Skip navigation

Astronaut explains secret of space station’s success

It’s actually two stations in one,
says one-time resident Susan Helms

Image: Susan Helms
NASA
Astronaut Susan Helms, the flight engineer for the international space station's Expedition 2, totes computer hardware on the Destiny laboratory in March 2001.
Video: Space news
NASA's new infrared eye in the sky
Dec. 14: Watch the launch of NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, which is designed to map the entire sky in infrared wavelengths.

  RSS feeds on msnbc.com

Add these headlines to your news reader

James Oberg
NBC News space analyst
INTERACTIVE
Space station timeline
A step-by-step construction guide
By James Oberg
NBC News space analyst
Special to MSNBC
updated 8:12 p.m. ET May 9, 2005

This is the second of two articles on the international space station's endurance amid adversity.

HOUSTON - The remarkable robustness of the international space station, which has gone for two and half years without space shuttle resupply and repair, comes as no surprise to one of its former residents, Susan Helms.

Helms is a veteran NASA astronaut who made three shuttle missions in the 1990s, then helped assemble the station during a fourth mission in 2000. The fifth spaceflight, in early 2001, was her longest trip yet. She became a member of the space station's second long-term crew, spending 163 days aboard the outpost and engaging in a record-breaking nine-hour spacewalk.

“People who had a sense that ISS wouldn't really last this long probably don't see ISS the way I do,” she told MSNBC.com in an e-mail interview. Speaking as U.S. Air Force flight test engineer as well as a NASA mission specialist astronaut, she gave her perspective on the station’s design and explained how lessons from its recent challenges need to be applied to building NASA's next-generation vehicle for human spaceflight.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

'Two-in-one' design
Helms pointed out that the space station comprises modules designed by NASA and its U.S. contractors, as well as modules designed by the Russian Space Agency and its industrial partners.

“It's essentially two space stations joined together by a hatch, and its overall redundancy by being a 'two-in-one' design has been its saving grace,” she said of the international space station. “Each space station has a significantly different design philosophy, but each one is also capable of many functions that can 'carry' the other one simultaneously.”

As a result of this design philosophy, she continued, “by having such different approaches, each space agency ultimately played to different strengths of their system designs, and in effect, created a larger 'system of systems' that can manage a wide variety of contingencies.”

Attitude control — orienting the station in a desired posture as it circles Earth — is an example of a critical function that is independently enabled by both American and Russian hardware. This function “is incredibly important to power supply and thermal control,” she said, and it “can be controlled by either the U.S. gyrodynes or the Russian propulsion system.”

“The beauty of the [American] gyrodynes is that they require no consumables,” she elaborated, “but the beauty of the Russian system is that it's incredibly reliable and built for robustness. Neither system is perfect, but managing them in a synchronized fashion has created an overall capability that is greater than the sum of the parts, in the face of the unexpected.”

How the station handled a crisis
One control crisis during her mission turned out to need exactly such robustness.

“I remember when all three computers on the U.S. segment simultaneously experienced a generic failure, due to something the designers had not foreseen,” she recalled “Luckily, the U.S. engineers had built to a 'fail-safe' design philosophy, so that all of the U.S. systems — thermal exchange, power management, and the like — controlled by the computers went into 'auto-pilot' instead of shutting down.”

The control systems were idling "off line," but had not stopped functioning.

Since the Russian half of the station had its own systems for these same services, the temporary loss of the U.S. systems was only a nuisance and not a crisis. “The Russian segment picked up the slack in managing environmental life support and attitude control, and the situation was therefore never perceived by the crew as life-threatening, even with a total U.S. computer failure,” Helms said.

Even as the Russian systems stepped in to save the day, other U.S. systems were available to help the crew recover.

“Because the U.S. segment had a more robust communications system than the Russians,” she continued, “we would have been able to talk to Houston only through Russian ground sites, but as luck would have it, [a shuttle mission] was visiting at the time this happened, and we were able to leverage the shuttle comm systems to get our daily messages and maintenance procedures for the computers.”

The communications link meant that the station's crew members didn’t need to figure out the problem on their own. “I still think that the members of the ISS [ground control] team are heroes for figuring out quickly how to get around the computer problem!” she added.


Resource guide