Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

ISS Spacewalk Cut Short 181

Posted by michael from the practice-in-breath-holding-pays-off dept.
RobertB-DC writes "The spacewalk that was intended to replace a balky power supply ended almost before it started, according to Spaceflight Now's Mission Status Center play-by-play. The Russian Orlan spacesuit worn by US astronaut Mike Fincke developed a problem with its oxygen supply (!), forcing both spacewalkers back to the airlock after less than 15 minutes. Mission control and the ISS crew are still debating what to do next."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ISS Spacewalk Cut Short More

ISS Spacewalk Cut Short

Comments Filter:

  • Oh well (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Joceyln Parfitt ( 756037 )
    too bad, I was really looking foward to this, especially after delay upon delay [spacetoday.net]. Guess they need to doublecheck their equipment next time.

    • Re:Oh well (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This may be a stupid question but ... This space walk is to replace a faulty circuit breaker right? Is it just me, or would it not be much smarter to put the circuit breakers on the INSIDE of the station? I mean, Isn't this a bit like putting the fuse box on the roof of your house?

      • Re:Oh well (Score:3, Insightful)

        by joeljkp ( 254783 )
        My guess is that the ISS is cramped as it is, so they put it on the outside to save space, figuring if it ever broke, an EVA would be worth it.

        Maybe it had a fire risk, too.

      • Re:Oh well (Score:4, Funny)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @12:16PM (#9528909) Homepage
        One of the most astute questions I've ever seen posted by an AC :)

        Not only is it like putting your fuse box on the roof of your house, it's like putting your fuse box on the roof of your house, and instead of getting a ladder to go up to fix it, you're given a trampoline. ;) Space isn't friendly, even with space suits.
        • Not only is it like putting your fuse box on the roof of your house, it's like putting your fuse box on the roof of your house, and instead of getting a ladder to go up to fix it, you're given a trampoline. ;) Space isn't friendly, even with space suits.


          Actually, it's more like putting the fuse box on the roof of your house and it's always raining hail and acid smog.

      • This may be a stupid question but ... This space walk is to replace a faulty circuit breaker right? Is it just me, or would it not be much smarter to put the circuit breakers on the INSIDE of the station? I mean, Isn't this a bit like putting the fuse box on the roof of your house?

        There are two problems with that idea;

        • There is only so much room inside the station, putting more stuff inside not only means more cramped quarters it also means more cables going through the pressure hull. (As it stands one c
      • I would imagine (IANA NASA Engineer) that the fact that circuit breakers may produce a spark when going off is a risky thing to have in a highly O2 concentrated area.

        If a circuit breaker goes out in vacum, there's no harm done.

  • Yo Quiero (Score:2, Funny)

    by swordboy ( 472941 )
    I betcha that they had Taco Bell the previous night. That always wreaks havok with my oxygen supply.

  • The answer is simple... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animaether ( 411575 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @08:46AM (#9526682) Journal
    Just patch the leak with putty!
    NASA: Astronauts to get putty for small holes [cnn.com]

    Though I have to question these NASA budgetcuts.. AstroPutty [pointzero.nl]

    • Strange...I connected to the suit via putty, was prompted for a login, entered 'root' and was able to login with no password. Seems like a pretty big security....hole!?! Ha! Thank you, I'll be here all week. In the dumpster. Eating your waste.

    • Re:The answer is simple... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Rei ( 128717 )
      *sigh*

      The real problem is that they're using cryogenic fuel.

      Seriously, NASA: LOX/LH was a great idea on the drawing board. But it costs a fortune to maintain and is incredibly dangerous. At *least* make future craft LOX/Methane. Will it kill you to lose the 50 or so ISP in exchange for not needing a 20 degrees kelvin fuel that requires quite large and dangerous tanks? You'd lighten up And instead of methane, if you can use propane, that gets even safer and denser, and the ISP cut still isn't that ba

      • Of course, I still think that spacecraft should be *towed* out of the atmosphere and fueled midair by a line attached to the towing craft at takeoff, combining the best aspects of Rutan's "carrier" design and the "Black Horse" design.. but what do I know? :)

        You don;t know much really. :)

        The problem is that you cannot escape building a large carrier aircraft if you intend to put a significant payload into orbit via air launch. Your solution increases upfront and operational costs (by requiring an addition

        • Who is talking about aircraft carriers here? Or do you mean the towing aircraft? I'l operate on that assumption.

          The proposed solution increases upfront and operational cost by the cost of one commercial aircraft, its operation, and maintinance. Compared to the cost of operatining, maintaining, and purchasing a spacecraft, the cost of operating, maintaining, and purchasing a conventional, mass-produced aircraft is trivial. You completely replace the lower stage.

          Air to air refuelings have been done far,
          • Hmm, actually on the issue of "further lightening it from Black Horse" by not requiring engines, I just realized that I was really thinking of Black Colt at that point (a Black Horse variant). The original Black Horse design burns its rocket engine during ascent, to refueling altitude.

            Of course, that gives a towed design further advantages over Black Horse, since the refueling craft in Black Horse only can transfer 82% of the propellant that it carries to the spacecraft due to burning the atmospherically

          • The proposed solution increases upfront and operational cost by the cost of one commercial aircraft, its operation, and maintinance.

            Not any commercial aircraft currently existing.

            The modifications needed to the towing aircraft are incredibly minimal - attach cables to the airframe, and attach the propellant tanks and cables.

            You left out; reinforce the airframe to take the point load of the tow cable and modify the airframe to handle the load of the droppable propellant tank. (Not to mention adding the

  • the spacewalk may have ended too soon (Score:3, Funny)

    by surreal-maitland ( 711954 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @08:47AM (#9526691) Journal
    but the moonwalk will live on forever!

  • Russian Spacesuits (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mz6 ( 741941 ) * on Friday June 25, 2004 @08:48AM (#9526703) Journal
    FWIW, I thought it was kind of interesting that these spcesuits are not able to carry jetpacks, like the US ones, should the tether break. Pretty risky if you know you don't have a back up if it breaks. Although it's even more risky not having air.

    • Re:Russian Spacesuits (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jusdisgi ( 617863 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @08:55AM (#9526762)
      I don't know...the tether breaking sounds pretty unlikely; has it ever happened before? I mean, rock climbers don't carry jetpacks either....

      • Re:Russian Spacesuits (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Mz6 ( 741941 ) *
        "I don't know...the tether breaking sounds pretty unlikely; has it ever happened before? I mean, rock climbers don't carry jetpacks either....

        Yes, but the idea behind NASA is having backups for backups. Most times the astronauts rely on having those backups should something happen. I'm so sure it's a good feeling to tell an astronaut, "well, it's pretty unlikely". NO.. You back that system up and say system 1 is pretty unlikely that it might break, but if it does, here is system 2 to back it up.

        Of c

        • ...there's no practical use for a rock climber to have it [jetpack].

          Jetpacks, no. Jetboots, of course! How else will you rise up smugly from the surface to greet the cap?

        • No, when I say it sounds "pretty unlikely" I mean, "this thing can probably hold the whole goddamn shuttle up." I also mean, "I think it's highly unlikely that a tether has *ever* broken before, on any mission from any country."

          And while I'm at it, there *would* be a use for a rock climber to have a jetpack, *if* there were any real chance that his rope would break. But there isn't. That's kind of my point.

        • um , when NASA uses the jetpack, they usually got no tether. Where's the backup there?

    • Re:Russian Spacesuits (Score:5, Informative)

      by azmatsci ( 759463 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @09:03AM (#9526829)
      Teathers have never broken when connected to a astronaught-type in orbit. Satellites have done experiements with teathers before where those have broken but it was a completly different environment.

      As for jet packs, the airlocks are not able to handle them. They would need to be mounted outside, but they would deteriorate, so they would need a locker.....and the problems keep mounting.

    • Re:Russian Spacesuits (Score:3, Insightful)

      by joeljkp ( 254783 )
      Well, the obvious solution wouldn't be jetpacks, it would be having two tethers instead of one. That seems like a pretty easy thing to do, anyway.

    • Re:Russian Spacesuits (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sunking2 ( 521698 )
      The MMU isn't used anymore do to safety concearns of the high pressure tanks having problems during shuttle lift offs. It actually hasn't been used for quite some time.

      And tethers are much simpler to use, simpler to maintain, and more reliable. They just aren't quite as cool.

  • Russian space suits... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shoeler ( 180797 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @08:48AM (#9526707)
    Are widely regarded as rugged, tough suits. However, I understand they lack many of the safeguards that their American counterparts have. Anyone know if this is true or my bad recollection? I saw a show on the Discovery channel some time ago that compared the Russian and American space programs. It spoke of how the American program uses multiple redundant systems, while the russians favor rugged, proven gear. It also spoke of how the russians bettered their space program by launching many rockets, knowing their failure rate would be high, but learning from those failures. In comparison the American program launched fewer and did lots of R&D between them.

    Personally I would want to be on the rocket that had a lower percentage of failure and thus would want the American space suit, but perhaps I'm biased. ;)

    • Re:Russian space suits... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by foidulus ( 743482 ) * on Friday June 25, 2004 @08:56AM (#9526772)
      It also spoke of how the russians bettered their space program by launching many rockets, knowing their failure rate would be high, but learning from those failures. In comparison the American program launched fewer and did lots of R&D between them.
      There was probably a reason for this during the cold war. While the American media isn't as free as we think it is, they still would have covered something as significant as a rocket launch. Thus if it failed, the Russians could easily find out. However, the Russians were better at keeping their media in check, so if rockets failed, it would be a lot harder for others to know.
      Well, thats my take on it anyway
      • Rocket launches are fairly obvious things, especially to spy satellites.
        • I'm referring to the cold war(esp. earlier cold war) BEFORE spy sattelites existed....
        • Part of it, though, really seems to be the Soviet culture. Look at Chernobyl. Look at Kursk. They really had a culture in which they didn't want to admit when anything went wrong, either to themselves or to others. They tried to keep up an image of a state that was doing incredibly well, when it was widely known that the USSR was steadily being torn apart from failures on the inside.

    • Re:Russian space suits... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This speaks to the difference between engineering approches in these two cultures. The US scientific culture has leaned towards lots of computational power to construct large models and simulations. Soviet scientific culture was more rooted in analytical solutions, not using computers as their American counterparts much for numerical solutions. This can be easily observed in my field by reading US and Soviet research papers from the 60's, 70's, and 80's. My field btw would be engineering vibrations and
    • Manned russian spacecraft/aircraft have fantastic ejection systems. I saw one video of a rocket explode on the launch pad... a split second before the explosion the pilot hit eject, and they capsule rocketed up and away, FAST, and then parachuted down. though I'm sure that felt like getting hit by a dumptruck to the occupants, it beats burning up in a million or so pounds of rocket fuel.

    • Personally I would want to be on the rocket that had a lower percentage of failure and thus would want the American space suit, but perhaps I'm biased. ;)

      are you aware that Energia, the rocket which evolved after all this "try to get failure" type of development has very low rate of failures? Oh well - it's around 99% of succesfull launches.

      I can't google it right now. But if you want to check - start here [energia.ru] and there [rosaviakosmos.ru].
      • ... of course, they did suffer a significant loss of life in their rocket program, largely due to this. But in the end, they did develop some vehicles that (when they get proper maintinence!) are very reliable.

        Contrast this to rockets like the Ariane-5. 3 explosions in 18 launches, anyone? I wouldn't want to fly on one of those...

    • It also spoke of how the russians bettered their space program by launching many rockets, knowing their failure rate would be high, but learning from those failures. In comparison the American program launched fewer and did lots of R&D between them.

      Personally I would want to be on the rocket that had a lower percentage of failure and thus would want the American space suit, but perhaps I'm biased. ;)

      The simple fact is; despite the difference in approaches, the reliability of the boosters developed un

    • How is it possible after the near disaster of Apollo 13 (if you recall, the LEM and Command Module took different sized and incompatable C02 scrub cartridges) that we are still putting people into space with incompatable systems?

      The crew will, as they did on Thursday, exit from the Russian end of the space station. After that, they will work their way over to the U.S. segment, a border crossing that requires mission control centers from both nations to be involved.

      From: Spacewalk Aborted by Stuck Switch - [reuters.com]

  • Sorry... (Score:3, Funny)

    by arikol ( 728226 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @08:48AM (#9526710) Journal
    In soviet russia, spacewalks cut YOU short!

  • Debate (Score:5, Funny)

    by jusdisgi ( 617863 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @08:50AM (#9526721)

    Mission control and the ISS crew are still debating what to do next.

    Mission control: Go back out there!

    ISS crew: No!

  • uh!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mirko ( 198274 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @08:50AM (#9526722) Journal
    IIS [slashdot.org] had problems, now it is ISS, I just hope that SSI [apache.org] are okay.
    • IIS had problems, now it is ISS, I just hope that SSI are okay.

      And as I just spoke with my SIS, and she says things are fine at home, that's one more combination accounted for. You folks might want to check with your respective SISes, should you have a SIS, that is.

  • What to do next (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara.hudson@b ... m ['son' in gap]> on Friday June 25, 2004 @08:50AM (#9526723) Journal
    a problem with its oxygen supply (!), forcing both spacewalkers back to the airlock after less than 15 minutes. Mission control and the ISS crew are still debating what to do next." It should be obvious - take a deep breath!

    Seriously, maybe its time to think of something along the space pods in 2001 with their manipulators. They were cool because they were a realistic solution.

    • Re:What to do next (Score:2, Informative)

      by arikol ( 728226 )
      Not really, too big, too heavy, too cumbersome (cant maneuver them in the small spaces needed) PLUS you would be using robotic arms instead of your own, an unmanned EVA pod would be just as good for any mission that a pod could be used for. unfortunately, it is much easier to use hands (even in thick gloves) for most delicate movements. EVA suits are here to stay for the near future

    • Re:What to do next (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @09:01AM (#9526811) Homepage
      Sure, right after they install a pod bay on the ISS. :) Since a space pod's manipulators would be controlled by an astronaut inside, why bother bringing along the astronaut? A pod could be much simpler if it didn't need life-support and all its mass. It could even be operated by the ground, although delay might be an issue for fine manipulation.

  • Just a thought: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Paulrothrock ( 685079 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @08:53AM (#9526743) Homepage Journal
    Maybe these guys [scaled.com] could help.
    • Not sure if this is relevant, but Scaled doesn't deal with spacesuits. Mike didn't wear a suit during his trip, since SpaceShipOne is pressurized.
      • I was thinking more along the lines of using White Knight to send up a cargo craft that carried some suits. I wouldn't think it would take more than 8,000 pounds (max-lift capability for white knight) to get to LEO from 50,000 feet.

        This would probably take Burt a week and $500,000 to develop, but NASA would take a year or two and tens of millions of dollars to do the same thing.

        And if it's too much for one White Knight to handle, maybe they could launch two of them and mate the rocket at altitude.

        • This would be better then sending a Soyuz why?
          • Might be cheaper. Launch costs for SS1 are between $50,000 and $80,000. Soyuz is probably a lot higher.

            And it would give Rutan a chance to show off Tier 2.

            • Yeah, but they'd have to try to mate a standardized airlock module to Scaled's rocket, or develop and certify a new one. Plus a thoroughly-tested maneuvering system to make sure it didn't hit the Station.

              Seems to me it'd be too much trouble for a busted spacesuit.
              • I was thinking more along the lines of an expendable rocket. Maybe even solid fueled. No need to launch a pressurized craft with wings and life support to get two suits up there. I mean, they're not NASA!

                I tried to work out if an 8 ton rocket (controlled from the ground) would work, but can't find enough information.

                • That doesn't remove the need for an attachment mechanism (airlock) and a maneuvering system.
                  • Maneuvering: RCS system on a cylinder is easy to design. Attachment: Put a handle on the container for the station's robotic arm. Open the outer airlock door and put the suits inside using the arm, then close the door and repressurize the airlock.
                    • Again, all that would have to get designed, tested, validated, and certified, and Scaled would have to be willing and able to put their time into it.

                      If you were going to go that route, why not use Orbital instead?

                      Or, just realize that all that isn't worth it for some spacesuits, and include them on the next Soyuz shipment.

            • Re:Just a thought: (Score:3, Informative)

              by pediddle ( 592795 )
              Hello? SpaceShipOne doesn't get anywhere near orbit, let alone having the ability to deliever cargo to ISS. It's a completely different ballgame, so no wonder the costs are different.
          • Because Scaled Composites might actually succeed at a space mission, especially with Mike Melville at the helm? Dunno, it's just a thought.

            Max

  • Punctuation (Score:5, Funny)

    by CGP314 ( 672613 ) <CGP@ColinGregor y P a lmer.net> on Friday June 25, 2004 @08:55AM (#9526760) Homepage
    The Russian Orlan spacesuit worn by US astronaut Mike Fincke developed a problem with its oxygen supply (!), forcing both spacewalkers back to the airlock after less than 15 minutes.

    Well, thank God for that parenthetical exclamation point to let me know it was a problem.
    • I figured that the exclamation mark appeared over his head when he realized the problem.

      Unfortunately, the associated sound effect couldn't be heard because it was a vaccuum.

  • Look out! (Score:5, Funny)

    by leenoble_uk ( 698539 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @09:00AM (#9526798) Journal
    They just moved indoors to avoid being hit by David Beckham's penalty kick.

    • Re:Look out! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by richie2000 ( 159732 )
      No, it wasn't hard enough.

      (incidentally, this is an exact quote from when Victoria replied to the question 'is really David the father of your child?')

      I don't normally watch soccer, or any other sports on TV, but I did watch the last few minutes after the Portuguese 1-1 goal, the extension and the penalties - it was very good entertainment. It was fun to see Svennis not only actually has emotions, but he can display them. :-)

  • ugh! (Score:4, Funny)

    by BaDunkaDunk ( 788753 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @09:01AM (#9526810) Homepage
    ya think they'd a been smart enough to take some friggin DUCT TAPE with 'em up there!... astronauts... indeeeeeed....

  • Lucky (Score:4, Interesting)

    by shadowcabbit ( 466253 ) <cx AT thefurryone DOT net> on Friday June 25, 2004 @09:03AM (#9526827) Journal
    It's a good thing they caught the oxygen problem before things got worse. Good job, guys.

    This sort of thing demonstrates the need for advances in robotics. An remote-controlled machine could potentially do spacewalk jobs somewhat more easily and far more safely than sending out a human in what boils down to a ziploc bag tied to the station.

    ...But, as long as folks are brave enough to go Out There, I'll still be rooting for them.

    • Re:Lucky (Score:2, Interesting)

      by arikol ( 728226 )
      Definitely, small, purpose built r/c control units could minimize risks alot. Wouldnt remove the needs for spacewalks, but might replace the more standard tasks.

  • Hal? (Score:5, Funny)

    by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @09:20AM (#9526978)
    They weren't out to fix the AE-35 unit by any chance I hope.

  • Not Likely... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ag3nt ( 790820 )
    This station cost millions of dollars and months of construction to assemble. Every flight costs between $400 million and $1 billion depending on the load of the shuttle. It is VERY unlikely that they would ever abandon the station before it started to crash into the upper atmostphere from orbit disentigration.

  • New role for spaceshipone? (Score:3, Funny)

    by TheUncleBob ( 791234 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @09:28AM (#9527035) Homepage
    Perhaps a Breakdown and Recovery service instead of space tourism ?

    Though Intergalactic Pizza Delivery gets my vote. I wonder if ISS would refuse to pay if it turned up a few minutes late?

  • Abandon in place (Score:4, Insightful)

    by p51d007 ( 656414 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @10:14AM (#9527489)
    This stupid white elephant needs to be put down. It was a stupid idea in the first place.....Why? Because it is in the hands of two (or more) governments who know nothing about how to run a business. Put the space program in the hands of private businesses and watch how well it works. How much did it cost NASA to put the first American in space versus how much it costs the Rutan group to put the first private human in space? With cost overruns, stupidity, etc.....it's no wonder NASA can't hardly do anything right anymore. I use to be a big fan of NASA in the "golden age" but not anymore. They don't have a goal....in the old days it was beat the Soviets to the moon, since then it's been stumbling to find something to do to keep the gravy train of money funneling to it's doors. A lot of good scientific research has been funneled from NASA to the private sector, but that has pretty much stopped, since they can't do anything right anymore. The shuttle was for building the space station, and the space station was for the shuttle to bring people to it. Hardly a worthy goal if you ask me.

  • Duck! (Score:2, Funny)

    by DaveS002 ( 789533 )
    They are clearly in need of Duct Tape for those mission critical repairs!!

  • Wardrobe malfunction? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, 2004 @11:39AM (#9528485)
    Is the correct term for what happened a "Wardrobe malfunction"
  • You can't just sit there watching TV, you have to go to work.

    So swallow your pride, find a big garbage bag, cut a hole for your head, and get back outside.

  • Mir Scientists Study Effects of Weightlessness (Score:3, Funny)

    by ABEND ( 15913 ) on Friday June 25, 2004 @12:21PM (#9528992)
    KOROLYOV, RUSSIA--U.S. and Russian scientists are increasingly excited about the Mir space station project, which promises to reveal more than has ever been known about the scientific relationship between weightlessness and mortal terror.

    "By stranding our scientists on a dilapidated space station with faulty wiring, loose hardware, and malfunctioning air systems," NASA head Daniel Goldin said, "we have created extremely favorable conditions for learning about spaceborne panic."

    The two Russians and one American on board the station are reportedly terrified beyond lucidity.

    Among the groundbreaking experiments conducted on board Mir: a June 25 collision with a cargo craft that depressurized the Spektr module; last week's emergency power shortage, caused by a disconnected cable; and the periodic release of "dry ice" steam that simulates a shipboard fire. All have been deemed a huge success by agency heads.

    "They are in a constant state of what aerospace scientists term 'mind-shattering terror,' frightened for their very lives," Russian mission director Vladimir Solovyov said. "And we have not even used the hull-mounted Alien puppet that taps on the window yet."

    "We have also taken huge leaps in our understanding of the patterns created when one wets his pants in the weightlessness of space," Solovyov said. "The urine spreads out in an expanding sphere, something we did not expect."

    Taking a break from his busy schedule, astronaut Michael Foale told ABC News reporters: "Where's my mommy?"

    "Please tell me the access code to the Soyuz capsule," Russian cosmonaut Aleksandr Lazutkin said. "I would like to return to the chaotic government and widespread hunger of my homeland."

    Scientists expect to gain even more useful data during an experiment at 3 a.m. tomorrow. As the astronauts sleep, whirling red siren lights will flood the cabin while an ear-splitting klaxon alarm jolts them awake.

    Detailed scientific data will then be collected on such variables as open weeping, uncontrollable spontaneous defecation and unusual hair loss.

    • "We have also taken huge leaps in our understanding of the patterns created when one wets his pants in the weightlessness of space," Solovyov said. "The urine spreads out in an expanding sphere, something we did not expect."

      Hmm...

      A riskier-than-usual spacewalk outside the international space station was cut short Thursday night because of a malfunction that left one of the two crewmen with a warm, damp suit. [msn.com]

      Indeed!

      xox,
      Dead Nancy

  • Reverse the polarity!

    Trust me on this...

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close