Shaking on space station rattles NASA

[IDemo]

Source: MSNBC

Vigorous vibrations caught on video during orbital reboost last month

By James Oberg
NBC News space analyst
Special to MSNBC
updated 53 minutes ago

James Oberg
NBC News space analyst
-updated 53 minutes ago

HOUSTON - A faulty rocket command sequence aboard the international space station caused the 300-ton structure to shake back and forth vigorously for two minutes last month, during what was supposed to be a routine, gentle orbital adjustment. Space experts in Houston and Moscow have spent the last two weeks searching for the cause of the shaking and doing a damage assessment.

Under the worst-case scenario, such vibrations could rattle the station so much over the long term that the structure might begin to crack and leak. One of the solar arrays might bend out of position, affecting the station’s power-generating system. Experts cautioned that it was too early to determine how likely or unlikely these scenarios might be.

Partly as a result of last month's anomaly, a second rocket burn originally scheduled for Wednesday has been canceled. Since the maneuvers had been intended to line up the station’s path to receive future visiting spacecraft, the dates of those missions are now in doubt. A Russian Soyuz visit in late March already has been postponed a day.

The original rocket firing on Jan. 14 involved two 440-pound (200-kilogram) thrust engines attached to the station’s Russian-built Zvezda service module at the trailing end of the station. The engines fired for 142 seconds under autopilot control to raise the station’s orbit slightly. The purpose was to shift the station's ground track into a proper path to facilitate rendezvous with future visiting spacecraft.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28998876/

[kestrel91316]

1. Long-term feasibility of any hardware in space = ZERO.

JMHO.

The problems associated with humans' water vapor production >>> rust, etc are a big bugaboo. I'm not saying I don't like the space program - I do, and it has brought us many wonderful things through all the associated R&D. I just think it's awfully pie-in-the sky in the long run.

And I don't think we have any business messing up other planetary bodies when we can't even live sustainably on this one.

[Submariner]

6. NASA needs to move to a moon base program

and tackle the tougher space station stuff later. In a moon base climate controls and radiation shielding can be better outfitted than an orbiting aluminum cluster of modules.

A moon base program would be much more relevant to future planetary missions.

[kestrel91316]

10. I tend to agree. Orbiting out in space is silly when we have the moon sitting there.

[ConcernedCanuk]

11. Space station may be a better scenario for weaponizing space - like a "Star Wars" thing?

.
.
.

I think the PNAC and BFEE gang might be pondering that . . .

If the USA's War-Machine is willing to invade non-threatening sovereign nations for their own agenda

why not the ISS?

hmmm?

[Captain Hilts]

2. So long as your ears don't pop....nt

[DJ13]

3. "If this staion's a rockin, dont come knockin"

[annabanana]

7. AAK!. . DUzy . . . . . .

(actually pretty scary, though)

[Adsos Letter]

4. I first read it as "a routine, genital orbital adjustment"...

...too much time in The Lounge...

[ConcernedCanuk]

5. maybe they were all "doing something" at the same time?

.
.
.

but on a more serious note

Do they have some sort of "escape pod" in case the station fucks up?

I mean

it's not like they can call 911 for a tow truck and ambulance . .

[Regret My New Name]

8. I think they have a soyuz capsule for that purpose...

I could be wrong though.

[machI]

9. Space Station = Low Bid Contractor n/t