ISS Spacewalk Cut Short

RobertB-DC writes "The spacewalk that was intended to replace a balky power supply ended almost before it started, according to Spaceflight Now's Mission Status Center play-by-play. The Russian Orlan spacesuit worn by US astronaut Mike Fincke developed a problem with its oxygen supply (!), forcing both spacewalkers back to the airlock after less than 15 minutes. Mission control and the ISS crew are still debating what to do next."

Comments

Oh well

[Joceyln Parfitt]

too bad, I was really looking foward to this, especially after delay upon delay. Guess they need to doublecheck their equipment next time.

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be a stupid question but ... This space walk is to replace a faulty circuit breaker right? Is it just me, or would it not be much smarter to put the circuit breakers on the INSIDE of the station? I mean, Isn't this a bit like putting the fuse box on the roof of your house?

Re:Oh well

[joeljkp]

My guess is that the ISS is cramped as it is, so they put it on the outside to save space, figuring if it ever broke, an EVA would be worth it.

Maybe it had a fire risk, too.

Re:Oh well

[Rei]

One of the most astute questions I've ever seen posted by an AC :)

Not only is it like putting your fuse box on the roof of your house, it's like putting your fuse box on the roof of your house, and instead of getting a ladder to go up to fix it, you're given a trampoline. ;) Space isn't friendly, even with space suits.

Re:Oh well

[DerekLyons]

This may be a stupid question but ... This space walk is to replace a faulty circuit breaker right? Is it just me, or would it not be much smarter to put the circuit breakers on the INSIDE of the station? I mean, Isn't this a bit like putting the fuse box on the roof of your house?

There are two problems with that idea;

• There is only so much room inside the station, putting more stuff inside not only means more cramped quarters it also means more cables going through the pressure hull. (As it stands one cable supplies multiple circuit breakers.)
  
  
• It's common electrical practice to put protective devices as close as possible to the item being protected. (This prevents problems from developing in the wiring between the device and breaker and damaging the device.)

Like so much else, it's a tradeoff and what is best is not always what is simplest or easist.

Re:Oh well

[LinuxTek]

I would imagine (IANA NASA Engineer) that the fact that circuit breakers may produce a spark when going off is a risky thing to have in a highly O2 concentrated area.

If a circuit breaker goes out in vacum, there's no harm done.

Re:Oh well

[darkmeridian]

Not only is it like putting your fuse box on the roof of your house, it's like putting your fuse box on the roof of your house, and instead of getting a ladder to go up to fix it, you're given a trampoline. ;) Space isn't friendly, even with space suits.

Actually, it's more like putting the fuse box on the roof of your house and it's always raining hail and acid smog.

Re:Oh well

[ISPpfy]

I don't think the ISS is a high-oxygen environment. I'm pretty sure that the pure O2 thing ended with the Shuttle - they decided to go with the (then)Soviet idea of just using fairly normal air.

Re:Oh well

[NateTech]

The "pure O2 thing" ended with Apollo 1 and the death of three astronauts.

Yo Quiero

[swordboy]

I betcha that they had Taco Bell the previous night. That always wreaks havok with my oxygen supply.

The answer is simple...

[Animaether]

Just patch the leak with putty!
NASA: Astronauts to get putty for small holes

Though I have to question these NASA budgetcuts.. AstroPutty

Re:The answer is simple...

[maxbang]

Strange...I connected to the suit via putty, was prompted for a login, entered 'root' and was able to login with no password. Seems like a pretty big security....hole!?! Ha! Thank you, I'll be here all week. In the dumpster. Eating your waste.

Re:The answer is simple...

[Rei]

*sigh*

The real problem is that they're using cryogenic fuel.

Seriously, NASA: LOX/LH was a great idea on the drawing board. But it costs a fortune to maintain and is incredibly dangerous. At *least* make future craft LOX/Methane. Will it kill you to lose the 50 or so ISP in exchange for not needing a 20 degrees kelvin fuel that requires quite large and dangerous tanks? You'd lighten up And instead of methane, if you can use propane, that gets even safer and denser, and the ISP cut still isn't that bad. LOX/subcooled propane is a great fuel for "cryogenic, but not too cold, bulky, or dangerous" operation.

Of course, I still think that spacecraft should be *towed* out of the atmosphere and fueled midair by a line attached to the towing craft at takeoff, combining the best aspects of Rutan's "carrier" design and the "Black Horse" design.. but what do I know? :)

Re:The answer is simple...

[David Horn]

Wouldn't it be easier for him to just hold his breath?

Re:The answer is simple...

[DerekLyons]

Of course, I still think that spacecraft should be *towed* out of the atmosphere and fueled midair by a line attached to the towing craft at takeoff, combining the best aspects of Rutan's "carrier" design and the "Black Horse" design.. but what do I know? :)

You don;t know much really. :)

The problem is that you cannot escape building a large carrier aircraft if you intend to put a significant payload into orbit via air launch. Your solution increases upfront and operational costs (by requiring an additional aircraft), decreases safety (by requiring a dangerous air-to-air refueling), and decreases reliability (by requiring three craft vice two). In the end rather than developing one complex, large, and expensive carrier craft, you require the development of two very different complex etc. aircraft.

Rutan's scheme is an excellent point solution for suborbital flight and small payloads, but it doesn't scale.

Re:The answer is simple...

[Rei]

Who is talking about aircraft carriers here? Or do you mean the towing aircraft? I'l operate on that assumption.

The proposed solution increases upfront and operational cost by the cost of one commercial aircraft, its operation, and maintinance. Compared to the cost of operatining, maintaining, and purchasing a spacecraft, the cost of operating, maintaining, and purchasing a conventional, mass-produced aircraft is trivial. You completely replace the lower stage.

Air to air refuelings have been done far, far more often than spacecraft launches in general, and are far, far safer. The proposal is even simpler than a standard air-to-air refueling, since the craft being towed needs not maneuver at all - it is already connected. Compared to the rate of failure of first rocket launch stages (what is being replaced), there's no contest at all.

Is that all of the arguments that you have? If so, you've failed completely. Need I go into the advantages?

The modifications needed to the towing aircraft are incredibly minimal - attach cables to the airframe, and attach the propellant tanks and cables. Depending on the size of payload you want to launch, you have many aircraft options; if the Black Horse study is a guideline for how much payload you need it to carry, and increasing the power needed for towing, the sort of craft that you'd need could be purchased on the order of 20-30 million dollars new (far, far cheaper than most lower stages).

Not only do you get towed, but you lighten the craft from most HTO/HL designs in the same manner as Black Horse, by eliminating the need for heavy landing gear. You further lighten it and simplify it from Black Horse by not requiring the craft to have engines of its own, nor to have to dock with the airplane for refueling. The only downside in comparison to Black Horse is that you need a more powerful jet for fueling/towing (which is still a trivial expense, since such jets are mass-produced, and black horse simply moves the burden to the spacecraft). You also get the same safety benefit of avoiding a rocket lower stage.

The obvious advantages it gets over the SpaceShipOne/White Knight design are the lack of a need for a custom-designed carrier (or the extreme modification/reinforcement of an existing one to be able to hold such a heavy load), and much easier separation operation. Apart from that, the two are pretty much identical in terms of benefits/requirements.

All in all, you get a very light craft to orbit without an expensive lower stage and very simple operation. What do you raise to challenge this?

Re:The answer is simple...

[Rei]

Hmm, actually on the issue of "further lightening it from Black Horse" by not requiring engines, I just realized that I was really thinking of Black Colt at that point (a Black Horse variant). The original Black Horse design burns its rocket engine during ascent, to refueling altitude.

Of course, that gives a towed design further advantages over Black Horse, since the refueling craft in Black Horse only can transfer 82% of the propellant that it carries to the spacecraft due to burning the atmospherically inefficient rocket engine during refueling, and the spacecraft must start with some fuel/oxidant on the ground.

Re:The answer is simple...

[DerekLyons]

The proposed solution increases upfront and operational cost by the cost of one commercial aircraft, its operation, and maintinance.

Not any commercial aircraft currently existing.

The modifications needed to the towing aircraft are incredibly minimal - attach cables to the airframe, and attach the propellant tanks and cables.

You left out; reinforce the airframe to take the point load of the tow cable and modify the airframe to handle the load of the droppable propellant tank. (Not to mention adding the piping for the propellant.) None of these trivial, none of these simple.

Not only do you get towed, but you lighten the craft from most HTO/HL designs in the same manner as Black Horse, by eliminating the need for heavy landing gear.

Nope. You only get to eliminate heavy landing gear by eliminating landing.

Compared to the rate of failure of first rocket launch stages (what is being replaced), there's no contest at all.

Yes, it's hard to have a contest when both subjects (air-to-air refueling and rocket first stages) have trivially small failure rates. However, I would like to point out the failure mode(s) you add; failure of the tow cable, failure of the fueling system, and failure of the droppable pod.

You also have failed to consider what happens if the towing aircraft suffers engine loss on takeoff.

All in all, you get a very light craft to orbit without an expensive lower stage and very simple operation. What do you raise to challenge this?

A light craft? You've done nothing to significantly reduce it's weight. You still have the rocket engines and the associated tankage. By eliminating the jets (on the towed craft) you've removed the go-around ability and forced into a one-shot must land glider. You haven't simplified operations to a significant degree, just eliminated one docking.

Your plan has all the hallmarks of being created by an armchair zealot; you consider nothing but the advantages and fail to realize the complexities inherent in your scheme ('everything is simple'.)

Re:The answer is simple...

[Rei]

Droppable propellant tank? Why drop it? You simply need the tank in the towing aircraft. You put it inside the aircraft's body. Any unskilled laborer can do this. Even fedex moves things this big in aircraft every day, let alone the US military (which moves things many times its size). It's no big deal whatsoever. It takes off with the tank. It lands with the tank. The tank doesn't go anywhere. It just sits. Are you going to try and claim that this is somehow complex?

You don't need to reinforce the airframe; towing assemblies are neither rare nor complex nor expensive nor difficult to install. I don't know where you got the idea that they were.

As for the landing gear, what are you talking about? First, I have to wonder whether you even know what Black Horse is, since you seem to have a lot of misconceptions. Please read up on the Black Horse proposal first.

Let me give you a clue: Landing gear mass is in general proportional to the mass of the SSTO on takeoff. If you have the spacecraft fully fueled on takeoff, it requires far, far more massive landing gear than if it is empty on takeoff. Many other aspects of aircraft design become lighter and simpler if you can lower takeoff mass. As the wet weight of a spaceship is quite significant, you're talking some serious mass savings. Apparently you were unaware of this.

Failure of a tow cable or failure of the fuel system or loss of an engine mean that the dry-weight spacecraft detaches and easily glides back to the runway. Oooooooh. Scary. What, exactly, is difficult about this? What, exactly, is dangerous about this? And there *is* no droppable pod. You're talking about a glider and a commercial transport craft. Nothing is complex about that. Nothing is hard to engineer about that. Nothing is expensive about that. The hardest and most expensive elements are the usual spacecraft design, development, and testing issues, which come with every space program.

Trivially small? Tell that to the crew of the Challenger. Tell that to about a dozen cosmonauts. Tell that to hundreds of companies which have lost payloads due to first stage failures (such as 2/3 of Ariane-5's failures in its mere 18 launches). I'm starting to wonder if you're just trolling, if you think that the failure rate of almost any rockets out there is "trivially" low (or if you also think that rockets have even remotely the energy efficiency or cost of operation as air breathing engines, the other important issues here).

As for "a light craft?", you really need to read the calculations conducted in the Black Horse study. The midair fueling cuts a huge amount off the dry mass of the spacecraft, which makes even low impulse fuels feasable. Compare Black Horse to RASV, for example. The only serious complaint you made about there is the unpowered landing - but that's the norm for spacecraft, so it's a non-issue (few proposals even suggest powered landing; one notable exception that comes to mind is Black Colt).

Can you raise *any* realistic complaints? Seriously? Or are you just going to complain about a hybrid of two programs for which you've never read about one, and have only seen news releases for the other?

What I proposed is hardly even revolutionary; it is based on one proven concept (the carrier concept, such as Rutan's, and the regularly employed Pegasus missile - did you even know that Rutan's design, which you said can't scale, is *already is in wide use* for commercial applications?) and a study commissioned by someone who is hardly an outsider to the aerospace industry (Cpt. Mitchell Burnside Clapp - not to be confused with the singer. Has testified before congress several times about space programs and is generally considered an expert in the field). Heck, there's even a company working on another variant of it (Kelly Aerospace - their version has the fuel on the spacecraft from takeoff, however, so it is bulkier). In short, I find it almost laughable that you act like this is some sort of radical concept, when it isn't radical at all in the space industry.

And......

[Dr Reducto]

.......Cue Soviet Russia jokes.........NOW!

Re:And......

[jusdisgi]

Uh, space walks you?

Re:And......

[hyperlinx]

Is it possible the suits were made by M$ and this is only a undocumented feature?

Re:And......

[ghost4096]

1. What the difference betwen Capitalism asn Socialism: Captalism it's when one group of people exploits another group of people, in Socialism it's another way around.

2. Whats the diff between UA and USSR? In US the machines harvest potatoes and men harvest lunar rock manually. In USSR the men harvest potatoes manually and machines harvest lunar rock.

3. When designing equipement for astronauts NASA encountered a problem: The normal ball pens wouldn't write in space because of lack of gravity. They've spend 1M$ to design a SpacePen where the die is kept under pressure to keep it flowing in weightless environment. When Russian encounetered the same problem, their solution was to USE PENCILS...

Re:And......

[LooseChanj]

#3 there is an urban legend. Fisher spent their own money developing the "space pen". And the US did use pencils for a while. But the problem with pencils is that breathing graphite dust isn't the healthiest thing in the world.

Re:And......

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha! M$! You used a dollar sign instead of the letter S! You are a genius! Oh, that is so clever! Oh, I've never seen that before! M$! Hahahaha! Look! A dollar sign instead of an S! That means MicroSoft is in business to make money! Oh, the post-modern irony! M$! M$! Hahaha! Woot! M$! LOL! HAhaha! $uck it, Bill Gate$! Hahaha! LOL! Oh, that is so original! Hahahaha!

Re:And......

[Rei]

While #3 is an urban legend, there is some truth to it. A friend of mine used to be a translator for the US Army, because she spoke fluent Russian. In the 80s, she was selected to take part in one of those disarmament missions in which both sides agree to destroy so many of their missiles, and send inspectors over to ensure that they were destroyed. Of course, both sides destroy their old missiles that they didn't particularly want anyway, so it was really just a PR scheme, but that's besides the point.

The US teams were sent over with a (relatively) sophisticated laser measuring device. You affix it to a surface or mount it on a stand, aim it, and it will give you a digital readout of the distance to the target. They used this to determine if an area was large enough to contain a treaty-limited item, which meant that they were allowed to inspect there.

The Russians were very impressed with this. They sent their teams over with a different device. It was called a stick. ;) It was a piece of wood cut to the right length. If the stick fit, they could inspect.

She gave another example of this. Say you're pulled over in the US. They take your license, and bring it back to their car. There, they enter it into a computerized system that keeps track of the ticket, and then bring your license back to you.

In the USSR, they took your license. They punched a hole in it. If your license had too many holes, they arrested you. That was their system. :)

We often accused them of underengineering their products. They often accused us of overengineering our products. Both are probably quite true, and as someone who worked at a defense contractor in the past, I can personally vouch for the latter.

Re:And......

[hyperlinx]

I'm glad u got the joke, it was all meant to be funny, which is why i replied to a funny, thread; but at least i'm not an anonymou$ coward (oops, i did it again)....and yep MS is in the business of makin money, and as the consumer, I opt not to give them any of mine...ain't capitalism grand?

Re:And......

[ericspinder]

While #3 is an urban legend, there is some truth to it.

What truth, do you mean that even the Russians have found the fisher space pen useful?

She gave another example of this. Say you're pulled over in the US. They take your license, and bring it back to their car. There, they enter it into a computerized system that keeps track of the ticket, and then bring your license back to you.

So forging your own license is a quick way to clean your record? or better yet, misplacing it. The computerized system will tell much more than the "number of tickets", it tells if you have a valid license or if there is a warrant out for your arrest. Also just punching a hole in a DL is also a violiation of due process, in essense it would be a conviction of a traffic violation, without a proper court hearing. (I believe that that was a actual U.S. court ruling, but I have no idea where to find it)

They sent their teams over with a different device. It was called a stick.

That must have been one long stick, or the "inspectable size room" must have been particularly small ("Talk softly and carry a big stick", comes to mind). I would assume that the stick was broken up to smaller pieces which were screwed together for each and every room (I'm thinking Carpal Tunnel Syndrome). Why didn't they just use a tape measure? Most likely because they were trying to work around tables and desks and whatever else was in the rooms. I would suspect that the laser measuring system gave our inspectors quick accurate readings, which allowed them to move quickly and spend more time inspecting.

You're right, sometimes there is a simple solution to a problem, but just because it's simple doesn't make it the best answer, or even right for any situation. The Russians are an intelligent and inventive people, and have done the best that they can with a limited budget, often with good success, however I would not like to be in that position.

the spacewalk may have ended too soon

[surreal-maitland]

but the moonwalk will live on forever!

Re:Just remember

[dennison_uy]

that is, not unless you're in a Star Wars movie :P

Russian Spacesuits

[Mz6]

FWIW, I thought it was kind of interesting that these spcesuits are not able to carry jetpacks, like the US ones, should the tether break. Pretty risky if you know you don't have a back up if it breaks. Although it's even more risky not having air.

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[jusdisgi]

I don't know...the tether breaking sounds pretty unlikely; has it ever happened before? I mean, rock climbers don't carry jetpacks either....

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[azmatsci]

Teathers have never broken when connected to a astronaught-type in orbit. Satellites have done experiements with teathers before where those have broken but it was a completly different environment.

As for jet packs, the airlocks are not able to handle them. They would need to be mounted outside, but they would deteriorate, so they would need a locker.....and the problems keep mounting.

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[Mz6]

"I don't know...the tether breaking sounds pretty unlikely; has it ever happened before? I mean, rock climbers don't carry jetpacks either....

Yes, but the idea behind NASA is having backups for backups. Most times the astronauts rely on having those backups should something happen. I'm so sure it's a good feeling to tell an astronaut, "well, it's pretty unlikely". NO.. You back that system up and say system 1 is pretty unlikely that it might break, but if it does, here is system 2 to back it up.

Of course rock climbers don't carry jetpakcs. #1, they probably can't afford it and #2, there's no practical use for a rock climber to have it.

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[maxbang]

...there's no practical use for a rock climber to have it [jetpack].

Jetpacks, no. Jetboots, of course! How else will you rise up smugly from the surface to greet the cap?

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[dthable]

Of course rock climbers don't carry jetpakcs. #1, they probably can't afford it and #2, there's no practical use for a rock climber to have it.

Don't forget that it's not so much the straight fall that will kill you, it's bouncing around on the rocks on the way down.

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[the chao goes mu]

Isn't that a general rule for falls? It's not the fall that kills you, it's the landing.

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[jusdisgi]

No, when I say it sounds "pretty unlikely" I mean, "this thing can probably hold the whole goddamn shuttle up." I also mean, "I think it's highly unlikely that a tether has *ever* broken before, on any mission from any country."

And while I'm at it, there *would* be a use for a rock climber to have a jetpack, *if* there were any real chance that his rope would break. But there isn't. That's kind of my point.

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[fredrik70]

um , when NASA uses the jetpack, they usually got no tether. Where's the backup there?

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[joeljkp]

Well, the obvious solution wouldn't be jetpacks, it would be having two tethers instead of one. That seems like a pretty easy thing to do, anyway.

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[mindstrm]

- When Americans use jetpacks, they don't generally use a tether. It's not a backup.

- Tethers have NEVER broken, they are EXTREMELY strong.

- If there is no practical reason for a rock climber to have a tether.. why on earth would a spacewalker need one? Both will die if their tether breaks (the rock climber, a lot faster)

Backups for backups for backups is great.. but there is also increased risk with complexity.

You want a backup for a tether? How about.. 2 tethers!

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[virtual_mps]

um , when NASA uses the jetpack, they usually got no tether. Where's the backup there?

You're probably confusing the backup system (SAFER) with the MMU. The backup system is a small backpack, it's not the big flying chair you may be thinking of (which hasn't been used since the 80's IIRC.)

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[sunking2]

The MMU isn't used anymore do to safety concearns of the high pressure tanks having problems during shuttle lift offs. It actually hasn't been used for quite some time.

And tethers are much simpler to use, simpler to maintain, and more reliable. They just aren't quite as cool.

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[fatmonkeyboy]

Hell, in zero G...I could "hold the whole goddamn shuttle up".

The trick, of course, is figuring out which direction is up.

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[SEWilco]

Don't forget that it's not so much the straight fall that will kill you, it's bouncing around on the rocks on the way down.

Note to self: climb only sheer cliffs.

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[karstux]

Two tethers would also make it much easier to get entangled. I wouldn't want two long strings drift around me in a zero-g environment.

Besides, how would a tether break, unless hit by a micro-meteorite?

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[fredrik70]

yeah, was thinking of the chair thing. So they got another design? you got any links? would be interesting to check out!

Re:Russian Spacesuits

[Rich0]

Sounds like stiching your pants to a seat belt, and then fastening that using a bolt to a big metal structure.

If I get in a car and floor it away from the strucutre, probably all I will accomplish is tearing a hole in my pants.

And if that happens in space, you have much bigger problems than the fact that you are slowly drifting away from the station.

Really - if they just put a harness on with a kevlar rope, about the only thing that could break it would be a force that would turn an astronaut into a pile of goo...

Russian space suits...

[Shoeler]

Are widely regarded as rugged, tough suits. However, I understand they lack many of the safeguards that their American counterparts have. Anyone know if this is true or my bad recollection? I saw a show on the Discovery channel some time ago that compared the Russian and American space programs. It spoke of how the American program uses multiple redundant systems, while the russians favor rugged, proven gear. It also spoke of how the russians bettered their space program by launching many rockets, knowing their failure rate would be high, but learning from those failures. In comparison the American program launched fewer and did lots of R&D between them.

Personally I would want to be on the rocket that had a lower percentage of failure and thus would want the American space suit, but perhaps I'm biased. ;)

Re:Russian space suits...

[LooseChanj]

One has to wonder why the US suits haven't been used yet. Or the US airlock.

Re:Russian space suits...

[foidulus]

It also spoke of how the russians bettered their space program by launching many rockets, knowing their failure rate would be high, but learning from those failures. In comparison the American program launched fewer and did lots of R&D between them.
There was probably a reason for this during the cold war. While the American media isn't as free as we think it is, they still would have covered something as significant as a rocket launch. Thus if it failed, the Russians could easily find out. However, the Russians were better at keeping their media in check, so if rockets failed, it would be a lot harder for others to know.
Well, thats my take on it anyway

Re:Russian space suits...

[LooseChanj]

Rocket launches are fairly obvious things, especially to spy satellites.

Re:Russian space suits...

[Anonymous Coward]

The American suits have been used and are preferred for spacewalks (the US airlock recycles the air which is useful).

Unfortunately when they tested the US suits shortly after getting onboard they found problems (air bubbles in the cooling system IIRC) so they had to use the Russian equipment. This meant a much more dangerous/risky spacewalk but it was the only working kit they had.

Now it is a question of which kit they can fix/replace first.

Re:Russian space suits...

[Anonymous Coward]

This speaks to the difference between engineering approches in these two cultures. The US scientific culture has leaned towards lots of computational power to construct large models and simulations. Soviet scientific culture was more rooted in analytical solutions, not using computers as their American counterparts much for numerical solutions. This can be easily observed in my field by reading US and Soviet research papers from the 60's, 70's, and 80's. My field btw would be engineering vibrations and modal analysis.

Re:Russian space suits...

[azmatsci]

Russian suits can't fit out the US airlock. Must be a metric conversion problem again.

Re:Russian space suits...

[foidulus]

I'm referring to the cold war(esp. earlier cold war) BEFORE spy sattelites existed....

Re:Russian space suits...

[Anonymous Coward]

it also has to be put into perspective of the American mentality vs the European mentality.

Americans would be far less tolerant towards the idea of having a few dozen test rockets blow up in the development stage than Europeans. Americans value 'success' more, thus valuing things representing 'failure' more.

Re:Russian space suits...

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans value 'success' more, thus valuing things representing 'failure' more.

BS.

Re:Russian space suits...

[LooseChanj]

Actually, it's the opposite. The US airlock was designed for compatibility with either type of suit.

Re:Russian space suits...

[LooseChanj]

AFAIK, the US suits haven't been used except when a shuttle is present.

Re:Russian space suits...

[mindstrm]

Manned russian spacecraft/aircraft have fantastic ejection systems. I saw one video of a rocket explode on the launch pad... a split second before the explosion the pilot hit eject, and they capsule rocketed up and away, FAST, and then parachuted down. though I'm sure that felt like getting hit by a dumptruck to the occupants, it beats burning up in a million or so pounds of rocket fuel.

Re:Russian space suits...

[nusuth]

I believe grandparent has a point. Spy satellites were sometime in the future during the early phase but reconnaissance planes and good old spy humans used to detect them just fine. IMHO, secret services' knowing some launch failed doesn't make much difference, it is keeping that information from public, especially from citizens of you country and your allies, that matters. At that, west had a disadvantage due to more free media.

Re:Russian space suits...

[FireFury03]

Why does the type of EVA suit determine which airlock they can use? I mean the suits don't have to interface with the airlock or anything do they?

Re:Russian space suits...

[the_mad_poster]

And you base this brilliant observation on.......?

I think you need to step away from the Captain Kangaroo reruns my little anonymous friend.

Re:Russian space suits...

[Janek Kozicki]

Personally I would want to be on the rocket that had a lower percentage of failure and thus would want the American space suit, but perhaps I'm biased. ;)

are you aware that Energia, the rocket which evolved after all this "try to get failure" type of development has very low rate of failures? Oh well - it's around 99% of succesfull launches.

I can't google it right now. But if you want to check - start here and there.

Re:Russian space suits...

[Rei]

Part of it, though, really seems to be the Soviet culture. Look at Chernobyl. Look at Kursk. They really had a culture in which they didn't want to admit when anything went wrong, either to themselves or to others. They tried to keep up an image of a state that was doing incredibly well, when it was widely known that the USSR was steadily being torn apart from failures on the inside.

Re:Russian space suits...

[Rei]

... of course, they did suffer a significant loss of life in their rocket program, largely due to this. But in the end, they did develop some vehicles that (when they get proper maintinence!) are very reliable.

Contrast this to rockets like the Ariane-5. 3 explosions in 18 launches, anyone? I wouldn't want to fly on one of those...

Re:Russian space suits...

[DerekLyons]

It also spoke of how the russians bettered their space program by launching many rockets, knowing their failure rate would be high, but learning from those failures. In comparison the American program launched fewer and did lots of R&D between them.

Personally I would want to be on the rocket that had a lower percentage of failure and thus would want the American space suit, but perhaps I'm biased. ;)

The simple fact is; despite the difference in approaches, the reliability of the boosters developed under the two systems is so close as to be insignificant. The best American launcher weighs in with a reliabilty around 99.2% (The Shuttle is at about 98.8%), the best Soviet/Russian launcher weighs in at about 99.3%.

Re:Russian space suits...

[The_K4]

Wrong, but thanks for trying. The would have prefered to use the American Airlock (closer to the problem) and suits (more flexible, better gloves, more safeguards) however the american suits are broken (2/3 have heating/cooling problems). The rule of when to use which has always been "Which is closer to where we need to be?". Howver with the American suits broken (and not repariable with out new parts) the question is "Can we make the Russian parts suit/airlock work for this EVA?".

Re:Russian space suits...

[The_K4]

1) Because the suits are IN the airlock and cannot be moved through the station to the other air lock.
2) The russian airlock is not an air-recycling airlock, so yeah the suit DOES interface with the airlock.

Re:Russian space suits...

[nlindstrom]

I can't google it right now.

Why, is Google down?

OH MY GOD, GOOGLE IS DOWN! Run!

Re:Russian space suits...

[Syre]

How is it possible after the near disaster of Apollo 13 (if you recall, the LEM and Command Module took different sized and incompatable C02 scrub cartridges) that we are still putting people into space with incompatable systems?

The crew will, as they did on Thursday, exit from the Russian end of the space station. After that, they will work their way over to the U.S. segment, a border crossing that requires mission control centers from both nations to be involved.

From: Spacewalk Aborted by Stuck Switch - NASA

The crew will, as they did on Thursday, exit from the Russian end of the space station. After that, they will work their way over to the U.S. segment, a border crossing that requires mission control centers from both nations to be involved.

Because they will be beyond the reliable range of Russian antennas, they may be forced to communicate with one another using hand signals.

So the spacesuits use different radio systems which are incompatable with each other, and in the Russian suits are incompatable with the American airlocks?

When will they learn?

Sorry...

[arikol]

In soviet russia, spacewalks cut YOU short!

Re:Sorry...

[jusdisgi]

Yeah, it damn near happened that way this time...

Debate

[jusdisgi]

Mission control and the ISS crew are still debating what to do next.

Mission control: Go back out there!

ISS crew: No!

Re:Debate

[Anonymous Coward]

Mission control: Hold your breath and hurry!

Re:Debate

[radja]

come over and make us!

uh!?

[mirko]

IIS had problems, now it is ISS, I just hope that SSI are okay.

Re:uh!?

[shadowcabbit]

IIS had problems, now it is ISS, I just hope that SSI are okay.

And as I just spoke with my SIS, and she says things are fine at home, that's one more combination accounted for. You folks might want to check with your respective SISes, should you have a SIS, that is.

Re:uh!?

[Zocalo]

And as I just spoke with my SIS

If you talk to your PC's chipset then I rather think that you may have some problems of your own...

Re:uh!?

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, oh no, your SIS has an air-leak!

What to do next

[tomhudson]

a problem with its oxygen supply (!), forcing both spacewalkers back to the airlock after less than 15 minutes. Mission control and the ISS crew are still debating what to do next." It should be obvious - take a deep breath!

Seriously, maybe its time to think of something along the space pods in 2001 with their manipulators. They were cool because they were a realistic solution.

Re:What to do next

[arikol]

Not really, too big, too heavy, too cumbersome (cant maneuver them in the small spaces needed) PLUS you would be using robotic arms instead of your own, an unmanned EVA pod would be just as good for any mission that a pod could be used for. unfortunately, it is much easier to use hands (even in thick gloves) for most delicate movements. EVA suits are here to stay for the near future

Re:What to do next

[AndroidCat]

Sure, right after they install a pod bay on the ISS. :) Since a space pod's manipulators would be controlled by an astronaut inside, why bother bringing along the astronaut? A pod could be much simpler if it didn't need life-support and all its mass. It could even be operated by the ground, although delay might be an issue for fine manipulation.

Re:Just remember

[Vihai]

Not before you return into the station, of course.

Just a thought:

[Paulrothrock]

Maybe these guys could help.

Re:Just a thought:

[joeljkp]

Not sure if this is relevant, but Scaled doesn't deal with spacesuits. Mike didn't wear a suit during his trip, since SpaceShipOne is pressurized.

Re:Just a thought:

[Paulrothrock]

I was thinking more along the lines of using White Knight to send up a cargo craft that carried some suits. I wouldn't think it would take more than 8,000 pounds (max-lift capability for white knight) to get to LEO from 50,000 feet.

This would probably take Burt a week and $500,000 to develop, but NASA would take a year or two and tens of millions of dollars to do the same thing.

And if it's too much for one White Knight to handle, maybe they could launch two of them and mate the rocket at altitude.

Re:Just a thought:

[jabberjaw]

This would be better then sending a Soyuz why?

Re:Just a thought:

[Paulrothrock]

Might be cheaper. Launch costs for SS1 are between $50,000 and $80,000. Soyuz is probably a lot higher.

And it would give Rutan a chance to show off Tier 2.

Re:Just a thought:

[joeljkp]

Yeah, but they'd have to try to mate a standardized airlock module to Scaled's rocket, or develop and certify a new one. Plus a thoroughly-tested maneuvering system to make sure it didn't hit the Station.

Seems to me it'd be too much trouble for a busted spacesuit.

Re:Just a thought:

[Paulrothrock]

I was thinking more along the lines of an expendable rocket. Maybe even solid fueled. No need to launch a pressurized craft with wings and life support to get two suits up there. I mean, they're not NASA!

I tried to work out if an 8 ton rocket (controlled from the ground) would work, but can't find enough information.

Re:Just a thought:

[joeljkp]

That doesn't remove the need for an attachment mechanism (airlock) and a maneuvering system.

Re:Just a thought:

[maxpublic]

Because Scaled Composites might actually succeed at a space mission, especially with Mike Melville at the helm? Dunno, it's just a thought.

Max

Re:Just a thought:

[Paulrothrock]

Maneuvering: RCS system on a cylinder is easy to design. Attachment: Put a handle on the container for the station's robotic arm. Open the outer airlock door and put the suits inside using the arm, then close the door and repressurize the airlock.

Re:Just a thought:

[pediddle]

Hello? SpaceShipOne doesn't get anywhere near orbit, let alone having the ability to deliever cargo to ISS. It's a completely different ballgame, so no wonder the costs are different.

Re:Just a thought:

[joeljkp]

Again, all that would have to get designed, tested, validated, and certified, and Scaled would have to be willing and able to put their time into it.

If you were going to go that route, why not use Orbital instead?

Or, just realize that all that isn't worth it for some spacesuits, and include them on the next Soyuz shipment.

Punctuation

[CGP314]

The Russian Orlan spacesuit worn by US astronaut Mike Fincke developed a problem with its oxygen supply (!), forcing both spacewalkers back to the airlock after less than 15 minutes.

Well, thank God for that parenthetical exclamation point to let me know it was a problem.

Re:Punctuation

[Psykechan]

I figured that the exclamation mark appeared over his head when he realized the problem.

Unfortunately, the associated sound effect couldn't be heard because it was a vaccuum.

Re:Punctuation

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Ever notice when things explode in Star Trek you can hear the explosion even in deep space? Why is that?

Re:Punctuation

[sploo22]

You see, the Star Trek ships are equipped with this special Vulcan device called a sound mixing board...

Spacewalk?!

[cdyson37]

I thought NASA called them extra vehicular activities or EVAs (which is my term for pulling in at the side of the road to releave myself).

Re:Spacewalk?!

[AndroidCat]

Well... the previous spacesuit problem did involve dampness. "It's strangely warm," Kaleri said. A few minutes later, he radioed: "It's amazing. I have rain inside the helmet. I have water on the visor." Not that I'm suggesting this incident also involved a leak in the suit...

Re:Spacewalk?!

[Deadstick]

I thought NASA called them extra vehicular activities or EVAs

It does, but if you weren't listening to a live NASA feed, you probably heard it from a media droid...and they've been calling them spacewalks ever since the very first one, when a TV network ran a news special titled "The Man Who Walked in Space."

r "Metaphors R Us" j

Re:Spacewalk?!

[cdyson37]

The Right Stuff - evidently they didn't think through what would happen if they delayed the launch long enough!

Look out!

[leenoble_uk]

They just moved indoors to avoid being hit by David Beckham's penalty kick.

Re:Look out!

[richie2000]

No, it wasn't hard enough.

(incidentally, this is an exact quote from when Victoria replied to the question 'is really David the father of your child?')

I don't normally watch soccer, or any other sports on TV, but I did watch the last few minutes after the Portuguese 1-1 goal, the extension and the penalties - it was very good entertainment. It was fun to see Svennis not only actually has emotions, but he can display them. :-)

ugh!

[BaDunkaDunk]

ya think they'd a been smart enough to take some friggin DUCT TAPE with 'em up there!... astronauts... indeeeeeed....

What to do next.

[gr8_phk]

Bring them home and deorbit that piece of crap on the night of July 4th. There's only enough people on board to keep it running and not do any useful research. The president only wants NASA to support it until our obligations to the other parties involved are fulfilled anyway. Just get those parties to agree it's a waste of money and there's no sense throwing away more. OTOH, we could spend MORE money and get some use out of it. Either way, I don't care, but this stupid maintenance mode is worthless - I'd rather watch the reentry show.

Re:What to do next.

[Hurricane78]

Shut up mr Bush!

Re:What to do next.

[The_K4]

Given the current state one has to wonder it there are even enough people on board to keep it running....seems to be more problems cropping up then getting fixed......

Lucky

[shadowcabbit]

It's a good thing they caught the oxygen problem before things got worse. Good job, guys.

This sort of thing demonstrates the need for advances in robotics. An remote-controlled machine could potentially do spacewalk jobs somewhat more easily and far more safely than sending out a human in what boils down to a ziploc bag tied to the station.

...But, as long as folks are brave enough to go Out There, I'll still be rooting for them.

Re:Lucky

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there's a manipulator arm designed by the same folks who created the Canadarm (the Space Shuttle's manipulator) that's supposed to be flown up on a Shuttle and attached to a track on the station's main truss. Theoretically, it should allow tasks like this to be handled by the astronauts. Unfortunately, they need the Shuttle to get it in orbit, since it is rather large.

Re:Lucky

[shadoelord]

Where's the fun in that? It would be like going to and piloting a RC car from your hotel!

Re:Lucky

[arikol]

Definitely, small, purpose built r/c control units could minimize risks alot. Wouldnt remove the needs for spacewalks, but might replace the more standard tasks.

Re:Just remember

[Anonymous Coward]

in space, no one can hear you scream

The reason why nobody in space can hear you scream is because the thousands of people listening to your space suit's microphone are all located at mission control on earth. If there were beings out in space to hear you scream, I'd be worried.

What do you think about the ISS future?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm betting on a better than 50% chance they have to abandon the station within 2 years. I'm also betting if NASA says next spring on the Shuttle that that translates to 3 years away.

Re:Another argument against manned spaceflight

[AndroidCat]

They're having problems designing a universal robotic foot for providing on-site kinetic impacts to solve minor unanticipated problems that would otherwise result in mission failure.

Hal?

[BenjyD]

They weren't out to fix the AE-35 unit by any chance I hope.

Re:Hal?

[nlindstrom]

Nah. The backup AE-35 unit fell off a long time ago.

Re:Hal?

[ross.w]

No, they were trying to clear Borg from the deflector array

Re:Another argument against manned spaceflight

[arikol]

as has been discussed on /. often, manned spaceflights do jobs which unmanned flights cant. (real time experiments, fixing stuff in orbit etc.)

Space station usage could be hugely beneficial (and has already given a better understanding of various subjects in fields like medicine and chemistry, like ostereoposis (med.) and crystal formation (chem.)
However, due to budget cuts, the ISS cant fulfill its role as well as it should.

Regarding the dangers, we humans have a need to explore and push boundaries. This urge has driven almost all advances since the stone age, it is fundamental to our being.
Some people are willing to risk their lives for this, others arent.

Not Likely...

[Ag3nt]

This station cost millions of dollars and months of construction to assemble. Every flight costs between $400 million and $1 billion depending on the load of the shuttle. It is VERY unlikely that they would ever abandon the station before it started to crash into the upper atmostphere from orbit disentigration.

Re:Not Likely...

[mritunjai]

t is VERY unlikely that they would ever abandon the station....

Yeah, so how long before ISS goes on eBay ?? :-P

Re:Not Likely...

[mindstrm]

The Russians fly unmanned resupply missions to the ISS on a fairly regular basis, for a small fraction of the cost of sending up the shuttle.

Re:Just remember

[ShadowRage]

or shit yourself when you realize that you have 30 seconds until you explode inside your suit.

What about the power supply?

[Roryking]

What of the effects of the malfunctioning power supply? From what I gather it powers the gyroscopes/stabilizers for the lab module. That sounds pretty important, not just for the "keep it in space" effect but also the tendency for malfunctioning electronics to drain on the sources. Is waiting for a fixed suit going to complicate things more than a quick "duct tape" fix?

New role for spaceshipone?

[TheUncleBob]

Perhaps a Breakdown and Recovery service instead of space tourism ?

Though Intergalactic Pizza Delivery gets my vote. I wonder if ISS would refuse to pay if it turned up a few minutes late?

Re:New role for spaceshipone?

[Paulrothrock]

White Knight can carry 8,000 pounds to 53,000 feet. Maybe this is enough to send a rocket to LEO with a few extra spacesuits?

Re:New role for spaceshipone?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about: it was a really weak idea the last time you posted it to this same story? We're all proud of scaled, but lamer fanbois... not so much.

Suits

[medvezhatnik]

Where is our own space suits that should be checked prior to the flight ?

Re:Another argument against manned spaceflight

[east coast]

This again begs the question: Do we really need manned spaceflights where unmanned, robotic spaceflights can do the job just as well and at a much lower cost?

Do we really have any need to go down a concrete path at 60 miles per hour in a tin box just to see the latest Adam Sandler film? Perhaps we should hide away in our homes for all except the most urgent business.

I know someone is going to mod that down as flamebait or mod me as a troll but the bottom line is that we risk lives everyday for much much less. These guys and gals know the risks and except them willingly. Frankly I'd do it, and if I were to die you can sleep well at night knowing that I'd rather have given my life for a decent contribution than dying at the age of 90 after a lifetime of pandering to idiots who are too lazy to try to reboot their PCs before calling the help desk over what are often non-issues.

And besides, perhaps the robot aspect is cheaper but what about the time in development? Tell me to use a screwdriver, it'll take you 3 seconds and I'll get the job done and be able to work my way thru most unexpected problems. Do that to a robot and it takes hours if not days to tell it the task and when it encounters a problem it takes more time to figure out how to tell the stupid thing to overcome the issue. And good luck getting any input back from the machine that may help explain the problem.

Re:Mike...

[maxbang]

2001! dolts.

Re:Just remember

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA, bye-bye!!!

sniffff!!! sniffff!!! buaaaaaaahhhh!!!

Re:Another argument against manned spaceflight

[Anonymous Coward]

Give us a call when robots are capable of driving to Las Vegas. Sweet Jesus, that's bat country! The outer solar system is nothing compared to that.

Re:Mike...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is slashdot. Land of hypocrisy.

Folks here talk alot about open source and how great linux is, yet they all use Windows and IE on their primary machines - and constantly show they don't know how to use it properly (with all the "my computer crashes 8 times a day, because MS sucks" - nuh uh, you suck..).

Likewise, they talk a good game about Science Fiction, etc, yet only read comic books and watch Star Trek. They don't know what 2001 was, they've never seen it nor read the book. They're too excited about FireFly or whatever other lame-ass star trek clone thats being dumped on TV (babolon 5 or whatever).

Abandon in place

[p51d007]

This stupid white elephant needs to be put down. It was a stupid idea in the first place.....Why? Because it is in the hands of two (or more) governments who know nothing about how to run a business. Put the space program in the hands of private businesses and watch how well it works. How much did it cost NASA to put the first American in space versus how much it costs the Rutan group to put the first private human in space? With cost overruns, stupidity, etc.....it's no wonder NASA can't hardly do anything right anymore. I use to be a big fan of NASA in the "golden age" but not anymore. They don't have a goal....in the old days it was beat the Soviets to the moon, since then it's been stumbling to find something to do to keep the gravy train of money funneling to it's doors. A lot of good scientific research has been funneled from NASA to the private sector, but that has pretty much stopped, since they can't do anything right anymore. The shuttle was for building the space station, and the space station was for the shuttle to bring people to it. Hardly a worthy goal if you ask me.

Re:Abandon in place

[JuggleGeek]

How much did it cost NASA to put the first American in space versus how much it costs the Rutan group to put the first private human in space?

Technology has advanced quite a bit since then. The Spaceship One guys had advantages gained by having new technology, and years of space exploration and development. Comparing the two as if they did the same thing at the same time is unreasonable.

Standard Snopes link

[ericspinder]

The snopes website has an excellent recap of this issue...Space pen. One really interesting addition is ... "Fisher pen was eventually used by both American and Soviet astronauts"

They should carry parachutes instead...

[Divlje Jagode]

Well, you know... if the tether breaks, just spread your arms and start flapping :-)

Broken link? This is the image i meant... the first one

heard it on NPR this morning

[timts]

they are to fix some circuit breaker and the earliest possible next space walk is no earlier than next tuesday.

Russian News

[medvezhatnik]

I was reading some Russian news about this, here is what they say:

Transl:
This is not the first problem with the space suit - earlier it was found that 2 out of 3 American spacesuits had prroblems, It was decided to use Soviet suit.

This looks like BS to me, also at the very end of that story there is a small detail that completely brakes the whole logick of the story

Transl.:
It was found, that the problem in Mike Fincke's suit most likely was caused by an astronaut, injectors handle should be switched in to off poosition before the spacewalk, as it's says in the manual. This was a comment from "Zvezda" Russian manufacturer of spacesuits.

So they did in fact used soviet made casket :-)

Re:Just remember

[Anonymous Coward]

USofA uses *obsolete technologies from the 60 and the engineers don't redesign all the system.

I just love blanket statements like this, they are so generalized it is easy to refute....

If you mean the shuttle, it was actually 1970's technology and several of the subsystems (main engines, cockpit, etc...) have been updated since then.

If you mean the fact that components NASA uses are usually based on older technologies, there are reasons for that. First older technologies have failure modes that are better understood. Second, older electronics tend to be more radiation tolerant than the modern stuff because they are bulkier, lower-frequency, and operate higher voltage.

Regarding the whole redesigning systems matter, all the systems on the ISS were designed specifically for it. They did use information from earlier space craft, but they didn't just drop-in modified shuttle systems!

I won't comment on your grammar because english might not be your primary language.

Duck!

[DaveS002]

They are clearly in need of Duct Tape for those mission critical repairs!!

Uh-huh.

[csirac]

You sound like a really enlightened individual who has travelled the world and truly understands many diverse cultures.

Is that why you're posting AC?

Errr...rocket packs are not possible for climbers.

[FatSean]

Have you ever seen the working jetpack? It's huge and bulky. That's why climbers don't wear them, not because the tether can't break. SHeesh.

Gee, why not just fix the American spacesuit

[Anonymous Coward]

If it takes 2 weeks to debate what to do next, why don't NASA just get the American spacesuit fix ?

American and Russian and international space communities should sit down and design a standard space suit with exchange-able parts. Seems like the most logical.

Re:Just remember

[Anonymous Coward]

... older electronics tend to be more radiation tolerant than the modern stuff because they are bulkier, lower-frequency, and operate higher voltage.

It's not true!!!
So, it's the cause of many problems that they did not have resolved for all the time!!!.
And because of theirs lacks of R & D.

open4free © : sorry of my bad english :(

Wardrobe malfunction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the correct term for what happened a "Wardrobe malfunction"

Re:Another argument against manned spaceflight

[Anonymous Coward]

You make an argument about risk, but look at it in terms of money. I believe that unmanned space missions are dramatically cheaper than manned missions. A human mission means lots more planning than the development time for an unmanned mission. Even if an unmanned mission fails, it would be cheaper and faster to just send up a second mission than to do the manned mission in the first place. I say send lots of cheap expendable million dollar unmanned missions to Mars before you start worrying about the billion dollar manned missions.

Do what I do.

[blair1q]

You can't just sit there watching TV, you have to go to work.

So swallow your pride, find a big garbage bag, cut a hole for your head, and get back outside.

Mir Scientists Study Effects of Weightlessness

[ABEND]

KOROLYOV, RUSSIA--U.S. and Russian scientists are increasingly excited about the Mir space station project, which promises to reveal more than has ever been known about the scientific relationship between weightlessness and mortal terror.

"By stranding our scientists on a dilapidated space station with faulty wiring, loose hardware, and malfunctioning air systems," NASA head Daniel Goldin said, "we have created extremely favorable conditions for learning about spaceborne panic."

The two Russians and one American on board the station are reportedly terrified beyond lucidity.

Among the groundbreaking experiments conducted on board Mir: a June 25 collision with a cargo craft that depressurized the Spektr module; last week's emergency power shortage, caused by a disconnected cable; and the periodic release of "dry ice" steam that simulates a shipboard fire. All have been deemed a huge success by agency heads.

"They are in a constant state of what aerospace scientists term 'mind-shattering terror,' frightened for their very lives," Russian mission director Vladimir Solovyov said. "And we have not even used the hull-mounted Alien puppet that taps on the window yet."

"We have also taken huge leaps in our understanding of the patterns created when one wets his pants in the weightlessness of space," Solovyov said. "The urine spreads out in an expanding sphere, something we did not expect."

Taking a break from his busy schedule, astronaut Michael Foale told ABC News reporters: "Where's my mommy?"

"Please tell me the access code to the Soyuz capsule," Russian cosmonaut Aleksandr Lazutkin said. "I would like to return to the chaotic government and widespread hunger of my homeland."

Scientists expect to gain even more useful data during an experiment at 3 a.m. tomorrow. As the astronauts sleep, whirling red siren lights will flood the cabin while an ear-splitting klaxon alarm jolts them awake.

Detailed scientific data will then be collected on such variables as open weeping, uncontrollable spontaneous defecation and unusual hair loss.

Re:Mir Scientists Study Effects of Weightlessness

[__aajqwr7439]

"We have also taken huge leaps in our understanding of the patterns created when one wets his pants in the weightlessness of space," Solovyov said. "The urine spreads out in an expanding sphere, something we did not expect."

Hmm...

A riskier-than-usual spacewalk outside the international space station was cut short Thursday night because of a malfunction that left one of the two crewmen with a warm, damp suit.

Indeed!

xox,
Dead Nancy

ISS slipping into Never Never Land....

[bpiltz]

A report here details further SNAFU's:

"The use of Russian equipment also created an unprecedented division of labor and raised the potential for communication blackouts, requiring the crewmen to come up with hand signals for alerting each other of danger or conveying smooth sailing."

and...

"Mission Control in Moscow was in charge of the spacewalk, with Russian the official language, but that was supposed to switch to Mission Control in Houston and English as soon as Padalka and Fincke reached the U.S. side of the complex -- and vice versa on the way back."

Why the language and Mission Control switching when they cross "the line"? Is that what is meant by "international"? I guess bureaucracy hasn't killed enough atronauts, yet.

spacewalk

[Anonymous Coward]

What fool designer put the circuit breaker on the outside? Thats generally not a good idea.

Government = monopoly = slow/incompetant/corrupt/amoral

Re:Just remember

[Anonymous Coward]

These links might change your mind about how much research they do on commercial electronics in high radiation enviornments...

http://nepp.nasa.gov/index_nasa.cfm/996/?AofE=C7 08 A496-CE84-4C35-B9CCD5095011391C&projid=EBB2B58A-A2 0F-49E6-8F68287856214F36

http://klabs.org/

http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/papers/RHA9 8. pdf

http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/papers/sees pe c.htm

http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/papers/aspe n. htm

http://radnet.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-win/1/FrontPage_C GI _Project?|main

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

Reverse the polarity!

Trust me on this...

Re:Just remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw this 2 year hiatus after every accident. They could have done the fixes and put the shuttles back up inside 60 days. What NASA needs is one guy to say, "Good enough" and sign his life away like engineers do every day out in the real world. PAtch it up and get it up.

PEVA?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought NASA called them extra vehicular activities or EVAs (which is my term for pulling in at the side of the road to releave myself).

Funny, reminds me of being at Space Camp 12 years ago...

We referred to bathroom breaks during the 12-Hour Long Extended Duration Mission Sim as taking a PEVA. (Personal EVA)

Re:Another argument against manned spaceflight

[mattkime]

that makes sense if you never plan to send anyone into space, but a lot of us kind of like that idea. and something that complex isn't something you do all at once.

Problem? What Problem?

[nlindstrom]

Mission control and the ISS crew are still debating what to do next.

Wait another day or two, and the balky power supply will simply fall off the side of the ISS and float away. Problem solved.

Re:Just remember

[nlindstrom]

Not before you return into the station, of course.

...And then you pull your suit off, and wonder why everyone around you starts gagging and turning green.

I know I'm asking for it

[Fussen]

But when we talk about a "balky power supply"... isn't Balky that crazy guy from the TV show Perfect Strangers?

Re:Another argument against manned spaceflight

[east coast]

You make an argument about risk, but look at it in terms of money

How many unmanned space flights fail due to hardware/software failures? How many manned space flights fail due to hardware/software failures?

The bottom line in the man vs. robot debate is that humans, even the dumb ones, are a thousand times more able to deal with problem situations. They don't need to be re-engineered nor re-programmed at the slightest variant. This simply isn't true of robotics. Yeah, the mars rovers are kicking much ass, but consider what a single human could have done in contrast on the surface of mars in a couple of days. Fully functional. Full feedback.

I say send lots of cheap expendable million dollar unmanned missions to Mars

This really isn't about Mars. As much as I feel a human could do better I do agree that landing a ship on Mars, and more importantly getting back off, is cost ineffective now. But this is about a space station. The main objective of this experiment is about humans in space. This is another rung in the ladder that will lead to permanent space occupations. This goal can not be fulfilled by robots.

Components

[slapout]

American components....Russian components...all made in Taiwan!