Minor Technical Issue Aboard Shuttle Discovery 98
IZ Reloaded writes "Space Shuttle Discovery has a problem with the pipeline for an auxiliary power unit that controls the shuttle's hydraulic steering and braking maneuvers. CNN reports that the pipleline is leaking 'fuel' at about six drops per hour." From the article: "The leak is more likely nitrogen, but there is no way of knowing that, so NASA is treating the problem as if the leak were fuel ... If it is fuel, the current rate is still 100,000 times slower than what would cause a fire ... Just in case, NASA will turn on the power unit with the leak early Sunday as part of its normal testing and then see if the leak rate changes. If it does, NASA may burn off the hydrazine and shut down the power unit before the shuttle returns to Earth to eliminate any fire hazard.'"
solution (Score:4, Funny)
Re:solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Not nasty enough? Well, it's also highly explosive, hence the reason it is us
Re:solution (Score:2)
Atom [wikipedia.org] bombs [wikipedia.org].
A lot more efficient than dynamite, but murder for your shock absorbers ;).
Re:solution (Obvious Question) (Score:1)
It's ok.
I think with the talk of shroom-like trips before, a Truffle fragment was stuck in your brain & just happened to come loose at that time.
Re:solution (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't know how NASA can spin this as a minor issue. This is about as bad as a missing heat-protecting tile.
Re:solution (Score:3, Funny)
Re:solution (Score:2)
Once again, the engineers don't have a clue! (Score:3, Informative)
Better use X-Treme tape (Score:1)
Re:Better use X-Treme tape (Score:1)
where can you get it (Score:1)
Re:solution (Score:1)
Terminology (Score:4, Insightful)
The leak is more likely nitrogen, but there is no way of knowing that.
Excuse me? The shuttle must be one of the most redundantly-instrumented efforts ever built and they don't know what's leaking?
Re:Terminology (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously not. I guess some rogue foam disabled the giant blinking "HYDRAZINE LEAK" and "NITROGEN LEAK" signs, so they're lost up there. You better call NASA and tell em what's what.
Re:Terminology (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm more bothered by the use of the word "drop" here if you ask me.
Re:Terminology (Score:3, Funny)
Don't they have Jeffries tubes [wikipedia.org] on the Shuttle?
Re:Terminology (Score:4, Funny)
They're the tubes that makes the intarweb run, how do you think all that data gets to the satellites and back?
Re:Terminology (Score:3, Funny)
I thought everyone knew that.
Re:Terminology (Score:5, Informative)
They mean it, there really is no way of knowing. They know there's a leak based on pressure readings. They know it's not an instrumentation issue because those pressure readings are redundant (i.e. if one sensor started trending down and it's backup didn't, then the sensor's bad). Based on those same pressure readings they know what the leak rate is (drops per hour was probably the guy's attempt at making it make sense to the layperson by analogy to a dripping faucet. Sadly that analogy seems to have fallen flat.) Since the fuel tank (hydrazine) is connected to the pressurant system (nitrogen), the entire system is at the same pressure, so since there is a leak, every pressure sensor monitoring the system is trending down.
(Time for my own bad analogy) Let's say you've got a Super Soaker with a pressure gauge in the water reservoir. You pump up the Super Soaker and put it in a box so that the only thing you can see is the pressure gauge. Now, somehow a hole forms in the reservoir. Because you can't see the reservoir, you don't know if it's your fuel (the water) or the pressurant (the air you pumped into the thing) that's leaking, but you know from the decreasing pressure reading that there's a leak present. That's essentially what's going on with Discovery. Hence, they're playing it safe and assuming the leak is fuel, when more likely it is the smaller nitrogen molecule that's escaping the system.
Re:Terminology (Score:2)
Re:Terminology (Score:2)
Re:Terminology (Score:2)
Re:Terminology (Score:1)
Linked system (Score:2)
Re:Linked system (Score:2)
This is how most cryo installations work (eg. o2 for hospitals, n2 for industrial applications). Pumping cryogens can be a real problem, and most users don't need extremely cold liquids so ambient vaporizers [thermaxinc.com] are used.
Getting rid of it is a good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Hydrazine [wikipedia.org] is nasty stuff but it is just one of the dangerous checmicals aboard the shuttle.
When Columbia broke up, it was the possible presence of Hydrazine from the APUs that make the Texas Dept of Health issue warnings about approaching shuttle debris.
The problem with spaceflight is that everything is so close to the edge. Performance requirements that can still leave a good safety margin mean that simpler and safer methods are often inadequate. Consumers don't have the same risk/reward ratio as people who sit on top of rockets for a living.
-M
Re:Getting rid of it is a good idea (Score:1)
Don't worry, since our Missile Defences tests showed yesterday ( http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_4044160 [lcsun-news.com] ), at any sign of danger we can blow that WMD shuttle right out of the sky.
____
Laugh, dammit.
Re:Getting rid of it is a good idea (Score:1)
Who in turn don't have the same risk/reward ratio of those who get strapped to the sides of a rocket.
Myeh, personal views on the need to redesign our approach to space (i.e. get a new class of ship) aside, I'm hoping for a boring trip and landing for the shuttle.
Re:Getting rid of it is a good idea (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Getting rid of it is a good idea (Score:2)
Convenience rather than performance (Score:2)
NASA would love to develop a methane based version with a much higher ISP and less handling risk, but
3 APU's yet only APU1 drives the landing gear ? (Score:4, Interesting)
"APU 1 is the only hydraulic system that can deploy the shuttle's landing gear. If APU 1 is out of action, pilot Mark Kelly would have to manually fire pyrotechnic charges to deploy the gear."
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts121/0607
Re:3 APU's yet only APU1 drives the landing gear ? (Score:1)
STS-9 APU Fire (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:STS-9 APU Fire (Score:1)
But are you saying this makes it less or more worrying?...
Re:STS-9 APU Fire (Score:3, Informative)
I would say that it is less worrying for the astronauts, and more worrying for the engineers on the ground. The astronauts know that a fire has occurred before and that it wasn't deadly (though the circumstances are different). Mission control knows a fire has occurred before and doesn't want to take the chance again!
On a side note, the two APU fires (I miswrote in my previous post--there were two!) were minor issues for STS-9 compared to the 2 fai
Re:STS-9 APU Fire (Score:2)
An example of the syndrome which led to them tolerating foam strikes, right up to the point where they lost an orbiter.
I can't see in TFA what the primary indication is. It can't be a loss of pressure because this would tell them what is leaking.
Re:STS-9 APU Fire (Score:1)
Actually, no. It was always the people on the ground tolerating a situation. While the astronauts certainly have some say in what happens in the space program (i.e. not shaving themselves bald for fire protection), mission control is usually the one who makes the major decisions, especially when there is some discrepancy (and this always occurs--like the 1202 executive overload in the Apo
Re:STS-9 APU Fire (Score:1)
Minor? (Score:1)
It may be slow now, but in my experience leaks tend to get worse...
Re:Minor? (Score:1, Insightful)
You are an experienced astronaught?
Re:Minor? (Score:1)
yes. Well... no. But I've seen leaks before, and they tend to get worse. Erosion and corrosion increase with flow-rate, causing an unpredictable runaway effect.
Re:Syria and Lebannon attacked !! (Score:1)
Too late i guess (Score:1)
Re:Too late i guess (Score:2)
Re:Too late i guess (Score:1)
I want a shuttle that hops , man!
After a clean landing, the Air Force could have a band play "Low Rider" as it taxis down the runway.
Would fuzzy dice be overkill?
Re:Too late i guess (Score:1)
Once you're though that, then the hard part starts; electrical test, vibration tests, "chemical off gassing test", Electro static discharge (ESD) tests, performance tes
Overconservatism (Score:2, Interesting)
In the media, I've heard all about how they made sure the stupid thing can land, on at least 3 media sources. But WTF is the reason they launched? What are they up there for, other than to make it back alive? I could do that on a Mooney [mooney.com] for alot less money and with a
Re:Overconservatism (Score:1)
Re:Overconservatism (Score:2)
Re:Overconservatism (Score:3, Funny)
It makes it 50% more difficult for her to come back as a zombie.
Re:Overconservatism (Score:1)
Re:Overconservatism (Score:1)
The reason is this. If they don't go and get rid of some of the rubbish building up in the space station the Russians are going to drown. If you want to get exited then cut off your rubbish collection for a couple of months. I have no doubt you will feel highly exited at the end of that time when the rubbish truck comes. I do find it strange that they don't just bag it up and jettison it into the atmosphere though...
On another not
Re:Overconservatism (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you ever watch one of those news conferences held with the astronauts/mission management team representatives? ALL questions somehow related to a concern for safety and NONE are actually asking whatever the crew have done that day. NASA is surely making a big deal on re-entry, but it's the media is making it sound like it's gonna be another Columbia.
The overwhelming concern on safety is exactly what got me excited about these couple of "return-to-flight" missions. NASA is trying to MOVE FORWARD with the construction of the ISS while trying their best to keep the construction workers safe. If they slip and the program stalls it will not only be years and years of your and my tax dollars that go down the drain, but also investments from Russia, Japan, Europe and other international partners. It is ALREADY an international effort. It is a sunken-cost mentality and it is make-or-break for NASA.
Quit acting like you don't care about the lives of those astronauts if they are given in the name of "progress". Everything that NASA does to protect them IS "progress". You protested furiously about the not having any more dead soldiers in Iraq didn't you? What makes you think it is any different in space?
Re:Overconservatism (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm guessing that you don't deal with NASA on a daily basis, as I do. The S in NASA doesn't stand for shuttle! The tail is wagging the dog here and the shuttle is becoming the main focus of both mind and dollar at NASA.
The shuttle was designed for cheap quick turnaround flights, but in reality it costs as much as one billion dollars per launch (for launches where it doesn't blow up)? And what space science do we gain from them? Not much; considering that for that $1B, you could build 3 MIDEX-class instr
Re:Overconservatism (Score:2)
It's estimated that NASA costs the average American tax-payer over $100 a year.
Re:Overconservatism (Score:2)
NASA has a $30 billion budget?
Re:Overconservatism (Score:2)
My take is that the slower they go, the more unsafe they become. That's because a higher launch rate means more safety data and flight-tested components. It also means that the vehicles age less between launches. Then you add in the facts that no matter how cautious NASA is, the Shuttle has somewhere in the neighborhood of 1% that it won't come back and that the Shuttles cos
Re:Overconservatism (Score:1)
At a time when waste, recycling, energy crisis, wars to 'solve' the energy crisis, and other related topics are of paramount importance, such missions seem ridiculous. And a waste of money to boot.
Let just hope the current escalations are not going to grow, and further illustrate the need for strategic prioritisation.
If you want to stride forward, like the great nation you are/were/could be - then how about using nano
Re:Overconservatism (Score:2)
Speaking of this, how much do NASA currently cost American citizens per year? Even better, is there a web site where one can see how the distribution of tax money change from year to year in a reasonably accessible form? I'm not American and have been wondering of this now and then when the subject is brought up.
Re:Overconservatism (Score:3, Interesting)
US population: ~ 300 million
Total cost, per person: ~ $54.84
About 25-30% of the population is too young to pay taxes - that leaves around $71 per taxpayer.
To put this in perspective (albeit with 2004 numbers):
NASA budget allocation: $15.5 billion
Department of Education: $53.1 billion (29.4b for primary/secondary, 15b for higher ed., 1b for vocational)
Housing and Urban Development: $31.3 billion
IRS (tax collectors): $10.4 billion
Foreign aid: $17.1 billion
Department of Agricult
Re:Overconservatism (Score:1)
Re:Overconservatism (Score:1)
Re:Overconservatism (Score:1)
"Give me a reason to get excited," O.K. !!! I have a reason why an all American lad (or lass) might get excited. They are spending your "damned tax dollars" to send those poor folks up there and they don't equip them with a tool-box which contains a roll of DUCT TAPE . You lads (and lassies) need to do something about this kind of negligence, I think. After all DUCT TAPE is what holds the American empire together.
Minor technical issue? (Score:4, Funny)
"Hey there cowboy, word goes around that there's something wrong with my car."
"Nah sir, just a little scratch."
"Ah if it's just a scratch then I can live with it."
"Yes sir, just a bit of gas leaking through that "scratch", so you might want to cut down on that smoking sir."
Re:Minor technical issue? (Score:2)
Actually yes, it may be (Score:3, Interesting)
High Resolution Detection (Score:2)
Re:High Resolution Detection (Score:1)
Explosive bolts (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Explosive bolts (Score:2)
trouble is the ISS has locked america in to keeping the shuttle program running in the medium term (plans for its long term death are
Re:Explosive bolts (Score:1)
Re:Explosive bolts (Score:2)
taste or smell it (Score:2)
Re:taste or smell it (Score:1)
If it's hydrazine [wikipedia.org], tasting it to find out is a very very bad idea.
Re:A Hydrazine Leak (Score:2)
APU and some hydrazine Info (Score:2, Insightful)
The larger
Huh? (Score:2)
Are these the same ones that believe low levels of fluoride is an anti-cavity agent?
Worst Article Title Ever (Score:1)
Re:Worst Article Title Ever (Score:2)