Slashdot Mirror

    How about (pdf), pg 3.

"Each of the two OMS engines produces 6,000
pounds of thrust. For a typical orbiter weight,
both engines together create an acceleration of
approximately 2 ft/sec2 or 0.06 g's." ...

"Each OMS engine is capable of 1,000 starts and
15 hours of cumulative firing. The minimum
duration of an OMS engine firing is 2 seconds."

"The virus did make it onto more than one laptop -- suggesting that it spread via some sort of intranet on the space station or via a thumb drive"

"The International Space Station has no direct internet access, but astronauts can send and receive mail though a KU band data link also used for data and video transfer, according to Humphries"

'That means the space station laptops are not connected to the net, according to Humphries'

"Everything is scanned before it goes up, so it's an indirect connection," Humphries said.

What exactly is scanned, what form does the scanning take, how technically does scanning make it an indirect connection. If it's an indirect connection then why the need for scanning ..

"The Ku-band system is the primary return link for International Space Station (ISS) video and payload data transmitted in digital format to the ground ..

.. Like the S-band system, the Ku-band system does not inspect the data passing through it.

--

I'm terribly sorry chaps, but speculation from slashdot readers don't count .. :)

Thanks! You got to it before I did :) Here's some more items:

1) NASA has known about this at least as early as 1980, *before* the first shuttle flew. The computers onboard the shuttle are IBM AP101Ss with 64K of RAM and capable of a blindingly fast 1.2 million operations per second. Remember overlays from your DOS days? They are used extensively (major mission modes). Every *bit* of RAM is accounted for.

2) I haven't seen any FMEA/FMECA (Failure Modes Effects Criticality Analysis) posts here on Slashdot yet that would justify the change. Even if you decide to go through with it, you are going to be going through about 10 layers of meetings and reviews (or so it would seem). Not to mention the extensive regression testing that needs to occur. This is safety-critical stuff (i.e. you mess up, it doesn't get caught, someone is going to die). You don't make any changes unless you are able to come up with an overriding compelling reason. It's THAT simple.

3) Work-around procedures are in place and have been in place for quite a while. The crew of STS-116 have successfully trained and run the procedures. This is NOT a big deal.

If you want some reading material on the computers onboard the shuttle have a look at the DPS (Data Processing System) section of the Shuttle Crew Operations Manual(highly recommended) as well as NASA publication SP-504 Space Shuttle Avionics System

The ATV will be used for reboost

This seems to suggest (last paragraph) that ATV and Progress is used for the reboost. However this mentions a "ISS reboost if adequate propellant" in 2001

The space shuttle has a landing weight of 198,909 lbs, which is almost 100 tons. (source Shuttle press kit). This is not a big deal.

I also doubt a single beam actually cost 600 million.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-02d.html

[In passing I note Space Daily is about as reliable as the wind.]

I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I am an engineer. I'm an engineer who believes in redundant systems and simple solutions over "space hardened" systems.

There are lots of examples of guys building working systems on shoestring budgets that last well beyond their engineered lifetimes. Check out http://www.hypocrites.com/article2897.html for just one example.

I find it interesting that NASA always talks about how they fly the most complex systems in the world, yet somehow its the Russians with their 40 year old designs that have the most reliable systems.

Who precisely is safer and more reliable?

For whatever it's worth, a 1985 mission (also by Challenger) suffered a mid-ascent center-engine failure which resulted in a lower-than-expected orbit. Not every engine failure results in a catastrophic loss. There have also been a number of launchpad aborts after the main engines have started but before the SRBs ignited.

What was the reason for using my money to send him into space again-to study the effects of weightlessness and the elderly? That seems like a useful study at this point in our space program.

I don't know, but is landing the space shuttle with more weight a good idea?

Sometimes the shuttle bay is filled with things when it comes down, but the hubble is quite a peice of metal. How does it compare to other things it has landed with.

You are absolutely correct, I should be quoting exact numbers instead of off-the-top-of-my-head estimates. So check out the Shuttle Press Kit site for details....

The Russians have launched two major components of the Space Station - the Zarya at 44,000 pounds and the Zvezda at 42,000 pounds, both on expendable Proton boosters. Total Russian contribution - 86,000 pounds.

The major US hardware contributions delivered to Space Station were the Unity Node on STS-88 at 25,600 pounds and the Destiny lab module on STS-98 at 31,000 pounds. This is 13 tons and 15.5 tons respectively which is above my estimate of 10 tons but well below yours of 17-20 tons. And remember, these CONSTRUCTION flights carried minimal crew, no docking adapter or airlock, and were streamlined one-time run-the-SSMEs-at-109%-to get-the-job-done-and-cross-your-fingers missions.

The majority of the Maintenance / Logistics / Crew Transfer flights like STS-96, 101, 102, 106 etc. and the ones planned from now on carry a lot LESS than 10 tons to the Space Station - it's probably closer to 2 tons delivered. That's because NOW when the Shuttle goes to the Space Station it's carrying CREW that has to be transferred and that means they have to launch with the airlock and docking adapter and associated support cradles in the payload bay that STAY in the payload bay and eventually land back on the runway. There's a Space Shuttle, and there's a Space Shuttle outfitted to run a Space Station mission. Those are two different birds. The latter is MUCH heavier (in fact, Columbia the oldest shuttle is too heavy to do this and has never been to Space Station) and the extra crap in the Payload Bay to run a Space Station mission comes RIGHT OFF THE TOP of deliverable payload weight to the space station.

The sad tale is all right there in the Shuttle Press Kits. Ignore the hype, just look at the numbers and use a calculator....

The image does not appear to have anything in it to convey a sense of scale, so you could be right and they might be Imac-sized. Still, the article said "desk-sized", so that's what I'll trust.

Here is a link to the mission plan for STS-99, for example.

Check out this on-board experiment:
ON-ORBIT DETAILED TEST OBJECTIVES (DTOs)
URINE COLLECTION DEVICE (DTO 690)
The purpose of this DTO is to evaluate the fit of several sizes/types of manual Urine Collection Devices (UCDs) and their adapters (anatomical interface) in microgravity; evaluate the capability of the adapter and valve design to accommodate urine flow with minimal leakage; and evaluate hygienic aspects of the UCD design with respect to minimizing urine remaining in or around the adapter which could potentially get loose into the cabin. This accomplishment will also increase the accuracy of science measurements of total urine volume within the bag. This DTO will also evaluate the user-friendliness of urine collection operations, and (Lower Priority) evaluate techniques for returning urine to the Waste Collection System (WCS).

Here is a link to the mission plan for STS-99, for example.

Check out this on-board experiment:
ON-ORBIT DETAILED TEST OBJECTIVES (DTOs)
URINE COLLECTION DEVICE (DTO 690)
The purpose of this DTO is to evaluate the fit of several sizes/types of manual Urine Collection Devices (UCDs) and their adapters (anatomical interface) in microgravity; evaluate the capability of the adapter and valve design to accommodate urine flow with minimal leakage; and evaluate hygienic aspects of the UCD design with respect to minimizing urine remaining in or around the adapter which could potentially get loose into the cabin. This accomplishment will also increase the accuracy of science measurements of total urine volume within the bag. This DTO will also evaluate the user-friendliness of urine collection operations, and (Lower Priority) evaluate techniques for returning urine to the Waste Collection System (WCS).

evilone wrote:
I am aware that CDs and DVDs have very little mass compared with the rest of the station, but what effect would these discs have on the station when they start and stop spinning? Could the usage of discs onboard the station require thrusters to compensate for them?

Good novice question. Anything spinning acts as a kind of gyroscope, but you should realize that for the most part that gyroscope works to conserve angular momentum. Pick up a spinning box fan and turn it, you'll see what I mean. There are actually many small fans aboard the ISS, not to mention computer disc drives, so that gives you an idea of how serious an issue this is.

For comparison, check out the Control Moment Gyroscopes that are installed on the ISS and used for stabilization and attitude control. They're huge and will dwarf any effects of something like a DVD player. They'll be activated after the Destiny lab goes online. In the meantime, the Zvezda and Zarya modules each have their own smaller gyroscopes.

Incidentally, the gyroscopes are more important for attitude control than thrusters. Rather than constantly firing in different directions, where you're fighting your own efforts, the gyroscope stabilizes the station and makes it harder for it to get out of control where thrusters would be required.
----

NASA's got a nice shuttle web site with updates during the mission (STS-92). There's also the mission press kit with all and more than you wanted to know.

• Officia l NASA press release
• Boeing's ISS page
• ISS teleconference
• NASA Spacelink
• CNN special feature
• Congress' ISS Authorization Act
• Zvezda statistics
• Discovery Channel coverage
• Unofficial ISS Users' Guide
• NASA press kit
• Yaho o! ISS directory

- vl

This page has links to many of the systems, most of which are computer controlled, aboard the aircraft.

As to what software it's running... it's software version OI-27. (According to the specs)

Now, I don't know exactly what it means.. but oh well. Maybe they just loaded one of the crays on there.. hehe.

256k lbs, according to this. Or is that just the rocket they're using to move it.?

and to all the people who said it's easier to move something in space, the answer is NO. The object is very massive, and is already moving in an incorrect direction at high speed. So the work involved is not in "moving" the object, but rather in changing it's inertia: The thrust must be in such a direction and force that the average of the of the way it was going and the thrust of the rocket is equal to the direction and speed you want it to go.

A lot of posters are saying the previous computer was i386 based. I didn't design or build it, but the NASA page states that the previous computer was designed in the late 1970s and was it was difficult and expensive to maintain the original software. It does have a i386-based coprocessor that was added at a later date.

The press release states that the new computer allows the use of a more modern programming language. Presumably, they are using something like VxWorks for the OS?

Does anyone recognize the name of the old computer mentioned on the link, or know anymore details about the old (or new) computer? I wish NASA would be more open with details -- the average slashdotter knows more about his mobo than NASA is telling us about the hubble's brains!

yes, the moderators did you in.

yet another LinuxOne story. oh well, hopefully the word will get out and damage to the name "Linux" will be minimized. Not that the "MassLinux" debacle helped any. IMHO, Corel's "Debian"-based distro is helping Linux the most.

here is a link to a few details of the new $7 million "money saving, commercial technology" i486-based brain for the hubble.

No mention of the OS or programming language, other than a "modern" programming language was used for development. COBOL perhaps?

Hubble's new brain