Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

International Space Station Gyroscope Fails

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the tipsy-heavenly-bodies dept.

b00m3rang writes "Reuters reports that one of the three working gyroscopes that keep the international space station stable and in the right position stopped working, just hours after a new two-man crew moved in for a half-year stay."

19 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. Huston we have a problem! by dawg+ball · · Score: 5, Funny

    Which way is up?

    --
    The Erogenous Zone
  2. Sensationalism... by Inominate · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article clearly states that ONE of three failed. The story posted makes it sound like the ISS is now starting to spin out of control.

    1. Re:Sensationalism... by Alter+Relationship · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's "one of the remaining three". There were 4 to begin with.
      (yes, I know, I must be new here cos' I RTFA :-)

    2. Re:Sensationalism... by Morham · · Score: 5, Informative
      The article clearly states that ONE of three failed. The story posted makes it sound like the ISS is now starting to spin out of control.
      The article clearly states.
      The station originally had four gyroscopes, but one of them failed two years ago. It was to have been repaired last year, but the shuttle Columbia accident grounded the three remaining shuttles and postponed that repair.
    3. Re:Sensationalism... by hasdikarlsam · · Score: 5, Informative

      ----
      The first gyroscope broke two years ago as a result of a bearing failure. Two more are still operating -- the minimum required -- but one has exhibited power surges and vibrations over the past year. If another gyroscope breaks, thrusters on the docked Russian capsule and the station would have to assume control over the massive orbiting structure for as long as a year.
      ----

      Rather, the thrusters *could* assume control over the ISS for up to a year; the repairs are in fact likely to be made a long time before that, never mind that there is currently no need for thrusters.

    4. Re:Sensationalism... by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "No but it is following the media trend of making the ISS out to be a money pit that is plagued with problems"

      ISS _is_ a money pit that is plagued with problems, and serves no useful purpose that can justify its cost. It should have been scrapped years ago, before it was even launched.

    5. Re:Sensationalism... by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Its almost like there is a sense of schadenfreude in seeing such ambitious projects having setbacks.

      Remember how we all pointed and laughed when Mir got into trouble? Accident after accident befell the Russians and we made fun of their rickety old obsolete hardware.

      This isn't schadenfreude. It's karma.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    6. Re:Sensationalism... by JosKarith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That kind of thinking is along the lines of the old joke about the airplane that had it's engines fail one by one, with the captain announcing that they're going to be delayed by another hour with each failure, and somebody saying when they're down to 1 engine "I hope that the last one doesn't fail or we're gonna be up here forever"
      Fail-over and redundant systems are neccessary in a situation like this where any mistake can result in impressive accident. To limp on on 3 gyros for so long is faulty thinking, and goes to show just how badly the cutbacks are affecting space exploration.
      Unfortunately it's very difficult to drum up support for what looks like a purely scientific venture when unemployment is rising and so many other projects urgently demand resources.
      What we need is a proper international effort, free of political grandstanding and nationalism.
      Like that's ever gonna happen. Maybe humanity needs to grow up a bit first before trying to climb out of it's crib.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    7. Re:Sensationalism... by steve.m · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. If another one fails they switch over to thruster orientation by the Russian built modules (the FGB and SM). These consume fuel, but that's resupplied by progress flights.

  3. just a spacewalk by qewl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All they need to do is a spacewalk out and restart it.

    He stressed, however, "We're not dealing with a safety issue," and added it would take several weeks to determine when to schedule the spacewalk.

    There are two gyroscopes still functioning, and that is enough to stabilize the station, Suffredini said. If one of these remaining gyroscopes fails, the station will rely on thrusters to keep it steady.

    Too bad they can't do that for Hubble too.

    --

    (\_/)
    (O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
    1. Re:just a spacewalk by angusr · · Score: 5, Interesting
      "There are two gyroscopes still functioning, and that is enough to stabilize the station, Suffredini said. If one of these remaining gyroscopes fails, the station will rely on thrusters to keep it steady."

      Too bad they can't do that for Hubble too.

      No thrusters on Hubble, of course.

      It wouldn't work for Hubble anyway - thrusters are a fairly coarse method of control, resulting it lots of banging and vibration. While on the ISS that would be fine (although some mu-g experiments would probably be upset) on Hubble it would render it unusable until the vibrations have died down after every thrust. Plus, of course, while observations take place they couldn't use the thrusters - and hence the lack of control is going to make those observations pretty hopeless anyway.

      If the robot mission to attach a gyro pack to Hubble goes ahead (which I hope it does) then it is likely to have thrusters on it - however, I would suspect that they're not for day-to-day control but to control Hubble when it's re-entered.

    2. Re:just a spacewalk by kzinti · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because you don't "just do" an EVA. Putting on a suit and going outside the station requires a lot of planning. You have to have the right time of the crew's daily cycle. You have to have the right ground personnel available to support the EVA. You have to schedule it for a time when you have sufficient TDRS (ground relay satellite) time available to cover the entire EVA. You maybe have to find a time when the station will be in the right attitude with respect to the Sun for the right amount of time, due to heating/cooling issues with the suit and perhaps (?) lighting issues with the area to be serviced. (And if the station has to be oriented a certain way, that might affect the amount of time the downlink antennas can be pointed in the general direction of the TDRS satellite.) Most importantly, the ground controllers have to draw up a complete step-by-step plan of the EVA, and the crew has to have time to study it. Take all that into account, and add the fact that the crew's every minute is planned days or
      weeks in advance, and you can see how it just takes some time to put together everything it takes to do an EVA. Going outside the vehicle is a risky activity. Extreme care is taken in its planning and execution, and rightly so.
      In a life-threatening emergency, like a sudden rapid depressurization, the plan probably calls for the crew to board the "rescue vehicle" (a Soyuz that stays docked at the station), undock, and deorbit.

      (Disclaimer: I don't work in the ISS program, but I have a general - read: vague - idea of how EVA works in the shuttle program. Consider the above to be an educated guess - but correct in spirit.)

  4. Is it just me? by Zakabog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or is this picture a little creepy? The american astronaut looks like a serial killer or something and the russian looks like he's afraid because the american looks like a killer...

    1. Re:Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That photo is faked. The astronauts are most certainly not floating in space with the ISS behind them. I expect better from NASA.

  5. FUD! by Docrates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reuters reports that the gyroscope that keeps the international space station stable and in the right position stopped working, just hours after a new two-man crew moved in for a half-year stay."

    Did you phrase it that way because you're a professional reporter and are used to getting paid to scare people into buying the crap you write, or are you just being a troll?

    The article (and common sense) state that there's redundant functionalirty involved, i.e., there are two gyroscopes left that can handle the load and if that fails they can still keep it going with thrusters for over 6 months.

    --

    There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
  6. Re:I shouldn't laugh... by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny
    I wonder why they would place the circuit breakers outside the space station. If those ciruit breakers are like anything in my house, they go out all the time.

    I think it's a pretty good bet the circuit breakers on the International Space Station are absolutely nothing like the ones in your house.

    --
    Everything seemed to be going so nice
    'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
  7. I just have to do it.... by arduous · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, spacestation rotates you!!

    --
    "It's the smell! If there is such a thing." Agent Smith - The Matrix
  8. Re:How do these things work? by AlecC · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ever tried to twist a gyroscope? You can use them in two ways: if you don't try to push them, they stay oriented the same way so yo have a directional reference. But if you ty to move, they "push" back. This gives you something to "push against" in order to twist yourself in space. You don't need to spend expensive reaction mass hauled up from earth, you just use electricity from your solar cells, and you get a much smoother and more accurate control than thrusters.

    However, a single gyro can only handle positioning about two axes - you can rotate it about its spin axus as much as you like. So for three axis rotational stabilisation you need at least two gyros at 90 degrees to each other.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  9. If you're wondering how a gyroscope works by trystanu · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you're wondering how a gyroscope works and what it does:

    How stuff works has a nice article.

    Nasa's also got a page about how they're used in space shuttles