Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Nauka fires thrusters when attached to ISS!

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Jeff Findley

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 4:19:27 PM7/29/21
to

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.

Greg (Strider) Moore

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 4:41:08 PM7/29/21
to
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
news:MPG.3b6cd757b...@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/

Jeff Findley

unread,
Jul 29, 2021, 5:23:57 PM7/29/21
to
In article <sdv3p3$ep7$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
moo...@deletethisgreenms.com says...
>
> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message
> news:MPG.3b6cd757b...@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.

David Spain

unread,
Jul 30, 2021, 6:45:59 AM7/30/21
to
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

Greg (Strider) Moore

unread,
Jul 30, 2021, 1:22:49 PM7/30/21
to
"David Spain" wrote in message news:se0l95$usg$1...@dont-email.me...
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 (Strider) Moore

unread,
Jul 30, 2021, 1:26:06 PM7/30/21
to
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
news:MPG.3b6ce677e...@news.eternal-september.org...
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

Snidely

unread,
Jul 30, 2021, 10:00:00 PM7/30/21
to
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

JF Mezei

unread,
Jul 31, 2021, 3:57:15 PM7/31/21
to
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?

Jeff Findley

unread,
Jul 31, 2021, 5:10:55 PM7/31/21
to
In article <tWhNI.28097$7H7....@fx42.iad>,
jfmezei...@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/

Snidely

unread,
Jul 31, 2021, 6:25:38 PM7/31/21
to
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)

Greg (Strider) Moore

unread,
Jul 31, 2021, 7:51:13 PM7/31/21
to
"JF Mezei" wrote in message news:tWhNI.28097$7H7....@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.)

JF Mezei

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 6:23:07 PM8/1/21
to
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?).

0 new messages