MSNBC (Oberg) -- NASA addresses fears about space fire hazard

MSNBC (Oberg) -- NASA addresses fears about space fire hazard

Oxygen-line contamination sparks review of procedures on space station

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18911817/

By James Oberg, NBC News space analyst

Special to MSNBC // May 29, 2007

HOUSTON - A sharp-eyed space worker helped NASA avoid what might have
been a serious fire hazard aboard the international space station, space
agency officials have told MSNBC.com.

In an exclusive interview late last week, space station manager Michael
Suffredini detailed how an explosive fire might have been broken out in an
oxygen line, potentially injuring spacewalking astronauts. "It could have
been a very bad day," he said. "It would have been ugly."

Responding to the concern, engineers kicked off a test program as well as
an in-depth analysis of the potential threat. NASA officials said the
analysis so far indicates that the equipment aboard the space station should
pose no hazard, as long as the astronauts in orbit follow stringent
operating procedures. One said an extra "procedural fix" would be put in
place.

NASA's response illustrates how seriously the space agency is taking
safety concerns in the wake of the 2003 Columbia tragedy - which led to the
loss of the shuttle and its crew, and raised alarms about a "broken safety
culture."



..

Jim Oberg wrote:

HOUSTON - A sharp-eyed space worker helped NASA avoid what might have
been a serious fire hazard aboard the international space station, space
agency officials have told MSNBC.com.

In an exclusive interview late last week, space station manager Michael
Suffredini detailed how an explosive fire might have been broken out in an
oxygen line, potentially injuring spacewalking astronauts. "It could have
been a very bad day," he said. "It would have been ugly."


Was this in one of the suits? Because they had problems with the Shuttle
suits backpacks having metal shavings in them that could cause a fire
back at the beginning of the the STS program.

Pat

Not in a suit -- in an external line from the doghouse to the lock.


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Jim Oberg wrote:

HOUSTON - A sharp-eyed space worker helped NASA avoid what might have
been a serious fire hazard aboard the international space station, space
agency officials have told MSNBC.com.

In an exclusive interview late last week, space station manager
Michael Suffredini detailed how an explosive fire might have been broken
out in an oxygen line, potentially injuring spacewalking astronauts. "It
could have been a very bad day," he said. "It would have been ugly."


Was this in one of the suits? Because they had problems with the Shuttle
suits backpacks having metal shavings in them that could cause a fire back
at the beginning of the the STS program.

Pat

Jim Oberg wrote:
HOUSTON - A sharp-eyed space worker helped NASA avoid what might have


an explosive fire might have been broken out in an
oxygen line, potentially injuring spacewalking astronauts.


"shar eyed space worker". Is that some NASA employee in houston, moscow,
or one of the crewmembers aboard the space station ?


Was damage visible to the naked eye on some pipe ?

When you mention external line betwene the doghouse to the lock, can you
be more specific ? What is the doghouse ?

And when you say external, is that out in the vacuum, or just an exposed
pipe inside the Quest module ?

And if there was damage inside a pipe (since the explosive fire is said
to have potentially started IN an o2 line), how come someone noticed it ?

Or is this some sort of flexible hose that is used to connect a space
suit to a wall O2 outlet used to recharge the suits ? (at which point, I
could see how a crewmember would have noticed some contamination at one
end of the flexible hose).

In sci.space.policy Pat Flannery wrote:
Was this in one of the suits? Because they had problems with the
Shuttle suits backpacks having metal shavings in them that could
cause a fire back at the beginning of the the STS program.

I believe there are further details in the referenced article.

rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

"Jim Oberg" wrote:

NASA's response illustrates how seriously the space agency is taking
safety concerns in the wake of the 2003 Columbia tragedy - which led to the
loss of the shuttle and its crew, and raised alarms about a "broken safety
culture."

When you have to brag about how safe you are - your safety culture is
_still_ broken.

Not to mention "the valve will now be opened slowly to prevent a sharp
pressure/velocity rise". Huh? That's a *basic* safety precaution for
working with pressurized gases. If first learned it thirty years ago
working in a bicycle shop! Where has NASA been?

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Rick Jones wrote:

I believe there are further details in the referenced article.


The part Jim posted just mention a problem with an oxygen line that
might pose problems to the EVAing astronauts.
I probably should have checked out the original.
Back when the backpack metal shavings problem was revealed, it was a
major scandal...as it showed that NASA's legendary quality assurance
standards had a problem...a couple of years later, after Challenger, it
would be shown just how serious that problem was.

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:
Not to mention "the valve will now be opened slowly to prevent a sharp
pressure/velocity rise". Huh? That's a *basic* safety precaution for
working with pressurized gases. If first learned it thirty years ago
working in a bicycle shop! Where has NASA been?


Did you ever crank open a 3000 psi helium tank without a regulator on it?
Boy, now that's loud! :-)
I imagine sub crews are about the most proficient guys around when
dealing with high pressure gases.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
Not to mention "the valve will now be opened slowly to prevent a sharp
pressure/velocity rise". Huh? That's a *basic* safety precaution for
working with pressurized gases. If first learned it thirty years ago
working in a bicycle shop! Where has NASA been?


Did you ever crank open a 3000 psi helium tank without a regulator on it?
Boy, now that's loud! :-)

No, but we did once vent the 3200psi N2 system via the tube
pressurization system and an empty missile tube. Think "really big
pipe organ". This resulted in a stern warning from Squadron to use
the Authorized Procedure, which was much quieter and much less fun.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:
Did you ever crank open a 3000 psi helium tank without a regulator on it?
Boy, now that's loud! :-)


No, but we did once vent the 3200psi N2 system via the tube
pressurization system and an empty missile tube. Think "really big
pipe organ". This resulted in a stern warning from Squadron to use
the Authorized Procedure, which was much quieter and much less fun.


Oh, I'd have loved to have heard the resonance on that baby echoing
through Sherwood Forest.
That must have hit subsonics and made the whole damn boat shake.
You guys are lucky you didn't shatter weld seams with that stunt. :-D

Pat