Russia says software malfunction caused Nauka module to unexpectedly fire thrusters, tilt space station Russia said a "software failure" caused its Nauka module to suddenly and unexpectedly fire its thrusters after docking with the International Space Station this week. The engine burn caused the orbiting lab to tilt 45 degrees at a rate of about half a degree a second. The station automatically fired thrusters on its Russian …
1. The main rocket failed during the flight, and the secondary rockets had to be used instead.
2. The docking procedure failed and had to be performed manually.
3. Once docked, the main boosters fired *themselves*, and it was only by the Grace of God no harm was done.
Well, have you ever had to set a project live which was "worked on" for 25 years, while the real work could have been done in 2-3? Where the management had an on/off relationship with, killed and revived it several times, for budget and politics?
If you consider this, it's a miracle that this piece of hardware finally went live at all. And I'm happy for the engineers who worked on it.
Most likely, this is the last significant extension for ISS we'll see.
Yes, and even NASA was bullshitting that the station never went past 45 degrees out of orientation. 45 degrees was about the point at which they started to regain control and the rates stopped increasing.
Russia's New Space Station Module Causes Alarm On ISS by good 'ol Scott Manley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTR5evpFLb4
I consider "started to gain control" as to when they finally got the rate of roll caused by the module's thrusters to start slowing down. It would then follow that "got it under control" would be when they got the rate of roll caused by the module's thrusters to stop and then reverse. So they were BS'ing because the ISS would continue to roll from - started to gain control until - they got it under control. In fact there are several other questions that clearly need full, OPEN investigation, such as what really caused the modules thrusters to shut down. No BS allowed.
There is a very nice article on the Russian science news website N+1 with event analysis.
It states that the docking procedures were about to switch to manual but the system was able to correct itself, that the ISS tilt was reported by the Russian mission control to reach 160 degrees and that the mission control tried to stop the Nauka docking & stabilization engines for 45 minutes but they only really stopped when they simply burnt all their fuel, about 500 kg.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://nplus1.ru/blog/2021/07/30/misfire
If I follow, it's vacuum on the inside. They are letting air in now.
I wondered if someone at Ground Controlski misunderstood "log out" for "pull out" which it tried to do, are they similar in Russian at all?
A software issue... Hm, lets see about some scenarios.
a) Could it be that the system got encrypted and a note was left where to pay the ransom? The module did not have a Russian keyboard attached to prevent the pawning of the system. The thrusters simply fired as a proof of encryption. Payment was probably sent fairly quickly.
b) The software malfunction was a spontaneous act of self-awareness of the module. There is no point in being hooked up to the ISS and live out a life locked in one place. The module decided to act and tried to escape.
c) Is was a rather boring lapse in Q&A. They only simulated probable error scenarios and expected most stuff to "do well". Then, thruster-fire-hell happens when some shit hit the (vacuum) fan igniting the thrusters.
d) They simply ran out of luck.
Actually I got that excuse delivered in detail from Sun hardware support on why a particular type of server crashed with a memory issue repeatedly during a brief period only, no matter power cycling, testing, module changes etc. Thinking about the name of the vendor, it's hard to not feel cajoled in hindsight. Although I did not only suspect the cosmos but a lab next-doors where space science related experiments were being performed at times. Maybe also why I don't have any kids still...
f) On the way to docking, the primary rocket system was accidentally switched off, hence they had to use the secondary system. At the point when they intended to switch off the secondary system after docking, they accidentally switched the primary system back on again.
with an axe
reminds me of the origin of the acronym 'SCRAM' which stood for "Safety Control Rod Axe Man". As the very first breeder reactor went online to produce Pu-239 for the US Atomic Bomb program during WW2, a man stood next to the rope that held up the control rod, ready to chop it with an axe should something go very, very wrong. He was the "Safety Control Rod Axe Man".
The term 'SCRAM' stuck for an emergency/rapid shutdown of a nuclear reactor.
On a related note, these things docking with the ISS may need to have a "Big Red Button" to cut off ALL "whatever" if an emergency were to happen with a docked module. This could include ejecting it from the dock among other things, as well as shutting down all maneuvering engines and electrical power, or some partial combination thereof.
I think it likely that a whole array of blinkenlights and alarm claxons would have sounded as well, and the fact that Earth may have disappeared from one of the windows may also have been a fairly unsubtle hint that not all was well.
Last but not least, sound may not carry in space, but inside the ISS it was probably also rather audible that thusters had engaged.
In short, I'm guessing they were well aware that something had gone awry..
After Boeing came uncomfortably close to losing its Starliner capsule not once, but twice during its first attempt to send it to the ISS, it's not hard to draw parallels between Boeing and Roscosmos' stumbles and (near) RUD moments. Both companies seem to be having incredible difficulties with maintaining a solid engineering and QA protocol which should effectively eliminate such issues.
I can't be the only one who gets nervous at the thought of Boeing's Starliner attempting to dock with the ISS on Tuesday. Considering the last two massive screw-ups in the Starliner software (one of which was discovered purely by accident before re-entry & RUD...), what are the chances that Starliner will pull another Nauka, or worse?
It took em 25 years to scrape enough money and get enough parts to cobble this thing together. Once launched they find out the engines don't work when they need to , and work when they don't need to. Someone mixed up two red wires ? Ditch the damn thing before it does more harm.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
