Slashdot Mirror
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."
too bad, I was really looking foward to this, especially after delay upon delay. Guess they need to doublecheck their equipment next time.
eden.h4xx.com - whacky free for all image board
Just patch the leak with putty!
NASA: Astronauts to get putty for small holes
Though I have to question these NASA budgetcuts.. AstroPutty
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.
Hmmm.
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.
It's a good thing they caught the oxygen problem before things got worse. Good job, guys.
...But, as long as folks are brave enough to go Out There, I'll still be rooting for them.
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.
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
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.
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.
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.
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.
;) It was a piece of wood cut to the right length. If the stick fit, they could inspect.
:)
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.
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.
I'm an owl exterminator!