Slashdot Mirror
More on Columbia
RodeoBoy writes "It seems that regardless of what NASA and Boeing wants the public to believe there are still questions about damage to the shuttle's left wing. Some Boeing engineers have raised concerns that proper analysis of the damage was not done at the time, due to changes and cutbacks in Boeing. It is also coming out that more than one chunk of foam might have hit and damaged the wing. With Boeing having some financial troubles and NASA under public scrutiny again, what is the future of the space shuttle program..."
A column on the weaknesses of the shuttle program
Comments welcome.
Is here: http://www.io.com/~o_m/home.html
Excellent work by this guy. No irrational conspiracy theories, no useless speculation, no NASA asskissing.
Sorry if it's a dupe.
I was thinking to myself what NASA should do to increase mankind's presence in orbit and how to go about it. It is apparent to just about everyone that the current Space Transportation System (STS) is in need of replacement. The last time we tried to do that was under the Space Launch Initiative (SLI) under the Clinton administration. That program was a failure, not because of Clintons people, but because there were technological and monetary hurdles that couldn't be properly addressed.
However there is a way to do this. Right now the STS fleet is grounded, so the immediate concern is how to keep the ISS in orbit and fully manned. Russian President Putin has promised to build more Soyuz space craft to insure ISS is manned and supplied. From what I've found, it cost Russian anywhere from 25 to 50 million bucks to launch a manned Soyuz and a little less for a Progress supply ship.
I would propose that the US discontinue any crew transport missions for the Shuttle to ISS and pay a significant portion of the money needed to keep Soyuz ships flying to ISS instead. If these ships cost 50 million bucks then there is a savings of about 400 million bucks for each transport (the Shuttle cost an estimated 450 million to fly). When the Shuttle is back on in the air, it should ONLY fly construction missions to finish the ISS. The the STS should be retired.
That begs the question, what do we do with 450 mil for each flight that doesn't go? Since there are typically 6 or 7 flights by the Shuttle per year, about half of them are for significant construction of ISS. So we are looking at a savings of nearly 1.5 billion per fiscal year. THAT money should be invested in a completely new Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) space shuttle like the X-33 was meant to be. But that's not all. In order for space travel to become affordable, space vehicles must become more affordable.
Building 5 space shuttles cost the taxpayers between 3 and 5 billion for each one (the Endeavor cost 3 billion because it was built from spare parts). If we could build say 20 or 30 space shuttles, the cost could possibly be cut in half or perhaps more. NASA doesn't need 20 or 30 shuttles, however, if we could get the European Space Agency (ESA), the Russians, the Japanese, Aussies, and even the Koreans to join up with the promise of owning their own shuttles, the cost could be easily be spread out.
You see, the Europeans would get out from under NASA's shadow which they have for so long hated. They wanted to build a ship back in the 80's called the Sanger but they didn't have the money for it. The Europeans don't have the experience of space travel that we or the Russians do but they do have a lot of technology and engineering that they can bring to the table. The Russians are obvious additions because of their experience. What they can't bring to the table in money, they can definitly bring in know how.
The Japanese have always wanted a manned space program but they too don't have the money to foot the bill for all the R&D involved. In addition, their rocket program has suffered many setbacks. The Koreans might look on this as national pride IMO and a chance to play with the big boys. We of course know more about Shuttles than anyone and of course can bring more money to the table.
America would still have its leadership role in the project but would still have to work with members of the development and building team. You see, I no longer see space exploration as an American dream. This is a HUMAN endeavor. We as Americans (or Russians) just happen to be better at it than anyone else. If we build a shuttle or two that can haul cargo and personnel to low Earth orbit in a cost effective manner, we will see more and more people going and that is the goal. Get more up there so we can do more.
NASA has already learned that it needs to get out of the space launching business and get into the Space Exploration and Space Science business. NASA was essentially going to sell the Shuttles to the United Space Alliance and lease them back. The USA was going to maintain the Shuttles and NASA or Air Force pilots were going to fly them. NASA needs to get away from the space monopoly that it has created so that competition can be built. The same thing happened when NASA got out of the satelite launching business after the Challenger disaster.
Getting people to compete and getting a new reliable shuttle with the world behind it will establish a firm foothold in space for the human race. Right now we have had our foot in the door for too long and earlier this month it got jammed. Now it's time to kick open the door and step inside. Once we have a firm foundation in orbit and on the moon, then we can procede to the Planets and the stars.
(I really don't see why 10+ paragraphs worth of stuff would ever be formatted is one giant blob. That this was modded up was incredible -- I know I can't read a 50 sentence blob!)
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I did my own this animation of the shuttle sensor data found on the NASA page here. I have a /. journal entry for it here.
My, admittedly amateur, conclusion is that one of the carbon shields located on the front of the wing (right ahead of the wheel well) failed for some reason. Check out the animation page to see why I say this.
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
> The point is, even if they positively knew that it was a problem, knowing and then reentering and dying isn't any different from not knowing and then reentering and dying.
That's not true. When Atlantis suffered insulation damage it delayed reentry until nighttime, and spent time beforehand with the damaged wing facing away from the Sun to allow it to cool off. It may have (either it did, or this was proposed as a possibility for Columbia had this been known) also come in at a different angle such that the known good wing took a majority of the reentry heat.
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
X amount of energy needs to be dissipated between deorbit burn and wheel stop on the runway at KSC. The energy exists on orbit and does not exist sitting still on the ground. It MUST be dissipated during reentry.
It'd be a hard decision to make, to fly a profile that would certainly damage the vehicle beyond repair
No such "profile" exists. See above.
e.g. bank one way more often than the other
Won't help. Both wings (and everything else too) take it equally, thermally speaking, even during banks.
An effort to conserve supplies and launch a rescue shuttle is not out of the question, either
Yes it is. There is no way that a second vehicle could reach orbit prior to the loss of all consumables on your hypothetical stricken vehicle. These things don't just gas up like airplanes on the runway and then fly off. Groomimg a shuttle for flight is AMAZINGLY complicated, difficult, and time consuming. Additionally, Columbia was possessed of neither airlock nor access excepting the crew entry/egress door on the side of the crew compartment. Opening that door depressurizes the crew compartment. Even if someone was outside the door with seven spare spacesuits, it wouldn't help. There's simply not enough time.
Is it fascism yet?
Are there any estimates as to what percentage of the space shuttle this might comprise?
/. story briefly mentions that very issue. IIRC, they said the amount of debris recovered so far, comprises about 11% of the total weight of the shuttle.
One of the articles linked from this
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Richard Feynman once observed that he had seen NO science come out of the shuttle program - he was not aware of any articles resulting from shuttle research that were published in peer-reviewed journals.
2) The $450 million/ flight cost includes initial development, a cost which cannot be recovered at this point. The actual marginal cost of one shuttle flight is something like $50 million. If the USA had built as many as originally envisioned, the cost/ flight would have likewise been a lot lower.
From the Space FAQ:
People arguing over shuttle costs on the net are usually arguing from
different assumptions and do not describe their assumptions clearly,
making it impossible to reach agreement. To demonstrate the difficulty,
here are a range of flight cost figures differing by a factor of 35 and
some of the assumptions behind them (all use 1992 constant dollars).
$45 million - marginal cost of adding or removing one flight from
the manifest in a given year.
$414 million - NASA's average cost/flight, assuming planned flight
rates are met and using current fiscal year data only.
$1 billion - operational costs since 1983 spread over the actual
number of flights.
$900 million - $1.35 billion - total (including development) costs
since the inception of the shuttle program, assuming 4 or 8
flights/year and operations ending in 2005 or 2010.
$1.6 billion - total costs through 1992 spread over the actual
number of flights through 1992.
A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
However, the Columbia had recieved a complete modernization package recently. In addition, the tiles are replaced after every launch, so there are NO first generation issues in relation to the heat tiles.
My Karma is so good, I'm the Dalai Lama...or something.
This is all well and good, except that the tiles just got replaced with better ones a few years ago. In fact, most of the shuttle (except the airframe) was replaced. If anything, it's showing all the problems of a first generation overhaul, not of a tried and tested vehicle.
+3 Informative? My ass. How about -1 Go read up on it before posting with bold turned on to emphasize the red herrings you lay down.
The simple fact is that there are a lot of good people working for NASA and that they will try to figure out what went wrong. Contrary to the sensationalist crap that RodeoBoy spewed into Slashdot, each of those articles (to which he linked) pointed out that NASA is being very cautious and is making sure to judge all the evidence and doesn't want anyone (especially the ill-informed public) to start drawing premature conclusions. It would be a great disservice to the crew if we did not learn from this horrible tradgedy. NASA doesn't "want the public to believe" anything. In fact, they want the public to believe nothing. Instead, they'd like to look at the facts and leave unfounded beliefs out of it. Please be kind and give the investigation team a chance to at least bring some good out of this.
Disclaimer: The company I work for has contracts with NASA. I work down the road from Langely Research Center. I am not involved (even indirectly) with the investigation.
How the heck did this ignorant A/C post get modded up to 5? NASA already has a big piece of the left wing, see here.
What they can learn from it, and what they will admit after they do are different issues, but moding someone up to 5 when they shoot their mouth off as an A/C and claim that something can't happen when it's well known that it already has doesn't make much sense.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
not worth it to any single company right now. Only boeing has the resources, and they get money whether or not they accomplish the above. If you want companies to be incentive-driven to accomplish these tasks, bump that price up at least 10 times per challenge. A billion won't even pay for chump change with space travel.
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
And he was wrong.
Feynman, apparently, doesn't read Journal of Applied Physiology, which features quite a few peer-reviewed shuttle-based articles.
Uh, no. The shuttle costs $500M per flight and is reusable. Soyuz costs $10M per flight (they charge $20M) and is disposable, and has a superior safety record. Sure, it's a bit smaller and has no coke machine. But it costs 2% of a shuttle flight.
In this case, reusable != cheaper or safer.