TERROR in ORBIT: Dodgy rocket burp biffs International Space Station off track

Re: Inspiration for the new TV show, ISS 1999!

Space 1999 was brilliant.

As a kid of the 70s I loved it.

I sang its theme tune, I had an Eagle transporter model.

I DON'T CARE how far-fetched it was.

It was escaping from a council estate to other worlds.

"I do hope they sort out the cause and can correct it."

Do remember, a bug with seniority is a feature.

Re: Spacesuits with flairs

Joke aside I am not an expert by any means but based on what I have seen and heard about astronaut training is they really do a good job of weeding out human beings that basically ever panic under any situation (ie us %99 lol). That guy who didn't panic (and thus didn't die) while his helmet was filling full of water while on a space walk is but one example. They also do have a problem with astronauts doing literally anything to go to space so that they don't even blink about getting aboard ancient Russian spacecraft.

Re: 1,922 seconds?

When you're moving something that big and flexible, speed is not desirable.

Who the hell would want to be in a twanging ISS?

Re: 1,922 seconds?

ISS isn't all that rigid - so a nice gentle thrust (liquid fuels, so easily throttled) means that you get the same deltaV with lower stresses on the structure. Oh, and IIRC better rocket efficiency to boot.

It's also quite heavy - gravity is about 98% of surface normal, it masses about 370,000 kg.

To raise it by 2,800m would take....

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=mass+of+iss&meta=&safe=active&gws_rd=ssl#safe=active&hl=en&q=370000kg+*+2800m+*+9.81m%2Fs%5E2+*.98

10 GJ

over 2000 seconds is 5MW

Not too shabby...

(Yes I've ingored the required deltaV for the different orbital requirement)

Re: 1,922 seconds?

The rocket is slow, but space is patient.

Re: 1,922 seconds?

1922 seconds? Ah, slightly over 32 minutes. Or half and hour. 1 forty-eighth of a day.

I'm just trying to get a perspective on the time.

Now let's see.....distance is...............

Re: 1,922 seconds?

Are you sure it wasn't 1,999 seconds?

It's right next to the one for the coffee machine.

"Is there a big red "do not touch" button in NASA HQ that does this?"

No, the "Do Not Touch" button is at Roscosmos; the button at NASA is marked "Mess With Russia"...

"Is there a big red "do not touch" button in NASA HQ that does this?"

However a sign did light up afterwards saying "Please do not press this button again".

If you'd ever played Kerbal Space Program you'd know just how easy it was to unintentionally stage....

Now why exactly did I just hit the space-bar?

Flight into terror

"Is there a big red "do not touch" button"

Is one of the astronauts called Dougal McGuire by any chance?

Shuttle's Accidental Thruster Firings

"But 'accidentally' firing the rocket motors on a space capsule attached to the ISS..."

This was a persistent fear about the shuttle on station missions. Apparently, NASA reckoned there was a 1-in-10,000 (or less) chance of the shuttle's thrusters accidentally firing while docked. There had been 5 accidental thruster firings in free space prior to the station missions, where the loud bangs harmed nothing but astronauts' underwear. For Mir missions, astronauts simply de-powered the avionics that controlled the shuttle's thrusters, but there were always windows of opportunity for the thrusters to glitch when they were powered, such as during undocking and docking procedures.

Besides the obvious difference in size and mass between the US shuttle and Rooskie capsule, there's a fundamental difference in philosophy about performance. Russian capsules have always had under-powered thrusters because, as noted in this discussion, they don't need much thrust once in orbit. American Gemini and Apollo capsules and the shuttle have been comparative hotrods with significant design influence from their military test pilots, who wanted responsive vehicles.

This led to NASA's fear about a docked shuttle's motors firing accidentally: the thrusters could tear the shuttle off the station, depressurizing both vehicles and causing a TPK.

http://www.space.com/972-shuttle-thrusters-potential-risk-space-station.html

Re: WTF

You missed the more obvious explanation.

This picture looks like standard "product transition" scenario you can see in nearly any big shop.

Under the current diplomatic conditions the contract with NASA is now assigned to the B team. The same is valid for a list of programs considered as legacy and not in need of A team.

In the meantime, the A team is working on something else. It will be interesting to see what rolls off the assembly line in Plisetsk (or somewhere else where the press does not have access on a nearly 24x7 basis) within the next few years.

Re: WTF

The Duma have just been investigating Roscosmos and some people from their contractors have just been charged with corruption. The head of the Duma committee said something like $1.3 billion of their 2013 budget can't be accounted for. This is either a major probe into sorting out serious corruption - or some of senior management being punished for various recent failures, it's hard to know.

Russian government spending was already being tightened before sanctions and the collapse in the oil price did such damage to the Russian economy and tax base. They've also been heavily increasing defence spending for a few years, so I do wonder if money has been moved from the civilian to the military space programmes.

Equally it's possible that Roscosmos is extremely well funded, but now suffering crippling levels of corruption.

Apparently 98% of people arrested in Russia go on to get convicted, and according to a piece I read from a Russian commentator you have to bribe the police to let you go before you get to the police station, as once you're there and the paperwork is started, you're doomed.

Re: Seveneves

Having also just read it I have to agree it's excellent and clasp includes some lessons on orbital dynamics and practicalities of being in space that are very educational

Vladimir does not of laughing, comrade!