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."
The president should get Graham Russel and Clive Davis dispatched to ISS ASAP!
-Randy
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.
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.
zosX
zosxavius photography
The real question we, as geeks, should be posing on Slashdot is: Where can I get some of these exploding bolts?
Banaaaana!
"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.
"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!
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!"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
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
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.
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... :)
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.
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