|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
NASA re ISS noise: "Ignorance is bliss"??
"JimO" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in Tain't no different than a momentary weird noise on the boat you can't identify. You look real hard at all the gauges, levels, and logs, and if you can't find the cause, you pass the word to pay attention in case it happens again. Derek, I think it is different, because we have millions of hours of experience operating boats, but not space vehicles. And the cost of being wrong is much, much lower on a boat. How nice to learn nobody could die from being wrong about a minor issue. (The crew of Bonefish for one would beg to differ however.) That said, my information is that NASA folks do NOT have "no worries" about this noise, and they ARE making efforts to track down the phenomenon. In public the PAO flacks can say "all is well" all they like; in private, the space workers know different and are acting accordingly, with mature responsibility. That's probably the best way to handle it... As much as I'd like an 'open' NASA, it's an invitation to the press to overhype everything.) 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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
NASA re ISS noise: "Ignorance is bliss"??
stmx3 wrote:
Subs are made of sturdier stuff...you can go bonk in the night with something and just scratch your head. Oh? The crew of Edison and Washington would disagree. I equate ISS going bonk with a reactor rod rising up about an inch for no reason. No head scratchin' there. You go home if you can't find the problem. I don't agree. If there is an *immediately* serious problem, there would be indications in the telemetry. And there aren't. Lacking evidence, there is no rational way to decide the actual seriousness of the problem. Assuming that everything is major is a damm good way to have an organization that does nothing but spasm from one crisis to the next. That does not mean an serious ongoing investigation and general wariness by the crew aren't warranted, but that panic isn't indicated. 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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
NASA re ISS noise: "Ignorance is bliss"??
Derek Lyons wrote:
stmx3 wrote: Subs are made of sturdier stuff...you can go bonk in the night with something and just scratch your head. Oh? The crew of Edison and Washington would disagree. I equate ISS going bonk with a reactor rod rising up about an inch for no reason. No head scratchin' there. You go home if you can't find the problem. I don't agree. If there is an *immediately* serious problem, there would be indications in the telemetry. And there aren't. Lacking evidence, there is no rational way to decide the actual seriousness of the problem. Assuming that everything is major is a damm good way to have an organization that does nothing but spasm from one crisis to the next. That does not mean an serious ongoing investigation and general wariness by the crew aren't warranted, but that panic isn't indicated. D. Admittedly, wartime is a different situation. In peacetime, when the potential for a major disaster occurs onboard and you have no means to adequately investigate...you go home. In my example, NR brings you home. Rickover from his grave pulls you back home. Hydraulic oil dripping from the periscope is indicative of a problem. A fuse continually blowing on the BCP is indicative of a problem. A small steam leak, a out of spec gauge...these are all indications of problems. But you got your problems and you got your PROBLEMS. The RO crying at his panel, the torpedo dripping red jamba juice, the unisolable steam leak, the rod rising an inch, the acrid odor from a breaker panel...these all require actions. Immediate actions. Not Panic actions. I equate a crunching sound on ISS to require immediate action followed by supplemental actions, which sounds like what is being done. There are somethings that you can call anomalous, scratch your head and say, "Hmmm," log it and see if it happens again. I don't think this is one of those things. The ISS is not going to pull into port and have divers go over the side to inspect it. The ISS has divers onboard right now and if the super-cameras in the sky don't see anything, then send them overboard and have a look. Soon. No panic. Immediate and Supplemental actions. You can hope for the best. I'll assume the worst. After all, things don't go 'crunch' everyday on ISS...or do they? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
NASA re ISS noise: "Ignorance is bliss"??
stmx3 wrote:
Hydraulic oil dripping from the periscope is indicative of a problem. A fuse continually blowing on the BCP is indicative of a problem. A small steam leak, a out of spec gauge...these are all indications of problems. All examples orthogonal to the extant situation on ISS. There we have a single short duration anomalous event *without accompanying indications*. Here you compare that event to ongoing anomalous events with clear and unequivocal indications. The two are so different that it's not even apples and oranges, but more like apples and asteroids. I equate a crunching sound on ISS to require immediate action followed by supplemental actions, which sounds like what is being done. And I'll ask *again* on what data do you base your immediate actions? What indications provide a basis for your decisions? There are somethings that you can call anomalous, scratch your head and say, "Hmmm," log it and see if it happens again. But you do pass the word so others are paying attention as well. I don't think this is one of those things. And on what basis do you make that call? You can hope for the best. I'll assume the worst. I have never said we should hope for the best. I have asked for a calm and measured response, not running around in a chinese fire drill because of other recent events. One approach finds the problem and fixes it, one may fix it or may not, but looks awful good to the media. 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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
NASA re ISS noise: "Ignorance is bliss"??
Derek Lyons wrote:
stmx3 wrote: Hydraulic oil dripping from the periscope is indicative of a problem. A fuse continually blowing on the BCP is indicative of a problem. A small steam leak, a out of spec gauge...these are all indications of problems. All examples orthogonal to the extant situation on ISS. There we have a single short duration anomalous event *without accompanying indications*. Here you compare that event to ongoing anomalous events with clear and unequivocal indications. The two are so different that it's not even apples and oranges, but more like apples and asteroids. It was the paragraph following the one you quoted above that was applicable. I agree the above examples do not hold water in this case. That's why I said "You got your problems and you got your PROBLEMS." I equate a crunching sound on ISS to require immediate action followed by supplemental actions, which sounds like what is being done. And I'll ask *again* on what data do you base your immediate actions? What indications provide a basis for your decisions? There are somethings that you can call anomalous, scratch your head and say, "Hmmm," log it and see if it happens again. But you do pass the word so others are paying attention as well. I don't think this is one of those things. And on what basis do you make that call? For the most part, we're on the same page. IMO, the ISS is more fragile than a sub, therefore when you say: "Tain't no different than a momentary weird noise on the boat you can't identify. You look real hard at all the gauges, levels, and logs, and if you can't find the cause, you pass the word to pay attention in case it happens again." I say it is different. This is a situation, referring back to one of Tom's posts, where the Captain should jump out of his seat and head to control. It may be nothing, but on ISS you can't afford to be complacent because you can't blow ballast tanks to get to the surface. All you can do is abandon ship in the worst case scenario. It's on this basis that I make that call (referring above). Subs are designed to withstand hundreds of pounds of pressure and can sink ships upon collision while they themselves can escape relatively unharmed. The ISS is designed to contain...what, 20 psig + design margin?...some smaller pressure (by an order of magnitude) and is highly susceptible to damage from a "collision". So, if you hear something that sounds like it might be an impact on the hull, assume that it is until you verify it isn't. If you don't, then you are setting a precedent that could ultimately lead to loss of the station, or some major component. I personally think the 2 crewmembers should go EVA and check for damage. You can hope for the best. I'll assume the worst. I have never said we should hope for the best. I have asked for a calm and measured response, not running around in a chinese fire drill because of other recent events. One approach finds the problem and fixes it, one may fix it or may not, but looks awful good to the media. D. And I never said we should panic over this. But, I can make an analogy between unidentified noises on ISS and foam striking the orbiter. But if the loss of Columbia had never occurred, my position would be the same. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
NASA re ISS noise: "Ignorance is bliss"??
stmx3 wrote:
And I never said we should panic over this. But, I can make an analogy between unidentified noises on ISS and foam striking the orbiter. But if the loss of Columbia had never occurred, my position would be the same. st, I think we are in the state known as 'violent agreement'. 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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
NASA re ISS noise: "Ignorance is bliss"??
stmx3 wrote in
: So, if you hear something that sounds like it might be an impact on the hull, assume that it is until you verify it isn't. If you don't, then you are setting a precedent that could ultimately lead to loss of the station, or some major component. I personally think the 2 crewmembers should go EVA and check for damage. EVA always involves some risk, and the risk is somewhat elevated without a third crewmember. There is already a planned EVA in February near the area of the sound. So you must trade risk versus risk. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
NASA re ISS noise: "Ignorance is bliss"??
third crewmember. There is already a planned EVA in February near the area of the sound. So you must trade risk versus risk. They shopuld move it up if possible and go take a look. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 03:33 AM |
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes | Michael Ravnitzky | Space Shuttle | 5 | January 16th 04 04:28 PM |
NASA's year of sorrow, recovery, progress and success | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 31st 03 07:28 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |