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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.