit to ferry them along rope from one ship to another and once transfer
done, detach rope)

---

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web