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

Oberg: "The real significance of the ISS thruster test failure"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 8th 06, 04:16 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.history
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oberg: "The real significance of the ISS thruster test failure"


James Oberg: The real significance of the ISS thruster test failure

May 8 // The Space Review: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/619/1

Last month's failure of a test of a pair of rocket engines on the
International Space Station has taught a whole series of unexpected lessons
and has answered questions that the station's operators hadn't even intended
to ask. Yet since nothing actually happened, a senior NASA spokesman said it
was a "non-event".

But that's nowhere near the truth. The incident and repercussions of it
further underscore that operating a space facility as complex and poorly
documented as the ISS is an irremediably non-deterministic process. That is,
anything can happen, at any time-and blindside everybody involved


  #2  
Old May 8th 06, 11:49 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.history
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oberg: "The real significance of the ISS thruster test failure"

"Jim Oberg" wrote:


James Oberg: The real significance of the ISS thruster test failure

May 8 // The Space Review: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/619/1


"Things will keep catching station operators by surprise. As long as
their bag of tricks stays just one layer deeper than the demands
placed upon it, things should work out. That’s the unrequested—but
unavoidable—lesson of this highly informative “non-event”."

Ayup.

So long as the backup o-ring only gets scorched - we're OK.

We've never suffered serious damage from foam inpingment - we're OK.


D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #3  
Old May 9th 06, 01:33 AM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.history
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oberg: "The real significance of the ISS thruster test failure"

yeah ISS can have bad day easily and kill not only the station but
shuttle too.

  #4  
Old May 9th 06, 04:59 AM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.history
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oberg: "The real significance of the ISS thruster test failure"

Hey Bbo,
Space is dangerous. That's its nature.
And when you do dangerous stuff, **** Happens.
Even if you're talking airliners, sooner or later, if you fly long
enough,
you're going to crash.
(In fact, every Martin M-130 (China Clipper Flying Boat) crashed in
service, withan average loss of life of about 35. More than half of
the original De Havilland Comet Is built crashed. (The fatigue problems
wer not the only serious flaw that that airplane had))
As it stands right now, humanity has roughly a total of 100 hours of
hypersonic flight time - the vast majority of which are Shuttle
re-entries.
Its dangerous stuff. You take risks. You learn that your understanding
of the environment wasn't what it was when you started out. Despite
all precautions, sooner or later, people are going to die.
That's why it's called Space Exploration.
It's also called progress,

I'm so glad I don't live in your world.

--
Pete Stickney

  #5  
Old May 9th 06, 05:07 AM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.history
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oberg: "The real significance of the ISS thruster test failure"

May 8 // The Space Review: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/619/1

Good article.

It seems to be the combination of events, not just the one failure,
which make this a safety issue.
  #6  
Old May 9th 06, 01:00 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.history
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oberg: "The real significance of the ISS thruster test failure"

On 8 May 2006 20:59:46 -0700, "Peter Stickney"
wrote:

Hey Bbo,
Space is dangerous. That's its nature.
And when you do dangerous stuff, **** Happens.
Even if you're talking airliners, sooner or later, if you fly long
enough,
you're going to crash.
(In fact, every Martin M-130 (China Clipper Flying Boat) crashed in
service, withan average loss of life of about 35. More than half of
the original De Havilland Comet Is built crashed. (The fatigue problems
wer not the only serious flaw that that airplane had))
As it stands right now, humanity has roughly a total of 100 hours of
hypersonic flight time - the vast majority of which are Shuttle
re-entries.
Its dangerous stuff. You take risks. You learn that your understanding
of the environment wasn't what it was when you started out. Despite
all precautions, sooner or later, people are going to die.
That's why it's called Space Exploration.
It's also called progress,

I'm so glad I don't live in your world.



Too bad the American public, which elects representatives who vote
for appropriations to fund these dangerous programs doesn't share your
view. Trust me, there will be no political support for crewed
spaceflight if 1) the price of crude oil hits $100 a barrel, and/or 2)
there's another fatal accident during a crewed spaceflight in the near
future.
  #7  
Old May 9th 06, 04:51 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.history
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oberg: "The real significance of the ISS thruster test failure"


wrote in
Too bad the American public, which elects representatives who vote
for appropriations to fund these dangerous programs doesn't share your
view. Trust me, there will be no political support for crewed
spaceflight if 1) the price of crude oil hits $100 a barrel, and/or 2)
there's another fatal accident during a crewed spaceflight in the near
future.


So what happened last time oil hit that level -- yeah, I'm
counting inflation, which the mainstream media dishonestly
disregards. $97/barrel in 1979-1980.


  #8  
Old May 10th 06, 07:00 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.history
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oberg: "The real significance of the ISS thruster test failure"

Jim Kingdon wrote:

May 8 // The Space Review: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/619/1


Good article.

It seems to be the combination of events, not just the one failure,
which make this a safety issue.


It occurred to me after my original reply that the real issue is more
subtle. Why exactly are the controllers at MCC-M testing things to
'see if they work'?

Are they seeing if ISS will remain stable if they throttle the
Soyuz/Progress pipeline for political advantage? Are they bored and
lacking adequate adult supervision? Do they know something about the
system that we don't? (Potential nightmare scenarios that end with
the propellants must be jettisoned/used.)

There's something here not adding up.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #9  
Old May 11th 06, 04:53 AM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.history
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oberg: "The real significance of the ISS thruster test failure"

Derek Lyons wrote:

Are they seeing if ISS will remain stable if they throttle the
Soyuz/Progress pipeline for political advantage? Are they bored and
lacking adequate adult supervision? Do they know something about the
system that we don't? (Potential nightmare scenarios that end with
the propellants must be jettisoned/used.)


You are being paranoid. It is a valid experiment in itself to find out if
the thrusters are going to work after 6 years of non use.

D~



--
##-----------------------------------------------##
Delivered via http://www.air-space.us/
The News and Discussions Platform for the Airspace Community
no-spam Web and RSS access to
sci.space.station,sci.space.history - messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##
  #10  
Old May 11th 06, 05:02 AM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.history
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oberg: "The real significance of the ISS thruster test failure"

Derek Lyons wrote:

Are they seeing if ISS will remain stable if they throttle the
Soyuz/Progress pipeline for political advantage? Are they bored and
lacking adequate adult supervision? Do they know something about the
system that we don't? (Potential nightmare scenarios that end with
the propellants must be jettisoned/used.)


You are being paranoid. It is a valid experiment in itself to find out if
the thrusters are going to work after 6 years of non use.

D~



--
##-----------------------------------------------##
Delivered via http://www.air-space.us/
The News and Discussions Platform for the Airspace Community
no-spam Web and RSS access to
sci.space.station,sci.space.history - messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##
 




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
NASA PDF - Apollo Experience Reports - 114 reports Rusty History 1 July 27th 05 03:52 AM
Teleportation knowledge analizer of the internet matirx! IT's a Roger wilco History 4 July 8th 05 06:11 PM
Test firing Saturn 5 listing Capcom History 12 December 17th 03 02:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:52 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.