Space Station Crew Face Air-Scrubber Failures 84
madumas writes: "This article reports that the crew of the ISS (or alpha, or...) seem to have some problems with their air scrubber. They need replacement parts so fix the regenerator. It's interesting to see that they are a failure away from an emergency evacuation. For now, they are planning the shipping of the spare parts that should be done Dec. 26. Let's hope for them it doesn't fail."
Re:Its not like they don't have time (Score:1)
the problem is getting replacement parts to the station in time (measured in weeks). their current system is still working, and they have abut 15 days of chemical backup even if that system fails.
Re:It sounds dangerous... (Score:1)
Kierthos
This is only the beginning (Score:1)
Re:Experience (Score:1)
No, because too many of us in the West would sit around and make smug noises every time something went wrong with Mir.
Why don't they have a backup air shrubber ? (Score:1)
Re:All it takes... is a fart (Score:2)
Imagine that headline: "Astonauts dead of metan poisoning."
One of the few surviors said:
- First, it was this dreadfull sound, like a deep rumble... Then we strated to realise something was very wrong. We all headed for the emergency escape craft...*cries*...God! It was so horrible...people dying all over... I'm so lucky to sit here today.
- Knut S.
Re:Any surprise it's the russian bit that's conkin (Score:1)
Oh I almost forgot ! In any case the whole NASA effort too is mostly been run by Chinese and Indians
Offtopic: Redirecting (Score:1)
You can do this without CGI. Client side Javascript can do something similar. Implement a normal Client Javascript static page which detected either the source of the page request or the system time and changed the page accordingly.....
They have plenty more to worry about than this... (Score:1)
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/publicfeature/nov0
Looks like Space Station Alf is a disaster just waiting to happen...
Re:Put it in perspective (Score:2)
Russia (USSR) has lost 4 cosmonauts in two in-flight accidents, all of them on landing:
Vladimir Komarov (Soyuz 1, Apr 23 1967) - parachute system failure, the capsule crashed into a field;
Georgi Dobrovolsky, Viktor Patsayev, Vladislav Volkov (Soyuz 11, Jun 6 1971, first ever space station flight) - valve failure on separation of orbital module and landing capsule. No spacesuits and no air.
There was one Russian accident similar to Apollo 1: Valentin Bondarenko was killed on March 23, 1961 in oxygen camera. After a routine blood test he dropped alcohol soaked cotton ball on a hot electric stove, starting the oxygen fire. Valentin died in the hospital the same day.
There were no more Cosmonaut deaths. However, there were numerous rocket and military missile accidents killing the ground crew.
Re:doh (Score:1)
That's why the astronauts aren't dead.
What is happening to NASA?? (Score:2)
Gimme a break. Problems with the air scrubbers, so they have to send back to earth for more? What happened to the old Nasa "Triple-redundant-everything-even-toilet-paper" game plan? In the Apollo 13 mission, when everything was going down the crapper all at once, the air scrubbers started going out, too. So some really smart guys on the ground worked out a plan to fix the scrubbing system with nothing more than the spare junk the astronauts had with 'em in the spacecraft. Now THAT's enterprising.
The reason behind all this is simple, it seems to me: funding. Remember that Mars lander the US government spent millions on, which we lost contact with? They believe it might have been a failure due to a faulty communications component that should have been caught in quality control. Quite simply, if you look at the numbers, the US government has been cutting NASA's funding back since the early 70's, basically strangling them. The government has NEVER taken NASA seriously, or the benefits of space travel.
In the 60's, the government's view towards space was "beat the ruskies". In the 70's it was "well we have this new space shuttle, let's use it". In the 80's and 90's, it was "let's let the science guys have their fun, it's good entertainment." Like their very own science fiction movie! The only reason we still have a space program is because the government knows it needs it for PR purposes. Quite simply, space exploration today is a pitiful shadow of what it could be. We could have had a moon base AND a mars base by now. We could be researching lunar and asteroid mining. We could be researching zero-g manufacturing and medical techniques. We could be looking into using space-age technology to build floating cities to use the 75% of earth's surface area we can't inhabit. Instead, we have a massive financial boondoggle and a tiny little space station that's falling apart as fast as we can build it.
Arthur C. Clarke, science fiction author and inventor of the communications satellite, was predicting such things as zero-g medical facilities saving lives and asteroid mining and mars colonies. He was predicting these things back in the 50's, and certainly expected them before 1980, as he should have - everyone mistook NASA's government support as a support of science, rather than simply a oneupmanship contest with the Russians. Now, 50 years later, we have done NOTHING.
I think it's time for something to be done. What, I'm not sure. Suggestions?
-Kasreyn.
January, not Christmas (Score:1)
"
12/26 is the likely redoclking of the Progress currently parked in a nearby orbit which they unloaded and undocked before the last shuttle mission. They're simply redocking it so they can use it for a dumpster
Re:Put it in perspective (Score:2)
April 05 1975, crew of 2 - stages 2 and 3 failed to separate - 20G reentry, both survived.
September 26 1983, crew of 2 - explosion on the pad, saved by the launch abort system.
Compare to STS-51-L.
Re:What is happening to NASA?? (Score:2)
It may take another 20 years, but the privatization of space travel will most certainly boost things significantly. If the government wont take it seriously, someone with billions of dollars to make will! Not that I necessarily think that this is what SHOULD be done but its better than none at all...
The best words the space prgram ever produced. (Score:2)
Those of us who really want to see the space program go should note that this is one of the major differences between occasionally shooting men off in a ballistic orbit and running a flight service. Events that were previously life threatening and required massive engineering/bravery/effort, are now being dealt with in more or less routine fashion, by a supply chain, transport, and on-site service.
I want to see the day when I can book a ticket off this rock through any travel agent.
Re:Experience (Score:1)
Yea, well, 1 out of 3 ain't bad I suppose.
---- Sigs are bad for your health ----
Re:Why don't they have a backup air shrubber ? (Score:1)
Re:Space Pen (Score:2)
---
Re:Any surprise it's the russian bit that's conkin (Score:3)
The US and France (not that France has any kind of space program) are not at the best of terms, Germany is still re-building the eastern half, the UK... what are they up to, and Japan. Actually, I'm surprised that Japan isn't involved... well, maybe they are, but if so, the newspeople are ignoring it.
You can pretty much count out all of Africa, the Middle East, most of Asia, South America, and a fair chunk of Europe. No one really lives in Antarctica, so that really leaves the Aussies. Are they involved? If not, why not? (Probably because you couldn't convince an Aussie he'd need a spacesuit...)
Finally, I wouldn't be too surprised if some of the American bits start breaking too. If the past is any indication, the parts were either made by the lowest bidder, or by some pork-barrelled government contractor who can charge $300 for a screwdriver.
Just my 2 shekels.
Kierthos
Re:So the parts are already in space? (Score:1)
Everything has already been offloaded from the M1-4. I believe the redocking of the Progress M1-4 vehicle is only to test the patch that Russia sent up to fix the errors during the last docking, and possibly to use it to jettison waste that has built up in the station. The US is hesitant to allow another docking because it was during a similiar manual docking that the Mir was almost destroyed.
Re:Any surprise it's the russian bit that's conkin (Score:2)
Actually Australia and Japan are cooperating on a space program based at Woomera (where a lot of US and British missiles used to get tested).
The Japaneese have been testing an unpowered return vehicle that can be attached to a rocket shuttle style, deploy a satellite, then glide back down to earth.
The glide back down to earth bit is what they were testing at woomera.
There was talk of it being used as a CRV as well.
made in Taiwan (Score:1)
Just like Mir... (Score:2)
Dear Santa, (Score:5)
Yours truly,
The Crew of the International Space Station
(Send it now before the postage rates go up!)
--
Put it in perspective (Score:1)
Is the space industry any better? (Score:1)
Today:
- "Should be here by December 26th."
December 26th:
- "Should be here next week..."
The next week:
- "Well, we had to ship it from Germany. It'll arrive early next week - we hope..."
- "Any time now, we promise!"
Can we expect the space industry to be any better than car repairers?
Apollo revisited (Score:1)
Lessons for Mars (Score:3)
One important lesson from Alpha, Mir, and even the US space shuttle is that when items break in space, they're hard to repair. The space shuttle is only expected to be in space for a few days (maximum of about 2 weeks, I belive). If something serious goes wrong, they can always abort the mission and land early. Likewise, Alpha and Mir underwent periodic resupply and in extreme cases could flee back to Earth.
Now consider a mission to Mars. This would have a duration of about 3 years. If you ran into problems two months out, if should take at least a month to return, and more likely 3 (depending of fuel capacity and burn rate). So, you simply fix the problem or you die. Now who here trusts their engineering for that project?
Re:Houston, we have a problem... (Score:3)
Space Pen (Score:2)
They've got more uses than just space, I use mine for writing on paper that's gotten greasy, or on some shiny labels. They also work upside down, under water, and in extreme temperatures.
You can find out some more about them at the company's web site [fisherspacepen.com].
---
Re:It sounds dangerous... (Score:3)
Secondly even if the third fan were to go, and no one could launch in the 14 day time frame we still wouldn't be runing a risk of losing anyone. There is a Soyez capsule attacked to the station, the same one that they used to get to the station that they can evacuate in at any time.
Redundancy? (Score:2)
Check out Greg's Bridge Page!
Why not Open Source? (Score:2)
Re: Lessons for Mars (Score:2)
Re:Redundancy? (Score:1)
The original Shuttle designs also were planned to be processed horizontally(like an airliner), reduce launch costs to the vicinity of $100-200 per pound to Low Earth Orbit(1975 dollars) and to have a two week turnaround. AFAIK, the shuttle has about a 3 month turnaround if they rush it, and it still costs $10,000+ to launch a pound into LEO. The problems with the shuttle were not brought about by congress, but by technology.
Also, they do have alternative methods for redundancy. Was I the only one that noticed that they still have disposable canisters to use for CO2 scrubbing?
Re:Russian Failures? (Score:3)
Russian components, American Components. They're all made in Taiwan!
-----------------------
Experimental vehicles (Score:2)
The first Jet Planes didn't win any safety awards, either.
Re:Experience (Score:1)
Experience (Score:1)
Some of you may say that they did the station in a hurry, but they wouldn't launch it without life support system working right.
Re:Actually, yes... (Score:1)
Friend, the most technologically advanced military and space program in the world is based on obtaining the world's best equipment for as good a price as possible. What's your point? The M1 Abrams was probably made by the lowest bidder--do you want to tangle with one of those? :-)
Inevitably, some stuff won't be up to par, some will be lemons, whatever. Who's procurement system is any better? Someone's, probably, but no system is going to be perfect. Anyway, to imply that the station is suffering because of how NASA procures equipment is foolish. As far as the rumor, why embarrass yourself by posting it? It's a rumor, and a lousy one at that, I would say. Post some facts, instead.
Re:CNN Report states evacuation planned (Score:1)
Looks like a certain moderator needs to check the links before moderating!
Dumb Ass moderators... (Score:1)
I know I'm going down as flamebait, but still....
Re:Why not Open Source? (Score:1)
Re:why don't (Score:1)
Thought crimes... (Score:1)
JJ
Re: (Score:2)
All it takes... (Score:3)
Imagine the shame of being the first to let one rip. "This is Commander Smith. He was first in his class at the Air Force Academy and was Top Gun, but he cleared the International Space Station with one SBD..."
Re:Put it in perspective (Score:1)
-aardvarko
webmaster at aardvarko dot com
Re:Put it in perspective (Score:1)
-aardvarko
webmaster at aardvarko dot com
Russian Failures? (Score:1)
Re:Actually, yes... (Score:1)
To suggest that the US space program is dominated by the lowest bidder mentality is false and annoying.
The US has always been highly concerned with astranaut safety. To suggest otherwise is just pure bullshit.
Troy Roberts
Re:Actually, yes... (Score:1)
For clarification, NASA did not develop the space pen, a some company (don't remember which) did that for free, and the Russians now use it, too. At first, the U.S. used pencils, too, but sharpening pencils creates dust which never settles in microgravity, and graphite conducts electricity. That could potentially create problems.
Aside from that, your are right. If I remember correctly, the German air force still has some operational MIG 29s left from the GDR, and those bird do have a reputation of being very robust and reliable (for a fighter aircraft).
Stefan
Re:Any surprise it's the russian bit that's conkin (Score:2)
>space program (host country going bankrupt
>notwithstanding) that have a lot of microgravity
>experience, and are politcally friendly?
>The US and France (not that France has any kind
>of space program) are not at the best of terms,
>Germany is still re-building the eastern half,
>the UK... what are they up to, and Japan.
>Actually, I'm surprised that Japan isn't
>involved... well, maybe they are, but if so, the
>newspeople are ignoring it.
>You can pretty much count out all of Africa, the
>Middle East, most of Asia, South America,and a
>fair chunk of Europe. No one really lives in
>Antarctica, so that really leaves the Aussies.
>Are they involved? If not, why not? (Probably
>because you couldn't convince an Aussie he'd
>need a spacesuit...)
Well while it is true Russia and the U.S. are doing the majority of the work and cost, there are a number of other countries that will contribute after the core of the station is built.
Some of the countries future contributions include:
U.S.:
-Truss and Photovoltaic Arrays
-U.S. Lab
-Centrifuge Accomodation Module
-Node 2
-Node 3
-Crew Return Vehicle (X-38)
-Habitation Module
Russia:
-Science Power Platform
-Universal Docking Module
-Research Module 1
-Research Module 2
-Docking Compartment
Japan:
-Kibo [JEM Experimental Logistics Module, JEM Remote Manipulator System, JEM Exposed Facility] [nasda.go.jp]
European Union:
-European Lab/Columbus Orbital Facility [space.com]
Canada:
-CSA Remote Manipulator System [space.gc.ca] (robot arm)
Italy:
-Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (A supply "van" for moving stuff from Earth to the station) [nasa.gov] Brazil: Express Express [www.inpe.br]
Some excellent links:
Re:Dear Santa, (Score:1)
Re:Experience (Score:1)
Given the budgetry constraints the USSR and now Russia have been under I have to take my hat off to them. Their work is an example to others.
USPS (Score:1)
Re:They have plenty more to worry about than this. (Score:1)
Re:Experience (Score:1)
Don't forget vodka. That's reliable as anything.
Former Mir occupant warned about this... (Score:2)
As far as whinging about NASA goes, the problem is multifaceted: reduced spending, wayward spending, political interests beefing up programs for Congressional approval only because of the amount of pork they'd bring to their constituents (and thereby putting price tags so high that they get shelved).
But it's best that we're not cynical about this. Try and recall the technologies we got humans to the moon with, how antiquated and retrogade it is to us now. The ISS could stay up, and people will surivive - just look at what Shackelton went through in the Antarctic - as long as we don't cave into easy cynicism and humor. And why not? Because if this program fails, so will all other future multinational space efforts - and the result will be that someday someone's going to plant an AOL / Time Warner flag on Mars by the time we get there.
Re:Any surprise it's the russian bit that's conkin (Score:2)
But those political problems have a direct relationship to the problem at hand.
They may have the experiance to do it right, but if they don't have the money to pay thier engineers and thier assembly-line folk, there's going to be problems no matter how much experience they have.
-Andy
Houston, we have a problem... (Score:4)
"After a day and a half in the LM a warning light showed that the carbon dioxide had built up to a dangerous level. Mission Control devised a way to attach the CM canisters to the LM system by using plastic bags, cardboard, and tape- all materials carried on board."
Will they never learn?
Re:Redundancy? (Score:1)
In a word, bullshit.
From the STS 51-L Mission Overview and Preface to Presidential Commission Report on the Challenger Accident [nasa.gov]:
The original design of the Shuttle was quite different from what we finally ended up with; check this bibliography [nasa.gov] if you want more detail. The short story was that it went from a completely-reusable, general-purpose launch vehicle to one which was extremely compromized by two things: reusable space vehicle only (with partial reuse of the solid boosters) and the military-driven cross-range necessary for once-around abort returns to Vandenberg AFB. What had been liquid boosters were now solids, and there was no separation capability during solid burn -- the separation rockets had been removed to meet DOD spy-satellite launch requirements.
These changes were driven by Congress, admittedly with help from the Nixon administration.
The present vehicle bears little resemblance to the original proposals; not having seen those embodied and flown, I can't say whether they'd meet the design turnaround and costs. However, if you bother to talk to anyone who was significantly involved in the early Shuttle work, you'd find that I have told the simple truth. In a sense, they are technology problems -- but the technology is a forced, cutrate bastardization of the original designs.
---
Re:Redundancy? (Score:2)
-Paul Komarek
Re:Why not Open Source? (Score:1)
Re:Put it in perspective (Score:2)
Thalia
Its not like they don't have time (Score:1)
Re:Put it in perspective (Score:1)
Whoops. I am Russian. Can't trust me. Duh.
> Actually, your statistics rely on "public data."
Where have you been for the last 10 years? (sorry, couldn't resist).
> There were at least two capsules that never made it up
Soyuz 18-1 and Soyuz T-10-1.
A lot of rockets never made it up. See this list [friends-partners.org]. Only a few of them were manned: Soyuz 18-1 [friends-partners.org], Soyuz T-10-1 [friends-partners.org], STS-51-L [friends-partners.org]. It so happened that 7 astronauts died, but 4 cosmonauts survived.
> a fair number that died on the ground (one of which, if I recall correctly, actually took out some high level brass observing nearby.)
This one: The Nedelin Catastrophe [friends-partners.org].
> Not to mention at least one that we heard of where the astronauts died in the capsule, because of leaks
Georgi Dobrovolsky, Viktor Patsayev, Vladislav Volkov (Soyuz 11 [friends-partners.org], Jun 6 1971) - on descent. Public record as of 1971.
> Of course, these events never made it into the "public record."
But they made it into state records, which eventually became public [friends-partners.org].
So the parts are already in space? (Score:1)
So if the last compressor fails, they still have two more tries: Fix the plug on replacement number one, and try to dock the supplies vehicle.
Re:Houston, we have a problem... (Score:1)
(Hrm. would that be a thought crime? *ducks flames*)
Re:Correction (Score:1)
Re:Any surprise it's the russian bit that's conkin (Score:1)
For some reason we seem to more or less ignore space research, we're quite happy to tag along on the heels of the US and not send anything up ourselves. You'd think it'd save us enough money to have realistic petrol prices, but no.....
Re:Actually, yes... (Score:3)
Now, as muecksteiner pointed out, the good old USA spent a bucket of money on the space pen, while the Russians went to pencils. The Russians are also known for incredibly good mathematicians and tech that you literally have to take a hammer to to destroy.
Given the amount of materials and components that are going into the ISS and the length of time that many of these components are rated to work for, I am not surprised that some things break down. I am surprised that it doesn't happen more often. Even considering the incredible advances in technology that we have made in the last 100 years (much less the last 10), we still have so little experience with microgravity. There is no way to predict how certain components will act in microgravity. We learn new things each day that there are people in the ISS.
Now, does the breakdown of the air scrubber mean we should all hide our heads in the sand like good little neo-Luddites? No. Does it mean that we should start finger-pointing and look for someone to blame? No. We should get the damn thing fixed and get on with life in general and get the rest of the ISS built.
Just my 2 shekels.
Kierthos
It sounds dangerous... (Score:4)
By the way, according to the story, the replacement parts "will be ferried into orbit aboard Atlantis, scheduled for launch Jan. 18, or the next Progress supply ship, currently targeted for takeoff Feb. 10." This sounds like the next supply ship (December 26th) will not have these bits.
Well, even if the air supply system truly fails, they have 14 days, and we or the Russians can certainly launch in less time than that. The US doesn't lose astronauts as easily as the Russians, I expect we'd try to save them.
Thalia
Re:Troll Holy Grail - The slashdot effect... (Score:1)
Re:Any surprise it's the russian bit that's conkin (Score:1)
Russia is the only nation in the world that has experience of long-term space habitation. The longest time period that a US space station has ever been manned is only 84 days for the Skylab 4 mission - nothing compared to Mir.
Russia may have political problems, but it has the most experienced people in the world at keeping humans alive in orbit.
Re:Redundancy? (Score:2)
Spacecraft (especially manned spacecraft) tend to be designed with redundant systems, to remove single-point failure modes. When a system is particularly critical (like for breathing), they'll make it triple-redundant (yeah, I know -- but that's what they tend to call it, anyway). In this case, they simply provided three of the part, but it would appear that all the parts had similar failure rates. A better design philosophy might be to provide alternative methods for the redundancy, but this costs more -- a lot more -- and Congress was intent on reducing the cost of the ISS, if not killing it outright.
Come to think of it, they gutted the project pretty much the same way they did Shuttle -- did you know the original Shuttle designs had emergency systems which would have prevented the Challenger disaster?
---
Re:Experience (Score:2)
Nuclear subs have oxygen generators [ctmfg.com] that break up seawater into hydrogen and oxygen. They aren't operated as closed systems. Spacecraft, of course, don't have that option.
Re:Lessons for Mars (Score:2)
Much worse than that
Re:Lessons for Mars (Score:1)
And here, have a link to various mission profiles complete with some graphics of return tragectories:
Free Return Trajectories for Mars Missions [caltech.edu]
Mars Exploration Strategies [nasa.gov]
Exploration of Mars [iaanet.org]
Re: Lessons for Mars (Score:1)
My time estimate, while admittedly weak, is based on the assumption that reserve fuel would be available and that every ounce would be spent on changing the trajectory and returning to earth.
FedEx Commerical (Score:1)
What's the big deal? (Score:2)
Re:Experience (Score:2)
Anyway, if they have to go to their backup backup system, which only lasts for 14 days, they still have plenty of time. There's a launch on the 26th, which still gives them 6 spare days to play around with. And given that time frame, if the launch on the 26th goes wrong, there's still time to try a few more options.
Finally, MIR was a wreck to begin with...
Kierthos