Minor Technical Issue Aboard Shuttle Discovery

IZ Reloaded writes "Space Shuttle Discovery has a problem with the pipeline for an auxiliary power unit that controls the shuttle's hydraulic steering and braking maneuvers. CNN reports that the pipleline is leaking 'fuel' at about six drops per hour." From the article: "The leak is more likely nitrogen, but there is no way of knowing that, so NASA is treating the problem as if the leak were fuel ... If it is fuel, the current rate is still 100,000 times slower than what would cause a fire ... Just in case, NASA will turn on the power unit with the leak early Sunday as part of its normal testing and then see if the leak rate changes. If it does, NASA may burn off the hydrazine and shut down the power unit before the shuttle returns to Earth to eliminate any fire hazard.'"

Comments

3 APU's yet only APU1 drives the landing gear ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems off that only APU1 drives the landing gear, with a backup of pyrotechnics...

"APU 1 is the only hydraulic system that can deploy the shuttle's landing gear. If APU 1 is out of action, pilot Mark Kelly would have to manually fire pyrotechnic charges to deploy the gear."

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts121/06071 4mplm/

Re:solution

[megaditto]

Bad idea. As I recall from my college days, hydrazine is some really nasty stuff. The tiniest quantities will stink like rotting fish, way worse than triethylamine. Plus it's a potent neurotoxin, absorbed through skin or inhaled, with these 6 drops entirely enough to send the whole crew on a shroom-like trip (it would be a drug of choice on the street I think, if not for its HORRIBLE stench). MSDS just doesn't do this baby justice!

Not nasty enough? Well, it's also highly explosive, hence the reason it is used for fueling rockets.

100,000 times slower than what would cause a fire

That's just bull*. Assuming 1 drop is 20 uL or so, that's plenty enough to explode.

Just to show how the dangerous this really is, the hydrazine generators were deemed unsafe for submarines (but A-O.K. for the Space Shuffles, apparently). What next, dynamite sticks as flares?

STS-9 APU Fire

[Aglassis]

STS-9 came in with an APU on fire. Here is a video.

Overconservatism

[mcrbids]

NASA is crippled. Rather than cover the achievements of each mission, they cover the lack of failures. It's a no-win situation. If they screw up ANYWHERE, they look terrible. If they make it back ok, they wasted a ton of money on... what again?

In the media, I've heard all about how they made sure the stupid thing can land, on at least 3 media sources. But WTF is the reason they launched? What are they up there for, other than to make it back alive? I could do that on a Mooney for alot less money and with alot less stress!

This is being handled all wrong. They shoulda spun this as "making real forward progress sometimes hurts - there's risk in growth - DEAL WITH IT" - but instead they're trying to make it seem like it's a big deal to launch into low-earth orbit and make it back alive.

How stupid!?!?!? We've been able to do THAT since the 1960s.

This is a PR ball that's being dropped, and NASA is now neutered. It's a worthless waste of time. Send everybody home, take the (piddling, thanks to terrible PR management) amount of money that was being spent there, and give it to an organization that can LOOK FORWARD again...

Give me a reason to get excited, or stop spending my damned tax dollars. (Oh, and don't mention Iraq, I marched in the streets with signs over that one!)

Re:Overconservatism

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't escape from taxes, and I'd rather see them spent on NASA than on Iraq.

Did you ever watch one of those news conferences held with the astronauts/mission management team representatives? ALL questions somehow related to a concern for safety and NONE are actually asking whatever the crew have done that day. NASA is surely making a big deal on re-entry, but it's the media is making it sound like it's gonna be another Columbia.

The overwhelming concern on safety is exactly what got me excited about these couple of "return-to-flight" missions. NASA is trying to MOVE FORWARD with the construction of the ISS while trying their best to keep the construction workers safe. If they slip and the program stalls it will not only be years and years of your and my tax dollars that go down the drain, but also investments from Russia, Japan, Europe and other international partners. It is ALREADY an international effort. It is a sunken-cost mentality and it is make-or-break for NASA.

Quit acting like you don't care about the lives of those astronauts if they are given in the name of "progress". Everything that NASA does to protect them IS "progress". You protested furiously about the not having any more dead soldiers in Iraq didn't you? What makes you think it is any different in space?

Re:Overconservatism

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing that you don't deal with NASA on a daily basis, as I do. The S in NASA doesn't stand for shuttle! The tail is wagging the dog here and the shuttle is becoming the main focus of both mind and dollar at NASA.

The shuttle was designed for cheap quick turnaround flights, but in reality it costs as much as one billion dollars per launch (for launches where it doesn't blow up)? And what space science do we gain from them? Not much; considering that for that $1B, you could build 3 MIDEX-class instruments AND launch them on Deltas.

Re:Overconservatism

[icebrain]

FY06 NASA budget: $16.5 billion

US population: ~ 300 million

Total cost, per person: ~ $54.84

About 25-30% of the population is too young to pay taxes - that leaves around $71 per taxpayer.

To put this in perspective (albeit with 2004 numbers):

NASA budget allocation: $15.5 billion

Department of Education: $53.1 billion (29.4b for primary/secondary, 15b for higher ed., 1b for vocational)

Housing and Urban Development: $31.3 billion

IRS (tax collectors): $10.4 billion

Foreign aid: $17.1 billion

Department of Agriculture: $19.5 billion

And an interesting pictorial representation:

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/9410862/

Actually yes, it may be

[Flying pig]

If you have a car that runs on gasoline (i.e. spark ignition high volatility fuel) you may already have minor gas leaks and you are probably losing a certain amount of fuel through evaporation, unless you happen to be in very high latitudes in the Southern hemisphere. Gasoline is so volatile that it is very hard to spot small leaks. In cars and trucks this is rarely that important so long as the engine compartment is well ventilated, but there is a reason why marine approvals bodies discourage inboard gasoline engines on boats (where there are going to be unventilated spaces, for sufficiently obvious reasons.)

I had an undetected small leak in a Diesel system for some time because it only leaked under feed pump pressure, which meant the engine was running, and the heat volatilised the fuel which was then sucked into the air inlet above the leak. It may have been there for several years undetected.

Despite all the fuss about it being hydrazine, it may be safer and easier to ignore it because any attempt to fix the leak may simply make it worse.