|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Service Module Thruster Test Fails
Details developing
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Service Module Thruster Test Fails
Burn automatically aborted pre-ignition. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Service Module Thruster Test Fails
Uh, isn't anyone interested in this 'non-event'?
"Jim Oberg" wrote Details developing |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Service Module Thruster Test Fails
Uh, isn't anyone interested in this 'non-event'?
Well, I was just trying to remember what propulsion on the station was and was not working. Though I guess I was thinking of reboost engines, and "thruster" could mean either that or attitude control. I guess in a nutshell, I'm too ignorant, both in terms of background and in terms of this latest event, to know whether to be interested or not. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Service Module Thruster Test Fails
"Jim Oberg" wrote:
"Jim Oberg" wrote Details developing Uh, isn't anyone interested in this 'non-event'? Uh, yes. But some of us do try and avoid uninformed speculation. If you were expecting a chorus a 'do tell Jim, do tell' - you should know better. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Service Module Thruster Test Fails -- first story on line
MSNBC COSMIC LOG//. April 19, 2006 | 6 p.m. ET
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12359455/#060419b Space station test fizzles: Today was supposed to mark the first time in six years that the engines were fired up on the international space station's Zvezda service module. The test firing was aimed at raising the orbital outpost's altitude by about half a mile (700 meters) - and also finding out whether the engines still worked. NBC News space analyst James Oberg was watching the test closely, and reported that the firing was aborted because one of the valves on one of the engines failed to open. Fortunately, the non-firing is basically a "non-event," and there are no immediate plans to try the test again, Oberg quoted NASA spokesman Rob Navias as saying. The station will still be in an acceptable orbit for next week's scheduled rendezvous with a Progress cargo ship, even without the engine firing, Oberg said. "Even if the engines never work, they are only a backup to propulsion capability usually provided by visiting vehicles docked to the aft port," he explained in an e-mail. "The loss of these engines has no impact on station operations - the Russians were just curious if they would work after so long, and they have their answer." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Service Module Thruster Test Fails -- first story on line
Jim Oberg wrote:
"Even if the engines never work, they are only a backup to propulsion capability usually provided by visiting vehicles docked to the aft port," he explained in an e-mail. "The loss of these engines has no impact on station operations - the Russians were just curious if they would work after so long, and they have their answer." Losing a backup system has always got to be a Bad Thing (although Mir spent nearly its entire life in the same situation, but for a different reason). It makes you wonder what other long-term dormant systems no longer work. The failure of P6's array extension/retraction system would be extremely bad, for example. --Chris |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Service Module Thruster Test Fails -- first story on line
Gene Cash wrote in :
Chris Bennetts writes: It makes you wonder what other long-term dormant systems no longer work. The failure of P6's array extension/retraction system would be extremely bad, for example. Why would that be? I can't think of any reason to need to retract the arrays, or how it could become a problem. P6 was originally intended to be installed at the far port end of the truss. To provide more power for the US segment during the assembly sequence, the sequence was modified to launch P6 early and mount it to the Z1 truss at the center of the station. Once assembly of the truss resumes, the P6 arrays would interfere with the rotation of the arrays on the P3/P4 and S3/S4 truss segments, so the arrays must be retracted until P6 can be relocated to its permanent position on the port end, then re-extended. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Service Module Thruster Test Fails -- first story on line
"Jim Oberg" wrote:
NBC News space analyst James Oberg was watching the test closely, and reported that the firing was aborted because one of the valves on one of the engines failed to open. Fortunately, the non-firing is basically a "non-event," and there are no immediate plans to try the test again, Oberg quoted NASA spokesman Rob Navias as saying. All-singing all-dancing, just a different tune and a different set of steps. The station will still be in an acceptable orbit for next week's scheduled rendezvous with a Progress cargo ship, even without the engine firing, Oberg said. "Even if the engines never work, they are only a backup to propulsion capability usually provided by visiting vehicles docked to the aft port," he explained in an e-mail. "The loss of these engines has no impact on station operations - the Russians were just curious if they would work after so long, and they have their answer." Ah, right. It's *OK* for backups to be faulty - we'll never need them after all. Ask the shades of the crew of the USS Thresher what they think of that. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Service Module Thruster Test Fails -- first story on line
John Doe wrote:
Question is whether those are field replaceable/repairable, It depends on the exact nature of the problem, but I think it's unlikely. Anything more than the most superficial repair work would mean dealing with hardware that has been contaminated with hydrazine and N2O4, both very nasty chemicals. Better to leave the problem unsolved than to try fixing it if either of those are involved. and if Russia has any plans to provide a new backup solution since they knew from the outset that those engines wouldn't last for the whole station lifetime. The backup solution is Progress. Just remember that Mir was in the same situation for almost all of its life[1]. [1] Kvant-1 was in the way of the base block's engines. --Chris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ted Taylor autobiography, CHANGES OF HEART | Eric Erpelding | Policy | 3 | November 14th 04 11:32 PM |
SINFONI Opens with Upbeat Chords: First Observations with New VLTInstrument Hold Great Promise (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 25th 04 06:10 PM |
Successful test leads way for safer Shuttle solid rocket motor | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | June 11th 04 03:50 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | June 4th 04 02:55 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 12 | April 4th 04 02:46 PM |