International Space Station Gyroscope Fails 302
b00m3rang writes "Reuters reports that one of the three working gyroscopes that keep the international space station stable and in the right position stopped working, just hours after a new two-man crew moved in for a half-year stay."
Huston we have a problem! (Score:5, Funny)
Powerballs (Score:2)
Sensationalism... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:5, Informative)
True, but if you'd have read any other articles, you'll have known that 2 are needed to keep the station under control, and also that another had failed previously (but now works again), so as long as any others don't fail again, they'll be fine.
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:2)
I think based on the other comments below people still aren't understanding that it is a big deal.
Two are required to keep it from spinning out of control.
It started out with four. One failed a long time ago and hasn't been repaired yet because of the lack of shuttle launches lately. Another failed just now. So they have no redundancy left - if another fails before they get any repairs done, the ISS is doomed.
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fail-over and redundant systems are neccessary in a situation like this where any mistake can result in impressive accident. To limp on on 3 gyros for so long is faulty thinking, and goes to show just how badly the cutbacks are affecting space exploration.
Unfortunately it's very difficult to drum up support for what looks like a purely scientific venture when unemployment is rising and so many other projects urgently demand resources.
What we need is a proper international effort, free of political grandstanding and nationalism.
Like that's ever gonna happen. Maybe humanity needs to grow up a bit first before trying to climb out of it's crib.
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:2)
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:2, Insightful)
What, exactly, are we *exploring* in low earth orbit? It's like exploring your living room. Get rid of the ISS. It's a waste of time and money. You wanna explore? Get serious. We had space stations in the 70s. Skylab, anyone?
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is about as easy as getting the Isrealies and the Palestinians to share and live happily together on the same piece of land. Seriously.
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:2)
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:2, Interesting)
If another fails, the ISS might start a gradual rotating acceleration or, at the very best, just slightly wobble in it's orbit.
If this occurs, the ISS will never be repaired, as the shuttle (or Soyouz for all that matters) will not be able to dock with the ISS.
This could be good news for Taco Bell [bbc.co.uk]!
I'm sorry, but that's wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Zarya was launched in November 1998.
Unity was attached by Shuttle Endeavour in December 1998.
Zvedza docked to the fledgling station on July 25th, 2000.
The Z1 Truss was installed by Shuttle Discovery in October, 2000.
The Control Moment Gyroscopes which are an integral part of the Z1 Truss, weren't activated until Assembly Mission 5A in February 2001.
Yes, this is a big deal, it will not however, result in the station tumbling out of control and dooming it forever.
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:5, Informative)
(yes, I know, I must be new here cos' I RTFA
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:5, Funny)
So which monkey put the fuse box on the outside of a space station?
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:3, Informative)
In 2002, one of the gyroscopes failed outright. Another gyroscope developed a vibration last year that perplexed mission controllers enough to rely on the Russian-built motion control system, which uses jets to change the station's position, for major orbital maneuvers. That gyroscope, however, is now in working order and one of the two still functioning aboard the ISS.
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:5, Insightful)
ISS _is_ a money pit that is plagued with problems, and serves no useful purpose that can justify its cost. It should have been scrapped years ago, before it was even launched.
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I think to "invest" it into Britney Spears, Nukes, Tamagochies, unnecesary Law-Suits etc. ist a far better choice than into space travel.
"..and serves no useful purpose that can justify its cost.."
What is _useful_ beside providing basic needs?
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember how we all pointed and laughed when Mir got into trouble? Accident after accident befell the Russians and we made fun of their rickety old obsolete hardware.
This isn't schadenfreude. It's karma.
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:3, Funny)
I'll see your schadenfreude and karma, and raise you ennui.
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:2)
No. No I don't. Maybe you laughed, but that's just mean. There were lives on the line, and I was genuinely concerned.
Maybe that's how you see it,, but... (Score:2)
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:5, Informative)
And this story [cnn.com] makes it seem as though 2 out of 4 gyros are broken:
Re:Sensationalism... (Score:5, Informative)
The first gyroscope broke two years ago as a result of a bearing failure. Two more are still operating -- the minimum required -- but one has exhibited power surges and vibrations over the past year. If another gyroscope breaks, thrusters on the docked Russian capsule and the station would have to assume control over the massive orbiting structure for as long as a year.
----
Rather, the thrusters *could* assume control over the ISS for up to a year; the repairs are in fact likely to be made a long time before that, never mind that there is currently no need for thrusters.
50% stop working?? (Score:2, Informative)
just a spacewalk (Score:5, Interesting)
He stressed, however, "We're not dealing with a safety issue," and added it would take several weeks to determine when to schedule the spacewalk.
There are two gyroscopes still functioning, and that is enough to stabilize the station, Suffredini said. If one of these remaining gyroscopes fails, the station will rely on thrusters to keep it steady.
Too bad they can't do that for Hubble too.
Re:just a spacewalk (Score:4, Interesting)
If it was an imminent emergency, how short a time before they could get out there? Minetes, hours, days?
Re:just a spacewalk (Score:2)
Re:just a spacewalk (Score:5, Informative)
weeks in advance, and you can see how it just takes some time to put together everything it takes to do an EVA. Going outside the vehicle is a risky activity. Extreme care is taken in its planning and execution, and rightly so.
In a life-threatening emergency, like a sudden rapid depressurization, the plan probably calls for the crew to board the "rescue vehicle" (a Soyuz that stays docked at the station), undock, and deorbit.
(Disclaimer: I don't work in the ISS program, but I have a general - read: vague - idea of how EVA works in the shuttle program. Consider the above to be an educated guess - but correct in spirit.)
Re:just a spacewalk (Score:4, Funny)
Re:just a spacewalk (Score:3, Informative)
I asked a coworker who's a former Station flight controller and got you a better answer to this question. It would take hours at least. If the crew were to just don their suits and go outside the station, they would very quickly get extremely ill.
The reason is that the suits they use for EVA are pressurized at only 3-4 PSI, whereas the pressure in the ISS is maintained at 14.7 PSI. With the sudden drop
Re:just a spacewalk (Score:5, Interesting)
Too bad they can't do that for Hubble too.
No thrusters on Hubble, of course.
It wouldn't work for Hubble anyway - thrusters are a fairly coarse method of control, resulting it lots of banging and vibration. While on the ISS that would be fine (although some mu-g experiments would probably be upset) on Hubble it would render it unusable until the vibrations have died down after every thrust. Plus, of course, while observations take place they couldn't use the thrusters - and hence the lack of control is going to make those observations pretty hopeless anyway.
If the robot mission to attach a gyro pack to Hubble goes ahead (which I hope it does) then it is likely to have thrusters on it - however, I would suspect that they're not for day-to-day control but to control Hubble when it's re-entered.
I'm picturing a gyro spinner for Robbie the Robot (Score:2)
I shouldn't laugh... (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder why they would place the circuit breakers outside the space station. If those ciruit breakers are like anything in my house, they go out all the time. Or maybe it is just my power company with all the brown outs in the summer.
I'm glad the story says this is not a critical system or a threat to the astronauts. Still, I wonder why the circuit breaker is not in a place easy to get to.
This gives me another idea. I wonder if they have a special escape pod attached to the space station, so if some critical system goes, they can escape.
Re:I shouldn't laugh... (Score:5, Funny)
I think it's a pretty good bet the circuit breakers on the International Space Station are absolutely nothing like the ones in your house.
Re:I shouldn't laugh... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I shouldn't laugh... (Score:2)
If I were to build a spaceship in my backyard, it would have a small compressed-air compartment (smaller hollow structures are sturdier than large, and less risk of leaks and m
Re:I shouldn't laugh... (Score:2)
Re:I shouldn't laugh... (Score:2)
* There might be only two docking places (and one must be free for bringing in supplies or the next crew)
* There might not be enough Soyus capsules.
Re:I shouldn't laugh... (Score:2, Informative)
Partly shelf life... (Score:2)
They're struggling as it is to build Soyuz as fast as they can to maintain the current launch tempo, doubling it, plus the rockets to launch them just isn't in the cards.
Re:I shouldn't laugh... (Score:5, Funny)
Why, for dramatic tension when somebody has to go EVA to replace the AE-35 unit, of course.
Re:I shouldn't laugh... (Score:2)
Re:I shouldn't laugh... (Score:5, Informative)
I think the larger question is why they didn't engineer the breakers so they could be reset with servos or other electromechanical means.
Still, I wonder why the circuit breaker is not in a place easy to get to
Space is a difficult enviroment to engineer for. They probably put the circuit breakers outside thinking that they would rarely need to be used, if at all. By placing them outside they made more space inside the station.
I wonder if they have a special escape pod attached to the space station
There is actually a Soyuz spacecraft attached to the station to act as a kind of lifeboat if need be.
Remember in the original Star Trek on how Scotty never had enough dilithium crystals? I always thought that was kind of funny that they couldn't find a way to stash a couple of extra boxes of crystals somewhere.
It seems to be that way with NASA and gyros.
Re:I shouldn't laugh... (Score:2)
Re:I shouldn't laugh... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I shouldn't laugh... (Score:5, Interesting)
And before anyone mentions PTFE (Teflon), well it may be OK in a frying pan, but a wiring fault would result in the release of fluorine gas, which would resct with moisture in the air to give hydrofluoric acid. Not good. A frying pan fire could presumably be very serious if the temperature got too high, IIRC about 400 deg C. If you inhale hydrofluoric acid, or get a small amount on the skin, you usually die, fairly unpleasantly. Someone who went to school with me died that way, many years ago, age about 22, from a small skin splash of HF even though it was quickly washed off.
Teflon has been, and probably still is, used in unmanned satellites, OK in the smaller ones where a total loss is not an absolute disaster, but I think it would be frowned upon in things which earn serious money and have to keep working, such as comms sattelites. There will be Teflon bits in the microwave equipment, and in some mechanisms, which can't otherwise be lubricated, but not necessarily on normal wiring.
I don't know what kind of wire NASA currently use, the aerospace industry has been through a variety. At one time, Kapton seemed good, we now know that it is lethal in circuits which have sufficient energy to initiate arcing.
BTW, Kapton and Teflon are OK where there is always insufficient energy available to seriously raise the temperature, in fact I like working with Teflon in particular, but only in the right place.
Re:I shouldn't laugh... (Score:2)
Well it's so the power company can come by and read the meter when they're not in.
A Soyuz is the escape pod (Score:2)
The Expedition 8 crew will be returning to Earth on the very Soyuz that brought them up in October 2003.
The Expedition 9 crew's Soyuz will be the new ISS "lifeboat".
Re:I shouldn't laugh... (Score:5, Informative)
station.
Well, there are only so many places inside where you can put stuff. Something has to go outside, so you put the stuff out there that should rarely, if ever, need servicing. The stuff that needs more frequent access goes inside. Circuit breakers are (speculating here) relatively simple, well-understood technology that you don't expect to have to replace. They should "just work".
If those ciruit breakers are like anything in my house, they
go out all the time.
Note that they're not going out to reset the breaker, but to replace it. The breaker can be monitored and reset remotely. In fact, the breaker was reset yesterday - probably from the ground - but it tripped open again. I believe the working theory is that the gyro's OK, but that the breaker is bad - tripping when it shouldn't. If this is true, then replacing the breaker will recover the gyro without having to replace it (a much more difficult affair).
Reminds me of Jurassic Park (Score:2)
At least there aren't any velociraptors in space.
Is it just me? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is it just me? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is it just me? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Is it just me? (Score:3, Funny)
They're not actually wearing those spacesuits, they've just got their heads through holes in a wall that's painted to look like two guys in spacesuits.
Re:Is it just me? (Score:2)
If anything, it's the other way around!
Re:Is it just me? (Score:3, Informative)
FUD! (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you phrase it that way because you're a professional reporter and are used to getting paid to scare people into buying the crap you write, or are you just being a troll?
The article (and common sense) state that there's redundant functionalirty involved, i.e., there are two gyroscopes left that can handle the load and if that fails they can still keep it going with thrusters for over 6 months.
Deliberately misleading stories (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree, and am similarly irritated.
Posting deliberately misleading stories is enough to get a Foe rating [slashdot.org] from me, at least.
It wasn't deliberate... (Score:2)
It should have read "a", not "the"... explanation (Score:2)
Don't get locked out (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Don't get locked out (Score:2)
I hope they remember the key.
Personally, I just hope the computer is prepared to let them back in. Did we learn nothing from the Discovery disaster?
Re:Don't get locked out (Score:2)
Sorry Dave, I can't do that.
That's not a bug, that's a feature! (Score:4, Funny)
I just have to do it.... (Score:5, Funny)
Makes you wonder... (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems that over history, the spacefaring versions of our technology are quite inferior to what we have planet-side. On typical space vehicles, this is because the vehicles were built so long ago. The ISS is a relatively new invention, and the number of bangs, bumps and hiccups seems to be more or less consistant with it's much older counterparts.
On a sidenote, anyone know if it has enough mass to impac
Re:Makes you wonder... (Score:2)
On a sidenote, anyone know if it has enough mass to impact earth's surface if it should come down?
Skylab made it down. So did Mir, though I'm not certain what the Soviets did with all the old Salyuts. ISS is bigger than any of them, so I'd be amazed if it all burned up.
Re:Makes you wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
It seems that over history, the spacefaring versions of our technology are quite inferior to what we have planet-side. On typical space vehicles, this is because the vehicles were built so long ago. The ISS is a relatively new invention, and the number of bangs, bumps and hiccups seems to be more or less consistant with it's much older counterparts.
I think you misunderstand the problem. Engineering gadgets here on earth is simple compared to engineering gadgets to be deployed in space. We've lived in the relatively friendly environment of the earth for our entire racial life. Space is a hostile environment which we have only been exploring in a limited fashion in the last fifty years or so.
Compare the space shuttles to your car. Sure, they probably cost more in maintenance than your car, but they were engineered in the 70s, and with a couple of exceptions, they're still operational. I'll be the ISS has been in continuous operation for longer than any gadget in your house.
Anyway, the first problem is that they have to engineer devices that are capable of withstanding the amount of thrust they'll be under just to be launched out of the atmosphere. Second problem is that these same devices have to survive in vacuum, and in atmosphere (they're built down here). Third problem is they have to last for a long time, because solving the first two problems is so expensive that building replacements is very cost prohibitive. Fourth problem is that they're built by the lowest bidder, and frequently also engineered by the lowest bidder. :)
It's too easy to point at something in space and compare it's performance to any given gadget you own. Now try strapping that gadget to a rocket and launching it into orbit, and if it survives, then you can make your comparison.
Re:Makes you wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
I'd just like to point out that those "couple of exceptions" are actually 40% of the fleet, and that their removal from service resulted in the sudden and violent death of everybody inside.
How do these things work? (Score:4, Interesting)
The article says that if another fails, they will have to use thrusters to keep the thing stable. So can someone perhaps explain to me what the gyroscopes physically do to keep it stable?
Re:How do these things work? (Score:5, Informative)
Simple intro [howstuffworks.com]
Re:How do these things work? (Score:5, Informative)
However, a single gyro can only handle positioning about two axes - you can rotate it about its spin axus as much as you like. So for three axis rotational stabilisation you need at least two gyros at 90 degrees to each other.
Re:How do these things work? (Score:4, Informative)
Although I'd be quite interested to know how massive the gyros are and how fast they spin. Also, how quickly can they spin up a gyro from stationary - I'd expect they have to do this quite slowly since the torque of spinning up a reasonably massive gyro would have some effect on the spin of the station.
Re:How do these things work? (Score:2)
Probably - English never was my strong point.
Although I don't think the statement "a small amount of energy can accellerate a massive object" was at all wrong - if you apply any energy to an object (whatever the source - moving a gyroscope, hitting it with a metior, firing a thruster, whatever), that energy will be conserved - a light object will accellerate very quickly under the application of that energy, a massive object will accellerate very slowly.
However
Re:How do these things work? (Score:5, Informative)
However, that is not the type of gyroscope that has failed here! In the last couple decades, gyroscopes have been used as actuators to actually provide the TORQUES necessary to MANEUVER space vehicles. This is very different from the much more common use of gyros simply to determine attitude. In fact, these gyroscopes are more correctly referred to as Control Moment Gyrospcopes or CMGs. (Incidently, they come in two flavors, single and dual gimbaled - with the ISS using the much less common and more complex [read prone to failure] dual gimbaled CMGs (DGCMG)).
A CMG works as a torque amplifier. You essentially spin up the inner element to a high rpm (usually 3000-5000 rpm) and then apply a small torque to the outer gimbal. The the gyroscopic rigidity of the inner rotating element resists this torque and the result is a much-amplified reaction torque imparted on the vehicle.
Traditionally, three-axis stabilized spacecraft that require fine pointing control have used reaction wheels or momentum wheels for control. CMGs allow for orders of more magnitude of more torque (for an equivalent mass alternative) and more momentum storage (unfortunately, momentum is conserved even in space, so if you impart an angular rate to a spacecraft, you must have some element inside the spacecraft to 'store' an equal an opposite momentum - this is what actually limits a spacecraft's slew rate). The downside of CMGs is that they are mechanically complex (don't even get me talking about null-spaces) and that high rpm inner element must be lubricated extremely well if you want the vehicle to perform for years without an oil change (as those are hard to come by in LEO); thus they tend to higher failure rates. The solution to this has tended to be to add redundant CMGs (which is probably still a better option than using less capable alternatives.)
What are the chances... (Score:2, Funny)
We all know someone pushed the wrong button.
Aww sorry people. (Score:2, Funny)
And first thing he does is break the bludy spacestation !.
So typical.
On behalf of all dutch , sorry people, we can't help it, we like to break things.
Re:Aww sorry people. (Score:2)
On the other hand, we should be glad it isn't a hole in the hull, otherwise it may be a case of someone putting their finger in.
Re:Aww sorry people. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Aww sorry people. (Score:2)
The REAL first dutchman in space was Lodewijk van der Berg (Nasa's BIO on him [nasa.gov]).
Wubbo Ockels [nasa.gov] was second, and Kuipers, who is now up there, is the third.
Cooper
--
I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
- Groo The Wanderer -
If you're wondering how a gyroscope works (Score:5, Informative)
How stuff works has a nice article [howstuffworks.com].
Nasa's also got a page about how they're used in space shuttles [nasa.gov]
Cheesy plot device? (Score:4, Funny)
"At this time, the box that holds that particular circuit breaker
Right...The controls for the fence are in the shack across the lot, past all the dinosaurs; the satellite uplink is in the shack across the lot, past all the marauding aliens; the circuit breaker is in the box, outside the space station. Go fix it Dave.
Any of the astronauts wearing a red shirt by the way?
The circuit breakers are outside .. (Score:2)
Bureaucracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Eh? Damn bureaucracy. When it takes weeks to SCHEDULE something you know that something is wrong. What happened to good old flexibility?
And Illiad knows the reason... (Score:2)
Moving is dangerous (Score:2, Funny)
Place your bets! (Score:3, Funny)
Hubble has lost 3 of 6 gyros. It needs 3 to stay pointed in one direction and not spin out of control.
ISS has lost 1 of 3 gyros. It needs 2 to stay locked in 2 axis (I would imagine) which is crucial to keep one side pointed at "space" and one at earth.
Who will fail first? The beloved Hubble or the much-berated ISS? Only time, or perhaps a Foresight Exchange [ideosphere.com] claim can tell.
Re:Place your bets! (Score:4, Interesting)
Hi guys (Score:2, Funny)
"Two man crew" ? (Score:2)
just hours after a new three-man crew moved in, from which two will replace the current two-man crew for a six month stay.
(ergo, don't forget Andre Kuipers
Gyroscope is not completely faulty, ... (Score:3, Informative)
In Other News (Score:2, Funny)
top headline right now: nobody cares! an eyewitness at the NASA command center shrugged and commented "It really doesn't matter, they still have two gyros left. Ooh! Gyros. I think I'll have greek food for lunch." the pudgy scientist then led twelve of his friends to Olive Garden.
And the accompanying music is of course... (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe it was ... (Score:2)
... that near crash-docking I saw on NASA TV the other day. Wham! Wobble, wobble!
gyroscope with no moving parts (Score:4, Interesting)
I presume NASA spacecraft are using mechanical gyros?
Re:gyroscope with no moving parts (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Actually, this is the 2nd gyro to fail (Score:2)
I won't rewrite the article here but there are many other interesting facts such as why they didn't fix the first one and other such nuggets of knowledge.