A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FLToday:"Five station risks alarm NASA "



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 7th 03, 03:28 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FLToday:"Five station risks alarm NASA "

"The five components deemed "unacceptable risks" were among 722 pieces of
hardware, software and procedures given "waivers" while the space station
was being planned and built.":

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...703station.htm

So, they just figured they would fix the defibrillator when they got it on
orbit as time permitted? What else did they procrastinate about?

JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX
****************
* JOKE *
****************
* SERIOUS *
****************
* SARCASTIC *
****************
* OTHER? *
****************


  #2  
Old November 7th 03, 03:51 PM
jeff findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FLToday:"Five station risks alarm NASA "

writes:

"The five components deemed "unacceptable risks" were among 722 pieces of
hardware, software and procedures given "waivers" while the space station
was being planned and built.":

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...703station.htm

So, they just figured they would fix the defibrillator when they got it on
orbit as time permitted? What else did they procrastinate about?


721 pieces of hardware, software, and procedures. ;-)

Seriously, this has been known for some time, it's just that you're
unlikely to find out what all of those items are from talking in this
newsgroup. However, if you use Google to search this group, you'll
find several known problems discussed.

One of the long known problems is debris shielding on the exterior,
and a very loud acoustic environment for the crew. These were known
before a single component was launched. Hence the "waivers" granted
to these known issues that DO NOT meet the original requirements and
rules set forth by NASA. Luckily (or otherwise), they not only write
the rules, but the waivers as well. So we wonder, who watches the
watchmen?

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.
  #3  
Old November 7th 03, 04:28 PM
Jim Kingdon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FLToday:"Five station risks alarm NASA "

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...703station.htm

So, they just figured they would fix the defibrillator when they got it on
orbit as time permitted?


Good question. That particular article just says "wiring problems"
but a search for "defibrillator space station" turns up:

Some of the medicines aboard the station are old and need to be
replaced, while the equipment used to monitor the astronauts' hearts
and to treat them for irregular heart beats in the event of an
emergency is malfunctioning and providing unreliable data, according
to documents and interviews. In 2001, a health team listed 13 "hazard
concerns" with the defibrillator, even when it is working, including
"fire/explosion due to battery failure."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Oct22.html

Hopefully this latest exercise as mentioned in the
http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...703station.htm
article will come up with solutions, rather than just being another
exercise of pushing some paper and not changing anything. Even
deciding to do without a defibrillator might be better than the status
quo, or so it might seem from the above.
  #4  
Old November 7th 03, 05:23 PM
stmx3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FLToday:"Five station risks alarm NASA "

wrote:
"The five components deemed "unacceptable risks" were among 722 pieces of
hardware, software and procedures given "waivers" while the space station
was being planned and built.":

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...703station.htm

So, they just figured they would fix the defibrillator when they got it on
orbit as time permitted? What else did they procrastinate about?

JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX
****************
* JOKE *
****************
* SERIOUS *
****************
* SARCASTIC *
****************
* OTHER? *
****************



Bearing in mind these items are labelled "unacceptable risks",
I particularly like:

"It is entirely possible the components will be pronounced safe once
space station officials re-examine them and review the reasons they
received waivers, Suffredini said.

'I feel they will probably pass,' Suffredini said. "

So...these are not unacceptable risks then? Or can you 'waiver' it
enough to make it acceptable?

Of the items mentioned, my biggest concern would be for the external
cooling system. I've read recently on this ng that there is a minor
leak between the external and internal systems. That's anhydrous
ammonia coming through and even the tiniest leak is bad news to the
human body. First action with an NH4 leak on the ground? Run like
hell...and then some. The saving grace on orbit is that it may be
mixing and reacting with the internal cooling medium, which I assume is
water.

  #5  
Old November 8th 03, 08:13 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FLToday:"Five station risks alarm NASA "

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...
---clip---
Luckily (or otherwise), they not only write
the rules, but the waivers as well. So we wonder, who watches the
watchmen?

Jeff


As I've complained before, NASA doesn't allow itself to be subjected to
independent, external review. It's all "in-culture".

JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX
****************
* JOKE *
****************
* SERIOUS *
****************
* SARCASTIC *
****************
* OTHER? *
****************



  #6  
Old November 8th 03, 08:24 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FLToday:"Five station risks alarm NASA "

"stmx3" wrote in message
...
---clip---
So...these are not unacceptable risks then? Or can you 'waiver' it
enough to make it acceptable?

Of the items mentioned, my biggest concern would be for the external
cooling system.

---clip---
The saving grace on orbit is that it may be
mixing and reacting with the internal cooling medium, which I assume is
water.


They apparently can continue to "waiver" problems until somebody gets
hurt---then they have to fix it.
If the Russian components are built like Mir, they may be using glycol. I
can't remember offhand the bad reaction glycol has with common spacecraft
materials, in addition to being a serious irritant to skin and eyes. Oh,
well, as long as it's only a small leak.
I notice that it has been a long time since they made even the pretense of
using the "Quest" airlock as if it were operational. How many preflight
waivers did they write on that piece of junk?

JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX
****************
* JOKE *
****************
* SERIOUS *
****************
* SARCASTIC *
****************
* OTHER? *
****************


  #7  
Old November 8th 03, 07:45 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FLToday:"Five station risks alarm NASA "

wrote:

"jeff findley" wrote in message
.. .
---clip---
Luckily (or otherwise), they not only write
the rules, but the waivers as well. So we wonder, who watches the
watchmen?

Jeff


As I've complained before, NASA doesn't allow itself to be subjected to
independent, external review. It's all "in-culture".


Oddly enough... No one else is subject to such an independent
external review either.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.
  #8  
Old November 10th 03, 07:10 AM
Jim Kingdon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FLToday:"Five station risks alarm NASA "

K, not sure how much this counts, but what about the role of The
Aerospace Corporation for Air Force Projects?


Is that different from what NASA does, for example when they had SAIC
look into the failure probability of the shuttle? (I don't know the
answer).

The Commission will be independent of NASA and is authorized
to hire a staff to develop the engineering and technical
expertise to carry out its work.


This would seem to be a key point. ASAP didn't have much of a staff,
did it?

The page http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/asap/index.htm says "The
work of the Panel is augmented by consultants" and it doesn't sound
like a lot of people/money. But they don't spell out how many
consultants or anything on that page.
  #10  
Old November 13th 03, 08:33 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FLToday:"Five station risks alarm NASA "

rk wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

wrote:

"jeff findley" wrote in message
.. . ---clip---
Luckily (or otherwise), they not only write
the rules, but the waivers as well. So we wonder, who
watches the watchmen?

Jeff

As I've complained before, NASA doesn't allow itself to be
subjected to independent, external review. It's all
"in-culture".


Oddly enough... No one else is subject to such an independent
external review either.


K, not sure how much this counts, but what about the role of The
Aerospace Corporation for Air Force Projects?


R&D and consulting services are not review, not in the sense of
monitoring compliance, safety, etc...

The National Academy of Science is often asked to look independently
at hot topics also.


Again, that's not the same as monitoring compliance, etc.

Senator Hollings is proposing more independent reviews:


Congress *loves* independent (and toothless) review comissions, it's
someplace/body to blame when something goes wrong. They've learned to
avoid real oversight bodies.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
NASA Presents Space Station Briefings Ron Baalke Space Station 1 September 26th 03 04:41 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM
NASA and "Oil" Culture burned Cops + Astronauts to death inventor84 Space Shuttle 0 August 2nd 03 11:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.