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."

55 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. Oh well by Joceyln+Parfitt · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Oh well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

    2. Re:Oh well by joeljkp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    3. Re:Oh well by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
  2. Yo Quiero by swordboy · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
  3. The answer is simple... by Animaether · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    Though I have to question these NASA budgetcuts.. AstroPutty

    1. Re:The answer is simple... by maxbang · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      I also reply below your current threshold.
    2. Re:The answer is simple... by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      *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? :)

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
  4. the spacewalk may have ended too soon by surreal-maitland · · Score: 3, Funny

    but the moonwalk will live on forever!

    --
    -ninjaneer
  5. Russian Spacesuits by Mz6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Russian Spacesuits by jusdisgi · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
    2. Re:Russian Spacesuits by azmatsci · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.

      --
      I stole this sig.
    3. Re:Russian Spacesuits by maxbang · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...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?

      --
      I also reply below your current threshold.
    4. Re:Russian Spacesuits by joeljkp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    5. Re:Russian Spacesuits by virtual_mps · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.)
    6. Re:Russian Spacesuits by sunking2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Russian Spacesuits by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Funny
      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.

  6. Russian space suits... by Shoeler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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. ;)

    1. Re:Russian space suits... by foidulus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

    2. Re:Russian space suits... by LooseChanj · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
    3. Re:Russian space suits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Russian space suits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Russian space suits... by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Russian space suits... by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      #
      #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
      #
    7. Re:Russian space suits... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative
      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%.
    8. Re:Russian space suits... by The_K4 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  7. Sorry... by arikol · · Score: 3, Funny

    In soviet russia, spacewalks cut YOU short!

  8. Debate by jusdisgi · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Mission control: Go back out there!

    ISS crew: No!

    --
    Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
  9. uh!? by mirko · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
  10. What to do next by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    1. Re:What to do next by arikol · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

    2. Re:What to do next by AndroidCat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  11. Just a thought: by Paulrothrock · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe these guys could help.

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    1. Re:Just a thought: by pediddle · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  12. Punctuation by CGP314 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Punctuation by Psykechan · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

  13. Look out! by leenoble_uk · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Look out! by richie2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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. :-)

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
  14. ugh! by BaDunkaDunk · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  15. Lucky by shadowcabbit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
    1. Re:Lucky by arikol · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  16. Hal? by BenjyD · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  17. Re:Another argument against manned spaceflight by arikol · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  18. Not Likely... by Ag3nt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  19. New role for spaceshipone? by TheUncleBob · · Score: 3, Funny

    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?

  20. Re:Another argument against manned spaceflight by east+coast · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  21. Re:And...... by LooseChanj · · Score: 2, Informative

    #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.

    --
    Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
  22. Abandon in place by p51d007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  23. Standard Snopes link by ericspinder · · Score: 2, Informative

    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"

    --
    The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
  24. Re:Just remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  25. Duck! by DaveS002 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  26. Wardrobe malfunction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  27. Mir Scientists Study Effects of Weightlessness by ABEND · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    --
    In all seriousness:
    1. Re:Mir Scientists Study Effects of Weightlessness by __aajqwr7439 · · Score: 2, Funny
      "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
  28. Re:And...... by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I'm an owl exterminator!