Slashdot Mirror
NASA Engineers Question ISS Safety
Atryn writes "New Scientist is reporting concerns over deteriorating equipment on ISS. ISS will celebrate another anniversary on Nov 2 marking its 3rd complete year. This story was also covered on CNN International and covered on Space.com."
Too bad there isn't enough interest in space research anymore. Everybody is too focused on their lattes and PDAs. You gotta look UP people! Where do you think Velcro came from?
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
The Washington Post reported Thursday, however, that two officials overseeing health and environmental conditions on the space station didn't sign off on the launch, instead signing a dissent that warned about ``the continued degradation'' of the environmental monitoring and health maintenance systems and exercise equipment vital to the astronauts' well being.
Shouldnt these people _have_ to agree that it's safe in order for it to keep operating? They, after all, are the "officials overseeing health and environmental conditions". Who has to say 'yes' or 'no' and have it mean something?
The next time something goes wrong no body wants to be the engineer who didn't warn management. Look far a lot more of these announcements of engineers predicting bad things, just in case.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
There is believed to be tension within NASA between safety experts who fear the ISS is becoming dangerously dilapidated and astronauts and managers who do not want to leave the outpost unmanned for fear it could become vulnerable to an accident that would make it spiral out of control.
Space travel is generally acknowledged to be risky. The astronauts are certainly aware of this. NASA should do all they can to repair the ISS, but it makes no sense to jettison a project that cost tens of billions of dollars (not to mention millions of man-hours) simply because the risk levels have increased.
Change in manufacturing practices around the world. Now, instead of builting things to last forever and a day (including a nuclear explosion), things are being built to look damn nice, but fail after a "reasonable" amount of time so that people will buy more stuff. There's no reason why this mentaility wouldn't effect the NASA contractors.
Space for rent, inquire within
Mir space station was designed to be used for 5 years, but it lasted 15 years.
It seems that NASA safety is problem here.
*Any* complex machinery/construction/whatever is going to need maintenance over time. What I find irritating isn't so much that NASA thinks pieces need to be replaced, but the public's reaction to such news. "What?!? You want more of my money to *repair* the darn thing before it is done being built?"
Just because it is in space things doesn't mean things won't wear out. This isn't the Star Trek Universe.
Although, it should be interesting to see how the need for maintenance will affect the development of the spacestation. Sometimes it seems like it was projected based purely on a "best-case" scenario (ie, everything works right the first time and works right until all the work is done).
I'd like to see how this impacts projected missions to the ISS... if they don't step up the number (of missions), will this lead to an escalating decay in productivity (ie, every flight will be just to bring repair parts for what has been built already?).
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
I'd say we're getting our money's worth out of this thing....
Between the 2 guys, they can barely keep the thing operational, let alone do anything of value. We are learning nothing except that we suck at living in space. Abandon ship.
Where's the leadership in congress, the executive branch, NASA, or the scientific community? Who's gonna step up? All are capable. All are too busy with self-congratulations and ass-covering.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
ok, so they are easily replaced right? It's like the Confined space atmosphere detectors and I can remove the old sensors and replace them with new ones in 5 minutes by releasing 2 snaps and pulling.
If the ISS's sensors cant be replaced easily in 20 minutes and have the replacement sent up in the pocket of the mission specalist then the NASA engineers need to be beaten with very large sticks.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The following extract from the Columbia report speaks volumes for sort of politically expedient trash which is allowed to "Administer" this once great institution:( cf.Section 5.8 p117)
"Testifying the same day,Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director Sean O'Keefe indicated the Administration's agreement with the planned performance gate:
The concept presented by the task force of a decision gate in two years that could lead to an end state other than the U.S.core complete Station is an innovative approach,and one the Administration will adopt.It calls for NASA to make the necessary management reforms to
successfully build the core complete Station and operate it within the $8.3 billion available through FY 2006 plus other human space flight resources. If NASA fails to meet the standards, then an end-state beyond core complete is not an option.The strategy places the burden of proof on NASA performance to ensure that NASA fully implements the needed reforms.
Mr.O'Keefe added in closing:
A most important next step -one on which the success of all these reforms hinges is to provide new leadership for NASA and its Human Space Flight activities. NASA has been well-served by Dan Goldin. New leadership is now necessary to continue moving the ball down the field with the goal line in sight.The Administration recognizes the importance of getting the right leaders in
place as soon as possible,and I am personally engaged in making sure that this happens.
A week later,Sean O'Keefe was nominated by President Bush as the new NASA Administrator." End of extract
Pretty simple, I'd guess. Look up any information on MIG-25 development. Shortages of titanium led them to basically rivet the thing together out of steel plates; the air-to-air radar was powered by a bunch of massive vacuum tubes.
Remember the story of how the US spent $5 million to develop a space pen, which would work in vacuum, under water, in massive heat, etc? (The Fisher space pen, I have one, they're pretty nifty)
The tale goes, the Russians brought a pencil. Different design philosophies. I've been inside a reconstruction of MIR--the thing's pretty massive,
and you definitely get the feeling that some of the engineers had a blacksmithing background...
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
We have all the science from ISS we will ever need- prolonged exposure to zero-G environments is toxic. None of the other science promised in the 80s is worth pursuing in zero-G anymore - computer simulations of the effects of zero G are cheaper and more useful. No we won't be developing advanced circuit manufacturing techniques in space, or radical drugs.
ISS is a drain on NASA that is diverting funds from the newfound darling of research - unmanned drones. If a person was to crash on Mars, collect a soil sample, then die, it would be a $500 billion failure. For an unmanned drone it is a $500 million success.
Just let it go NASA, it was never anything more than a pork project.
If a NASA shuttle blows up, they just have a public enquiry. If an X-Prize rocket blows up, the team loses all their bragging rights. Hey, that's a lot of incentive.
For those who've followed my previous posts on space travel, I have always contended that amateur and semi-professional ventures will ALWAYS out-pace both the commercial and Government sectors.
This is what we're seeing. The ESA, the Russians and the Chinese are mostly into commercial space work. The ESA is only just about at the moon, and there's no evidence any of them are interested in going further. This after two decades of effort by all concerned.
At the Government/National/International level, everything is either dead, dying or very likely to start dying in the near future. This, after over three decades of effort by all concerned.
The X-Prize contestents have not seriously been working on any large-scale rocketry, with the exception of the Australian OzRoc team. The UK's Starchaser group looks promising, but until they started into the X-Prize, they were not doing much beyond high-altitude rocketry for photography and other basic commercial work.
The serious amateur work has been done in the past three to four years. In that time, amateurs have gone from sending up cameras to being within a year of sending 3-man crews into space. The Chinese only managed a single man crew, in decades of work at space research.
I really and truly believe that by 2100, the aerospace engineers working -on- Mars will be the philosophical descendents of people like Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox.
Those working on putting pop-up ads into Mars orbit will be the commercial sector. (Apart from those putting pop-up ads into Earth orbit.)
Those working on a white paper speculating on the number of votes the last accident cost the President or Prime Minister will be employed by the Government.
The bottom line is this. Rocks in space aren't on the electoral register and don't have money to spend. Until someone gets there first and creates a reason for others to follow, they won't. This has always been true in exploration. Geeks Lead, Leaders Follow.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)