Talk:Long Duration Exposure Facility

Results

This article needs a section on the findings of the experiment. The Singing Badger 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please! I just came here to say the same thing, nearly six years to the day later. Credulity (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just started to research the sources and am working on expanding it with emphasis on the biological experiments. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] 30 MB PDF has 1991 symposium procedings (488 pages). - Rod57 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The electrical systems were entirely powered by the LiSO2 batteries. solar cells only there for tests.
- apart from the Low-Temperature Heat Pipe Experiment Package (HEPP) (S1001) (see results ref above - p233)
- The batteries are variously described as Lithium Sulfide, Lithium sulfate, or LiSO₂ - very strange.
One long face (Row 3) was designated 'leading', and the other (Row 9) 'trailing' [2] - How was this orientation maintained ?
- post-retrieval data indicated it yawed about 10° towards row 10
Which experiments benefited from the longer duration, and which suffered ?
- One (A0187) with covers that closed after 11 months reopened them later [3]

"Five environment exposure control canisters (EECC) were flown on LDEF." ... S1002," M0006, S0010 and the two M0003 canisters" ref p336

"Four standard lithium range safety batteries were used to power the TCSE. These batteries were developed for the Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) range

safety system." ref p368

Lots of answers and information about results here: Stuckey, W.K. (February 15, 1993). "Lessons Learned from the Long Duration Exposure Facility" (PDF). -- ke4roh (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]