NASA reports space station problem (second of four gyroscopes fails)

[ConcernedCanuk]

.
.
.

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - A second of four gyroscopes that help stabilize the international space station has stopped working, although NASA officials remain confident that the orbiting laboratory won't be seriously affected by it.

The station can be operated safely with only two of the stabilizers_and if one of them fails, small thrusters can be used to control it, said Mike Suffredini, the operations manager for the station. The crew is in no danger, he said, and there is enough fuel for the thrusters on board to operate the station for at least six months, and probably longer.

"I'm several failures away from losing control of the vehicle," Suffredini said during a teleconference with reporters Thursday.

But the National Aeronautics and Space Administration does plan to try to fix the glitch, attributed to the failure of a circuit breaker inside the gyroscope. That means that the two astronauts who arrived at the station early Wednesday morning, American Michael Fincke and Russian Gennady Padalka, will venture outside for a spacewalk to replace the faulty component.


LINK

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

1. "I'm several failures away from losing control of the vehicle"

Why would this statement worry me if I were an astronaut or cosmonaut on the ISS?

BTW, as much as I love human spaceflight, isn't it time to take a long, hard look at the costs vs. benefits of continuing to operate the ISS? It seems that the inhabitants spend nearly all their time maintaining the vehicle, and with only two occupants the number of productive scientific or engineering accomplishments have been severely reduced.

Does anyone have any good ideas how we can best use the ISS, and how mankind could maintain a presence in space? And no, locking *, Cheney and Rummy into a Soyus capsule and shooting them into orbit doesn't count.

[psychopomp]

2. The word "boondoggle" comes to mind

n/t

[rman]

5. it's time for a long hard look at the space industry

especially wrt lowest bid outsourcing and the burocratization of the space agency. budget cuts and management decisions caused nasa to lay off much of its brains, so that the contractors now have to re-invent many of the 'wheels' that drive rocket science. rumor has it the ISS gyroscopes are failing because the contractor didn't reinvent gyroscope lubricant with the correct viscosity.

space flight isn't cheap though it is far cheaper then war.
but it's one thing to spend millions on a space station, it is another thing to have that space station starting to fail within a few years after completion.

[LastDemocratInSC]

7. Obviously, it's time for a re-examination

In the boom days of the 1990s we thought our nation would have the resources to operate the station as it was being advertised to us. That was then, this is now. The station's occupants are, as you said, just caretakers doing the required routine maintenance. Reading the station activity logs (NasaWatch.com or SpaceFlightNow.com) is just plain depressing at times.

I originally opposed the construction of the space station because the space shuttle was a critical path item for the project. I remember telling my wife, years ago, that the space station would never be completed because another shuttle accident was likely just given the numbers. If one of the shuttles had been destroyed two years ago before the trusses had been installed at the station, I believe the station would be un-manned today, orbiting under ground control, and sinking lower with each orbit.

What we needed early on, and what we still need, is an un-manned heavy launch vehicle that can accomodate payloads as massive as the station components. If we had relied on the Boeing Delta 4 series of boosters the payload size constraints would have resulted in a station that looks like a more sprawling Mir complex - the modules would have been about the same length and diameter of those on Mir and the required station volume would have been accomodated by connecting more and more modules. I think NASA absolutely wanted something like a McMansion in orbit, not what they viewed as a two-bedroom ranch style Mir.

So here we are, with an orbiting version of Xanadu from Citizen Kane, whose halls hear only the footsteps of the few caretakers, except for a few paying or invited guests once in a while. I think within 5 years the U.S. will sign the station over the Russians, and they'll partner with the Chinese soon after that. How depressing.

[ConcernedCanuk]

8. About the financial part

.
.
.

I believe I read somewhere that the US refused to help financially with the launches of the Russian's Soyuz?

Are they TRYING to have the station fail, or get the Russians "uninvolved"?

And a close reading of the article leads me to believe they are VERY close to losing control of the station.

From the article:

"Another of the gyroscopes stopped working in 2002, but there is no spare and one can't reach the station until the space shuttle, grounded since the February 2003 Columbia accident, returns to flight."

So why didn't they fix the one in 2002?

Now they are down to the bare minimum, - and again from the article:

"In addition to the two broken stabilizers, another gyroscope has exhibited problems, but Suffredini said he thinks that's related to the lubrication system and will not pose a serious issue"

I dunno about that, if the Engine in my truck starts to have a lubrication problem when I'm way back in the bush ( nevermind way out in space)

I'VE GOT A PROBLEM!!

:wtf:

[LastDemocratInSC]

9. NASA support the Russian space agency for years ...

... during the build-up of the station. We paid for the construction and launch of many Soyuz and Progress spacecraft to the station just to keep the Russians involved.

The Russians recently requested that NASA agree to 12 month expeditions on the station so that the 6 month ferry missions required to supply the station with a fresh Soyuz could carry a $20 million paying customer. NASA has said no, not yet, maybe in the future, but the astronaut corps is not yet ready for that step.

The current gyroscope problem is apparently a circuit-breaker or control circuit problem. I've not read that it is a mechanical problem with the gyroscope itself. The station's two new residents will do an EVA in the near future and replace the faulty parts and the gyroscope will be fine again, from what I've read.

Aside from the gyroscopes, the station has thrusters, and there are always thrusters available on the Soyuz and the Progress that is frequently at the station, but use of fuel on the Soyuz is limited because of its emergency return mission. I'm pretty sure that excess fuel from the Progress is pumped into the station before discarding those supply ships, so the station may have plenty of stabilization fuel for the time being.

[Endangered Specie]

13. Knowing NASA< several failures aint such a hard task... Dont ask for it.

[anarchy1999]

3. "I'm several failures away from losing control of the vehicle,"

says it all.

n/t

[gbwarming]

6. "Several failure away" is a GOOD thing, phrased badly.

He chose the wrong terminology for public consumption. I'm sure that those words were meant to inspire confidence. I'd interpret the statement as saying even though they would like to have everything working properly, there is a perfectly good primary system and a backup system still in place, and after that they could devise emergeny measures to maintain control.

I don't know the specific requirements for the ISS, but I beleive that man-rated systems have to have dual redundancy for critical parts. http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/ASEN/asen5519/06design-guidelines.htm

[Throckmorton]

4. Yeah, Im several failures away from looking like Dick Nixon

Some days I wonder why we all dont just hide in the basement inside panic rooms.

[LastDemocratInSC]

10. The worst that could happen if all control is lost ...

... meaning that all gyroscopes fail and all thruster fuel is exhausted, is that the station would lose its "pointed at the sun" orientation. This would decrease the amount of electricity available, and while this is bad in general, and means the crew would power-down much of the station, it's not the end of the station. The station's high-inclination orbit assures that enough sunlight will hit the solar panels, on any day, in almost any orientation, to keep the station functional, although not exactly paradise for the crew. It might be warmer than usual and dark in most areas, but the station could function like this for an extended period.

The mass of the station assures that, if control is lost, its uncontrolled motion, as it slowly assumes a new orientation, would make docking with the station difficult, that's for sure, but it wouldn't make docking impossible. Also, departing the station would not be a problem under those conditions.

I think that if it was clear control was going to be lost that the station would be powered down and a good supply of thruster fuel would be maintained to allow for safe dockings in the future to repair things.

Going to space is a dangerous and nasty business - everybody knows that - and doing so under the conditions that face both the US and Russia makes things even worse.

No, this isn't the future we were promised, but it should be manageable.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

11. NASA's moral compass is broken due to weaponization of space. n/t

[ConcernedCanuk]

12. The "moral compass" is broken for the whole US of A in my opinion

.
.
.