Space station's oxygen generator back in action

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
So the Russians have about three more years to work on their O2
generators
on ISS before the very first US model even flies. Let's hope the US
model
works right the first time.

Yes. The all-singing-all-dancing Russian hardware once again gets a
free pass. It's all the US's fault.

There is plenty of blame to go around. However, it's not like NASA was
blindsided by the Elektron problems. They knew what they were getting into
based on their experience with Shuttle-Mir. The hardware failures are
clearly the fault of Russia, but the fact that NASA has failed to adequately
plan for these problems is NASA's failure.

The way you talk about Elektron, you make it sound like all the problems
with ISS are the fault of Russia. The fact is that there are many US
systems which are proving to be far more failure prone than NASA would like.
The CMG's and the US laptop computers both spring to mind. They may not be
as high profile as the Russian O2 generators, but they are critical to the
success of ISS nonetheless.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Jeff Findley" wrote
The way you talk about Elektron, you make it sound like all the problems
with ISS are the fault of Russia. The fact is that there are many US
systems which are proving to be far more failure prone than NASA would
like.
The CMG's and the US laptop computers both spring to mind. They may not
be
as high profile as the Russian O2 generators, but they are critical to the
success of ISS nonetheless.

Fair point. The laptops are especially interesting because they are the only
command/monitoring interface with the entire station hardware -- there IS
no control panel of hardwired guages and buttons, contrary to popular
belief.

"nmp" wrote i
Op Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:18:37 -0500, schreef Jeff Findley:
There is plenty of blame to go around. However, it's not like NASA was
blindsided by the Elektron problems. They knew what they were getting
into
based on their experience with Shuttle-Mir. The hardware failures are
clearly the fault of Russia, but the fact that NASA has failed to
adequately
plan for these problems is NASA's failure.

Is it possible that operating an oxygen generating machine in a space
station is just a very hard thing to do? I think it serves no purpose to
speak in negative terms of "blame" or "failure". It's a big experiment up
there, so of course things can go wrong and that's actually very useful.
If the aim of the project is to *improve* space technology.

Isn't that exactly what I said in my original article?

Jeff Findley wrote:
The way you talk about Elektron, you make it sound like all the problems
with ISS are the fault of Russia. The fact is that there are many US
systems which are proving to be far more failure prone than NASA would like.
The CMG's and the US laptop computers both spring to mind. They may not be
as high profile as the Russian O2 generators, but they are critical to the
success of ISS nonetheless.


What's the current status of TVIS (ISS' treadmill system)? Did they
finally get it working properly after the it got that major workover
last March?

--
Reed Snellenberger
GPG KeyID: 5A978843
rsnellenberger-at-houston.rr.com

nmp wrote:

:Op Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:18:37 -0500, schreef Jeff Findley:
:
:
: There is plenty of blame to go around. However, it's not like NASA was
: blindsided by the Elektron problems. They knew what they were getting into
: based on their experience with Shuttle-Mir. The hardware failures are
: clearly the fault of Russia, but the fact that NASA has failed to adequately
: plan for these problems is NASA's failure.
:
:Is it possible that operating an oxygen generating machine in a space
:station is just a very hard thing to do? I think it serves no purpose to
:speak in negative terms of "blame" or "failure". It's a big experiment up
:there, so of course things can go wrong and that's actually very useful.
:If the aim of the project is to *improve* space technology.

If that is the aim of the project, it is the wrong project. Far too
large and expensive for an 'engineering investigation'.

: The way you talk about Elektron, you make it sound like all the problems
: with ISS are the fault of Russia. The fact is that there are many US
: systems which are proving to be far more failure prone than NASA would like.
: The CMG's and the US laptop computers both spring to mind. They may not be
: as high profile as the Russian O2 generators, but they are critical to the
: success of ISS nonetheless.
:
:Time to shed the cold war / space race attitude?

No. Man is a competitive animal. 'Oomphal in the sky by and by' is
all very well for utopian societies, but people don't work that way.
What we need is *MORE* of that attitude, not less of it. Competitions
drive technology and achievement.

What have we done since the space race ended? Not bloody much for all
those years.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

no offense!

it's often hard to detect the aim of comments on these multi-level
postings...

nmp wrote:

:Op Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:31:34 +0000, schreef Fred J. McCall:
:
: nmp wrote:
:
: :Op Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:18:37 -0500, schreef Jeff Findley:
: :
: :
: : There is plenty of blame to go around. However, it's not like NASA was
: : blindsided by the Elektron problems. They knew what they were getting into
: : based on their experience with Shuttle-Mir. The hardware failures are
: : clearly the fault of Russia, but the fact that NASA has failed to adequately
: : plan for these problems is NASA's failure.
: :
: :Is it possible that operating an oxygen generating machine in a space
: :station is just a very hard thing to do? I think it serves no purpose to
: :speak in negative terms of "blame" or "failure". It's a big experiment up
: :there, so of course things can go wrong and that's actually very useful.
: :If the aim of the project is to *improve* space technology.
:
: If that is the aim of the project, it is the wrong project. Far too
: large and expensive for an 'engineering investigation'.
:
:Oh well. Various governments and aerospace industries around the world
:don't seem to think so, or there would not be an ISS to begin with. Would
:there?

You might want to look at who is paying how much for what. Then think
'politics'.

: : The way you talk about Elektron, you make it sound like all the problems
: : with ISS are the fault of Russia. The fact is that there are many US
: : systems which are proving to be far more failure prone than NASA would like.
: : The CMG's and the US laptop computers both spring to mind. They may not be
: : as high profile as the Russian O2 generators, but they are critical to the
: : success of ISS nonetheless.
: :
: :Time to shed the cold war / space race attitude?
:
: No. Man is a competitive animal.
:
:Ah. Very familiar point of view, so I assume you're an American

While it's heartwarming that you think the rest of the world is not
competitive with the United States, that says nothing about the nature
of the human beings who live in them.

If human beings weren't competitive, you wouldn't feel as you do about
the nation currently 'winning the race'.

:With as much conviction one could argue that man is a cooperative animal,
:because it is equally true.

False.

:In fact, we would not have become the dominant
:species on this planet it it weren't true. So it's very much in our
:nature. Some things a man can't do on his own, and he will ask his
:companions for help. It's not so much different on the larger scale of
:nations when they are working together.

You still believe communism works, don't you?

:You can't drive a space station like ISS on American technology and budget
:alone, even if you thought it would be desirable to do so.

Perhaps not one like ISS. However, I'm not sure that one is
particularly desirable, anyway.

:You'd still
:have your Shuttles grounded...

But if we were doing it alone we would have provisioned for things
differently.

: 'Oomphal in the sky by and by' is all very well for utopian societies,
: but people don't work that way. What we need is *MORE* of that attitude,
: not less of it.
:
:You're obviously talking politics and ideologies, but I'm not.

I'm talking reality, not "politics and ideologies".

:I think we
:should just look at the practical side of things.

I'll await your starting that. As a first entry on "the practical
side of things", ignoring human nature and motivations is NOT the way
to get things done.

: Competitions drive technology and achievement.
:
:Possible, but need not be. I would say *vision* and *purpose* can drive
:achievement equally well.

And how do you get all those taxpayers to go alone?

:And the present international cooperation is in
:fact an achievement in itself. It's so big a value!

So your view is that the ISS is as useful as the UN?

: What have we done since the space race ended? Not bloody much for all
: those years.
:
:After the Space Race ended with Apollo flying to the moon, I remember
:Salyut, Mir, Skylab and various unmanned probes and vehicles flying
:around the Solar system and even beyond. OK, some of the former were
:still a bit cold war-inspired - but it's all great nonetheless.

In other words, dead end programs and 'toasters to the planets' for
the pure science folks.

In other words, "not bloody much".

:I would say it is a lot more than "not bloody much". All those
:accomplishments and experiences combined are of great value today (for
:science, technology) and will continue to be so in the decades ahead.

Really? Perhaps you could point to the economic return of all those
things? If they're of such "great value today" that ought to be easy.
What science and technology did any of those push?

:I'm only sad that I can't live for another century or so, to see where the
:current pioneering will eventually bring us.

A century isn't going to be long enough, if the last three decades are
any guide of the rate of progress. 'Pioneering' ended back then.

:I guess the Russians will
:have fixed Elektron by then.

If we pay for it.

:Or, pragmatic engineers like they are, they
:just pack lots of spare units on any trip they participate in

I think you need a bigger emoticon for a statement like that above.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

This is a good sub-thread, would one of you take it to the top
and start a new-titled thread on this theme?

It's your discussion -- my suggestion was motivated
by my opinion that it was a very good discussion that many
readers would miss because they have lost interest in the
title of this thread.

Olav? My family is from Orust Island on the Swedish-Norwegian borderland.

"nmp" wrote in message
news
Op Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:28:56 +0000, schreef Jim Oberg:

This is a good sub-thread, would one of you take it to the top
and start a new-titled thread on this theme?

I just made a contribution under a new subject, hope that suits you. I
would rather not break up the thread of the discussion.

Kind regards,

Olav

nmp wrote:

:Op Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:26:30 +0000, schreef Fred J. McCall:
:
: nmp wrote:
:
: :Op Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:31:34 +0000, schreef Fred J. McCall:
: :
: : nmp wrote:
:[snip]
: : :If the aim of the project is to *improve* space technology.
: :
: : If that is the aim of the project, it is the wrong project. Far too
: : large and expensive for an 'engineering investigation'.
: :
: :Oh well. Various governments and aerospace industries around the world
: :don't seem to think so, or there would not be an ISS to begin with. Would
: :there?
:
: You might want to look at who is paying how much for what.
:
:Now that should be interesting. Where do I find the figures?

You're the one trying to prove a point that must be based on those
figures ("Various governments and aerospace industries around the
world don't seem to think [ISS is the wrong program for technology
development], or there would not be an ISS to begin with."), so it's
your burden to carry.

: Then think 'politics'.
:
: : : The way you talk about Elektron, you make it sound like all the problems
: : : with ISS are the fault of Russia. The fact is that there are many US
: : : systems which are proving to be far more failure prone than NASA would like.
: : : The CMG's and the US laptop computers both spring to mind. They may not be
: : : as high profile as the Russian O2 generators, but they are critical to the
: : : success of ISS nonetheless.
: : :
: : :Time to shed the cold war / space race attitude?
: :
: : No. Man is a competitive animal.
: :
: :Ah. Very familiar point of view, so I assume you're an American
:
: While it's heartwarming that you think the rest of the world is not
: competitive with the United States,
:
:Is that what I think?

That's certainly what you said with your assumption that because I'm
competitive I'm an American. So either it is what you think or you
frequently say things you don't think.

I'll go with whichever of those you prefer.

: that says nothing about the nature of the human beings who live in them.
:
:I didn't mean to flame, sorry if you understood me in that way. It was
:meant to be a humorous remark about how lots of people regard Americans.
amn, do Americans know any self-mockery or do we have to teach them?
:
:Of course I know you people are not all the same. But if there must be
:anything "typical of American mentality", it must be that great emphasis
:that many of your countrymen would place on the virtues of competitiveness.
:
:I'm here to say that there *are* other ways to look at things.

But none of them work very well with real people who need motivations
to do things.

: If human beings weren't competitive, you wouldn't feel as you do about
: the nation currently 'winning the race'.
:
:1. I did not say that humans are not at all competitive. Just that it is
:not the whole truth about us.

So you're building a strawman argument. Ok.

:2. Which nation is winning which race? I see none winning any lately. I
:don't particularly care either.

And there's also damned little progress. This is what happens when
there is no 'race' to win. So is the disinterest you exhibit above.

:3. What do you think my feelings about the USA are, provided that it is
:indeed the nation you are referring to? Aren't you just guessing about my
:emotions and opinions?

I'm judging based on what you say. If you don't like the conclusions,
you might want to consider what your position says.

: :With as much conviction one could argue that man is a cooperative animal,
: :because it is equally true.
:
: False.
:
:No, not at all false. And I think that when you look around a bit in your
wn society, you will see enough evidence of the cooperative nature of
:humans on countless occasions *every* single day.

No, think is what you didn't do. What do you think motivates that
cooperative behaviour?

: :In fact, we would not have become the dominant
: :species on this planet it it weren't true. So it's very much in our
: :nature. Some things a man can't do on his own, and he will ask his
: :companions for help. It's not so much different on the larger scale of
: :nations when they are working together.
:
: You still believe communism works, don't you?
:
:Provided everyone wants it and works together to achieve it: yes

Then you should share whatever drugs you're doing, since they must be
some great ****.

:But seriously: of course not. Like you I'm also realistic, but that does
:not mean that I would dismiss a certain amount of idealism as stupid or
:undesirable. Not to say you would, because I'm not sure, but you seem
:so... resolute in the way you express yourself.

People are 'idealistic' (with very few exceptions) when they are
getting something out of it. Think about the 'rewards' such people
get.

: :You can't drive a space station like ISS on American technology and budget
: :alone, even if you thought it would be desirable to do so.
:
: Perhaps not one like ISS. However, I'm not sure that one is
: particularly desirable, anyway.
:
:Well, what exactly would you want to see different about it? What would
:you do better? What better results would you expect?

Room for a book there. I would have cancelled ISS back in the 1980s
when it grew from something like $15 billion to $30 billion to
whatever it's at now. I wouldn't have paid the Russians to
participate. I would have tried out the kevlar inflatable that Lowell
Wood (yeah, the nuclear weapons guy) suggested back in the 1980's when
he suggested it instead of waiting more than a decade.

Is that enough for a start?

: :You'd still have your Shuttles grounded...
:
: But if we were doing it alone we would have provisioned for things
: differently.
:
:The Space Shuttles were already developed by the USA alone, were they not?
:Absolutely fantastic machines, but the sad reality today is that they are
:still grounded.
:
:Or do you mean the USA would have bought Soyuz launchers from Russia?
:Now, that wouldn't be too far from the present situation...

I mean we would have build systems to deal with a possible grounding
of the STS instead of relying on Russian hardware for the 'life boat'.

: : 'Oomphal in the sky by and by' is all very well for utopian societies,
: : but people don't work that way. What we need is *MORE* of that attitude,
: : not less of it.
: :
: :You're obviously talking politics and ideologies, but I'm not.
:
: I'm talking reality, not "politics and ideologies".
:
: :I think we
: :should just look at the practical side of things.
:
: I'll await your starting that. As a first entry on "the practical
: side of things", ignoring human nature and motivations is NOT the way
: to get things done.
:
:I could not agree more. Now, please contemplate the cooperative aspect
f human nature, and we'll talk business

The only time people 'cooperate' is when there is some larger group to
'compete' with.

: : Competitions drive technology and achievement.
: :
: :Possible, but need not be. I would say *vision* and *purpose* can drive
: :achievement equally well.
:
: And how do you get all those taxpayers to go alone?
:
:That would be in the power of the vision.

Joe Taxpayer doesn't do things based on 'vision'. Kennedy had a
vision. The taxpayers funded it because we were in a 'race' with the
Russians.

:If your president Bush can
:convince the American people that it is worthwhile for them to set up an
:expedition to Mars, it will so happen. I believe he is trying. Right?

It won't happen the way it's being done.

:Perhaps he should be a little more interested in the scientific aspects of
:it. But that's okay, at least he's showing interest in space travel.

Joe Taxpayer isn't interested in "the scientific aspects of it",
either.

: :And the present international cooperation is in
: :fact an achievement in itself. It's so big a value!
:
: So your view is that the ISS is as useful as the UN?
:
:I can't even begin to imagine what you are trying to imply with that
:question

Well, if "international cooperation is in fact an achievement in
itself", what does that say to YOU?

:But I will answer your question honestly. Because I think they are both
:exceptionally useful, but on entirely different levels.

And I think neither is particularly useful.

:The usefulness of ISS is in the fact that space scientists and engineers
:from around the world have a chance to participate in this project.

So you see it as a welfare case for space scientists and engineers
from around the world? Otherwise, what do you think mere
participation does to make it worth billions of dollars for its own
sake?

:With
:the Russian-American cooperative backbone in this project for solidity,
:the best minds of *all* (cooperating!) nations can be employed to get the
:best results imaginable.

Now look at the reality.

:Know what? I think that if I were an American, it would be something I
:would be tremendously proud of, to be a leading contributor to such a
:fantastic scientific cause and global effort.
:
: : What have we done since the space race ended? Not bloody much for all
: : those years.
: :
: :After the Space Race ended with Apollo flying to the moon, I remember
: :Salyut, Mir, Skylab and various unmanned probes and vehicles flying
: :around the Solar system and even beyond. OK, some of the former were
: :still a bit cold war-inspired - but it's all great nonetheless.
:
: In other words, dead end programs
:
:Were they dead-end, or just end-of-life?

What followed from them? Nada. Everything else that came after was
pretty much 'new start', was it not?

:I find it impossible not to smile thinking about Mir and those damn
:stubborn, highly admirable Russians who operated it

I wish Mir had gotten a lot more publicity all those years. It might
have actually spurred some real US space station development.
However, you didn't really start to see it in the 'regular news' until
it was close to end of life and ISS was finally looking like it might
go somewhere.

: and 'toasters to the planets' for the pure science folks.
:
: In other words, "not bloody much".
:
:You don't see the value in science? It is true that you can't buy a car or
:a house with pure scientific knowledge, but still there's nothing more
:valuable - in fact it's priceless.

Some yes, some no. The trick is figuring out which is which without
blowing billions of dollars.

:Perhaps this is a political opinion,
:and I promised not to go there to deep, but I think a *lot* more money
:should go into science. Of all kinds. World wide.

Oh, I don't disagree. The question, though, is who should pay? Most
pure science doesn't happen because of some government agency decides
to pursue it. It happens because someone (government or otherwise)
comes up with SOMETHING THEY WANT TO DO. Then that nasty old
competitive motive leads to people figuring out ways to do what the
person with the money wants to do.

Is planetary science knowledge worth so much more than other, more
immediately useful, spheres of science? If so, why?

: :I would say it is a lot more than "not bloody much". All those
: :accomplishments and experiences combined are of great value today (for
: :science, technology) and will continue to be so in the decades ahead.
:
: Really? Perhaps you could point to the economic return of all those
: things? If they're of such "great value today" that ought to be easy.
: What science and technology did any of those push?
:
:Are you asking me, what good is space travel for? I did not think I need
:to explain that in a newsgroup called sci.space.station
:
:If I must explain, please indicate so.

Please explain just how ISS is the best way to promote human presence
in space. Consider what else could be done with the money. Please
explain how all the money spent on all those dead ends furthered human
space travel.

: :I'm only sad that I can't live for another century or so, to see where the
: :current pioneering will eventually bring us.
:
: A century isn't going to be long enough, if the last three decades are
: any guide of the rate of progress. 'Pioneering' ended back then.
:
:Another century must be just enough to get humankind started *properly* on
ioneering space. We have only just begun testing the water. Dipping one
:single toe. And much of that for all the wrong reasons, too.

We did that a quarter of a century ago. We've gone nowhere since. A
century isn't going to be nearly long enough at our current glacial
pace.

: :I guess the Russians will have fixed Elektron by then.
:
: If we pay for it.
:
:Wouldn't that be a good deal! The USA gets a top reliable oxygen generator
:for just a few (million) bucks

No way it'll be that cheap. We've already handed hundreds of millions
of dollars to the Russians. We'd get it cheaper and sooner if we did
it all ourselves.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney