Slashdot Mirror


Soyuz Damage May Delay Space Station Trip

SeaDour writes "As if the failed oxygen generator on the International Space Station wasn't bad enough, rumor has it that the planned launch of a Russian Soyuz capsule to change crews onboard the station may be delayed due to a mishap during ground testing. Apparently one of the small explosive bolts, used to separate sections of the capsule during landing, prematurely exploded, which means the bolts may all have to be inspected for defects. Russian space officals haven't officially confirmed any delay of the October 9 launch date, but I'm sure it's something the two astronauts on the station are thinking about as they repressurize the station with reserve air supplies."

120 comments

  1. They need to replenish their air supply......... by ARRRLovin · · Score: 4, Funny

    The president should get Graham Russel and Clive Davis dispatched to ISS ASAP!

    --
    -Randy
  2. well... by the+arbiter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is kinda discouraging. I'm all in favor of manned spaceflight, but...

    Until we're willing to fund not only the station but its support structure, and fund it enough to insure that there's some redundancy in systems, I think it might be time to start thinking about abandoning it in orbit for a while. What spaceflight does NOT need right now is the two sitting ducks..er, I meant crew, dying because we can't keep the structure/support up to snuff.

    --
    Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
    1. Re:well... by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they got a soyuz up there that they can use to come down, of course mentioning something like that in the article blurb would cut down on needless comments so it would be against slashdots policy to do so. you think they wouldn't have any redundancy? that they would be that stupid? they would be 'abandoning' it for a while if they didn't get the replacement parts and crew up there before it became too dangerous(now the only real concern here is that if they got faulty bolts on that soyuz too).

      and really...
      "A NASA official told MSNBC.com on condition of anonymity that rumors of a possible delay were "heard in the halls" on Tuesday, but by the end of the day the gossip was that no schedule impact was expected." so that's one 'official' relaying a fucking rumour, too.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:well... by jnicholson · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is redundancy. There's LOTS of redundancy. About half of the levels of redundancy have currently failed, and they're down to the last half. The *nauts have currently around 4 options they can try before they abandon ship.

      --
      "Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
      -- Nick Davies
    3. Re:well... by kamapuaa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Instead of posting, take the 5 seconds to find the info. Or just think things through: if there weren't redundant systems already, the astronauts would be dead.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    4. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When do they get to Ctrl-Alt-Del?

    5. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an insensitive, and angry, clod.

    6. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all the mindless, ill-considered and just plain bullshit posted on here these days, can you blame him? Slashdot has gone from a haven for the geek to a haven for the stroppy little snot-nosed geek who's an armchair expert on everything and don't you dare cross him because he'd kick your arse up and down the street.

    7. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What spaceflight does NOT need right now is the two sitting ducks..er, I meant crew, dying because we can't keep the structure/support up to snuff."

      The existing gear IS up to "snuff". Its keeping people alive that's the problem!

    8. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      test

  3. Reliability? by echeslack · · Score: 2, Funny

    I realize that space flight is incredibly complex, but is it really that much more complex than regular flight? Why does it seem that space flight is constantly plagued with problems?

    Is it simply that space flight isn't mature enough yet? If commercial space flight ever takes off, is that what will make it more reliable? How can it take off until it is more reliable?

    1. Re:Reliability? by peculiarmethod · · Score: 3, Funny

      Haven't you heard? hard core Lucifer loyalists who want to bring you their New World Order with human-reptilians ruling this planet are sabotaging the Space Program so we are defenseless when they greys come down to activate the dormant DNA in special host families. (those super powerful secret families that we all know about)

      (/endrollingoftheeyes)

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    2. Re:Reliability? by peculiarmethod · · Score: 1

      its so secret I have to post the link to the info without an a-href tag.. so as not to be exposed myself.. http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/alien-agenda.html

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    3. Re:Reliability? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I realize that space flight is incredibly complex, but is it really that much more complex than regular flight?

      Probably, slightly, you have to deal with more problems that you don't have to deal with in aircraft- vacuum, heating, radiation etc. etc.

      Why does it seem that space flight is constantly plagued with problems?

      Mainly because there are bugs in the vehicles, or the production line that produces the vehicles, or bugs in the way that the vehicles are being used.

      The reason that the bugs are there is because every vehicle in service right now has only been launched a hundred or so times at most. Most aircraft have seen many times more launches than that during testing; and the bugs would have been removed. In addition there's more experience on how to avoid some of the bugs in the first place in aircraft- this experience has not been directly applied to launch vehicles.

      If commercial space flight ever takes off, is that what will make it more reliable?

      Pretty much yes, launch any vehicle enough; uncover the bugs and remove them, and you have a safe vehicle at the end of it.

      How can it take off until it is more reliable?

      You have to have brave people.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    4. Re:Reliability? by jnicholson · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Space flight isn't constantly plagued with problems. They've had a run of bad luck in the last year and a half, but prior to that they were running ahead of their expected averages.

      They're doing OK - don't knock them. Some things go spectacularly well, and some pretty badly, but most go acceptably.

      --
      "Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
      -- Nick Davies
    5. Re:Reliability? by Deorus · · Score: 1

      "These first generation alien hybrid children rank either above normal, as in star children, or don't rank at all, just quietly assimilating into society, passing their Alien DNA on for generations."

      Now I understand why I am such a perfect being...

    6. Re:Reliability? by qbwiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How can it take off until it is more reliable?

      You have to have brave people.

      Or unmanned/automated flights.
      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    7. Re:Reliability? by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I realize that space flight is incredibly complex, but is it really that much more complex than regular flight? Why does it seem that space flight is constantly plagued with problems?

      The problem isn't (necessarily, though i'm not sure of it) that spaceflight is that much more complex. The problem is that there is a much smaller margin of error.

      Airplanes can have roofs peel back, engines fall off, and all other of pretty bad things happen, and yet the planes often manage to come in for a safe landing anyways. A spacecraft has a (comparitively) small hole poked in it by some foam and the entire thing disintegrates during reentry.

      Spacecraft deal with more extreme conditions and are much farther away from help, so even when something small goes wrong it can go _really_ wrong.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    8. Re:Reliability? by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      The real info is here.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    9. Re:Reliability? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      If the average car built in the United States or Japan has at least one problem, why should you think spacecraft which are much more complex and having to deal with increadable stresses would be free of problems?

    10. Re:Reliability? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      You don't think commercial air travel is "plagued with problems"? The difference is, solving those problems is routine and doesn't make front page news.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    11. Re:Reliability? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      Or unmanned/automated flights.

      Then you have to have brave investors.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    12. Re:Reliability? by ChickenAintDone · · Score: 1
      I think the main issue here is that when there is a problem, everyone remembers and takes notice of that, but when there's a big success, no one really cares that much. It's like people are more interested in the problems than the actual results.

      One huge example I can think of is the rovers. It seemed like everyone knew about when they had problems, and it was a big deal. I wonder how many people know that the rovers preformed better than expected, and that their missions have been extended.

    13. Re:Reliability? by jnicholson · · Score: 1

      What gets me is the number of people who are saying the rovers are overengineered and clearly too much money was spent. I guess NASA just isn't allowed any latitude in either direction...

      --
      "Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
      -- Nick Davies
  4. Redundant equipment by TheWingThing · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So, if the oxygen generator fails, they don't have redundant oxygen generators with a fail-over mechanism, to work uninterruptedly? Are they too huge that they have just one, and depend on reserve supplies? I hope they get the supplies soon. Perhaps, when China also launches their space vehicles, we will have more countries to rely on in case of space emergencies.

    1. Re:Redundant equipment by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      The other two already failed. See story on slashdot about 2-3 weeks ago about that.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    2. Re:Redundant equipment by exi1ed0ne · · Score: 1

      They have a backup unit

      --
      Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
    3. Re:Redundant equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah right, I guarantee you China will come to our aid... NOT. They'd probably send an automated pod to us to "escape" on, have it dock, then fire thrusters and de-orbit the ISS. Well okay not that.

      But the fact of the matter is that China and N. Korea have chosen to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. China's only major interaction is exploit thier population to manufacture cheap goods for the USA and Europe--to bring in more money to build more weapons until they have enough that a suprise attack on taiwan could be pulled off before we could react to them, and then have the deterrant capability to prevent us from aiding in the recovery of tiawan's freedom.

      So no, i highly doubt China would come to our rescue in space.

      China is creating its own computer system, own operating system, own internet, its own EVERYTHING. This will effectively isolate thier populace from the outside world, feed them the propoganda you want them to believe, and have a nation of drones ready to do your bidding. Whose whole existence is dependent on the state, and who would do whatever the state commands because that is thier whole existence.

  5. exploding bolts by loid_void · · Score: 2, Funny

    Those exploding bolts... touchy little buggers, always going off at the drop of a pin. Why is there nothing else?

    --
    Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
    1. Re:exploding bolts by civman2 · · Score: 0

      Can't we get electromagnets or something? Surely they'd be more reliable and less likely to accidently explode. Wasn't it a faulty bolt that blew the Challenger?

    2. Re:exploding bolts by phoenix.bam! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      challenger exploded from because of a poor use of statistics that made managers (and enough engineers confidentent) that a launch in super-cold weather was safe, then it was not. Quick summary, two O-Rings chance of failure was improperly determined, and thus, a launch was allowed in cold weather that lead to both O-Rings failing and thus, the fuel tanks explodering.

    3. Re:exploding bolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      Explosive* bolts are reliable, as they are extremely simple, hermetically sealed, and have no moving parts. They are also tiny, light-weight, and strong enough to carry big loads. An electromagnet would require a big coil, a moving part (or parts), heavy cables, a stout battery, and heavy-duty switching electronics.

      *They do not explode violently. They are hollow and have a weak zone. When the propellant burns, the pressure breaks the weak zone. The propellant is a lot like the stuff that inflates air bags.

    4. Re:exploding bolts by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
      Those exploding bolts... touchy little buggers, always going off at the drop of a pin.
      The only other time that I have heard of explosive bolts going off by themselves was during Virgil "Gus" Grissom's Mercury flight, when the capsule hatch blew after splashdown.
      It is such an uncommon occurance that some engineers suspected that Grissom paniced and blew the hatch himself.
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    5. Re:exploding bolts by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      It's thought that he didn't blow the hatch.

      http://www.astronautix.com/flights/merrymr4.htm

      The mystery of Grissom's hatch was never solved to everyone's satisfaction. Among the favorite hypotheses were that the exterior lanyard might have become entangled with the landing bag straps; that the ring seal might have been omitted on the detonation plunger, reducing the pressure necessary to actuate it; or that static electricity generated by the helicopter had fired the hatch cover. But with the spacecraft and its onboard evidence lying 15,000 feet down on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, it was impossible to determine the true cause. The only solution was to draft a procedure that would preclude a recurrence: henceforth the astronaut would not touch the plunger pin until the helicopter hooked on and the line was taut. As it turned out, Liberty Bell 7 was the last manned flight in Project Mercury in which helicopter retrieval of the spacecraft was planned. In addition, Grissom would be the only astronaut who used the hatch without receiving a slight hand injury. As he later reminded Glenn, Schirra, and Cooper, this helped prove he had not touched his hatch plunger."

      http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/li be rty_bell_000617.html

    6. Re:Exploding Bolts by BluesConvert · · Score: 1

      As explained above...they don't actually explode, per se. They're not a "bomb" or whatever that you could use to "blow something up".

      Nor are most of them "bolts" as we would think of them...as in, they're not (usually) threaded steel rods with hex heads. They're probably actually closer to what we'd think of as rivits.

      Given the forces involved during various portions of ascent or descent, SOMETHING has to hold "parts" (2 stages, the hatch covering a chute, an external fuel tank, whatever) together quite securely...but that joint must "fail" at a preciesly determined time...and must do so immediately.

      Soooooo, a small (read, very small) charge INSIDE the bolt fires to degrade the bolt's structure to such a point that it can, literally, no longer do its job....the job of holding two components together VERY tightly. The intended effect, of course, is an immediate and complete "failure" of the bolt...allowing the components to seperate.

      So, essentially, you answered your own question :) :

      "we have these two parts that need to be held together really tightly and then released very quickly"

      A nifty answer, really, to a rather unique problem imo....the sort of thing OLD NASA was very good at. /bc

    7. Re:Exploding Bolts by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      Do you have an alternative?

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    8. Re:Exploding Bolts by BlueTooth · · Score: 1

      Yeah. That's cool. I've always liked the idea of exploding bolts, it just seems so sketchy...a structural component that fails on command...it might just be a point of semantics, but having something that is intended to fail so completely seems weird...oh well. Crazy engineers...

      --
      SPAM
    9. Re:Exploding Bolts by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Look at it this way, if they build a 'mechanism' to pull the locking bolt out instead of exploding the bolt, then that mechanism could fail and you'd be seriously screwed.

      From a simplicity stand point, the exploding bolts make sense. You only have the wire(?) (and control method to send the signal) to the explosive charge in the bolt; that's all that can fail. As opposed to a mechanical moving mechanism that would pull a bolt out of it's hole while under the heavy stresses of ascent. Now factor that multiple bolts need to release at pretty close to the same time.

      Which seems like the simpler solution?


      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    10. Re:Exploding Bolts by BluesConvert · · Score: 1

      An alternative to what? Exploding bolts? No :) The current NASA Culture? Absolutely. :)

    11. Re:Exploding Bolts by BluesConvert · · Score: 1

      You also hit on the key reason such a mechanism was never used...the forces involved. Think about it...BY DEFINITION, the bolt (retaining pin, whatever) MUST be EXTREMELY difficult to seperate/remove. If not, it wouldn't withstand the forces involved. Of course, we have a situation where, at a precise moment in time, we want to "remove" the bolt...suddenly. Catch-22. Bolt needs to withstand incredible forces without budging, but at time X, needs to be easily and quickly removable. Simply put...the mechanism that could yank the bolt out would be bulky, expensive, difficult (if not impossible) to engineer and, as you said, prone to failure....making the "exploding bolt" idea an elegant solution in its simplicity.

  6. Out of air? by Pikhq · · Score: 0

    Seems kind of interesting that the people up there would be running on the emergency supplies right now. Perhaps they are considering using the currently-attached Soyuz capsule in order to be able to drop down to earth just to be able to breath sometime soon.....

    --
    echo "rm -rf ~/* ; echo "echo "Exit" ; exit" > ~/.bashrc ; exit" > ~user/.bashrc
  7. Back-up supplies by TheWingThing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hmm, from the links, it seems they only have oxygen canisters that would last one month. But NASA says they are in no immediate danger. Commander Gennady Padalka is confident he can clear the blockage and get the machine running again, said NASA spokesman Rob Navias. In the meantime, Padalka took spare parts and installed them in a spare oxygen generator, which could serve as a replacement if necessary So they have an extra oxygen generator, but I wonder why they don't have something like a 'RAID' system of these devices, instead of swapping parts after one of them fails.

    1. Re:Back-up supplies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      They have 3 oxygen generators. All 3 are now broken. It's not like they have more spares laying around. They're talking about trying to repair one of the other broken ones.

    2. Re:Back-up supplies by Pikhq · · Score: 0, Funny

      I was under the impression that NASA astronauts were trained to make oxygen filters out of common materials such as socks and other pieces of clothing. Perhaps the astronauts have also ran out of clothing....

      --
      echo "rm -rf ~/* ; echo "echo "Exit" ; exit" > ~/.bashrc ; exit" > ~user/.bashrc
    3. Re:Back-up supplies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the astronauts have also ran out of clothing

      "have also run".

    4. Re:Back-up supplies by MacJedi · · Score: 1
      "have also run".
      Either "run" or "ran" are acceptable... in Japan!
      --
      2^5
    5. Re:Back-up supplies by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      As the other poster said, they have three redundant generators. This is an issue of serial failures, not lack of forsight.

      Also, they're not in immediate danger because they have a Soyuz return capsule currently docked at the station. They'll abandon the station if the next flight up gets delayed dangerously long.

  8. if it was NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they would replace the failed bolt and not bother inspecting the otheres, they would assume they were safe even fi the engineers on the fild say its very bad. later when the other bolts fail,

    oops, how did that happen?

  9. Two problems: simple explanation by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 2, Funny

    Looks like Soyuz and Gemini problems are related to me: they put the Gemini bolts in the Soyuz and vice versa :-)

    1. Re:Two problems: simple explanation by znode · · Score: 2, Funny
      Looks like Soyuz and Gemini problems are related to me
      So he's the one who sabotaged both! GET HIM!
  10. Let me be the FIRST to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our Soyuz-damaging overlords.

  11. Oblig by ZosX · · Score: 5, Funny
    In soviet russia...nah...too easy.

    zosX

    1. Re:Oblig by Ziviyr · · Score: 3, Funny

      No-no, go on.

      In Soviet Russia, bolts prematurely explode you.

      Further, I for one welcome our new Soviet exploding bolt overlords.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    2. Re:Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our new right-to-elect-governors-and-legislators-denying overlord Putin.

      In Soviet Russia, the terrorists AND the government terrorize you!

    3. Re:Oblig by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      I hope you prematurely explode.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    4. Re:Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he keeps playing with it like that, he will.

  12. Of course by Exiler · · Score: 5, Funny

    The real question we, as geeks, should be posing on Slashdot is: Where can I get some of these exploding bolts?

    --
    Banaaaana!
    1. Re:Of course by Volmarias · · Score: 1

      The same place you get the rest of your stuff: Army surplus!

    2. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dwarven thief has some exploding bolts he uses in his crossbow of slaying.

    3. Re:Of course by isorox · · Score: 1

      Next to the self sealing stem bolts

  13. A bit of a sensationalist item by Slashdot. by reality-bytes · · Score: 4, Insightful


    "I'm sure it's something the two astronauts on the station are thinking about as they repressurize the station with reserve air supplies."

    Of course, if the 'worst' comes to the 'worst' the 2 astronauts use the Soyuz module which is attached to the ISS to return to Earth; they don't depend on another launch just to get back if there is a problem.

    If they use the 'lifeboat' Soyuz, there are no explosive bolts to worry about there because they have already been fired.

    Of course, it would put the module/lifeboat situation out of sync but that can be made up by launching a second time after the next crew goes up.

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
    1. Re:A bit of a sensationalist item by Slashdot. by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Informative

      from the article: "This apparently refers to the small explosive bolts that sever mechanical and electrical connections between sections of the Soyuz during landing."

      the bolts are exploded when coming back down, so there is some worry there.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:A bit of a sensationalist item by Slashdot. by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Why are we so sure that the astronauts even know about this.

      I know that if I were NASA, I wouldn't tell the astronauts about something like this. You don't need them any more nervous than usual during a landing.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    3. Re:A bit of a sensationalist item by Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You propose to keep the crew uninformed, exactly as Columbia crew was?

    4. Re:A bit of a sensationalist item by Slashdot. by joh · · Score: 1

      If they use the 'lifeboat' Soyuz, there are no explosive bolts to worry about there because they have already been fired.

      No. The Soyuz docked to the ISS still consists of three parts: The orbital module (airlock, docking systems), the descent module (the actual capsule) and the service module (propulsion etc.). The bolt that has fired in ground testing was one of those connecting these three modules.

  14. safe flight and explosive bolts dont mix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    comparing space flight to regular flight is not very fruitful. regular flight is not safe either,and is plagued with problems. why? because both airlines, and space programs are very cheap, and very dishonest. notice it is the same backroom of aero companies that make both types of equipment. commercial, military, and space equipment is made as cheaply as possible. this is because space orgs need lots of money to "study psychological effects of space" and other make-work schemes.
    the concept of explosive bolts on spacecraft is very poor engineering. it is a good example of the disposable attitude space engineers have. it is surprising to see spacecraft that are still disposable, after all of these years. with many space (corporate welfare) agencies crying that they do not have enough money, it is unreasonable that there are no spacecraft with a service life beyond one. sending one time rockets up is a poor excuse for a space program, when i think of program, it means fleet, support, and engineering team, with real capabilities.
    i guess this only goes to show, in soviet russia, the space station delays you!

    1. Re:safe flight and explosive bolts dont mix by ryturner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yah, beacuse the reusable shuttle sysem is so much cheaper than the one time use rockets it replaces.

      If it only has to work once, then it is a lot simpler and a lot cheaper to build.

  15. If they keep them up there any longer... by nxtr · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...they should be young and lively when they get back.

  16. Mod parent up! by reality-bytes · · Score: 1


    You are absolutely right and I stand corrected; I totally misread the article.

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
  17. Okay, come clean mechE's by the+Howard+Dean+Camp · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's your dream to someday design something that requires exploding bolts, right?

  18. Intercepted message from earth... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 5, Funny

    "ISS, this is Huston. What is your status, over."

    "Huston, we are bingo air. Repeat, we are bingo air. send some up on a redbird, over"

    "ISS, that is a negative. Soyuz has dents in the fenders. Recomend you try that Jedi shit from episode one where they hold their breath, over."

    "Huston, episode 1 sucked, over."

    Wow, here's hoping everything turns out ok, the planet has had enough stuff go bad for manned space flight recently.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Intercepted message from earth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Huston the control center in Russia, similar to what we have here in Houston, USA?

    2. Re:Intercepted message from earth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is spelled Houston dipshit.

  19. Asumption by blackpaw · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    They're assuming that the anti-oxidant effects of red wine are the only health benefits, there may be other that beer doesn't replicate

    Not that that will stop me drinking my beer, I feel much happier about it now - espcially after the 3rd or fourth one

    1. Re:Asumption by bigjocker · · Score: 1

      Hehe, now that you have practiced a bit, why don't you head over to the beer and wine article and post your comment?

      'This is not the article you are looking for'

      --
      Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
  20. Re:They need to replenish their air supply........ by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The president should get Graham Russel and Clive Davis dispatched to ISS ASAP!"

    I don't know who those guys are, but I am interested in sending Lance Bass up there right about now.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  21. They have lots of redundancy... by rv8 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, if you'd RTFA you'd learn that they have a spare oxygen generator on the space station that can be installed as a replacement if necessary, plus they have a bunch of spare parts they can use to repair the one that is giving trouble. They have over a month's supply of chemical oxygen generators, and they have oxygen supplies in the Soyuz that is docked. So they have lots of redundancy here.

    There has to be some limit to the amount of redundancy they have in any one system, as they only have so much weight and volume available, but they don't seem to have cut any corners in the area of O2.

    --
    Kevin Horton
  22. Russian Mission Control by nxtr · · Score: 1

    As far as I recall, the Russian Mission Control is located in one of two places. It's either in Star City, a space town about 70 kilometers south of Moscow or it's in Korolev, also a town (now more of a suburb), about 20 kilometres north of Moscow.

  23. Keep the astronauts ignorant by jnicholson · · Score: 1
    Yes. Don't let them be prepared or have contingency plans!

    How nervous do you think astronauts are, as a breed?

    --
    "Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
    -- Nick Davies
  24. They have an escape capsule by csoto · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's an extra Soyuz capsule, permantently attached, to be used as a lifeboat in case of emergency evacuation.

    As usual, it's the Russians bailing us out...

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
    1. Re:They have an escape capsule by Moofie · · Score: 1

      It's quid pro quo for NASA building all the sections of ISS that Russia failed to deliver on time.

      Of course, ISS is an international clusterfuck that should be mothballed YESTERDAY, but that's a different kettle of fish.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  25. Clarification, they don't really 'explode' by Chairboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The 'explosive bolts' mention don't actually explode. The correct name is 'frangible bolt'. A small charge goes off inside it and breaks down the structure so it seperates cleanly. 'Explosive bolt' suggests that it goes off like a firecracker, but shooting shrapnel around inside a million pounds of cryogenic fuel and delicate machinery would be unwise.

    Also, in response to the post that asked why there were so many problems w/ spaceflight, there's one thing the responders failed to mention: assembly line quality.

    If you build 30 soyuz capsules over a 30 year period, each one is still very much like a craftsman assembled item. If, on the other hand, you build 100 devices of similar complexity in a year, then you can have real assembly lines with better inherent quality. The defects/flight and cost would drop dramatically if there were more spacecraft being built. Check the quality of the pre-Ford cars against the Model T, and the difference is immediately apparent.

    1. Re:Clarification, they don't really 'explode' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The 'explosive bolts' mention don't actually explode.
      A guy at work told me about an engineering test where the weak zone hadn't been properly ground into the bolt. It was very exciting, a new hole appeared in the ceiling, and they never found the head of the bolt.
  26. What's with all the problems with manned flights? by Dzimas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I suspect that a decade of funding neglect is what's causing such heartache for the US and Russian space programs. I wonder how long before the Chinese surpass them and set up their own space station? Given the general living conditions in the former USSR (yes, I've spent months living there), I can't see a sustained effort from the Russians for much longer. And the Americans don't seem interested anymore - the space-race ended years ago, and it no longer makes headlines unless everyone dies. I guess I better enroll in Mandarin classes... :)

  27. Re:They need to replenish their air supply........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which president?

  28. Maybe someone can enlighten me.... by Fortress · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...as to what exactly an oxygen generator is. From what does it generate oxygen? I thought spacecraft just carried pressurised (or liquefied) oxygen and just regulated it into the internal atmosphere. Is this one of those gag devices like a lumber stretcher or a left-handed monkey wrench? Do astronauts haze the new guy by saying "Hey, go check the oxygen generator. Then see if you can find my black hole."

    1. Re:Maybe someone can enlighten me.... by SeaDour · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Elektron generators split oxygen from water molecules, which are primarily obtained from the crew's waste water. For more info on the ISS' life support, check out this page.

    2. Re:Maybe someone can enlighten me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Elektron Oxygen generator in the ISS uses electricity provided by the solar arrays to electrolyize water (usually condensed humidity from the ISS atmosphere) into its two basic components, Hydrogen and Oxygen. The hydrogen is dumped overboard via a non-propulsive vent and the oxygen is released into the atmosphere of the ISS. The Elektron has a number of modes ( basiclly amps to the electrolyzer) to match its output to the rate of consumption. A earlier version of the Elektron was used on the Mir Station. Sadly the Russian Guru of the Elektron has passed away, taking som valuable trade secrets on how to build more of the units to the grave with him

      Larry

    3. Re:Maybe someone can enlighten me.... by Volmarias · · Score: 1

      No, more like a wood magnet from what I've heard, actually.

    4. Re:Maybe someone can enlighten me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition to the Elektrons, there are devices known as oxygen generators or oxygen candles, which produce oxygen. Sometimes, this involves an exothermic reaction which can reach a surface temperature of 260 C / 500 F, so you have the somewhat counter-intuitive notion of "burning" to produce oxygen rather than consume it.

      You might remember these chemical oxygen generators from such disaster films as the Mir fire, as well as a ValuJet that was carrying such as cargo.

    5. Re:Maybe someone can enlighten me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone want to build more units to the grave?

  29. It's time for Putin to act: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putin knows there's only way way to get the ISS really humming: blame Al Qaida and take away people's right to elect governors and legislators. Until these steps are taken, the space space is DOOOOOOOMed.

    Dude, I do think it's bizarre though how the media hasn't made a big deal out of Putin suspending democracy in the wake of the school massacre. The school massacre was on TV every night for a week, here in Japan. Why no coverage of the aftermath? The school massacre was a horrific thing that killed hundreds of children, but a return to totalitarianism could kill millions of men, women, and children.

    Oh well, I'll go back to being an "OT troll" elsewhere....

  30. Re:They need to replenish their air supply........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice 80's reference

  31. Re:They need to replenish their air supply........ by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Yeah, they can perform "all out of air" and "making air out of nothing at all".

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  32. Gus Grissom Vindicated "It just blew!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    NASA Said it had never happened...

    Apparently one of the small explosive bolts, used to separate sections of the capsule during landing, prematurely exploded, which means the bolts may all have to be inspected for defects.

    Now it has happened again.

  33. what a mess by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 0, Redundant

    we really need the shuttle (or whatever *should* be taking over for it by now...) to get back in the game. no more of this dropping pieces of foam to doom the rentry...ugg.

    CB

  34. Alpha testing space flight by iamlucky13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While it's true to a degree that space flight is inherently more difficult than atmospheric flight, that isn't the sole, or even the main factor contributing to the unreliability of space flight. It's also not really a problem of using old equipment. In fact, the problem can be considered using new equipment. Don't worry, I'm not crazy. Read on.

    The Wright Brothers crashed several times before their first powered flight, and they crashed on their third flight, and they crashed several times more in the years following that. It was part of starting out. Compare that with now. Every part in an airplane is rigorously tested, at least in the prototype. Most parts are "off-the-shelf," which not only makes them cheaper, but means the engineers can become familiar with their failure history and plan ahead. Even the newest designs are based on one that worked well before.

    In the space program, however, everything is new. The oxygen generator was built specifically for the space station. It was tested in the lab where it was built. At best, it was designed and built by applying lessons learned from a handful of similar devices before it.

    Remember, NASA is about developing technology. In a way, the space program now is sort of like a software program in its alpha test stage. A lot of lessons will be learned and a lot of bugs will be identified. In the next few decades, companies like Scaled Composites will produce vehicles that better fit the description of Beta releases. Maybe it won't be too long before we're asking if interstellar travel is really that much more difficult than flying to Mars.

    1. Re:Alpha testing space flight by farble1670 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe it won't be too long before we're asking if interstellar travel is really that much more difficult than flying to Mars.

      ummm. i don't think we'll ever ask that. developing a faster than light spacecraft, OR a method to suspended biological process in humans for tens, hundreds, or thousands of years will be many orders of magnitude more complex than spending a few months in an intra stellar spacecraft destined for mars. not that we are in the ballpark in on that one either. "simply" going to the moon again would be a monumental task.

    2. Re:Alpha testing space flight by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      In the space program, however, everything is new. The oxygen generator was built specifically for the space station.

      The generator may have been built specifically for the ISS, but it's a design that served many years aboard MIR. It's not new, it's not untested, and it is a field proven system, but, even aboard mir, it was one of the more problematic devices.

  35. I don't agree by Loualbano2 · · Score: 1

    I would think that hand building each one would produce better quality than assembly line work.

    A better car analogy would be a Rolls Royce vs. a Cadillac. Granted, a Caddy is a good car, but a Rolls is far and away a better car. Another analogy that might be more familiar to readers here would be comparing a vanilla Dell with a machine custom engineered for a specific purpose. I would put my money on the custom job.

    I also submit that the Model T wasn't better than it's ancestors because of an assembly line. That may have had a bit to do with it, but remember that the Model T was built for 19 years without major modifications for a total run of approx 15M cars. I would say that they had a reasonable amount of time to work out the bugs. Also, the pace of auto development was very rapid in those days, much like technology today. Yet another analogy would be to compare the 486 with the 386. Process improvements did have an effect on the improvements in the 486, but the design is what really set it apart. One could argue that process improvements gave the designers room to improve, so that analogy breaks down somewhat.

    I wouldn't say you are totally wrong though. If a lot more capsules were built, the quality would go up a bit at the end of the run of a LOT of them. I just wouldn't want to be on one of the first few off the line. The old adage "Don't ever buy a first year GM" is an old adage for a reason :)

    ft

    1. Re:I don't agree by chihowa · · Score: 1
      Granted, a Caddy is a good car...

      Not to detract from your point, but this is an erroneous statement. To further support this: The old adage "Don't ever buy a first year GM" is an old adage for a reason. Every Caddilac is a first year GM.

      Back on topic, though. I feel that spacecraft are actually of better quality than most assembly line produced machines. Consider the constant high load under extreme conditions. They benefit from the pros of both custom jobs and assembly line jobs. Many of the parts used to build the craft are assembly line products made to exact specs. Part of the problem with pre-assembly line products was that everything had to be custom made. This includes all fasteners and everything. Using computers as an example, you can custom make a good box using mass produced parts. The end product will, depending on your skill in putting legos together, be as good as a mass produced final product.

      There are not a whole lot of parts to a spacecraft that are one-shot custom built. And even those are built to very tight specs.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  36. Re:What's with all the problems with manned flight by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    What do you mean it doesn't make the headlines?

    Shuttle flights almost always spash on the front of CNN.com or the top of the news on CNN/Foxnews.

  37. I told em... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those fools, why couldn't they have used non-exploding bolts?!

  38. The mistake is to think in terms of "funding" by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    If there were a commercial reason to have a space station, the cost would be in effect zero because income would cover and pay for expenditure. Resupply missions would have been worked into the budget. In an emergency a lender could be found to pick up the cost aganst future profits. And if the whole project became a white elephant, it would show straight off empirically as negative profit.

    How do you socialist spacers grow your budget? The tax take can't go up much (because you'll wreck the economy and shrink the tax base). The government's got other things to do besides NASA. The cost for serious space can go up without limit but you're already bumping your budget ceiling. Your solution can't scale, which is why you're stuck with itty bitty robot probes and a barely operational floating tin can on a mission to nowhere.

  39. Exploding Bolts by BlueTooth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm no rocket scientist, but exploding bolts have always seemed like an engineering cop out to me.

    Engineer A: "Lets see...we have these two parts that need to be held together really tightly and then released very quickly"

    Engineer B: "I have an idea, let's just build the whole damn thing out of plastique or some shit, that'll work great"

    A: "Good show ol' chap. That will work fine and dandy indeed."

    jokes aside, what are the compelling (practical?) reasons that exploding bolts seem to be so common in spacecraft?

    --
    SPAM
  40. Obligatory quote by otterpop81 · · Score: 1

    I did NOT do anything wrong. The hatch just BLEW. It was a GLITCH. It was a- a TECHNICAL MALFUNCTION. Why in hell won't anyone believe me?

  41. Frangible Bolts by Migraineman · · Score: 1

    There are alternatives, like FrangiBolts, but nothing is as small and reliable as the explosive kind.

  42. Re:They need to replenish their air supply........ by Skater · · Score: 1

    They're the singers in the music group "Air Supply". :)

    --RJ

  43. Don't you mean...? by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 1
    ...because he'd kick your arse up and down the street.

    ...in EverQuest.

    Just to complete the stereotype. I agree, Slashdot is well into its own "September that never ended."

  44. They should have used by {Hecubus} · · Score: 1

    They should have used self-sealing stem bolts.

    --
    Unix is mysterious, and ancient, and strong. It's made of cast iron and the bones of heroic programmers of old -
  45. Soyuz by Alphtoo · · Score: 1

    So, yuz plannin' on launchin' that capsule inter space, wuz ya? Well yer'd best check them bolts fust... I had one 'splode and blow one o' my best wrenches slap into! I wouldn' trust 'em, nosuh.
    -
    Y'all please pardon the spelling; I'm an old Southern hillbilly turner of wrenches.