• Nauka fires thrusters when attached to ISS!

    From Jeff Findley@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 29 16:19:25 2021
    New Russian ISS Nauka Module Starts Firing Thrusters Randomly;
    Atlas V Launch Postponed Indefinitely
    July 29, 2021 Doug Messier News http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/07/29/new-russian-iss-nauka-module- starts-firing-thrusters-randomly-atlas-v-launch-postponed-indefinitely/

    From above:

    Russia?s new Nauka module started firing its thrusters randomly
    after it docked with the International Space Station (ISS) on
    Thursday as the crew on board struggled to shut the system down
    manually, a source familiar with the situation told Parabolic
    Arc.

    What a shit show!

    Jeff
    --
    All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
    These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
    employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Greg (Strider) Moore@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 29 16:41:06 2021
    "Jeff Findley" wrote in message news:MPG.3b6cd757b41f4c53989df4@news.eternal-september.org...


    New Russian ISS Nauka Module Starts Firing Thrusters Randomly;
    Atlas V Launch Postponed Indefinitely
    July 29, 2021 Doug Messier News >http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/07/29/new-russian-iss-nauka-module- >starts-firing-thrusters-randomly-atlas-v-launch-postponed-indefinitely/

    From above:

    Russia?s new Nauka module started firing its thrusters randomly
    after it docked with the International Space Station (ISS) on
    Thursday as the crew on board struggled to shut the system down
    manually, a source familiar with the situation told Parabolic
    Arc.

    What a shit show!

    Jeff

    Yeah, one source said that Nauka used up all its propellants so this won't happen again. But well umm... it wasn't supposed to happen in the first
    place.
    And why do I suspect we'll never get a straight answer from the Russians?

    Did we ever get a straight answer from them on the leak in the Soyuz?

    And this is after Nauka had problems getting into the correct orbit.

    The Russians keep threatening to undock their segment and go on their own.
    I'd have no problem with that at this point.

    --
    Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
    CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
    IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Findley@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 29 17:23:56 2021
    In article <sdv3p3$ep7$1@reader1.panix.com>,
    mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com says...

    "Jeff Findley" wrote in message news:MPG.3b6cd757b41f4c53989df4@news.eternal-september.org...


    New Russian ISS Nauka Module Starts Firing Thrusters Randomly;
    Atlas V Launch Postponed Indefinitely
    July 29, 2021 Doug Messier News >http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/07/29/new-russian-iss-nauka-module- >starts-firing-thrusters-randomly-atlas-v-launch-postponed-indefinitely/

    From above:

    Russia?s new Nauka module started firing its thrusters randomly
    after it docked with the International Space Station (ISS) on
    Thursday as the crew on board struggled to shut the system down
    manually, a source familiar with the situation told Parabolic
    Arc.

    What a shit show!

    Jeff

    Yeah, one source said that Nauka used up all its propellants so this won't happen again. But well umm... it wasn't supposed to happen in the first place.

    Agreed.

    And why do I suspect we'll never get a straight answer from the Russians?

    I doubt it.

    Did we ever get a straight answer from them on the leak in the Soyuz?

    I don't think so. Wikipedia says the official answer was:

    In September 2019, the head of Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin claimed
    that Roscosmos exactly knows what happened, but that the agency
    would keep this information secret.

    Cite:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_MS-09#Air_leak

    And this is after Nauka had problems getting into the correct orbit.

    Yes, that was nerve-wracking.

    The Russians keep threatening to undock their segment and go on their own. I'd have no problem with that at this point.

    Same. At this point in time, I think the US could come up with
    replacements for the Russian functionality. For example, attitude
    control provided by a Cygnus that had extra fuel tanks instead of a
    pressurized section.

    Jeff
    --
    All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
    These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
    employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Spain@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 30 06:45:47 2021
    On 2021-07-29 4:41 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

    And why do I suspect we'll never get a straight answer from the Russians?

    Did we ever get a straight answer from them on the leak in the Soyuz?

    Oh come on Greg, you know the drill.....

    And this is after Nauka had problems getting into the correct orbit.

    Yeah I just heard about this for the first time on the radio yesterday.
    I've been head down recently and not paying much attention to Space.

    I may have more to say after I read up a bit....

    The Russians keep threatening to undock their segment and go on their
    own. I'd have no problem with that at this point.


    "Well I would hate to pass judgement on Plan R just because of one small slip-up." -- Gen. "Buck" Turdgeson

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Greg (Strider) Moore@21:1/5 to David Spain on Fri Jul 30 13:22:47 2021
    "David Spain" wrote in message news:se0l95$usg$1@dont-email.me...

    On 2021-07-29 4:41 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

    And why do I suspect we'll never get a straight answer from the Russians?

    Did we ever get a straight answer from them on the leak in the Soyuz?

    Oh come on Greg, you know the drill.....

    And this is after Nauka had problems getting into the correct orbit.

    Yeah I just heard about this for the first time on the radio yesterday.
    I've been head down recently and not paying much attention to Space.

    I may have more to say after I read up a bit....

    The Russians keep threatening to undock their segment and go on their
    own. I'd have no problem with that at this point.


    "Well I would hate to pass judgement on Plan R just because of one small >slip-up." -- Gen. "Buck" Turdgeson

    And now there's slowly more and more details starting to leak out through unofficial sources.

    It's sounding worse than the initial official reports.
    Now, on one hand, I fully understand that in the first few hours after an incident information is often poor and details sparse, but I think we're
    going to learn a lot more in the next 72 hours.

    It's sounding like the decision to old off on the OFT-2 launch is definitely the right decision.


    --
    Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
    CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
    IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Greg (Strider) Moore@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 30 13:26:04 2021
    "Jeff Findley" wrote in message news:MPG.3b6ce677eac10fc1989df5@news.eternal-september.org...

    In article <sdv3p3$ep7$1@reader1.panix.com>,
    mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com says...

    "Jeff Findley" wrote in message
    news:MPG.3b6cd757b41f4c53989df4@news.eternal-september.org...


    New Russian ISS Nauka Module Starts Firing Thrusters Randomly;
    Atlas V Launch Postponed Indefinitely
    July 29, 2021 Doug Messier News
    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/07/29/new-russian-iss-nauka-module-
    starts-firing-thrusters-randomly-atlas-v-launch-postponed-indefinitely/

    From above:

    Russia?s new Nauka module started firing its thrusters randomly
    after it docked with the International Space Station (ISS) on
    Thursday as the crew on board struggled to shut the system down
    manually, a source familiar with the situation told Parabolic
    Arc.

    What a shit show!

    Jeff

    Yeah, one source said that Nauka used up all its propellants so this
    won't
    happen again. But well umm... it wasn't supposed to happen in the first
    place.

    Agreed.

    And why do I suspect we'll never get a straight answer from the Russians?

    I doubt it.

    Did we ever get a straight answer from them on the leak in the Soyuz?

    I don't think so. Wikipedia says the official answer was:

    In September 2019, the head of Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin claimed
    that Roscosmos exactly knows what happened, but that the agency
    would keep this information secret.

    Cite:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_MS-09#Air_leak

    That's what I thought.
    Reminds me a bit of the ballistic re-entries where at least the first one,
    the Russians definitely downplayed it.


    And this is after Nauka had problems getting into the correct orbit.

    Yes, that was nerve-wracking.

    The Russians keep threatening to undock their segment and go on their
    own.
    I'd have no problem with that at this point.

    Same. At this point in time, I think the US could come up with
    replacements for the Russian functionality. For example, attitude
    control provided by a Cygnus that had extra fuel tanks instead of a >pressurized section.

    Yeah, I'm sure there are options.
    Looking up on Wikipedia, it seems to suggest the mothballed Interim Control Module would take 2.5 years to get ready.

    I think there's faster options, like you say, Cyngus, or even perhaps
    another Dragon.
    I suspect there's a few teams (even if only unofficially) furiously coming
    up with backup plans.



    Jeff

    --
    Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
    CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
    IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Snidely@21:1/5 to Jeff Findley on Fri Jul 30 18:59:52 2021
    On Thursday or thereabouts, Jeff Findley asked ...
    New Russian ISS Nauka Module Starts Firing Thrusters Randomly;
    Atlas V Launch Postponed Indefinitely
    July 29, 2021 Doug Messier News http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/07/29/new-russian-iss-nauka-module- starts-firing-thrusters-randomly-atlas-v-launch-postponed-indefinitely/

    From above:

    Russia?s new Nauka module started firing its thrusters randomly
    after it docked with the International Space Station (ISS) on
    Thursday as the crew on board struggled to shut the system down
    manually, a source familiar with the situation told Parabolic
    Arc.

    What a shit show!

    Jeff

    As usual, Scott Manley has a good tubecast.

    /dps

    --
    You could try being nicer and politer
    instead, and see how that works out.
    -- Katy Jennison

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JF Mezei@21:1/5 to Jeff Findley on Sat Jul 31 15:57:12 2021
    On 2021-07-29 16:19, Jeff Findley wrote:
    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/07/29/new-russian-iss-nauka-module- starts-firing-thrusters-randomly-atlas-v-launch-postponed-indefinitely/


    Would it be correct to state that the thrusters on Nauka could not
    exceed the torque limits of Nauka being docked to Station? (aka: cause mechanical damage or jeoperdize mechanical integrity of the station)

    Say Dr Evil got control of the software, could he start firing the
    trhusters in a sequence that would cause some harmonics like the Tacoma
    Bridge and cause major structural damage/breakup of station?

    Or is everything on station in such slow motion and with so little
    thrust compared to station mass that this isn't a consideration?

    from https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/07/29/nauka-docking-oft-2-delay/
    It states that the CMGs were back on-ine at time of firings which
    happened some 3 hours post docking. So until saturated, they would have
    likely fought the thrusters. The article also notes that the Zvezda and Progress thrusters also kicked in to fight Nauka (yet Nauka appears to
    have won since it managed to tilt the station 45°).

    This this owuld have happened at tha time when they would have been
    converting Nauka from an autonomous spacecraft to a permanent module of
    ISS (and this integrating it to russian segment software) I suspect
    either procedures forgot to include a step (or software missed a some
    synch of parameters etc).

    Considering the integration based on what this article stated (where
    even the Progress thursters started to fire), I would think that each
    module has no autonomy and just listens to Zvezda for commands such as
    "fire for 1 second" as opposed to each module being told of correct
    attitude and deciding by itself how to reach the desired attitude. (all
    the more important sicne Zvezda coordinates with US segment because the
    CMGs do a lot of the work).

    Consider if they start to integrate Nauka to ISS, but faile to disable
    Nauka's independant ship software first and that independant ship
    decides it has wrong attitude.

    It would seem to me that there may have been good software for each othe
    ship vs ISS module functions, but the switchover between ship to ISS
    module had problems that confused a still active "ship" software.

    The "Ship" function that would have been last in use was the docking
    software. If it is still active, but the conversion process first pulled
    the inputs from it, that software may have lost awareness it was docked,
    and wouldn't see the target and might have been programmed to change
    attitude until it found a target.

    The crew (and ground) would know exactly at what stage of integration
    they were at at the time of firings and what command to continue the integration initiated the firing.

    This will take some time for Russian sofwtare engineers to confirm the
    logic that resulted in this, confirm that the "ISS module" software is
    correct and integration can be completed and then write the rrpots to
    their bosses which then write a more condense report to theior bosses
    and so on until it gets to a level high enough to be handed over to NASA.

    BTW, is Boeing more transparent than the Russians on Starliner? On
    Boeing 737 MAX? I know the Russians are an easy target but curious if
    the standard of transparency against which we criticize the Russians is
    the same as the standard expected of Boeing.






    BTW: Is there an attitude of ISS where solar panels would be unable to
    turn to catch sunlight which would then cause an emergency since they
    would need to get back to an attitude when solar panels can power ISS
    again before batteries run out? Or are the panels able to match olympic gymbnsats and flip and bend over backwards to cacth sunlight from any
    ISS orientation, even if it is upside down?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Findley@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 31 17:10:54 2021
    In article <tWhNI.28097$7H7.23680@fx42.iad>,
    jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...

    On 2021-07-29 16:19, Jeff Findley wrote:
    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/07/29/new-russian-iss-nauka-module- starts-firing-thrusters-randomly-atlas-v-launch-postponed-indefinitely/


    Would it be correct to state that the thrusters on Nauka could not
    exceed the torque limits of Nauka being docked to Station? (aka: cause mechanical damage or jeoperdize mechanical integrity of the station)

    Say Dr Evil got control of the software, could he start firing the
    trhusters in a sequence that would cause some harmonics like the Tacoma Bridge and cause major structural damage/breakup of station?

    Or is everything on station in such slow motion and with so little
    thrust compared to station mass that this isn't a consideration?

    from https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/07/29/nauka-docking-oft-2-delay/
    It states that the CMGs were back on-ine at time of firings which
    happened some 3 hours post docking. So until saturated, they would have likely fought the thrusters. The article also notes that the Zvezda and Progress thrusters also kicked in to fight Nauka (yet Nauka appears to
    have won since it managed to tilt the station 45).

    This this owuld have happened at tha time when they would have been converting Nauka from an autonomous spacecraft to a permanent module of
    ISS (and this integrating it to russian segment software) I suspect
    either procedures forgot to include a step (or software missed a some
    synch of parameters etc).

    Russia blames software failure for 'unexpected' ISS module thruster
    firing
    https://www.cnet.com/news/russia-blames-software-failure-for-unexpected- iss-module-thruster-firing/

    Jeff
    --
    All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
    These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
    employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Snidely@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 31 15:25:31 2021
    JF Mezei speculated:

    Say Dr Evil got control of the software, could he start firing the
    trhusters in a sequence that would cause some harmonics like the Tacoma Bridge and cause major structural damage/breakup of station?

    Or is everything on station in such slow motion and with so little
    thrust compared to station mass that this isn't a consideration?

    The Scott Manley tubecast I cited suggests that the thrust would not be
    enough to cause damage unless there was a resonance point from pulsing
    the thrusters.

    Eric Bergin on Ars Technica seems to think that cracking around the
    "joints" could be a problem.

    Keep doing the leak checks.

    /dps

    --
    There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
    does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
    the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
    ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Greg (Strider) Moore@21:1/5 to JF Mezei on Sat Jul 31 19:51:11 2021
    "JF Mezei" wrote in message news:tWhNI.28097$7H7.23680@fx42.iad...

    On 2021-07-29 16:19, Jeff Findley wrote:
    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/07/29/new-russian-iss-nauka-module-
    starts-firing-thrusters-randomly-atlas-v-launch-postponed-indefinitely/


    Would it be correct to state that the thrusters on Nauka could not
    exceed the torque limits of Nauka being docked to Station? (aka: cause >mechanical damage or jeoperdize mechanical integrity of the station)

    Not clear. There's some chatter I'm hearing in other channels of concerns
    about the torque impacting the solar panels and the radiators.

    For the solar panels, I can see some damage being an issue, but not life-threatening.
    For the radiators, if the torqueing causes a leak in the ammonia system,
    that could be a huge problem. Without adequate cooling, ISS is toast, literally. Sure they could probably isolate portions of the system, but that would have its own issues. And if there is a leak, NASA would be VERY loathe
    to put any astronauts on an EVA for repairs where they might get ammonia on their suits.

    Say Dr Evil got control of the software, could he start firing the
    trhusters in a sequence that would cause some harmonics like the Tacoma >Bridge and cause major structural damage/breakup of station?

    "maybe"

    Or is everything on station in such slow motion and with so little
    thrust compared to station mass that this isn't a consideration?

    from https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/07/29/nauka-docking-oft-2-delay/
    It states that the CMGs were back on-ine at time of firings which
    happened some 3 hours post docking. So until saturated, they would have >likely fought the thrusters. The article also notes that the Zvezda and >Progress thrusters also kicked in to fight Nauka (yet Nauka appears to
    have won since it managed to tilt the station 45°).


    Reports are coming out that it was far more than 44° (the initial report)
    and in multiple axes.
    I've seen some charts, but don't know enough to interpret them, but "not
    good"

    This this owuld have happened at tha time when they would have been >converting Nauka from an autonomous spacecraft to a permanent module of
    ISS (and this integrating it to russian segment software) I suspect
    either procedures forgot to include a step (or software missed a some
    synch of parameters etc).

    Considering the integration based on what this article stated (where
    even the Progress thursters started to fire), I would think that each
    module has no autonomy and just listens to Zvezda for commands such as
    "fire for 1 second" as opposed to each module being told of correct
    attitude and deciding by itself how to reach the desired attitude. (all
    the more important sicne Zvezda coordinates with US segment because the
    CMGs do a lot of the work).

    The thruster firing as I understand it was commanded from the ground.


    Consider if they start to integrate Nauka to ISS, but faile to disable >Nauka's independant ship software first and that independant ship
    decides it has wrong attitude.

    It would seem to me that there may have been good software for each othe
    ship vs ISS module functions, but the switchover between ship to ISS
    module had problems that confused a still active "ship" software.

    The "Ship" function that would have been last in use was the docking >software. If it is still active, but the conversion process first pulled
    the inputs from it, that software may have lost awareness it was docked,
    and wouldn't see the target and might have been programmed to change
    attitude until it found a target.

    The crew (and ground) would know exactly at what stage of integration
    they were at at the time of firings and what command to continue the >integration initiated the firing.

    This will take some time for Russian sofwtare engineers to confirm the
    logic that resulted in this, confirm that the "ISS module" software is >correct and integration can be completed and then write the rrpots to
    their bosses which then write a more condense report to theior bosses
    and so on until it gets to a level high enough to be handed over to NASA.

    BTW, is Boeing more transparent than the Russians on Starliner? On
    Boeing 737 MAX? I know the Russians are an easy target but curious if
    the standard of transparency against which we criticize the Russians is
    the same as the standard expected of Boeing.

    Boeing is almost certainly more transparent to NASA than the Russians are
    from all accounts I've seen.
    But the details may not be public.






    BTW: Is there an attitude of ISS where solar panels would be unable to
    turn to catch sunlight which would then cause an emergency since they
    would need to get back to an attitude when solar panels can power ISS
    again before batteries run out? Or are the panels able to match olympic >gymbnsats and flip and bend over backwards to cacth sunlight from any
    ISS orientation, even if it is upside down?

    There's battery power to handle the occasional eclipses. So they'd use the batteries until they could reorient.

    In this case, my understanding is that the station was already in an non-standard attitude to assist the docking.
    I don't know exactly how much the solar panels rotate, but I believe it's substantial. (the station rotates 360° as it goes around the Earth, so the panels may be able to do that in reverse.)


    --
    Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
    CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
    IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JF Mezei@21:1/5 to Snidely on Sun Aug 1 18:23:04 2021
    On 2021-07-31 18:25, Snidely wrote:

    The Scott Manley tubecast I cited

    For some reason Youtube failed to recomment it to me. I have now
    actively sought and watched it.

    But the other article mentioned a very important piece: the firing of
    thrusters bagan after astronauts entered a command. So that would make
    the debugging of it much much easier since you know what triggered it,
    and can follow what the code does when you enter that command.


    One thing in the Scott Manley video is that Nauka was designed to
    provide attitude control so from a structure point of view, providing
    attitude control would be within its structural design as an integrated
    piece of ISS. (unless the thrusters that did fire were much more
    powerfull than the ones used for normal attitude control).

    On 2021-07-31 19:51, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
    There's battery power to handle the occasional eclipses. So they'd use the >> batteries until they could reorient.


    My concern would be putting ISS into an attitude where for some reason,
    it can't recover before bateries start to run out. (Say computers went
    nuts, put station in very bad attitude, and solar panels stop tracking,
    so you have limited amout of time on batteries before you have to have
    power from solar panels. Curious how quickly they would turn off all
    systems including most ECLSS while they focus on manually issuing
    commands to rotate at least one array to get some power. (and if station tumbling, then you have short periods of illumination of arrays but
    would they be long enough?).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)