Slashdot Mirror


Space Station Solar Equipment Showing Damage

bhmit1 writes "The latest space walk has turned up some bad news for the problematic solar panels: metal shavings. From the article: "The rotary joint, 10 feet in diameter, has experienced intermittent vibrations and power spikes for nearly two months. Space station managers were hoping a thermal cover or bolt might be hanging up the mechanism. That would have been relatively easy to fix, so they were disheartened when Daniel Tani radioed down that metal shavings were everywhere. 'It's quite clear that it's metal-to-metal grating or something, and it's widespread,' Tani said.""

11 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. that's not metal-on-metal grating by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's not metal-on-metal grating in the bearings, that's just some sick bastard playing Yoko Ono.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:that's not metal-on-metal grating by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's not metal-on-metal grating in the bearings, that's just some sick bastard playing Yoko Ono. -1 Troll? Wow, looks like Yoko Ono's one fan got mod points today.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  2. Re:they forgot to put oil? by arivanov · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oil does not work in space. It either freezes or evaporates. In fact only some "solid lubricants" like graphite and MoS work to a point.

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  3. Will a replacement fix it? by _merlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I noted that they intend to fit a replacement joint, and are limiting the travel of the solar panel(s) in the mean time. My question is, do they know what the source of the problem actually is? Is it a manufacturing defect, damage or wear and tear in the currently fitted joint? If it is, replacing it is a reasonable solution. But if it isn't - i.e. if there's a design or operational problem - replacing it will just be a temporary band-aid, and the same thing will happen again sooner or later.

    1. Re:Will a replacement fix it? by mha · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So how would you propose these things are done? I mean, things that no one's ever done before, and which you can't really simulate?

      An anecdote from my days of working for a huge German company (240000 employees) at Oracle (first job after university): I was part of the 32-64bit porting team. The question came up, are customers going to need additional or larger hard drives for the 64bit version of Oracle?

      The answer from the Germans: Well, you've got the source code. Examine all structures in the code that end up on disk and count the bytes. (we know how many Bytes an "int" takes up on 32 vs. 64bit, etc.)

      The answer from the Americans: Well, you've got the source code there. Just compile it and see what happens!

      You know, while the German approach (I *am* German) sounds a lot more "scientific" and exact I would say the American way was not just better, but the only one that actually WORKS outside a simulated computer environment with a limited number of known-in-advance factors.

      So again, how would YOU go about discovering the unknown? *I* would do just what NASA does, and what humans have done for millenia: Try, fail and try again, never approaching any ideal solution but something that works for now, until the next unforeseen thing happens.

      Of course, in the western world everything that even LOOKS like risk has to be eliminated: from hot coffee to horses with tourists on them going any faster than a slow walk (I'll NEVER go on any tourist expedition on a horse in the US again, in Germany my friends who've never been on a horse before were forced to "survive" gallop several times in a 2 hour tour - and did so with relative ease).

  4. Re:Towing in space by Migraineman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Towing in space has been done before. Grumman sent North American Rockwell an invoice for towing their crippled spacecraft home. The rate per mile seems pretty reasonable too.

    All joking aside, this is going to be a bear to fix. The best scenario would be that the drive gear was munching an insulation blanket. The debris would be friendly to space suits, and should only be labor intensive to clean out. If the gears are grinding on each other, the debris will be sharp and hard. That would be "bad" and I'd expect NASA to seriously consider returning the entire assembly to earth for repair. Expensive, but much less likely to kill someone.

    I'm of the opinion that the drive system on this beast is probably over-engineered. It should resemble a Ford F-150 differential - loose tolerances, and designed to run for many millions of rotations without much maintenance. There's absolutely no need for the solar array to have precision pointing capability. I really do hope that the problem isn't due to over-engineering, but I wouldn't place a bet.

  5. Re:Incredible Spending Sink by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ut we're figuring out how to live in space with this project
    Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper just to ask the Russians?
    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  6. From the TFA by denzacar · · Score: 4, Funny

    "It's quite clear that it's metal-to-metal grating or something, and it's widespread," Tani said.

    "Wow," said his spacewalking partner, Scott Parazynski. Its nice to see those "Keanu Reeves Linguistic School" classes paying off for astronauts.
    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  7. One hell of a gear box by BadHaggis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The SARJ, 10.5 ft in diameter and 40 inches long, will maintain the solar arrays in an optimal orientation to the sun while the entire space station orbits the Earth once every 90 minutes. Drive motors in the SARJ will move the arrays through 360 degrees of motion at four degrees per minute. The joints must rotate the arrays smoothly without imparting vibrations to the laboratories and habitation modules on the station that would impact microgravity-processing activities. At the same time, 60 kW of power at 160 volts and multiple data channels are carried across each joint by copper "roll rings" contained within. From: Google Cached Lockeed Martin Article on the Panels.
    The joints in question are huge and as this article points out any vibrations back into the ISS could cause problems with other equipment or experiments. Additionally power is transferred back to the ISS through copper rings in the unit itself. Any metal which provides a better circuit path than the copper would cause the power spikes.

    Opening this thing up would be something like trying to rebuild an Automatic Transmission, then add the complexity of doing this in micro-gravity. It would probably be easier for NASA to send up a complete replacement instead of trying clean out all of the metal shavings and replace the parts that are damaged.
    --
    Homo homini lupus
  8. Re:Actually, we did by khallow · · Score: 4, Informative

    They supplied part of the computer system and the O2 Generator.

    The Russians also provide two or three components and a second maneuvering system. They provide the only reliable supply vehicles and as I understand it, there's a considerable part of the orbit that's over Russian space.

    In addition, they have never done anything near this big. As it is, the ISS is already double the mass of MIR, and it will go up by 50%. In addition, it is about 50% more living volume than mir and will still double over the next 2 years. This is WELL beyond what russia has done. This is all an new learning experience for the world. Fortunately, this experience will enable us to go to the moon and mars a lot cheaper and faster.

    Only three times the mass of MIR and you claim it's "WELL" beyond something the Russians have done? Nonsense. As I see it, there are a number of innovations in the structure and construction of the ISS, but the raw size isn't one of them.

    Heck, look at China. Their space program is now outspending yearly what Apollo did at its' height. And with that, they launch a fraction of the flights that did and currently do. That is because they are busy trying to acquire the same technology (generally buying it from Russia or simply stealing it from NASA and RSA).

    Where does that claim come from? Last I googled, China claims it only spends two billion a year. In comparison, when you adjust for inflation, NASA spending in the 60's peaked above $25 billion in 1996 dollars.
  9. Re:Towing in space by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    These *were* designed to run for many rotations. The design specs for the SARJ (Solar Alpha Rotary Joint) were that the 10.5'x2.5', 2,500lb structure would rotate at 4 degrees per minute without imparting vibration to the laboratories that would mess up the microgravity experiments, for a minimum of 15 years. They also have to transfer 60kW of power at 160V while rotating through a "roll ring". These were the design specs, and they were engineered around that; this break was not supposed to happen. That's why this is considered an anomalous event. It's not a case of an insufficient design goal.

    One thing that a lot of people don't realize is that there's still a tremendous amount of stuff that we don't know about living and operating things in space. It's deceptively similar to our world; just picturing it being like an Earth where you can't breathe and you can have enough velocity to fall in a circle simply doesn't cut it.

    Example: TSS-1R. Space Shuttle Columbia deployed this as part of NASA's series of experiments with orbital tethers (for "hanging" craft from other craft and for raising and lowering orbits). When the tether was 19.7km out of the desired 20.7km deployed, it snapped. Evidence suggested arcing and burning in the tether. Why? The tether was at -3500VDC compared to the orbiter, with no current flowing through it. A minor defect in the tether's insulation left the conductive core exposed to space. Unexpected trapped gas in the insulation bubbled out in the vaccuum of space. This gas created a path for conduction to the orbiter, creating a plasma arc that burned away at the tether until the remaining strands failed under the strain.

    In hindsight, it's easy to look at this and say, "Oh, we should have had a short-detection system." However, hindsight is 20-20. We've learned a great deal from past experiences, which unfortunately means that systems have to get more complicated. For example: where does the heat from running the drive motor for the arrays go? Why, it goes all over the place! It took an entire design study just to figure out where it would be going and what to do with it. Now picture unexpected current draws (creating more heat) from the metal shavings thrown into the mix, and what that will do for heat load, or what the metal shavings themselves could get into or allow to conduct unexpectedly. Things get tricky fast.

    Too many people seem too eager to see a "finished product" in space. It's important that things like the ISS be seen foremost as learning experiences. In this case, I'm sure we'll see the same thing.

    --
    "We consider that six courts and an asylum claim are a rather odd way of returning to Sweden within a month."