Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
ISS Space

Russian Spacecraft's Thrusters Tilt the International Space Station - Again (space.com) 44

"Unplanned thruster firings by a Russian spacecraft briefly knocked the International Space Station off-kilter Friday, the second such incident in less than three months," reports Space.com: The spacecraft involved today was the Soyuz MS-18, which is scheduled to bring cosmonaut Oleg Novitskiy, film director Klim Shipenko and actor Yulia Peresild back to Earth early Sunday morning (Oct. 17)... "Within 30 minutes, flight controllers regained attitude control of the space station, which is now in a stable configuration," NASA officials wrote in an update this afternoon. "The crew was awake at the time of the event and was not in any danger."

The orbiting lab briefly tilted from its normal orientation this morning by 57 degrees, according to the Russian news agency Interfax, which cited communications between Novitskiy and Vladimir Solovyov, the flight director of the station's Russian segment.

Space station managers don't yet know what caused the anomalously long firing... It's also unclear why the MS-18's thrusters stopped firing, though the station's handlers have some ideas. "We think — and we haven't got confirmation — we think the thrusters stopped firing because they reached their prop[ellant] limit," NASA flight director Timothy Creamer told agency astronauts shortly after the thrusters shut down, according to The New York Times. "Moscow is checking into it and doing their data analysis."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russian Spacecraft's Thrusters Tilt the International Space Station - Again

Comments Filter:
  • The Russians have proven that they are either unqualified to build a module, or untrustworthy to operate one... or both. Involving them is a waste of time, money, and effort until they unfuck themselves. Dump it and either figure out how to live without it (which will be easier than living with it) or get a new module from the billionaire's club.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    They should permit Soyuz any orientation it chooses! How dare the eurocentric white men of space agencies demand a specific orientation! Aiieee, we need a new pronoun for hollow tubes of steel!

  • by Anonymous Coward
    So Soyuz is out of propellant? Isn't that a huge problem?
  • by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Saturday October 16, 2021 @09:28AM (#61897929) Journal

    The talent base the USSR developed over the cold war and space race is nearly depleted. Whatever vestiges remain of that lineage are nearly gone, and we're seeing the results. Now that talented engineers are free to go where they feel the true innovation is happening, and where they can get paid well, Russia is loosing this kind of skillset.

    They're having trouble just maintaining the status quo, let alone developing radically new launch or space technology. Also consider that the Soyuz capsules are originally 1960s technology with some retrofitting along the way.

    • by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Saturday October 16, 2021 @11:31AM (#61898181) Homepage
      What does the 1960s technology snub have to do with it? If you kept building new 60s cars they would still last you just as long and run just fine. The fuel mileage would be worse, but they wouldn't randomly steer you off the road. This is some kind of an assembly problem, or a bugged software update.
      • Good 'ol CCCP style products were built from materials of wildly variable quality, so the CCCP Engineers became quite adept of building simple, robust, overbuilt machines that ran like "Energizer Bunnies". Now that Russia is becoming westernized, it's engineering designs are becoming more elegant, and therefore less tolerant quality variances. It's not only "They don't build them like they used too", they can't build them like they used too, and it's not just the Russians either, we couldn't build a Saturn

      • What does the 1960s technology snub have to do with it?

        I thought that point was clear in my comment. The engineers who designed the technology have long since passed away or retired. When you're talking about technology 60 years old, who in your organization understands it at the levels of the engineers that designed it? Same thing happens with software codebases. Heck, it happened at NASA with the F1 engine. It is claimed the engine cannot be produced any longer, for a number of reasons. At some point you must advance and develop new technology along with the

        • by RobinH ( 124750 )
          I can see how that would be true of tech you stop building and using, but for Soyuz, they've kept using it this whole time. That would be like saying nobody at the bank understands their software because it was originally written in COBOL. If they're still using it, there'll be experts who know it.
      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        What does the 1960s technology snub have to do with it? If you kept building new 60s cars they would still last you just as long and run just fine. The fuel mileage would be worse, but they wouldn't randomly steer you off the road. This is some kind of an assembly problem, or a bugged software update.

        No, a 60s car would not last as long. At least, not without doing more maintenance than you would normally.

        A modern car today needs very little maintenance - an oil change every 5-8000 miles or so is about the

        • by RobinH ( 124750 )
          I just meant it would run as well as a new one in the 60's would run, and that's not counting improvements in manufacturing quality that we'd be able to have today.
    • Also consider that the Soyuz capsules are originally 1960s technology with some retrofitting along the way.

      In the same way you could describe your PC as "originally 1970's technology with some retrofitting along the way" and give an equally misleading impression.
      In many respects, the Soyuz MS (the current generation) bears about as much resemblance to the Soyuz 7K and 7K-OK (the 1960's generations) as a 2021 Corvette does to a 1967 Corvette. Despite the visual similarity, many systems have been up

  • Sounds dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Klaxton ( 609696 ) on Saturday October 16, 2021 @09:38AM (#61897955)
    So this is the reentry capsule that is going to bring back several people on Sunday? And the thrusters may or may not continue to fire after they are triggered? And they may have already run out of propellant? I'd be a little nervous.
    • Sorry, they are stuck on the space station forever. Or, they can duke it out for seats on the other Soyuz.
    • Those Kerbals scream like crazy over nothing, they'll be fine, thrusters just mess you up on re-entry anyway.

  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Saturday October 16, 2021 @11:17AM (#61898151)

    2 tilt warnings 3th time is an tilt unless you slam tilt it

  • Methinks it's time for Russia to pay to use our trampoline until they sort this out.
  • It must be that American astronaut's period that's causing these fluctuations. Because you know how women are. The fact that she is not on the station itself is irrelevant.

  • ... three times is enemy action.

    Knock it off, Vlad, you are not so cute.

  • Russia is an enemy country and the US can afford all the space exploration it cares to pay for so economy is not an excuse.

    Leave ISS and let them keep or de-orbit the thing. It's old and unlike Russia the US can send up another or several if needed.

    • The ISS is an important symbol of peace - two enemies working together for a common interest. Destroying that tenuous symbol, at this juncture, would be a tragedy and could cement Russia into a position of active hostilities.
  • I wonder what unrelated story will be released in coming days highlighting US ISS incompetence or conspiracy?
  • And yet not just one but two NASA space shuttles explode killing their crews, and no "OMG! NASA needz to be dizmantelz!"

      The Soyuz is a very reliable spacecraft and I am so sick of the "damn commie Ruskiez" clap trap coming out of the mouths of babes.

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Working...