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

Space station's oxygen generator back in action



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 12th 05, 08:39 PM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jeff Findley wrote:
The US O2 generator is planned to fly on Node 3, which is scheduled to fly
sometime in 2008.

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.


Oh it will work right inially. But how long before they start having problems
with bubbles etc ?

1-Knowing a device is unreliable is one thing.
2-Knowing WHY it is unreliable is another,
3-Finding a permanent cure for the problem is yet another.

We know the russians aren't at 3 yet. But The big question is whether they are
still at 1 or if they are at 2.


If the russians aren't even at 2, this means that knowledge and expertise to
create a reliable O2 generator doesn't (yet) exist. If there is talk of a
radically new design, it would be an indication that the russians have given
up home of making the current design work reliably.

Now, if the US system is based on the current Elektron principles, and the
russians haven't isolated the true cause of problems, chances are that the
american system will suffer the same problems as Elektron, especially if it
was designed in the 1990s before the current experience with Elektron could be
used to try to improve the US design.

Watching crystals grow in a glass jar is easy. Fixing bubble problems in a
system having no windows into it is tough.
  #22  
Old January 12th 05, 09:10 PM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jeff Findley wrote:
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.



In what way did NASA fail to adequatly plan for this ?

The provision of oxygen is in absolutely no danger. When you consider the very
limited upmass available on progress, and when you consider that the USA's
supply of O2 in Quest was not used once, it seems to me that the russians have
a pretty reliable supply of O2 available, despite Elektron's hiccups.

And when you consider that with the limited upmass, the russians have been
able to conduct EVAs which drew upon russian O2 supplies, it seems to me that
O2 isn't really a problem.

NASA may have been unrealistic in its assembly schedules, it may have been
unrealistic in its budgeting issues. But in the end, the russians did deliver
the basis life support, and despite all the problems we hear about Elektrton,
the crews are alive and havn't been told to breathe slowly to conserve O2.

I have no idea wherther Elektron's problems are due to politics, incompetence
of simply because it is a problem that just hasn't been isolated and resolved
yet. Do you call scientists incompetant because they haven't yet succeeded in
making a fusion reactor work ?

The way you talk about Elektron, you make it sound like all the problems
with ISS are the fault of Russia.


Fault ? perhaps not. Responsibility, yes. The stace station is there to learn
about living and working in 0g. And Elektron is a perfect example of why we're
not ready to go to mars yet and need to work out the kinks in the station
before we can reliably send people on long missions.

The USA has some reliable ECLSS systems on the station, notably ventilation
and some air contaminant cleaners. But its CO2 scrubber doesn't seem to be
reliable since they only turn it on when they are forced to shut off the
russian one.

Since Vozdhuk seems to be fairly reliable, we don't hear much about CDRA
because it isn't used much. If the USA had a reliable O2 generator, you
woudln't hear about Elektron's problems because it woudln't be used much.

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.


The CMG issue can't be judged until they bring a failed unit back for autopsy.
Unlike Elektron which is indoors, the CMGs aren't exactly field serviceable.
But they were designed with plenty of redundancy and have continued to provide
pretty good service to the station despite their failures so far. And had the
shuttle not been grounded for so long, the first failed unit would have been
examined and perhaps a permanent fix found and plants to retrofit the other
units put in place.

Since the Russians don't have a CMG equivalent, you can't compare whether the
USA model is more reliable than a russian one. Unlike Elektron, CMGs aren't
field serviceable.

In terms of the laptops, their failures are probably not higher than
expected/predicted. The ones runnng microsoft are expected to fail regularly.
Chgoosing Microsoft to run the non critical laptops was a mistake. It has
taken up much valuable crew time, more so than the same microsoft software
reduces employee productivity die to bugs, crashes etc. At least they don't
have viri on the station.

The hardware failures of the laptops are probably not anyone's faults. Space
environment isn't kind to electronics. And keeping laptops turned on for years
at a time does have some issues, especially in 0g envuironments where cooling
of the laptops may not work as well. Batteries also tend to fail with time,
both on earth and in space.

On earth, you don't hear it as much because people tend to replace laptops
with newer models faster than in space.
  #23  
Old January 14th 05, 08:44 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jeff Findley" wrote:


"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.


I'm not assigning blame. I'm evaluating the impact of the Elektron
failures on station operations. You keep handwaving those impacts
away, and taking sideswipes at the US.

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 evidence is abundant that NASA learned little if anything from
Shuttle-MIR or studying the Soviet programs. Hell, they don't even
seemed to have learned much from Skylab.

Snippage meaningless and pointless sideswipes at the US systems.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #24  
Old January 14th 05, 08:47 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

nmp wrote:
Is it possible that operating an oxygen generating machine in a space
station is just a very hard thing to do?


Yes.

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.


The problem with this theory is that Elektron isn't a new piece of
hardware, it's an elderly one. The ISS units are behaving the same as
the MIR units... It's not useful at all to fly something that is
known to be broken without having made an effort to fix it. You don't
improve something by not changing it.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #25  
Old January 14th 05, 08:51 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Doe wrote:

And when you consider that with the limited upmass, the russians have been
able to conduct EVAs which drew upon russian O2 supplies, it seems to me that
O2 isn't really a problem.


Ah. So long as the bank account isn't closed, you can continue to
write checks, regardless of the balance.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #26  
Old January 14th 05, 02:54 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
I'm not assigning blame. I'm evaluating the impact of the Elektron
failures on station operations. You keep handwaving those impacts
away, and taking sideswipes at the US.


The impact is the same as it was on Mir. My point is that this is nothing
new. The Russians work the issues when they arise. I doubt they care much
about the impact to the "science" program on ISS (same as Mir). How many
times did we hear about how little science was done on Mir due to the crew
spending all of its time fixing broken hardware like the Elektrons?

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 evidence is abundant that NASA learned little if anything from
Shuttle-MIR or studying the Soviet programs. Hell, they don't even
seemed to have learned much from Skylab.


My point exactly. In many respects, ISS is being run just like Mir. Is it
any surprise that the (two or three man) crew spends most of its time fixing
things?

The popular press may think its news every time Elektron goes down and a
"backup" O2 supply has to be used, but to the Russians, it's just business
as usual.

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



  #27  
Old January 17th 05, 12:32 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

The popular press may think its news every time Elektron goes down and a
"backup" O2 supply has to be used, but to the Russians, it's just business
as usual.


Ayup. And we used to serve our images off of a NAS unit. Worked most of
the time. And when the NAS crashed we even had a failover plan. In fact we
got quite good at executing it.

Still didn't make it optimal. In fact far from it. The fact that we got so
good at the "for-reals" was a bad sign.



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





 




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
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) Rand Simberg Space Science Misc 18 February 14th 04 04:28 AM
Space Access Update #102 2/9/04 Henry Vanderbilt Policy 1 February 10th 04 04:18 PM
DDRDE model of 4D space (curved 3D space w/ invertibility) Scandere Astronomy Misc 0 January 15th 04 01:57 AM
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 27th 03 02:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:24 PM.


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.