yetmank@merrimack.edu (12/12/90)
I know I'll get bombarded for this. Am I the only one who feels that Columbia is starting to show her age? This last mission was an absolute disaster for the orbiter. Such problems lead this small time space follower to question how long it will be before Columbia is at fault for a major disaster. Kevin UUCP%"yetmank%merrimack.edu@samsung.com" "You can still Rock in America" - Night Ranger
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/13/90)
In article <20792.2765fbdf@merrimack.edu> yetmank@merrimack.edu writes: >Am I the only one who feels that Columbia is starting to show her age? This >last mission was an absolute disaster for the orbiter... I haven't heard the story on the water-dump business, but NASA quite explicitly stated that the hydrogen-leak problems were *not* due to aging equipment. (Half the engine-related stuff gets replaced regularly anyway.) Columbia's problem was not that it's old, but that it happened to be the first orbiter to use the third launch platform (for the LDEF mission). There were concerns about contamination in the fuel plumbing on that platform, which led to a massive teardown of Columbia's plumbing for cleaning and inspection. The reassembly process was botched and seals were damaged. -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
gsh7w@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (12/13/90)
In article <20792.2765fbdf@merrimack.edu> yetmank@merrimack.edu writes:
#This last mission was an absolute disaster for the orbiter.
How do you conclude that it was an absolute disaster? There was a
large quantity of scientific data returned, and since the purpose of
the flight was to gather scientific data, that should be considered a
sucess.
Now there were problems with things breaking, but the mission was by
no means an absolute disaster.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wsklein@troa02.enet.dec.com (Susan Klein) (12/13/90)
In article <20792.2765fbdf@merrimack.edu>, yetmank@merrimack.edu writes... >I know I'll get bombarded for this. > >Am I the only one who feels that Columbia is starting to show her age? This >last mission was an absolute disaster for the orbiter. Such problems lead this >small time space follower to question how long it will be before Columbia is at >fault for a major disaster. > I will start the bombarding. Only joking. I think that the basic point that the orbiter was the problem on the STS 35 mission is not correct. The problems with the pointing of the ASTRO telescopes is more than likely a payload problem. Obviously, the waste water line problem is an orbiter problem, but one I am sure readily correctable. The hydrogen leaks are once again not all directly related to the orbiter, the ET connector leaked. Also processing problems I think also caused part of the leak. Every mission the orbiters are have minor problems, but that is what the astronauts are partly there for, to fix them or find away around them, Columbia is old, but I think she has a few million miles more on the odometer left. Susan Klein sklein@troa09.dec.com --or-- ...!decwrl!troa09.dec.com!sklein --or-- sklein%troa09.dec@decwrl.dec.com
Arora@uh.edu (12/13/90)
In article <20792.2765fbdf@merrimack.edu>, yetmank@merrimack.edu writes: > I know I'll get bombarded for this. > > Am I the only one who feels that Columbia is starting to show her age? This > last mission was an absolute disaster for the orbiter. Such problems lead this > small time space follower to question how long it will be before Columbia is at > fault for a major disaster. > > Kevin More bombardment: The major problems on this flight were the initial start-up problems with the telescopes and the failure of the two digital display units. In both cases, the hardware/software was specific to this mission (Astro-1) and not part of Columbia's original equipment. The other problem was with the waste water disposal. I would hardly categorize it as a "major disaster" There were contingency plans and the mission could have been continued for the full 10 days + a couple of extra ones. As Henry has pointed out, the H2 leaks can probably be traced down to the ground equipment. The early return was due to weather constraints. So, where is Columbia at fault?? In fact, Discovery has made more trips to space and is still going strong! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ............. | Rikhit Arora And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod | cheehh@uhupvm1.bitnet The high untrespassed sanctity of space, | Arora@uh.edu Put out my hand, and touched the face of God. | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rosen@cs.utexas.edu (Eric Carl Rosen) (12/13/90)
In article <20792.2765fbdf@merrimack.edu> yetmank@merrimack.edu writes: >Am I the only one who feels that Columbia is starting to show her age? This >last mission was an absolute disaster for the orbiter. Such problems lead this >small time space follower to question how long it will be before Columbia is at >fault for a major disaster. > >Kevin >UUCP%"yetmank%merrimack.edu@samsung.com" Your feelings don't seem justified to me. Except for the recurring wastewater disposal problem (which was fixed, incidentally), all the problems I heard about were computer/software failures specific to the Astro project. I don't see how this implies _Columbia_ is becoming unreliable. Were there other problems specific to the orbiter that I'm unaware of? Also, your reference to a "major disaster" implied to me you expected another Challenger-type accident. We all know the cause of that accident had nothing to do with the orbiter, or even aged-parts. Anyway, I believe Columbia is scheduled for an overhaul next year. --Eric
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (12/13/90)
In article <20792.2765fbdf@merrimack.edu> yetmank@merrimack.edu writes: > >Am I the only one who feels that Columbia is starting to show her age? This >last mission was an absolute disaster for the orbiter. Such problems lead this >small time space follower to question how long it will be before Columbia is at >fault for a major disaster. It isn't age that clogs filters and freezes waste water lines. When you have 7 people on board, using alot of equipment, you have alot of waste water to dump overboard. The fuel cells generate up to 7 lbs/hour (nearly a gallon). Apparently the line heaters weren't able to handle it....Peter Jarvis....
pstinson@pbs.org (12/14/90)
In article <1990Dec12.202553.16598@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: > In article <20792.2765fbdf@merrimack.edu> yetmank@merrimack.edu writes: > #This last mission was an absolute disaster for the orbiter. > > How do you conclude that it was an absolute disaster? There was a > large quantity of scientific data returned, that should be considered a > sucess. > > Now there were problems with things breaking, but the mission was by > no means an absolute disaster. Furthermore, except for the plumbing problem, the things that broke did not belong to Columbia. They could have been carried into orbit aboard any shuttle and they will not be present aboard Columbia for its next mission. I believe the balky computers running the telescopes where from the team of experimenters and various universities involved. (Maybe even one of you out there on this net overlooked a syntax error while programming. :-) In any case, the trouble was not with Columbia's regular baank of computers that fly the shuttle itself. Payload problems can affect any orbiter regardless of age.
v071pzp4@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L Cole) (12/14/90)
In article <20792.2765fbdf@merrimack.edu>, yetmank@merrimack.edu writes... >Am I the only one who feels that Columbia is starting to show her age? This >last mission was an absolute disaster for the orbiter. Such problems lead this >small time space follower to question how long it will be before Columbia is at >fault for a major disaster. Columbia only had one problem -- and that was with the waste water tanks. The computers that burned out were Astro's not the shuttle's. Or am I mistaken? If they were Astro's, I'd say Columbia did just fine. It'll be a shame that the media will call it a NASA setback, because Astro was European. BTW, after rebuilding the engine compartment to seal all of the hydrogen leaks, Columbia was the tightest ship ever put together -- it leaked only 80 ppm hydrogen, as compared to the average 150-250. That would lead me to believe Columbia has quite a few good launches left. Craig Cole V071PZP4@UBVMS.BITNET V071PZP4@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (12/14/90)
In article <51161@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> v071pzp4@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes: #Columbia only had one problem -- and that was with the waste water tanks. #The computers that burned out were Astro's not the shuttle's. Or am #I mistaken? The DDU's that burned out were part of Spacelab. #If they were Astro's, I'd say Columbia did just fine. It'll be a shame #that the media will call it a NASA setback, because Astro was European. There was one package from University of Wisconsin, one from John Hopkins, and two from Goddard Space flight center. All made in the US of A. -- -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
v071pzp4@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L Cole) (12/14/90)
In article <51161@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, v071pzp4@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L Cole) writes... > >that the media will call it a NASA setback, because Astro was European. > ^^^^^^^^ *> ouch <* ( I did it again. Astro is American. Because of this enlightnment, I'd like to change my opinion: It wasn't a setback, but only beacause NASA got lucky being able to run it from the ground. The mission went much better than I anticipated after hearing about the second computer failure. BTW -- I meant no ill intent toward the European Program. Donning asbestos :-), Craig Cole V071PZP4@UBVMS.BITNET V071PZP4@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
heskett@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Donald Heskett) (12/15/90)
ASTRO may be American, but AW&ST reports that the flakey IPS (Instrument Pointing System) is German (Dornier) and that the flakey terminals were French. The good news is that lots of good data was gathered anyway.
dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) (12/15/90)
In article <3309@phred.UUCP>, petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) writes: > It isn't age that clogs filters and freezes waste water lines. When you have > 7 people on board, using alot of equipment, you have alot of waste water to dump > overboard. The fuel cells generate up to 7 lbs/hour (nearly a gallon). > Apparently the line heaters weren't able to handle it....Peter Jarvis.... There are two water systems, the potable and waste. The potable water comes from the fuel cells and (obviously!) is the drinking water. The waste water is urine and condensed cabin water vapor. The seven crew members have an impact on the amount of waste water generated. The equipment in the back does not. The real problem with the lines freezing (is it confirmed that they froze? I still haven't heard.) is the constant inertial attitudes that are required for astronomy missions. It cold soaks one part of the spacecraft or another, and the line heaters can't keep up. -- Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu Why waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous? -- Hobbes
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (12/16/90)
In article <20792.2765fbdf@merrimack.edu> yetmank@merrimack.edu writes: > Am I the only one who feels that Columbia is starting to show her age? > This last mission was an absolute disaster for the orbiter. Yes--you are the only one. Columbia performed just about flawlessly. Since this was a long mission (9 days versus 4-5 day average missions), there was a lot more time for things to go wrong. Now here is the $10 question that I have been pondering: were the problems in Astro caused because Astro was designed as a human-operated device, or were we very lucky that humans were in space to salvage a mission that would have failed from the start if it were designed as an unmanned probe? I didn't even hear NASA talking about TAGS all that much. On some flights, it seem that problems with TAGS (Text And Graphics System--the million dollar Shuttle fax machine) dominate the conversations between the orbiter and capcom. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (12/18/90)
In article <6407@mace.cc.purdue.edu> dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) writes: >There are two water systems, the potable and waste. >The real problem with the lines freezing (is it confirmed that they froze? >I still haven't heard.) is the constant inertial attitudes that >are required for astronomy missions. It cold soaks >one part of the spacecraft or another, and the line heaters can't keep >up. I was considering the excess potable water as waste water also. When the tanks get to about 80% full, the excess is dumped. In this case, the equip- ment usage does affect the water generated. I think the waste water they were putting in bags was some of the potable stuff. Not sure though. Peter Jarvis........
alan@adept.UUCP (Alan Ruffer) (12/18/90)
In article <51218@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> v071pzp4@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >> >>that the media will call it a NASA setback, because Astro was European. >> ^^^^^^^^ > >I did it again. Astro is American. Because of this enlightnment, I'd like >to change my opinion: Wasn't the IPS from the ESA? I seem to recall star tracker problems with the IPS. >It wasn't a setback, but only beacause NASA got lucky being able to run >it from the ground. The mission went much better than I anticipated after >hearing about the second computer failure. I don't think luck was a factor. This is a good example of how manned flights have the ability to salvage things with ingenuity and teamwork. Who made the VDUs that failed anyone know? >BTW -- I meant no ill intent toward the European Program. Me either, but didn't they construct the solar arrays with the movement problems for Hubble? 8-) +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Alan R. Ruffer UUCP: {csccat,chinacat!holston}!adept!alan | | Route 1, Box 1745 Amateur Radio Station WB5FKH | | Sulphur, LA 70663 BBS: (318) 527-6667, 19200(PEP)/9600(V.32)/2400/1200 | | | | "A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
gamorris@lescsse.uucp (Gary A. Morris) (12/19/90)
In <559@newave.UUCP> john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes: >I didn't even hear NASA talking about TAGS all that much. On some flights, >it seem that problems with TAGS (Text And Graphics System--the million dollar >Shuttle fax machine) dominate the conversations between the orbiter and capcom. The TAGS machine jams from time to time and the crew uses an special tool to unjam it. Around day 3 or so, the tool got broken and they gave up on TAGS. The teleprinter was used for the rest of the flight. I don't understand why they haven't gotten TAGS to work without jamming after all these flights. --GaryM -- Gary Morris Internet: lescsse!gamorris@menudo.uh.edu Lockheed, Houston, Texas UUCP: lobster!lescsse!gamorris Space Station Freedom Internet: gmorris@nasamail.nasa.gov N5QWC/W5RRR Phone: +1 713 283 5195