Slashdot Mirror
ISS Oxygen Generator Fails for Good
billyj4 writes "A balky Russian oxygen generator broke down on the International Space Station, but its two-man crew has a reserve air supply that would last about five months, NASA officials said Friday.
The station's primary generator, which has been operating in an on-again, off-again fashion for months, stopped working last week and the station's crew has not been able to fix it.
Mission managers say the unit has failed for good. Consequently, Russian cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev and U.S. astronaut John Phillips will be relying on reserves until replacement parts arrive at the station in late August."
It stated in the Article snippet that they have 5 months of oxygen. How is that stressful?
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
With the shuttle nearing obsolescence and this kind of substantial problem on the ISS, it shows just how fragile our space program(s) still are.
We need better, sturdier-designed equipment if we are going to make a serious go at space exploration.
Imagine if something like this happened on the way to Mars... Saturn... HD 2638 b...
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
You're thinking of Mir. Skylab was operated by the US.
Maybe money, or shuttles, or both.
Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
How did the Generator Fail? [...] I'm left to sit here and think "the machine just broke, not worth trying to fix?"
They didn't say how the generator failed, but the article did state that they had attempted repair and failed. The [Astro|Cosmo]nauts and Ground control have come to the joint conclusion that "it's dead Jim!" and have decided that they just need a replacement. I can imagine that there are quite a few unfixable things that can happen to the unit. Without replacement parts, there's nothing that can be done. And when your life depends on the equipment, it makes a lot of sense just to replace the entire unit rather than just send the spare parts.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
More importantly, the only way to have a permanent presence off the planet is for it to be a self-sustaining presence. It needs to be on the moon (or any large solid body) so the inhabitants can expand their own space. Send construction workers, not scientists. Once there is enough there that people don't need to worry about things like food, water, air - then it could become a useful place to send people and do research.
I wouldn't wanna be left in space knowing I have X days of oxigen left ... very stressfull ...
Bad news: you do. You live on a spaceship called "Planet Earth" whose primary oxigen generator is known as "Rainforest". It's ability of producing oxygen is decaying. From this decay you could calculate your X. Scared? You bloody well should be.
In previous episode of this space opera series, we have seen how attempts to repair "Rainforest" by the brave crew of "Planet Earth" using "Kyoto Agreement" failed due to actions of certain interstellar villain named "Bushadministration". Stay with us for the next episode!
While I agree with the statement to be the best of my knowledge, I would remind you to be caucious in accepting claims from any Soviet Government Department. I'm sure they would not be very forthcoming if they had lost people in space back then, hell if they overstate production of boots by a factor of 8 then they might lie about something really important too.
"Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
If the ISS is a useful science tool and it is part of the long-term aim of landing a man on Mars, wouldn't it be more interesting to tell the astronauts that there was no replacement on the way and that they would have to solve the problem themselves? This is after all, the situation they would encounter following a similar failure on a Mars mission. This would be one way of finding out which systems on ISS are genuinely essential, and which could be stripped down and the parts re-used for maintaining life-support.
That points out the chicken and egg problem with space colonization. There's a lot of fundamental research that needs to be done in order to make permanent space habitation possible. The effects on physiology for extreme long term micro gravity (even lunar gravity might cause some surprises down the line), large scale construction with on site materials, reliability (remember that so far all structures we've built in orbit or on earth have a shelf life - even the nuclear missle subs go into dry dock to get refitted), safe and reliable excape routes, and the production of plants that can handle micro gravity and reproduce - or be reproduced - are huge investments that may not show a profit for many years to come.
At present, there are very few corporations who would be willing to suggest this kind of venture to their stock holders; and possibly none that would survive the resulting firestorm in the boardroom. Likewise, the kind of projects needed to push these areas of research aren't sexy and flashy, and so they probably won't get public officials reelected.
So how can we break the stale mate? Perhaps joint private/public ventures. Perhaps space needs its own lobbyist and leader to sell the benefits of space exploration to the average tax paying slob without overselling it.
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
...for doing everything on the cheap, rushing through everything while taking forever to do it, and letting the public's whimisical and capricious nature guide our space program.
We are not now, but someday will be at the point where if we don't get off the planet in a sustainable format, we won't be able to at all after that point due to lack of resources: technological, social, and energy. Imagine an Earth with a planetary population of fifteen billion, schismatic fighting over resources, and no cohesive will to even try to see common ground for the survival of the species.
That day is coming and in that world, how do you expect to do the major housecat herding job it would be to get enough of the wealthiest and advanced nations on the same page for a space colonization effort?
Instead we dilly-dally with the attitude that "it's only moon rocks and photo ops" and "we need to deal with problems right here". We won't have a right here to deal with if we don't make the human race an ongoing proposition. Top down forcing of changes in human behavior have never worked and all the fanatical self-righetousness of the environmental movement isn't catching on and won't ever.
We don't change under pressure very well and need the breathing space and serenity to do it. Try kicking a cigarette habit while simultaneously remodelling your home, refinancing your mortgage, getting two vehicles fixed, having sick family in the hopsital, and having a full desk at work. Now try it when you have three months paid leave and no problems on your plate.
So we need to get off Earth in a meaningful sustainable format right now, make sure that any event down below won't take out the species, and use what we find out there to better our lives, and we need to do it now.
Instead, we're using Russian O2 generators with known issues, and doing things without much more advancement than what we used to go to the moon in 1969. It's 2005 and you'd figure a planet that can make civilian houses nearly air and energy tight could do as well with environmental support on an orbiting tin can.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
You're one of those people in analysis paralysis. There are plenty of those around, what we need is people who like to take some risks and DO things. Structures? Go to the moon and start digging in the rock. Line it with some sort of air-tight "stuff". This way, they can always dig out new living quarters - and the more you work, the bigger your house! Plants that can provide food and reproduce in low-G... Hmmm if NASA hasn't identified these yet with all their years in space we should be shutting the whole organization down, not just the station.
I think you're right that public corporations won't do it on their own, but rich guys seem to be getting interested in space now. It's one of the few big things left to get into the history books (things of the "establish a colony off the earth" magnitude).
Maybe the semiconductor industry will go. A good floor and a little dust canopy and the moon is a great big clean room - nothing floating in the air. Need low pressure for CVD or something? Just go out back and fire up some plasma. Why do some people make everything seem so hard? ;-)
I take it from your replies that you're neither science nor engineering educated. Exactly what kind of air-tight "stuff" would you build your house out of? I'm sure we can come up with long lists of permanently secure materials after we look for it; but the point is we haven't ever built anything like it before and the first few attempts are likely to fail. As for plants in low-G, it might be obvious that all plants on earth have developed with gravity and tend to use it as reference to build the complex structures we call "food." So NASA inabillty to "find" them has more to do with them no existing than and (perhaps present) failure on NASA's part.
...but good luck getting to space anyway.
So you want to start a private voyage to space to setup a permanent habitat? Good for you. But where the hell are you going to get the investment from? Rocketry is almost a century old and we're only now getting to the point where private investors are willing to use their hard earned cash to try and make money from all the mature(-ing) science. Who the hell would give you money to try some hair-brained scheme that is at best centuries away from profit and would most likely fail spectacularly?
I wish modern investors thoughtr more long term, but they don't...
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."