MRO MOI Events Timeline, Time Zone Friendly |
MRO MOI Events Timeline, Time Zone Friendly |
Mar 16 2006, 04:21 PM
Post
#91
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
More and more spacecraft will hopefully make it to Mars in the near future....it might be prudent now to start on a more extensive COLA/tracking/space debris reduction program before it becomes an issue. Same with the Moon. Lunar orbits tend to be quite unstable, especially low ones, so there's almost certainly nothing other than SMART-1 in Lunar orbit at present - we're a long way from needing traffic cops there! Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Apr 26 2006, 09:56 AM
Post
#92
|
Guests |
An odd note from the March 6 Aviation Week: The pre-MOI repressurization of the hydrazine tank "caused a little anxiety because Mars Observer was lost at the same point in 1993, believed due to overpressurized tanks from a faulty orifice in the pressure regulator sensing line."
This is a totally different theory for Mars Observer's loss from the one I've always seen listed as most probable: nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer leaking past a check valve into the hydrazine lines and setting off an explosion in the latter when the hydrazine first came down them. Is AW mistaken and the pressure-regulator theory is just one of the less likely alternate possible causes listed in the MO failure report, or has there been some recent rethinking on the most probable cause of the accident? |
|
|
Apr 26 2006, 10:25 AM
Post
#93
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1870 Joined: 20-February 05 Member No.: 174 |
I was looking at that report and wondering the exact same thing....
I suspect a lot of the engineers and reporters have never read or essentially forgotten the full range of plausible failure modes ... I sure have forgotten all but the "somewhat most plausible" one.... and the reporter may be quoting one engineer or manager's take on the MO failure who's also working from memory. |
|
|
Apr 26 2006, 10:43 AM
Post
#94
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 6-April 06 From: Cape Canaveral Member No.: 734 |
Maybe this was the only plausible failure mode applicable to MRO
|
|
|
Apr 26 2006, 11:19 AM
Post
#95
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1870 Joined: 20-February 05 Member No.: 174 |
Engineers and mission controllers on these missions have incredible regenerative abilities .... they routinely chew their fingernails back to their armpits during the runup to these mission critical events.
|
|
|
Apr 26 2006, 01:01 PM
Post
#96
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2517 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
Is AW mistaken and the pressure-regulator theory is just one of the less likely alternate possible causes listed in the MO failure report, or has there been some recent rethinking on the most probable cause of the accident? The latter. From "Propulsion Lessons Learned from the Loss of Mars Observer", Carl S.Guernsey, JPL, 2001: "This paper presents an overview of the potential failure modes identified by the JPL review board and presents evidence, discovered after the failure reviews were complete, that the loss was very likely due to the use of an incompatible braze material in the flow restriction orifice of the pressure regulator." Complete paper is online at http://www.klabs.org/richcontent/Reports/F...y_a01-34322.pdf -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Apr 27 2006, 12:09 AM
Post
#97
|
Guests |
Ah! This is a big item that's totally new to me. Thanks.
|
|
|
Oct 13 2006, 11:25 PM
Post
#98
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 428 Joined: 21-August 06 From: Northern Virginia Member No.: 1062 |
An odd note from the March 6 Aviation Week: The pre-MOI repressurization of the hydrazine tank "caused a little anxiety because Mars Observer was lost at the same point in 1993, believed due to overpressurized tanks from a faulty orifice in the pressure regulator sensing line." This is a totally different theory for Mars Observer's loss from the one I've always seen listed as most probable: nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer leaking past a check valve into the hydrazine lines and setting off an explosion in the latter when the hydrazine first came down them. Is AW mistaken and the pressure-regulator theory is just one of the less likely alternate possible causes listed in the MO failure report, or has there been some recent rethinking on the most probable cause of the accident? If I remember right, the pressurization was such a big deal because there was a fairly last-minute change in the code, as I recall, it was set up so there wasn't a redundancy previous to a reprogramming only a few weeks before MOI. I attended a MOI party at the University of Arizona with the HiRISE team (This was right before I joined, my hiring was contitional upon the safe MOI of MRO, imagine that!), and I think that was the story that I heard at the UA MOI party... But, it's been quite a while... Also, please note that I wasn't a HiRISE team member at this point in time, so I don't know if that's really the reason. If that was the reason, then it just goes to show that NASA isn't taking any more chances with it's spacecraft, they are constantly checking things to make them better. MRO has performed almost flawlessly, even with it's more complex than normal instruments. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th May 2024 - 01:37 AM |
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. |