Really feel like they should be better at planning by this point. Isn't the ISS 25 years old at this point?
It's rather... rare in having an EVA canceled explicitly on the day of or even relatively close to a planned EVA date, and of course this would then result in a shake-down of impacts down the line for follow-on EVAs. For reference, normal ISS EVAs are usually scheduled at least six months in advance from what I have recalled in reading through stuff discussing ISS EVA planning. Further, you usually have EVAs done in series, whether similar or non-similar in terms of activities, on the matter of an efficiency standpoint because of the kind of prep work involved on station to get ready for an EVA, with preparation work usually starting around a month ahead of time before the first EVA. Note, this isn't the case for a critical contingency or unplanned EVA, which pretty much are baselined to need to be done in less than two weeks. For reference, this is the following list of the Big 13 that would require a critical contingency EVA (R&R means remove and replace), per
here.
1. Pump Module (PM) R&R
2. Flex Hose Rotary Coupler (FHRC) R&R
3. Interface Heat Exchanger (IFHX) R&R
4. Solar Array Wing (SAW) Bearing Motor Roll Ring Module (BMRRM) R&R
5. SAW Electronics Control Unit (ECU) R&R
6. Ammonia Tank Assembly (ATA) R&R
7. Nitrogen Tank Assembly (NTA) R&R
8. Main Bus Switching Unit (MBSU) R&R
9. External (EXT) Multiplexer/Demultiplexer (MDM) R&R
10. DC-to-DC Converter Unit (DDCU) R&R
11. External Remote Power Control Module (RPCM) R&R
12. Ammonia (NH3) Leak Isolation and Recovery
13. Micrometeoroid/Orbital Debris (MMOD) penetration pinpoint and repair
All of these would fundamentally require an immediate EVA done for repair as many of the systems have limited or no contingency in the event of issue or failure.
Could you expand on this? I've seen complaints about SpaceX cheerleading (which is well-founded), but not many comments on his reporting for other space news. Not to defend the man, but a bit more information on why to discount his coverage of non-SpaceX news would be useful for the future.
There's been a bunch of stuff I'd need to go back on. Two things off top of my head was like, saying how NASA rejected the use of Blue Origin's upper stage for SLS and should've done that instead of EUS (when it was explicitly stated that it was due to height restraints on the VAB in terms of for any kind of payload if you were to do on top of that) and like his sources saying that Hurricane Nicole had heavily damaged SLS when... in fact no, it hadn't been.
And like to be clear as well for the post I made last night re:Starliner because it came to me earlier today, if there was significant issues with Starliner of potential no-return, you would be hearing a
lot more from NASA like during Soyuz MS-22's coolant leak like when you had talks of launching MS-23 uncrewed, Frank Rubio moving his seat liner to the docked Crew Dragon and so forth. Nothing like that has been stated from NASA over this or even done, and if there was, I'd 100% expect to start hearing rumors and articles potentially coming out about this (especially in terms of moving the seats for Safe Haven stuff), but like... nada.
spacenews.com
arstechnica.com
www.japantimes.co.jp
