or simulation results of the same performance in neutral buoyancy procedure s/proficiency development operations. It can be expected that, given proper restraints and life support systems, man can perform as well in space as he does on earth. It is felt that a degree of confidence can be achieved by relating MPTS structural assembly time estimates to that of the Twin-Pole Sunshade assembly using EVA techniques on Skylab 3. Figure 3.4-17 shows the MPTS structural assembly plan utilizing EVA operations in conjunction with a remote controlled logistics module for transport of beam sections from storage to the assembly area. A two-man operation is assumed. A work platform with the appropriate foot and hand restraints is utilized. The first crew test (Operation 4. 3.3.6) is to move the work platform to the next assembly point. The logistics module delivers three beams which are temporarily lashed to the work platform. The crew preassembles the three beams and tension wires to form the structural quad at the work platform. The crew unfolds the beams (total beam weight = 65 lb) (29.4 Kg) orients the unfolded section for mating to the structure. Figure 3.4-18 is a task description of Skylab 3 Twin-Pole Sunshade deployment. The related operations used to define the time required to assemble the MPTS structure are steps 2, 4, and 5 which are similar to establishing the work station at the new assembly point, prefabrication of the delivered beams and deployment and mating of the structural quad. A learning advantage has been assumed in establishing the time estimates shown in Fig. 3.4-17. Figure 3.4-19 summarizes the rate of assembly, rate of free flyer propellant expenditure and the required Space Station support requirement to house the needed crew size for MPTS structural assembly in approximately two months. The assembly rate in this case was not constrained by crew performance but rather by performance of the free flyer. This could in fact have validity in that even in earth construction of large structure, the supply of materials to the immediate assembly point is often the time constraining element. A Space Station at a projected weight of 500, 000 lb would be required to support the 30-man crew necessary to assemble the 470 klb of antenna structure. The assembly rate using EVA operations tends to be twice that using remote controlled manipulator operations. This agrees with intuition even though the operations analysis presented here is based on very limited data. Because of the potential increase in assembly rate using EVA operations, which could offset the cost of the Space Station, this approach should be retained as a potential option needing further technology study’.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==