Nozomi in perspective, Revisiting the causes of failure |
Nozomi in perspective, Revisiting the causes of failure |
Oct 23 2011, 09:12 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 817 Joined: 17-April 10 From: Kamakura, Japan Member No.: 5323 |
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/uchuu/...ts/04061101.pdf
Above pdf file will be translated for aspiring students in aeronautics, control engineering etc. so that in future lay people like me will be able to enjoy planetary scenes and events without worrying about failures. The overall title is "Looking into the causes of failure and trying to find the right measures to take for the future with respect to the 18th scientific satellite (PLANET-B ) not inserted into Mars orbit as planned" and it is dated 21 May 2004. This file is very much detailed at 1.1 megabytes and the number of pages is about 40, I think. In addition, I will be translating 3 more files after this particular file. They will be; 1. ISAS file with views and comments on the failure 2. Another ISAS file, a newsletter written out in a series of 4 individual letters. 3. JAXA file, which is a press release and it is a very concise document with just sufficient details. Re concise link making I tried a few times, but I simply failed and all the links will be fully pasted out as required. Pandaneko |
|
|
Dec 8 2011, 09:41 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 817 Joined: 17-April 10 From: Kamakura, Japan Member No.: 5323 |
above for ease of reference page 52 Table II-2-1 Risks considered at time of LV2 selection (here, I consider this table essentially to consist of 6 columns and 6 rows for ease of translation and that means tacit understanding that some of the table elements have more than one rows or columns) (top left corner contains a caption): "Options available at time of selection" (top right corner contains a caption): "Notes" (top row with column numbers 3,4,5 contanis a caption): "Risks envisaged" (hereafter I will use regular R and C numbers) R2C3: mixture of hydrazine and NTO R2C4: LV2 cannot be opened (valve reliability issue) R2C5: LV2 open status cannot be monitored R3C2: Extent of risk influence R3C3: catastrophic R3C4: serious R3C5: local or localised R4,5C1: LV2 is used R6C1: LV2 is not used (against these headers translated as above there are symbolic entries with either triangle, double circle, single circle and I will qualify these symbols after translating the rest of this table. Just to make sure we are using the same esignation there are triangles at R5C5 and R6C3) R6C6: Valve is not used at all R5C6: Valve with track records R4C6: Valve modified to our spec R4C2: Instruction for open/close is given R5C2: Instruction for open/close is not given (symbols are as follows) ◎: unthinkable from the viewpoint of principles ○: small risk (acceptable to the mission) △: medium risk ( either acceptable to the mission or detailed assessment required) ×: too risky (unacceptable to the mission) ※Result of risk assessment For the following reasons it was decided that we will carry LV2 and also add LVDT to go with LV2 ・Vapour mixture of hydrazine and NTO When vapour mixture takes place it will mean a very serious risk to the mission. If LV2 is used it means dual safety precaution given the role of CV2 and the risk is deemed small. However, safety precaution with CV2 only is medium in risk taking. ・LV2 cannot be opened If LV2 is found not to open prior to TMI it will mean a very serious risk to the mission. However, by carrying out a prior checkup of LV2 the possibility of valve unopening can be reduced to a minimum, hence small risk. ・LV2 open/close status cannnot be monitored Being unable to monitor LV2 status is not that serious and is localised. However, if we consider the burden on operators and human errors due to this burden we thought that having a monitor will reduce the risk to minimum. No monitor, then risk is deemed medimum. end of page 52 P |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 10:58 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |