ISS Oxygen Generator Fails for Good 397
billyj4 writes "A balky Russian oxygen generator broke down on the International Space Station, but its two-man crew has a reserve air supply that would last about five months, NASA officials said Friday.
The station's primary generator, which has been operating in an on-again, off-again fashion for months, stopped working last week and the station's crew has not been able to fix it.
Mission managers say the unit has failed for good. Consequently, Russian cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev and U.S. astronaut John Phillips will be relying on reserves until replacement parts arrive at the station in late August."
balky? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought Balky was from Meepos?
riiiidiculus!
Re:balky? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually it is spelled Balki. I used to love that show as a kid but I saw a rerun of it a couple years ago and it wasn't quite as good as I remembered.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:balky? (Score:5, Funny)
I'd like to see you walk up to the defender of the universe and say that to his FACE.
Re:balky? (Score:2)
Armageddon Quote (Score:3, Funny)
Re:ITS A DUPE (Score:2)
Admittedly, dupes where the two stories are on the front page at the same time....
Mmm, air (Score:5, Funny)
Oh No He Didn't!
Oh Yes He Did!
Ha ha ha, but seriously, I hope they don't die.
Re:Mmm, air (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Mmm, air (Score:4, Funny)
ISS Oxygen Generator Fails for Good
At least it didn't fail for evil.
Re:Mmm, air (Score:5, Funny)
I found the tracking number, and it looks like you're right:
Re:Mmm, air (Score:2)
Re:Mmm, air (Score:2)
typical (Score:4, Funny)
Re:typical (Score:2, Funny)
But seriously, I hope they don't die.
Actually shows the IIS is some use (Score:3, Funny)
used in a more exciting mision.
Re:Actually shows the IIS is some use (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Actually shows the IIS is some use (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Actually shows the IIS is some use (Score:4, Interesting)
There's still an awful lot of learning going on. With such limited product runs and such extreme environments, even with rigorous testing problems occur. One of my favorite examples is the problem that they were having with unexpected torque being applied to the station. It took them a long time, but they eventually figured out that the problem was the Russian space suits. They vent gasses through a single vent; this creates a very tiny but extant net force. On most space missions, including those on Mir, it was unnoticable, but when working on ISS's most outward parts (at the time, over 70 meters long - it'll be more than 100 meters long when it's done), it became significant (Mir was only 13 meters long)
Re:Actually shows the IIS is some use (Score:2, Funny)
Time to go to Druidia (Score:5, Funny)
How did the Generator Fail? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How did the Generator Fail? (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't say how the generator failed, but the article did state that they had attempted repair and failed. The [Astro|Cosmo]nauts and Ground control have come to the joint conclusion that "it's dead Jim!" and have decided that they just need a replacement. I can imagine that there are quite a few unfixable things that can happen to the unit. Without replacement parts, there's nothing tha
Re:How did the Generator Fail? (Score:5, Funny)
The good news: it's still under warranty
The bad news: the manufacturer won't send out a replacement until they've received the broken unit
The really bad news: Sergei threw the crate out after they unpacked it, so they've go nothing to ship it in
The really, really bad news: When they do finally find something to ship it in, they're just going to kick it out of an airlock with a note attached: "If found, please return to We Scrub Air, Inc. P.S., sorry for landing on your grandmother"
Re:How did the Generator Fail? (Score:5, Informative)
Definitely time for a new, more robust O2 generator. Not enough time in the interim to build a new style of generator, but there is a mid-term opportunity for one.
The Russians will be sending either parts or a new unit with the next Progress supply craft.
josh
Re:How did the Generator Fail? (Score:3, Funny)
Didn't think so.
Re:How did the Generator Fail? (Score:3, Informative)
They've spent hundreds of man-hours over the last 6-8 months trying to fix it - but they've now run out of spares. (Slashdot is thin on space coverage other than blockbusters.)
For two reasons: A) there isn't a replacement machine, the two on ISS (both broken) are modified MIR era spares. B) The tw
That we know off (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That we know off (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, there's really no telling. I was recently reading Heinlein's account of his trip to the Soviet Union back in the Bad Old Days, and there's an
Re:How did the Generator Fail? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Soviets (officially) lost 4, but supposedly there were at least 12-15 more deaths that haven't been declassified yet.
Pretty convenient and deceptive of you to quote the number of flights rather than the number of spacefarers that have b
It shows how fragile our space program(s) are. (Score:3, Insightful)
With the shuttle nearing obsolescence and this kind of substantial problem on the ISS, it shows just how fragile our space program(s) still are.
We need better, sturdier-designed equipment if we are going to make a serious go at space exploration.
Imagine if something like this happened on the way to Mars... Saturn... HD 2638 b...
Re:It shows how fragile our space program(s) are. (Score:5, Insightful)
In practice, for the ISS, the recalcitrant oxygen generator is mainly just a nuisance, at worst, because it operates atleast part of the time, it still cuts down on the amount of oxygen that needs shipping up from the ground and leaves room in the supply vessels for other equipment.
Re:It shows how fragile our space program(s) are. (Score:2)
We can't have any of these "I can't survive a decade in space because of muscular atrophy" problems we have now. They need to get on with building people that are at least as sturdy as our current equipment.
In related news... (Score:4, Funny)
Call me crazy... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Call me crazy... (Score:2)
No surprise (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No surprise (Score:2)
Re:No surprise (Score:3, Interesting)
The current engines on the station can't do that. A De-orbiting mission would require one, if not 2, cargo pods to help with the braking.
On second thought... (Score:3, Informative)
Disaster a year away if ISS is abandoned [space.com]
Numerous potentially fatal problems during construction [space.com]
ISS Flying with 800 safety problems, some potentially fatal. [space.com]
I'm not worried. (Score:3, Funny)
Any mention of alien acid blood? (Score:2, Funny)
All I know based on all the sci-fi horror flicks is Don't open the oxygen generator door.
Re:Any mention of alien acid blood? (Score:2)
This is more along the lines of a "government factory turns out more crappy goods that don't work right" failure.
Re:Any mention of alien acid blood? (Score:2)
This reminds me of a song... (Score:2)
ISS crew and solar emissions (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:ISS crew and solar emissions (Score:5, Informative)
ISS orbits well within the region protected by the Earth's magnetic fields, so they won't have any problem. Geosynchronous satellites are going to be impacted pretty hard, but they're designed to withstand flares (although they may shut down temporarily).
The crew of a lunar or interplanetary mission would want to take shelter, though -- most mission designs include some sheltered space for that purpose. The shielding usually consists of a water tank that surrounds most of the shielded volume -- water is an excellent material for the sort of ionized particles thrown off by the sun in these events.
What's next (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's next (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's next (Score:3, Funny)
Trial and error (Score:2)
on-again, off-again fashion (Score:3, Funny)
But was it a rectangular thing daubed with Rastafarian symbols [hack.org]?
What? (Score:2, Funny)
morale (Score:4, Interesting)
I imagine the morale of those aboard the station, and of those tapped to rotate onto the station is pretty low. The actual space station is a half assed effort at space colonization, and a money pit nobody wants. It was concieved in the Reagan era and in a spirit of Glasnost (or whatever the buzz word was at the time) as some kind of international gesture or that would herald in a great age of space exporation, or at least international cooperation. But there was no real goal or purpose in building it other than building it, and all the countries that began work lost interest in finishing it, but no one wants to be responsible for killing it off entirely. (I'm too lazy to look up references, but there are modules that were never completed, and perhaps were never even started)
The loss of the use of NASA's shuttle was the biggest blow, since resupply by soyuz is barely adequate for the current crew, and there is no hope of actually putting a working crew up there without it. Expect the station to be abandoned by the time the shuttle is finally retired, that is, if the shuttle ever flies again.
I suspect that the only way to get a permanent presence off planet is through private efforts--i.e. companies that hope to make a profit from space. If I weren't destined to die a virgin, [slashdot.org] I would like to honeymoon there. [spacefuture.com]
Re:morale (Score:4, Insightful)
More importantly, the only way to have a permanent presence off the planet is for it to be a self-sustaining presence. It needs to be on the moon (or any large solid body) so the inhabitants can expand their own space. Send construction workers, not scientists. Once there is enough there that people don't need to worry about things like food, water, air - then it could become a useful place to send people and do research.
Re:morale (Score:3, Insightful)
That points out the chicken and egg problem with space colonization. There's a lot of fundamental research that needs to be done in order to make permanent space habitation possible. The effects on physiology for extreme long term micro gravity (even lunar gravity might cause some surprises down the line), large scale construction with on site ma
Re:morale (Score:3, Insightful)
You're one of those people in analysis paralysis. There are plenty of those around, what we need is people who like to take some risks and DO things. Structures? Go to the moon and start digging in the rock. Line it with some sort of air-tight "stuff". This way, they can always dig out new living quarters - and the more you work, the bigger your house! Plants that can provide food and reprodu
Re:morale (Score:3, Insightful)
Space Station making nice passes right now. (Score:4, Informative)
It is as bright as the brightest star out there (Jupiter, yea not a star but you get it)
oxygen? (Score:3, Funny)
Somebody Send Us Up The Parts!
Re:oxygen? (Score:3, Funny)
You need to study more Engrish, my friend
Alternative Generator (Score:5, Interesting)
One of my favorite old science fiction films is Silent Running, with Bruce Dern. The premise was a little implausible, but the idea that we could be completely self-sufficient in space using biodomes (minus Pauly Shore) is still pretty cool.
Re:Alternative Generator (Score:3, Interesting)
Now which strain(s) of algae is another question.
OK, just did some googling, and found this:
"Diatoms, along with dinoflagellates, these microscopic single-celled algae produce most of the oxygen on this planet. Here is an electron micrograph of Biddulphia showing the porous nature of the silicious diatom skeleton, and it's use as diatomaceous earth in coating and trapping particles in filters.
What is an oxygen generator? (Score:3, Interesting)
What does it create oxygen from? If it takes it from compressed tanks, then it really isn't a generator at all. That would be like calling my gasoline tank a petroleum generator. Does it recycle oxgen from the air? Does it create it from some other source? We don't actually have a device to make O2 from CO2, do we?
The O2 generator must run Windows... (Score:5, Funny)
`_
/ \
O O
|||/
|\/|
\__/
Hey there, partner! It looks like you're running out of oxygen!
What would you like to do?
Entirely the wrong approach (Score:5, Interesting)
Why don't they build a greenhouse up there?
Actually, a biosphere seems like the next logical step for the space station.
Make the greenhouse a disk:
You'd have to be careful about mixing in animals, though. It'd be tragic if the animal population got out of hand [starfleetlibrary.com].
A greenhouse would serve to keep the astronauts from getting too loopy, too. "Gardening", even hydroponically, would probably be a welcome change from the other crap they have to do all day.
Speaking of crap, a garden might be a good way to recycle other human byproducts.
Re:Entirely the wrong approach (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm relaxing by gardening plants, I can see where this is going, surely the astronauts are high enough?
We're working on it. (Score:5, Informative)
1. More experiementation to study the effects of low-g and zero-g on plants: Plant Research Unit [orbitec.com]
2. Miniature greenhouses for growing salad crops and recreation for the astronauts: Vegetable Production System [orbitec.com]
Disclaimer: Yes, I am affiliated with the above links.
Simpsons (Score:2)
Failure == Good? (Score:3, Funny)
Incidently, Space Sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone have (Score:3, Funny)
Hope they got the units right this time... (Score:3, Funny)
"Hey, guys--bad news. Turns out we were using the consumption rates in gallons of oxygen per minute, when we thought we were using liters! Heh, sorry about that."
"Guys? Hello?"
--Ribald
This is what we get... (Score:3, Insightful)
We are not now, but someday will be at the point where if we don't get off the planet in a sustainable format, we won't be able to at all after that point due to lack of resources: technological, social, and energy. Imagine an Earth with a planetary population of fifteen billion, schismatic fighting over resources, and no cohesive will to even try to see common ground for the survival of the species.
That day is coming and in that world, how do you expect to do the major housecat herding job it would be to get enough of the wealthiest and advanced nations on the same page for a space colonization effort?
Instead we dilly-dally with the attitude that "it's only moon rocks and photo ops" and "we need to deal with problems right here". We won't have a right here to deal with if we don't make the human race an ongoing proposition. Top down forcing of changes in human behavior have never worked and all the fanatical self-righetousness of the environmental movement isn't catching on and won't ever.
We don't change under pressure very well and need the breathing space and serenity to do it. Try kicking a cigarette habit while simultaneously remodelling your home, refinancing your mortgage, getting two vehicles fixed, having sick family in the hopsital, and having a full desk at work. Now try it when you have three months paid leave and no problems on your plate.
So we need to get off Earth in a meaningful sustainable format right now, make sure that any event down below won't take out the species, and use what we find out there to better our lives, and we need to do it now.
Instead, we're using Russian O2 generators with known issues, and doing things without much more advancement than what we used to go to the moon in 1969. It's 2005 and you'd figure a planet that can make civilian houses nearly air and energy tight could do as well with environmental support on an orbiting tin can.
5 months? (Score:3, Funny)
I know, I know, "suspension of disbelief." It just seems like it would be more plausible if life support was always the LAST thing to start failing, instead of the first.
Very Stressful... (Score:4, Insightful)
It stated in the Article snippet that they have 5 months of oxygen. How is that stressful?
Re:Very Stressful... (Score:5, Insightful)
When the supplies get there, they'll have to spend time replacing the machine, but that's about it.
Re:Very Stressful... (Score:3, Informative)
Let's compute a quick power budget and figure out just how wrong you are!
Ignition: 30-45 watts (sorry, I don't have a good source for this now but I'm pretty sure it's correct).
Fuel pump: 80-100 watts. [hondatuningmagazine.com]
Injectors: 6 watts * 6 cylinders (max) [stealth316.com]=36W
Computers: Not much. Less than 30W.
Daytime lights/etc: 100W.
Fudge factor for ad
Re:Very Stressful... (Score:2, Interesting)
I wouldn't like to know that I have a very finite and exactly known amount of oxygen left at my disposal with no chance of more until some guy I have no influence over decides my situation is desperate enough to warrent m
Re:Very Stressful... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, I dunno... Maybe the remote possibility of RUNNING OUT OF OXYGEN AND DYING?
What if the mission to send replacement parts fails? What if the escape vehicle doesn't work?
I get a little stressed when we run out of coffee at work, to each their own I guess.
Re:Very Stressful... (Score:2, Informative)
Again, where's the stress in having 5 months to get replacement parts and then still have time to get themselves into the escape capsule?
Re:Very Stressful... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I dunno... Maybe the remote possibility of RUNNING OUT OF OXYGEN AND DYING?
Well Nervous Nelly, the article states there's at least two other backup oxygen supplies that have quite a long duration.
What if the mission to send replacement parts fails?
There's always a Soyuz capsule docked at the station so they can abandon the space station if necessary.
What if the escape vehicle doesn't work?
Unlikely. If it doesn't work, then I'd imagine there'd be some rush to launch another Soyuz or Shuttle. There's something very basic that you seem to be missing though. At some point you just have to accept the fact that space exploration is dangerous. Why do you have this attitude that it should be as safe as walking to the drugstore? How many people die just doing something like climbing Mt. Everest? Life is dangerous. If you don't like that, there's always the option of never venturing outside.
Re:Very Stressful... (Score:3, Insightful)
More people die every year walking, then people have died in the entire life of the US Space Program.
More people die in their bathtubs, every year, then have ever died in the Space Program...
You are safer going into space, then you are driving ten miles on any American Highway.
Re:Very Stressful... (Score:3, Funny)
WHAT IF MY HOUSE BURNS DOWN THEN?! HUH?!
Re:Very Stressful... (Score:3, Funny)
That would be a good time to start worrying. Until then, I think they are probably OK.
I get a little stressed when we run out of coffee at work, to each their own I guess.
You didn't say they were running out of coffee. That's completely different, if the coffee is getting low they should jump into that escape pod IMMEDIATELY, just in case.
Re:Vodka ? (Score:4, Funny)
Da. Just remove the brakes and it vill vork again.
Re:Vodka ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Vodka ? (Score:3, Informative)
There's a little patch up in Northwest Oregon around Astoria that gets 70 in. of precipitation a year. Part of the Olympic Penninsula in Washington gets 160 in. a year (try a winter there,) and a small swatch along the Tennesee/North Carolina border gets up to 90 in. annually. Southeastern Alaska gets hosed during the winter months, as the mossy vegetation attests, and the rainiest spot on Earth is Haw
Re:Vodka ? (Score:4, Informative)
From the Wikipedia:
On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.
The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" -- which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 -- the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Energy Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others, demonstrated a potentially large decline in GDP from implementing the Protocol.
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the general idea, but because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasises the uncertainties he asserts are present in the climate change issue [10] (http://www.alternet.org/story/11054/ [alternet.org]). Furthermore, he is not happy with the details of the treaty. For example, he does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:
The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the USA (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita). China, currently exempted from the requirements of the protocol, has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next decade (at which time it would no longer be exempted). The US Natural Resources Defense Council, stated in June 2001 that: "By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997".
Re:Vodka ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Russians built Skylab? (Score:4, Funny)
And I guess we had the Mir?
Re:Skylab? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory..... (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory old Korean joke: Only old Koreans get stuck with no oxygen on ISS.
Obligatory underpants gnome joke:
1. Run out of oxygen.
2. ???
3. Profit!
Obligatory beowulf cluster joke: The oxygen generators: If only they'd had a beowulf cluster of these.
Obligatory MS joke: The oxygen generator must have been powered by Microsoft.
Obligatory Apple joke: The oxygen generator was useless because it only had one button.
Obligatory all-your-base joke: All your oxygen are belong to us! Someone sent us up the parts!
Obligatory Strong Bad joke: SUFFOCAT'D!!!
Obligatory everything else joke: The thought of Natalie Portman, petrified and naked, while they eat hot grits poured down each others' pants should help them to stave off suffocation, or at least be happy about it.
Re:Obligatory..... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Lack of air is a serious matter. (Score:2)
Re:RAID 0 (Score:2)
Well, it's the same: Worst case: Get fired (from life).
Re:RAID 0 (Score:3, Informative)
Do you honestly think that a mechanical generator is the only way they have of breathing up there? In fact, there is 140 days' worth of O2 stored in a tank AND there are SFOG generators as well, which are also known as a "candle" - light it up and it generates oxygen.
And, even failing that, it's not like they'll die - there is always a Soyuz docked at the station to allow an emergency return.
Re:Suggestion: scrap it. (Score:2)
is already spent back, but better to stop throwing good at
bad. There are a lot of other (better) things that can be
done by NASA with that coin.
Re:Suggestion: scrap it. (Score:2)
Of course, I mostly favor unmanned probes, which are a lot simpler and cheaper, so you can get a lot more science do
Re:fill in the blanks (Score:3, Funny)
A news item like this without "In Soviet Russia
Alex