[HN Gopher] Realtime telemetry from ISS internal components
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Realtime telemetry from ISS internal components
        
       Author : MontagFTB
       Score  : 144 points
       Date   : 2024-03-06 05:28 UTC (17 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (iss-mimic.github.io)
 (TXT) w3m dump (iss-mimic.github.io)
        
       | AriedK wrote:
       | Can anyone explain what the number before the timestamp is? GMT
       | 66 / 43 / 41
        
         | ins0 wrote:
         | It's the DayOfTheYear followed by Hours, Minutes and seconds in
         | UTC.
        
           | diggan wrote:
           | Is this the datetime format they use onboard on the ISS or
           | why is it being used in this webui?
           | 
           | This is the first time I come across this particular format,
           | but also never near space-stuff so wouldn't surprise me if
           | they use some specific format for some specific purpose.
        
             | pyrolux wrote:
             | That's very common in ISS operation schedules - next
             | spacewalk is on GMT xx next launch on GMT xx, etc
             | 
             | I expect it's easier and more useful to track days until
             | event or days since event
        
             | dr_orpheus wrote:
             | Yes, using Day of Year for time GUIs and measurements is
             | pretty common in spacecraft operations. Generally easier to
             | do/plan operations for things like "we need to perform this
             | maintenance activity every 5 days"
        
         | dr_kiszonka wrote:
         | 66 could be the day of the year.
        
         | mmh0000 wrote:
         | As a date command format string:
         | 
         | ```                 $ date -u '+GMT %-j/%R:%S'         GMT
         | 66/17:05:57
         | 
         | ```
        
       | orbital-decay wrote:
       | This is being used to sync a 1:100 model of ISS with the actual
       | station: https://github.com/ISS-Mimic/Mimic
        
         | auto wrote:
         | This is incredibly cool!
        
       | pavinjoseph wrote:
       | Incredible! I wonder how much delay there is between the sensor
       | data coming in to ISS, being relayed to NASA, fetched by these
       | guys and forwarded to their model's actuators.
        
       | close04 wrote:
       | What's the reason behind using the "Off"/"Not-Off" notation for
       | "on-off status" instead of "On"/"Off" or even "On"/"Non-On"? I
       | see some "state" parameters marked as "ON".
        
         | the-kenny wrote:
         | Guessing here: If you have a breaker switch after an additional
         | switch, labelling the breaker with 'on/off' may be misleading
         | as 'on' doesn't necessarily mean the connected device is
         | powered. It may be off because the other switch is off.
        
           | wolrah wrote:
           | Reading this post led to one of those moments of realization
           | about "no shutdown" in Cisco IOS and similar environments.
           | 
           | The config file can't guarantee the interface will be up when
           | it's loaded as that depends on external factors but it can
           | guarantee the interface will not be shut down.
           | 
           | I've used "no shutdown" as an example of illogical UI for
           | decades because it seems backwards as the user, especially
           | when new to IOS and trying to learn by exploring, but from
           | this perspective it makes sense.
        
             | justsomehnguy wrote:
             | > moments of realization about "no shutdown" in Cisco IOS
             | and similar environments
             | 
             | > but from this perspective it makes sense
             | 
             | No, it's just a clunky way to _remove_ the config line, it
             | has nothing with the engineering safety.
             | 
             | It's still better than Huawei's lingo, though.
        
         | gregmac wrote:
         | Certain controls -- like valves or vent dampers -- are not
         | binary. Even if normal operation is either fully-closed or
         | fully-open, it can technically be anywhere in between.
         | 
         | Having an absolute position sensor would tell you this, but is
         | complex and expensive compared to having two binary state
         | switches (fully-open vs fully-closed) which is also more
         | expensive than a single state switch.
         | 
         | Probably in many cases it just isn't worth it to instrument
         | beyond the single state, especially if the affect of the
         | control is being monitored (eg: flow, temperature, power).
         | However, communicating the state as accurately as possible is
         | important to avoid confusion ("This valve says ON, so that's
         | not the problem" vs "I can see this valve is NOT OFF, but let's
         | double check it's fully-on?").
        
         | idiotsecant wrote:
         | I am a controls engineer and saying something is CLOSED when it
         | is actually only observed to be NOT OPEN is my personal
         | windmill I tilt at regularly. People have deied before because
         | what the screen said was that the valve is closed, but what the
         | PLC actually observed is that the valve had left the open
         | position, which was the only limit switch present. Maybe the
         | valve is travelling slowly, jammed halfway open, etc. When
         | operators make the complaint you just did I tell them that what
         | I've told them is reality and if they want a true closed we
         | need a closed limit switch.
        
           | bmitc wrote:
           | This was my first guess, although I do not have explicitly
           | experience in life-or-death type of control systems. In such
           | systems, does it make sense to have more than two states?
           | Something like "open", "unknown but not open", "unknown but
           | not closed", "unknown", "closed"? (Assuming that you have
           | enough limit switches.)
        
             | tagami wrote:
             | quantum switch
        
             | idiotsecant wrote:
             | That's exactly what you do. In all systems you _should_
             | have two switches, and you annunciate on  / off /
             | travelling / error to the operator. Often you inherit
             | something that doesn't have that.
             | 
             | In anything that really matters you have a continuous
             | position transmitter instead of switches so your state is
             | more obvious. In safety systems you might have 2 or 3 of
             | those transmitters so you can have a backup or a vote
        
       | xtiansimon wrote:
       | So where is the 'leaky' Soyuz module? Haha
        
         | proaralyst wrote:
         | All the leaky Soyuz spacecraft have returned to earth at this
         | point
         | 
         | The coolant leak: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_MS-22
         | 
         | The air leak: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_MS-09
        
           | verytrivial wrote:
           | Scott Manley reported three days ago about an apparently
           | current, non-threatening leak https://youtu.be/MZgaLzYFCrU at
           | about the 18 minute mark if you're interested.
        
       | Bnichs wrote:
       | One of those values is "ISS total mass." Is that calculated using
       | launch/deorbit weights or is there some kind of sensor on board
       | that can measure that? I figure if you did a specific type of
       | burn you could calculate the weight from that, but I'm wondering
       | if they have something more clever.
        
         | orbital-decay wrote:
         | It's just an estimate and isn't that accurate. Yes, the closest
         | you can get is orbit determination before and after the
         | reboosts, and acceleration data.
        
           | webdoodle wrote:
           | The ISS uses Control moment gyroscopes to stabilize it's
           | orientation. Couldn't those be used to calculate its mass?
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope#Inter.
           | ..
        
             | dr_orpheus wrote:
             | Not its mass directly, but you can use it to calculate the
             | moment of inertia. Move the CMGs a fixed angle and looking
             | at the responding change in rate of the ISS. Mass can be
             | determined from maneuvers when you fire the thrusters.
             | Assuming you know the force from the thrusters very well
             | (this has its own errors) you can look at the acceleration
             | from the orbit determination before and after the thruster
             | burns and back out the mass.
        
             | Out_of_Characte wrote:
             | Not an expert but I think its possible, the problem is that
             | the gyroscope alone wouldn't be sufficient. When the gyro
             | rotates once, the massive spacecraft will obviously have
             | rotated exactly once relative to the gyroscope. However if
             | you could track the space station's rotation relative to an
             | independend stationary observer in space (lets say an array
             | of pulsar data), then you could count the amount of turns
             | of both the gyro and the spacestation relative to the
             | background of space. Then the amount of turns of the gyro
             | times the mass of the gyro would give you the mass of the
             | space station minus the independend floating objects.
             | Meaning you'll need to add the mass of the gyro itself as
             | well.
             | 
             | Please correct me if i'm missing something obvious. This
             | should work right?
        
         | CoastalCoder wrote:
         | Hopefully I'm not embarrassing myself with this question, but:
         | 
         | If you know an satellite's orbital path and velocity, and the
         | Earth's gravitational strength, is that enough to compute the
         | satellite's mass?
        
           | martincmartin wrote:
           | In a uniform gravitational field, it isn't. On the earth's
           | surface, acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2,
           | independent of the mass of the falling object. See Galileo's
           | Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_P.
           | ..
        
             | CoastalCoder wrote:
             | > Hopefully I'm not embarrassing myself with this question,
             | but:
             | 
             | Yup, I'm kind of embarrassed :) I forgot that maintaining
             | orbit is just a matter of falling at the same pace that the
             | earth is falling away from you.
        
               | flainne wrote:
               | > maintaining orbit is just a matter of falling at the
               | same pace that the earth is falling away from you
               | 
               | Perhaps a better visualization: moving sideways fast
               | enough that you miss the earth? :)
        
               | mmh0000 wrote:
               | If you've never tried it, I highly recommend playing
               | Kerbel Space Program[1] (it works on Linux, Mac, and
               | Windows!).
               | 
               | That game taught me so much about orbital mechanics,
               | which led to rabbit holes of textbooks and videos[2].
               | 
               | The first big lesson KSP taught me was: why, when
               | launching a rocket, you don't just go straight up but,
               | instead, have to lean over pretty aggressively.
               | 
               | [1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/220200/Kerbal_Spac
               | e_Progr...
               | 
               | [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhYqflvJMXc
        
             | staunton wrote:
             | The field is not uniform though. So in theory, if you know
             | the orbit and firld exactly, you _can_ calculate it.
             | 
             | In the present case, I guess the precision with which one
             | knows the orbit and other stuff (like the exact
             | gravitational fiel of the earth) doesn't work out.
        
         | pyrolux wrote:
         | The mass data is calculated from all the launched mass but I
         | have no idea why it's a telemetry value unless the ISS echoes
         | it back for some reason
        
         | Horffupolde wrote:
         | I assume it's calculated from the propulsion positioning
         | system.
        
       | 9dev wrote:
       | I'm SO going to build a Grafana dashboard from that!
        
         | malux85 wrote:
         | I would love to see that!
        
           | 9dev wrote:
           | So, uh, I actually did. Built a small Prometheus exporter to
           | read the official data stream, and ingest it in Grafana.
           | 
           | Anyone up helping me create all the charts? It's over 300 of
           | them :D
           | 
           | Going to post the result here soon
        
       | franky47 wrote:
       | It has a year field, when would that one be updated? Using UTC?
        
       | world2vec wrote:
       | Which NASA API/data feed is being used to get this telemetry?
        
         | axus wrote:
         | "Several years ago, NASA provided some of the data to the
         | public in order to spur interest in the ISS and space
         | exploration under the ISSlive project (https://isslive.com/)
         | using the lightstreamer service
         | (http://demos.lightstreamer.com/ISSLive/)"
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-03-06 23:02 UTC)