Slashdot Mirror
NASA To Try To Resume Flights By Fall
underground alliance writes "According to BBC News, space shuttle flights could resume as early as this fall. The article says that 'Engineers have been put on standby to fix problems already raised by the investigating board, and devise a way of checking the exterior shuttle for defects while it is in orbit.' I think that this is a good move especially since ISS construction has been put on hold because without the space shuttle. The space shuttle is the only heavy freighter and the only means of putting a new ISS component in space."
The space shuttle is the only heavy freighter and the only means of putting a new ISS component in space."
I mean no insult to the story's submitter, but that kind of thinking is the heart of the problem. NASA is not a freight service - they're a space program, dammit. Their job is not hauling stuff into orbit, but doing real, hard science.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
NASA has a few things it can do for itself .... namely:
* Identify and correct any problems that can be fixed.
* Resume flights as soon as feasible;
* Ask Congress for a boatload of money;
* Use boatload of money to design Shuttle2.
Line 1 is interesting because well, there are inherent risks in flying the shuttle. You absolutely can't guarantee safety; I mean, honestly, if a micrometeor hits the shuttle while in space, well, it's a problem.
*ALL* future shuttle flights should be equipped with a Canadarm, ISS docking ring, EVA packs, and enough fuel to get to the ISS.
No matter what. If that means we have to cut back on the payloads, well, too bad.
Even if we knew there were cracked tiles on Columbia in space, what could we have done for them? Not really very much.
We need a rescue system; some way to either get guys down without their vehicle, or a way to park 'em up there 'till we can get another vehicle in motion.
That should be Priority One. Next up, let's replace the shuttle with something more modern --- something that can carry as much payload, but more modern.
--DM
that makes about as much sense as not wanting to get on a 737 because another 737 crashed that day.
yes, the design of the space shuttle probably has some flaws but then again they had a hell of a lot of flights that didn't blow up - it's not the least bit more dangerous than it was before, they actually will have more safety measures in place next time.
being an active astronaut is not an office job and everybody knows it's dangerous.
If a defect were discovered, they could park the shuttle at the ISS and do repairs there. Now, 3 to 6 crew on the ISS + 7 from the shuttle = 10 to 13 on the space station. According to this article, they could evacuate 6 in the emergency soyuz capsule. That would leave 1 extra crewman on the ISS, which I don't think would be a big deal (considering it was designed for a max crew of 6, according to the article)
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Seriously, Why can't Nasa subcontract out the space-freight part of their job (like all the communications companies do), and focus exclusviely on the science part of it? Also, bear in mind that generally, the private sector is a lot better about effeciency than the gov't.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Not entirely realistic. You want another 6-10 year drought in the US manned space program while this development takes place? A number of projects were started and cancelled/disbanded/abandoned and I'm not sure any real active projects are underway. If you use the Apollo program as a model it could be 5-7 years from initial designs to usable product.. (I believe the shuttle design process took LONGER, starting in early 70s and making first real manned spaceflight in '81(?)).. and hopefully we could do it faster, but in the interim the ISS fell back to earth, Hubble may have had enough component failures to be currently offline (if it hasn't re-entered too) and public sentiment is even WORSE for NASA.
Ah.. we should return to the days of Pentiums because at this point they're so solid. Uh, no thanks. Enough current-gen unmanned rockets are available, though I'm not sure any have the lifting capability to get ISS components (probably the largest shuttle payloads) into orbit. And then there's rendevous, docking/joining of components, etc.. not easily done via unmanned missions. So send astronauts! Oh wait.. they're still waiting for a new vehicle that's 3-4 years off. Oops.
Columbia's demise (imho) will have a major component of its failure be the age of the airframe, compromised ground review and one/two external influences that inflicted some sort of damage (foam strike, increased dynamic stress on the wing at liftoff, a strike by space junk, compromise of the RCC.. take your pick). The other orbiters do not share a number of Columbia's limitations (increased weight and age, mostly) and should suffice... but the whole affiar should put the spurs to NASA (and more importantly, Congress) to get another manned (or manned/unmammed combo) program in the pipeline to actual completion.
my $0.02; take or pitch as you will.
-r
-'fester
-'fester
No, the space station was placed in that orbit as a compromise so that both the American (Shuttle) and the Russian (Soyuz) vehicles could get to it. Baikonur and Cape Canaveral are at quite different lattitudes. ISS is half way in between.
> Let's do it over. And do it right.
I'll be honest. I agree with most of your criticisms. But your remedy would be disasterous. If we axe the shuttles and drop ISS into the Pacific, you are starting from square one. The US population isn't interested in constructing anything grand anymore. If we had nothing in orbit, things would stay that way.
If you stop, you'll never get started again. The only politically viable option is to move along one step at a time. Let's make sure that we make each little step count.
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
The romantic side of exploration is a contrivance to compensate for the fact that most returns are so long term as to be uneconomical and so dangerous as to beyond a sane person's capability. What makes the adventure worthwhile is the practical knowledge gained from the act of doing, and the application of that knowledge. We cannot get the practical knowledge without being there.
If we do as you say and junk everything to start over, all we will get is the loss of years of practical experience and a set of whole new problems. We can't think of everything, even when we know these things exist. The system is too complex, the interactions too numerous. I was on one project that was crippled by two well known effects. The problem was that we just did not have the experience to know how those effects would affect our science. That knowledge is now available. It was expensive and painful to acquire, but I believe there was no cheaper way to acquire it.
We need to build new LEO infrastructure. We need to build other delivery vehicles. We also need practical experience so we can make those new technologies as practical and useful as possible. We cannot sit in front of our computer running simulations and thinking about how wonderful it would be in space. Simulations are fun because they never knocks us down and tell us we are wrong. Real life is hard because it does.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Hell where's all the interest going that's being charged because of the deficit? How about this, balance the budget and give the money we would have thrown away in interest to the banks, to NASA!
My God! Where is the 380-400 Billion we spend a year on the Military Industrial Complex going? Why did we have to kill 79 American's during the Gulf War cause of friendly fire? Why does it seem every other day another Black Hawk or Offspree goes down - in non-combat situations!?! Any video game developer worth their salt would have invented a fully encripted, wireless battlefield tracking system so that a friendly couldn't even lock onto equivalent troops even if they tried - the system would lock them out! Those friendly troops would appear with colored markers over their heads/units/armory even if they were lost on the battlefield.
My point is, we, as a society, a nation, a civilization seem to reep so many more benefits from the work of scientists, and NASA specifically, and no benefits whatsoever with of all this money we are throwing at the military except how to kill each other more efficiently and in greater numbers.
Change our focus, end this path of destruction, embrace our enemies (aka the friendly-hug, no dictator will survive western cultural and economic influence because of it) and GIVE NASA A MUCH BIGGER BUDGET! They are not just about Space Exploration, you know?
Finally, lets have a national agenda to get to Mars. Once we do, we'll suddenly realize were killing our own planet burning fossil fuel's and dumping toxin's into the environment with no consideration of future generations. Please, let's stop thinking about what this means to the shareholder. We are all shareholders when it comes to the well being of this tiny blue world. NASA makes such a difference in all our lives, let's make a difference in theirs.
Peace.
JM
The feasibility of designing a single-stage launch vehicle has been explored in depth over the past few years. Proponents of the shuttle program always seem to discourage NASA from making any substantive investments into making said vehicle a reality. In fact, I would suggest that these people believe there is no real political pressure to expand the space program beyond where it's been for the past two decades.
For those who need a political kick in the ass before they're willing to get to work on upgrading our space program, all I have to say is one word: CHINA. Sure, their efforts are no where near what America has achieved (hell they haven't even sent a man into same yet) but you can be sure that within 10 or 15 years, we will be playing catch-up.