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
  #12  
Old May 11th 06, 11:24 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:

When the thrusters were not supposed to ever be used again - and
indeed were supposed (IIRC) to be permanently deactivated years ago...


You're confusing Zvezda's engines with Zarya's engines. Zarya's engines
were the ones that were (I believe) deactivated after docking to Zvezda.
Zvezda's engines were always meant to be a backup to other boost
methods, even though they weren't needed for normal operations since
Zvezda docked to Zarya/Node 1 in 2000.

Then something is up and/or wrong when they test them 'to see if they
work'.


Why is this so strange? There was no particular reason to fire the
engines since Zvezda became part of the ISS complex, so they simply
weren't fired in that time. More recently, somebody decided to test them
out, even though there was no particular need for them.

I think the reason for conducting the test was probably entirely innocent.

--Chris
  #13  
Old May 11th 06, 03:47 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"

DA wrote:
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.


Does this type of engine ever go ka-boom after six years of sitting unused?

It seems like this test should be conducted on an earthbound test stand before
being conducted in a space laboratory.

Glen Overby
  #14  
Old May 11th 06, 07:21 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"


Chris Bennetts wrote:
[...]
Why is this so strange? There was no particular reason to fire the
engines since Zvezda became part of the ISS complex, so they simply
weren't fired in that time. More recently, somebody decided to test them
out, even though there was no particular need for them.


I think that there are constraints on when these thrusters *can* be
tested, since the presence of a Soyuz or a Progress at that docking
position means the other craft gets contaminated (at best) during a
firing.

It was noted that there was a period with the docking position clear,
enabling the test, and that the next opportunity will be September.
And that no retest is planned for September at this time.

I think the reason for conducting the test was probably entirely innocent.


Maybe.


/dps

  #15  
Old May 12th 06, 01:20 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:
When the thrusters were not supposed to ever be used again - and
indeed were supposed (IIRC) to be permanently deactivated years ago...
Then something is up and/or wrong when they test them 'to see if they
work'.



It is the thrusters on Zarya (FGB) that were de-activated when Zvezda
came long with its own thrusters.

Zvezda's thrusters are theoretically supposed to remain functional for
the lifetime of the station. From what I recall, they are rated for a
certain number of hours of operations as opposed to years in space. So
using Progress engines instead of Zvezda,s lengthens the time Zvezda's
thrusters remain functional.

Perhaps they should be testing them are more frequent intervals. But
this time, they tested them, found a problem and now we have to wait to
see if they can solve the problem or not.

I don't think you can fault anyone for this at this point in time. We
have to wait to see how they react in the event they cannot fix the thruster.
  #17  
Old May 12th 06, 01:21 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"



DA wrote:

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.




Those are hypergolicly fueled engines using N2O4 and UDMH, and they
don't trust the Soyuz, whose motors use the same propellants, after six
months.

Pat
  #18  
Old May 12th 06, 01:22 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 Fri, 12 May 2006 07:21:27 -0500, Pat Flannery wrote:
DA wrote:


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.


Those are hypergolicly fueled engines using N2O4 and UDMH, and they
don't trust the Soyuz, whose motors use the same propellants, after six
months.


I thought the Soyuz' shelf life was more an issue with its batteries, not
its thrusters (?)...

Dale
  #19  
Old May 12th 06, 03:54 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"


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Those are hypergolicly fueled engines using N2O4 and UDMH, and they don't
trust the Soyuz, whose motors use the same propellants, after six months.


I thought the issue with Soyuz limited in orbit lifetime was due it's use of
hydrogen peroxide for the descent module's attitude control system. I
believe that the issue there is that hydrogen peroxide degrades over time
due as it slowly turns back into oxygen and water.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/st...ft_detail.html

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)


  #20  
Old May 12th 06, 08:01 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"



John Doe wrote:


I don't think you can fault anyone for this at this point in time. We
have to wait to see how they react in the event they cannot fix the thruster.



As to why they are keen to test them:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/station/images/issalt.gif
Without the Shuttle reboosts they are slowly but surely getting lower
despite the Progress reboosts.

Pat
 




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 09:36 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.