Space Station Computers Partially Restored

Raver32 writes with the news that a partial restoration of computer control was established on the International Space Station (ISS) Thursday. Systems controlling critical elements like navigation and life-support failed on Wednesday. "Flight controllers were able to re-establish some communication with the computers overnight, with Russian engineers working Thursday to restore the rest of the system, NASA space station flight director Holly Ridings said. The U.S. space agency and Russian officials are still trying to determine the cause of a failure affecting multiple computers in the Russian network ... Since an earlier failure on Monday, thrusters on the space shuttle Atlantis have been fired periodically to help maintain the station's position. The Russian and U.S. space agencies said they could extend Atlantis's mission by one or two days to fix the problem. In the worst-case scenario, NASA said the ISS crew members -- two Russians and an American -- may be evacuated from the station."

Comments

OLD OLD news

[Profane MuthaFucka]

The computers are dead, not half alive as previously reported.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-06 -15-spacewalk-three_N.htm

Re:OLD OLD news

[Jugalator]

Ouch... Even if I realize the ISS project itself has become a bit controversial with the funding and its goals (although its funding is nothing in comparison to so many other int'l projects I think the world could be without), this is sending some chills to me, if not only because of the economical catastrophy it would be for NASA, Russia, and the international space community with all that money down the drain if we would experience a worst case scenario here. Jeez, it's 2007 and the STS and ISS projects Were to be more or less finalized in 2010. It would be like being hit in the face on the finish line and I perhaps unlike any economical problem the space science community had experienced before. I really, really, hope they will get this sorted in the time that is running uncomfortably short. I may be emo, but as a space geek, my heart is with the NASA engineers at this point. :-(

Re:OLD OLD news

[jae471]

The repair will be to a section that is not critical for re-entry. This repair is prevent 6 months of repairs on the engine, not prevent catastrophic failure upon re-entry.

Re:OLD OLD news

[CodeBuster]

The second Atlantis leaves, should the thrusters from The Soyuz and The Progress not be sufficient to stabilize the ISS, it's a goner.

So, they either (a) fix the computers that control the gyros on the space station OR (b) everyone still up there boards either the Soyuz or Atlantis and everyone bails leaving the station to its fiery demise after it tumbles out of control OR (c) the Russians send a progress craft up there with more fuel (does the space shuttle support in flight refueling?) and consumables for the crews (the oxygen generator on the ISS is broken too they say). The space shuttle, as far as anyone without security clearance knows, has never been refueled in flight so it looks like the most likely option is everyone bails (option 'b') unless they can either fix the computers on the IIS (which may require getting new computers on a progress ala option 'c') which seems to be increasingly unlikely at this point. Perhaps Sir Isaac Newton will finally kill a project that Congress and several Presidents have been unable to. There are certainly some scientists that will not be sad to see the ISS go, given its deleterious effects on NASA's budget for other missions.

I blame W.G.A.

[Anonymous Coward]

They forgot to register their Vista ISS edition copy of Windows and their 30 day trial is over.

There are times...

[AKAImBatman]

In the worst-case scenario, NASA said the ISS crew members -- two Russians and an American -- may be evacuated from the station.

...when having an overly spacious craft can come in handy. Should an evacuation be necessary, at least we know the Shuttle can carry them all.

Of course, if we launched enough smaller ships to where we had multiple birds in the air at any given time, space for evacuation wouldn't be a problem. Just catch the next transport.

Which reminds me, did NASA ever get around to installing the emergency escape craft? I know it was supposed to be a stripped-down capsule, but I don't remember if they just decided to keep something docked at all times instead.

Re:There are times...

[cmowire]

In the early days (Space Station Freedom) they figured that if anything bad happened, they'd just send up another shuttle to rescue them, so the nodes were designed as secure refuges for the several-day wait for the next shuttle to show up.

Eventually NASA realized that wouldn't work, so they went through a series of different designs. Initially, they were going to dust-off the Apollo Capsule design and use that. Then they got creative.

The design, as specced when they started launching, was to put a lifting body capsule specifically designed for the purpose. Until it was ready, they'd just use Soyuz capsules.

Then the special purpose vehicle became a general purpose vehicle, so that they didn't have to worry about the shuttle nearly as much.

Then the Columbia blew up and the general purpose vehicle became our last best hope for a space program, but as a dusted-off Apollo Capsule instead of a fancy lifting body.

Now, they just dock a single Soyuz capsule. Eventually they will have a pair of Soyuz capsules docked. Which is fine, it's just that the Russians have a habit of abusing their position whenever they are the only way up and down from the ISS.

Also, note that if the goal is to get somebody *down* from orbit, it isn't too hard. A heat-shield, a space-suit, a nitrogen-gas thruster, and a parachute. Maybe a cheezy visual alignment aid to get the thruster in the right point and a map to make sure you land on land. A few hundered pounds of hardware, per person. The problem has always been feature-creep more than anything else.

Re:There are times...

[compro01]

Also, note that if the goal is to get somebody *down* from orbit, it isn't too hard. A heat-shield, a space-suit, a nitrogen-gas thruster, and a parachute. Maybe a cheezy visual alignment aid to get the thruster in the right point and a map to make sure you land on land. A few hundered pounds of hardware, per person. The problem has always been feature-creep more than anything else.

they're actually working on that. there was an interesting article in popsci in the latest issue. they're planning to have the first actual jump-from-orbit test by 2009.

Re:There are times...

[MichaelSmith]

I'm not sure why you think that a lifting body capable of controlled supersonic flight is not as "fancy" as a lifting body capable of controlled subsonic flight.

The latter can soft land with wheels or skids. The former relies on parachutes.

Re:There are times...

[susano_otter]

I think I understand, now. This is some sort of pissing contest where your lifting body is supposed to be much cooler than my lifting body. In fact I think that all lifting bodies are pretty cool. I think single-stage, self-propelled, "airplane"-style lifting bodies are pretty cool. The Apollo capsule always struck my fancy because it was a lifting body where I didn't expect one. I think it's unfair to dismiss it as not being a "fancy" lifting body. But as they say, "you can't argue with taste". You obviously think that lifting bodies in airplane applications are "fancier" than lifting bodies in space capsule applications. I think they're both pretty fancy. Luckily, the Internet is big enough for the two of us.

Re:Twit moderators

[AKAImBatman]

Now THAT'S funny. I have no idea what's up with the mods lately, but they've been acting incredibly random at times.

I should probably keep that in mind for now. I was looking at your post and trying to figure out exactly which Lexington you were talking about. The last USS Lexington I'm aware of was an old Essex-class WWII carrier that was decommissioned in 1991. (Named in honor of the first operational carrier in the US Fleet; valiantly lost in the Battle of the Coral Sea.) Given the age of the carrier, I was doubting that she had any computers running her primary systems.

I figured that everyone else must know something I didn't since you getting modded up! :P

Over-voltage causes computer failure at ISS Russia

[simos]

MOSCOW, June 15 (Itar-Tass) -- A fivefold over-voltage resultant from the unfolding of extra U.S. solar batteries caused a computer failure at the Russian segment of the International Space Station (ISS), a source at the Energia Aerospace Corporation told Itar-Tass on Friday.

"The power units of six computers of the Russian segment had a breakdown because of the over-voltage. The American partners unfolded new solar batteries on June 11," the source said.

The German-made computers withstood the 2.5-time over-voltage last September, when the first segments of solar batteries were unfolded. The June 11 over-voltage hit the computers hard, he said.

While experts are trying to reanimate the computers, new power units will be delivered to the ISS onboard a Progress freighter, Energia General Director Nikolai Sevastyanov told a Friday press conference. He said the new power units would be better protected.

The Progress will be launched two weeks earlier than planned because of the ISS situation. Initially, the launch was scheduled for August 6. The U.S. segment of the ISS will provide for the station's orientation in the meantime, and engines of the docked Progress will be used if necessary.

The ISS crew evacuation is not on the agenda, although a relevant plan has been drafted. Some of the computers of the Russian segment are still operational.

Source: http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=11 633186&PageNum=0

Re:ISS showing it's age

[Anonymous Coward]

The cell phone CPU please.

Processor speed is irrelevant to whether or not a device is reliable, but having an older device suggests that the bugs
are more likely to be fixed or at least known by the staff. CPUs don't really wear out anyway.

No

[geekoid]

If you have a critical system that does everything you need and runs fine, never update it.

This is old news - Status update

[Anonymous Coward]

This is still a dynamic situation. Moscow only has line-of-sight communications with the ISS, so their interaction with the on-board computer system is limited to certain time windows. Over the last few days, the ISS computers have been going flaky, on and off. Since this article was written, they've completely died. However, as of a few minutes ago, they have successfully booted 2 out of 3 lanes in the terminal system, which is way more progress than they've been making previously. Just prior, they disconnected a power cable which extends to where the next solar panel array will be installed. This may have been the source of the problem, as the computers started acting up right around the time the cable was initially connected. If you're more interested in up-to-date information regarding the situation, don't turn to CBS. Try www.spaceflightnow.com (realtime updates).

Crash and Burn

[Howitzer86]

Watch, as all your tax dollars go down the drain.

Assuming the computers cannot be restarted in a day or two, the shuttle and station crew will have to depart. Without those computers, the station will be put in an ever increasing spin due to tidal forces. Once the shuttle leaves, it will never be able to dock with the station again.

Eventually, the orbit will decay and cause the station to enter an uncontrolled reentry. By uncontrolled I mean hundreds of tons of flaming white hot metal could end up crashing in a heavily populated area.

I hope it doesn't, but you never know.

I figured it had to be the new panels.

[Shivetya]

don't Russian computers run on metric electricity?

Re:Over-voltage causes computer failure at ISS Rus

[Timesprout]

Nice attemp at a cover up. We all know the computers were really confiscated by the RIAA for filesharing.

Why not an American computer?

[the_rajah]

This was the question that was asked on a locally hosted talk radio show yesterday. I called in and explained that if it was an American computer, it would probably be running Windows. I asked if they had heard of the "Blue Screen of Death", which they had. I explained that deploying Windows in a life-support function would give new meaning to the term. Then the host, intelligent guy that he is, said, "But they could use a Mac". I said, "Or, better yet Linux".

Funny

[Nymz]

unless you are Moscow ground control, then "Houston, we have a problem".

Shouldn't that be "Moscow, we have a problemski."?

Another good one I've seen around - In Soviet Russia, YOU stablize gyroscopes.

Re:Over-voltage causes computer failure at ISS Rus

[EvilMagnus]

I suspect they had six machines on the same circuit (probably all in one of the Russian modules). One or more of those machines controlled the thrusters. They all got fried. The Russian control software probably works fine on any one of those six Russian computers ... all of which got fried. ;-)

They didn't all die because there's very few disasters on the ISS that would produce near-instantaneous calamity. This particular one means no thrusters, which isn't usually a problem ( gyros work for minor correction ) - it's only bad because if it's not fixed in time for the Shuttle's departure, the shuttle's undocking will disrupt the ISS's position beyond the gyros ability to compensate.

so if it falls from teh sky...

[corporatewhore]

...the last of the hopi indian prophecies will have come to pass...

            "And this is the Ninth and Last Sign: You will hear of a dwelling-place in the heavens, above the earth, that shall fall with a great crash. It will appear as a blue star. Very soon after this, the ceremonies of my people will cease.

Closer to solved?

[Boilermaker84]

Spaceflightnow.com (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts117/0706 14computers/index7.html) is reporting that bypassing a suspect power supply (does not indicate what the power supply is/if it's related to the new panels or not) resulted in 4 of the 6 computers coming back up and restoration of 2 of the 3 guidance lanes.