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."

Comments

An interesting question..

[leerpm]

Should they happen to devise a method of checking the shuttle while in orbit for defect, what would happen should they find a defect on a shuttle in space? Do they have the ability to fix defects while in space?

And lastly, how many people can the Soyuz capsules handle? If the shuttle could not handle a landing they might have to orphan it in space and send up multiple Soyuz capsules, or a second shuttle?

The problem

[Raul654]

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.

Re:The problem

[uncleFester]

NASA is not a freight service - they're a space program, dammit.

hrm.. Kinda negates the name being the Space Transportation System, doesn't it? I don't see transportation limited to people/science. And how do you imply items hauled into space like LDEF, SpaceLabs/SpaceHabs, ISS components, Hubble, TDRS and so on are not science-related? The shuttle is the cornerstone for building the entire current space research infrastrucure. It's doing the job for which it was designed.

-r

The best thing NASA can do ...

[nbvb]

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

Re:The best thing NASA can do ...

[srw]

> 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.

This point WAS being addressed by the European Space Agency when they were still considering their own shuttle. In fact, This Guy's project came out of that research.

On a side note, Michel's jump is to take place just a few miles from where I live. :-)

Re:The best thing NASA can do ...

[FTL]

> *ALL* future shuttle flights should be equipped with a Canadarm, ISS docking ring, EVA packs, and enough fuel to get to the ISS.

That's a moot point. If you check NASA's launch schedule, you'll find that the missions for the forseeable future after Columbia's were dedicated to ISS:

• March 1: STS-114 Atlantis to the ISS.
• May 23: STS-115 Endeavour to the ISS.
• July 24: STS-116 Atlantis to the ISS.
• Oct. 2: STS-117 Endeavour to the ISS.
• Nov. 13: STS-118 Columbia to the ISS.
• [see the rest]

There was only one non-ISS flight still on the books, the final Hubble repair mission (STS-122).

A shuttle at ISS doesn't need Canadarm, ISS has got Canadarm2 which is bigger and better. A shuttle at ISS doesn't need EVA packs, ISS has got both Russian and US EVA packs and two separate airlock systems. A shuttle at ISS doesn't need a rescue system, the astronauts can camp out there (albeit uncomfortably) for as long as it takes to bring them down with Soyuz or other shuttles (or OSP in the future).

Basically, NASA was extremely unfortunate by having this failure happen on the last flight it could have happened on.

Re:NASA stands for...

[heby]

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.

In that case

[Raul654]

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)

Re:In that case

[Wyatt Earp]

Unless Shuttle is going to the ISS, they can't go there for an emergency without alot of things all working out.

This was covered here at the time of the accident.

It needs to carry the orbiter docking system. In a bind, however, transfers via EVA (space suits) mightbe possible. The station has 2 Russian suits and 2 US suits. Shuttles typically have 2 US suits.

Shuttle and ISS aren't on the same orbit unless Shuttle is expressly going there, and for a mission like Columbia's there wasn't enough fuel to make the orbit change.

Columbia launched to a 39 degree inclination. The Space station is at a 51.6 degree inclination.

Only the OMS and RCS engines are available in orbit, and their capability is roughly 1250 feet per second, or about 1400 km/h speed change (delta v).

Re:In that case

[bluGill]

Columbia wass the only shuttle that has real difficulity getting to ISS (this was covered after the origional accident). Now all shuttles can get there, though admitidly not all orbits make it easy. Though we can get around that. (send an atlas up with supplies, a few space suits, and a second rocket designed to change orbits, or devise a way to refuel. Nothing easy of course)

And has been pointed out, nearly all shuttle missions are ISS missions. If you arrive at the ISS and someone says "The shuttle won't get you home safely", then you just sit tight, in crowded conditions. In fact given a docked shuttle that can't safely get back home I could see engineers devisiong a way to use it as a part of ISS since it is there. A second airlock for remaining shuttles would have to be added, and a lot of details, but getting things into orbit is hard, if you got something on the ISS you want to use it for the ISS as much as possiable. Who cares that it is mostly useless, if nothing else use it as a private office for someone who just wants to be alone.

So you detect fault in flight

[rf0]

Now of course you can take *some* supplies with you but not necessarily an entire space shuttle of spares. So what would happen if they find a problem that would stop re-entry but can't fix whilst in orbit? Of course you would hope that they would detect this sort of thing before lift off but you never know. Has NASA ever had two shuttles up at once?

Rus

The Molniya Space Company?

[ReMaster]

What about the possibility of using the Russian Space Shuttles? I havent heard anything about this. I did some research on the web, and the russian government said back in 1997 that they had the means and the will to get their program back online. The design is better, can carry more cargo, is safer to refuel and more modern! I think NASA should do some serious consideration into using MOLNIYA and the BURAN space shuttles as their 'cargo carriers'. Any comments anyone?

Re:The Molniya Space Company?

[uncleFester]

http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_s6.html#W hy_not_buran

Following cancellation, all Buran and Energia components were mothballed or sold off and converted to tourist attractions. The only remaining flightworthy Buran/Energia set was mothballed for possible future use, but was destroyed on 5/12/02 when the roof of the building where it was being stored collapsed. Of the Buran design, a total of 5 were built. Other than the one was destroyed, 3 are sitting disassembled outside the NPO Molniya factory where they were built, deteriorating in the weather. The remaining one is up for sale, but is *not* in any way a flightworthy vehicle, and absolutely could not have been converted as such in time to save Columbia.

Let me put it like this

[Raul654]

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.

Re:Let me put it like this

[happyhippy]

Because you wont the company that makes the best, you'd get the one with the lowest bid.

Re:Keep an extra Orbiter in space

[uncleFester]

Wouldn't it make sense to keep an extra Orbiter in space, docked to the ISS?

By doing that you essentially cut the usable shuttle fleet in half, with the lose of Columbia and the loss of use of another shuttle parked in orbit. Castrates the STS usability and turnaround time. Plus, you leave an orbiter with a lot longer exposure to micrometeroid strikes than nominal orbital excursions. Also a greater chance of it getting damaged by orbital junk, if you believe that may have been a contributing cause to Columbia's loss. And the long-term exposure to space is a question mark as it wasn't really desigined for that.

Lots of info from discussion in sci.space.shuttle is compiled in the Columbia Loss Faq. It's worth a read before asking questions...

-r

Junk the Shuttle -- and ISS while you're at it.

[jimhill]

I'm sure many will disagree, but the cost of the shuttle program is horrendous, and NASA's insistence on using it has led to some cataclysmically stupid decisions. One example: the ISS (which is an utter joke compared to Skylab or Mir) was placed into a rapidly-decaying orbit not because that was a good idea (it isn't) but because the shuttle could get there.

Most of the satellites that are "launched" by the shuttle suffer from the design constraint that they have to fit into the friggin' bay AND have room for the accompanying boosters that will put them into their real orbit once the shuttle lets them out. Again, the shuttle can't go high enough for real deployment.

The idea of capturing and reparing satellites is inherently absurd; most aren't where the shuttle can get 'em and the total cost of the program utterly dwarfs the expense that would have been incurred had they said of the Hubble "Well, we screwed it up...build another one and get it right this time."

The safety record sucks. After Challenger Richard Feynman put the probability of a fatal accident at one in fifty. So far, NASA's on the money and the nature of the shuttle is such that if someone dies, everybody dies.

Lest I be misunderstood, I understand the romantic and scientific appeal of manned space flight, of the visceral sense of satisfaction we can have as a species when we look up to the skies and say "We live there." I'm a strong proponent of that. I also recognize the complaints that the money spent on that is money not spent on (feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, inoculating the sick, fill in your pet cause). The manned space program is hellishly uneconomical and a great deal of that can be laid at the feet of the shuttle program.

It's a white elephant without a mission, a bastard child of a spacecraft and an airplane which like most gadgets that try to do two fundamentally different things does neither well. Its payload capacity compared to heavy-lift rockets is a joke, it's barely capable of crawling out of the atmosphere, it's presented a tremendous constraint to the rest of the space program by forcing many missions to be less than they could have been in order to be shuttle-doable, and it bears repeating that every fifty flights it kills everyone on board.

It's time to ground the shuttle fleet permanently. Space isn't going anywhere. Stop pouring the hundreds of millions of dollars into the shuttle program and pour them into a new design effort. Scrap the silly "space-plane" concept and develop a family of lifters and craft that _can_ be used for many things but don't back NASA into a corner that forces them to use it for all missions. Make crew safety an inherent feature (recognizing that there are tradeoffs and that getting out of the gravity well is a fundamentally dangerous activity). Stop throwing good money after bad on that ISS as well, and use the collective resources of the two programs to start over. It's not true that the second design is always better than the first (see again ISS and Mir/Skylab) but you're wise to play those odds.

Let's do it over. And do it right.

Re:Junk the Shuttle -- and ISS while you're at it.

[FTL]

> One example: the ISS (which is an utter joke compared to Skylab or Mir) was placed into a rapidly-decaying orbit not because that was a good idea (it isn't) but because the shuttle could get there.

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.

Re:Junk the Shuttle -- and ISS while you're at it.

[fermion]

This seems like the classic arm chair explorer versus the unnecessarily expensive go out there and explore arguments. One on hand, we have A Priori argument where things are assumed true because other things are true. On the other hand we A Posteriori where we look at things and then figure out why they happen. Both of these have their places, but the former keeps people locked to their armchairs and TVs, while the later send people out to the frontier.

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.

Re:Junk the Shuttle -- and ISS while you're at it.

[sunspot42]

>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 [astronautix.com] and Cape
>Canaveral [nasa.gov] are at quite different lattitudes. ISS is
>half way in between.

Yes, true to a point - and it was a stupid compromise. Had we relied on the cheaper, more reliable Russian boosters and scrapped utilizing the Shuttles for ISS construction, crew delivery and resupply, the ISS could have been placed into a substantially higher orbit, requiring fewer reboost missions and therefore becoming inherently cheaper to operate.

Compare the cost of launching unmanned payloads (say, ISS components) on a Russian Proton rocket to the cost of launching them on the Shuttle. It costs around $4,729 a pound to put a payload into low earth orbit with the Shuttle, as opposed to $1,953 a pound with the Proton. Proton can't launch payloads that are quite as large as the Shuttle's (19,760 kg for the Proton vs. 28,803 kg for the Shuttle), but the cost per pound for the Russian vehicle is vastly lower. As opposed to the $300 million plus launch cost of a Shuttle, a Proton costs a comparatively paltry $85 million to build and launch.

And you don't need a rocket as big as a Proton to launch men into space - the Russians routinely send people to the ISS aboard the relatively tiny Soyuz rocket, which only has a capacity of 7,000 kg and costs just $37 million to build and launch (the per-pound cost is also cheaper than the shuttle - $2,432). Compare this to the Shuttles, which cost at least $2 billion to build each (probably more, if you factor in R&D), and well in excess of $300 million each launch (some accounting puts Shuttle launches at an incredible $500 million each).

There also hasn't been a fatal accident involving Soyuz since the 1970's, when an air seal failed during reentry and the crew suffocated. There was a serious accident during the '80s when the booster failed, but the cosmonauts were able to successfully escape the destruction of the vehicle and came away with only minor injuries. That's simply not possible with the Shuttle, since the astronauts are strapped right next to huge tanks of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen (an insanely stupid design - there's no way to be safely blown clear).

There have been something like 1,600 launches of Soyuz-family rockets, as opposed to a little more than 100 Shuttle launches, so clearly most of the bugs have been worked out of the Soyuz system by now. The fact it's a far smaller rocket means less energy is required to launch it into orbit, reducing the stress and strain on the system and making it inherently safer than the Shuttles, with all that fuel and weight they have to contend with. There's also no reason to couple human payloads with equipment and supplies bound for orbit. In fact, it's downright senseless.

Here are some reliability figures for boosters in common use. With the exception of Soyuz, these are all unmanned boosters. Note that many of these unmanned boosters are as reliable (or even more reliable) than the Shuttle, which becomes a 2 billion dollar supersonic crematorium for all 7 astronauts aboard roughly 1 mission in 50:

Atlas 1&2 - 49 launch attempts, 95.9% reliability
Delta 2 - 73, 98.6%
Ariane 4 - 81, 96.3%
Proton - 254, 89.4%
Soyuz - 958, 99.3%
Long March - 54, 90.7%

Quite frankly, the Shuttle is nothing but a jobs program. Everything that's being done with the ISS could be done - cheaper and safer - using Russian launchers. For some interesting stats regarding launchers and costs, see this PDF file (sorry for the format, but it's informative), this NASA FAQ on launchers (it's from the mid-'90s, but still mostly accurate), and

Re:suspended

[uncleFester]

NASA space flights should stay suspended until they can develop a next generation launch vehicle that is safe.

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.

... they should press some old rocket designs back into service and use them solely for unmanned ...

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

Are we placing too much emphasis on life?

[MyNameIsFred]

At the risk of being flamed, are we putting too much emphasis on human life? Historically, all exploration has been risky, with significant loss of life. As an example, look at the original Jamestown settlers. The astronauts are well aware of the dangers involved in spaceflight. And if they didn't know before, they should know after both the Challenger and Columbia accidents. So if they are willing to take the risk with the current design, should we stop them? If the engineers say, there is no way we can improve on Feynman's odds of 1 in 50, should we stop them? It seems to me, that the astronauts should have the final say in what is safe enough. If they're willing to take the risk, as informed adults, I'm willing to let them take it.

Re:Pray

[Flakeloaf]

As CNN's investigation into the shuttle crash enters its thirty-third week, we begin our review by showing the tape of a little streak of light in the sky for the six hundred-eleventh time. We then talk to a janitor and a bookkeeper, both of whom used to work for NASA and claim that a faulty paper towel dispenser in the sixth-floor mens' bathroom disrupted the job of the middle manager whose job it was to get the attention of the upper-manager & have him inform command that there maybe could've been a problem.

Who broke the paper towel holder you may ask? Oh, I don't know.... SATAN!?

Putting all that gear on the shuttle is a waste.

[nlinecomputers]

It cost too much money per pound to load the shuttle with all the gear you request of it. A better move would be to have a simple emergency rocket with extra food/air/fuel ready to send up should they discover that the shuttle is unable to return.

An even better option is admit we've got a flawed system and do the sensible thing and abandon it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for manned space flight. But we need to set a real goal. Like Men on Mars by 2020 or bust and then build the needed items like a space elevator, moon base to mine Helium, and a space station that is able to rotate so that we can simulate gravity.

The Space elevator could possibly be built at a cost of $7-15 billion dollars. Each shuttle trip cost .5 billion and can only fly 4 times a year.

The moon base can mine the fuel needed to power nuclear engines for a Mars trip.

A rotating space station is needed to simulate gravity. We are going to have to provide gravity to any one going on this trip. Our past experience on Mir proved that weightlessness is harmful to our bone structure over the long haul.

Re:Foam

[FTL]

> They need to rethink their foam first.

They did, several years ago. But they had a small supply of old tanks (with the old foam) in their inventory. Columbia's flight used the second last of these old tanks.

In fairness, the issue of falling foam was known, but it wasn't considered to be a danger, just an annoying bug. Heck, even a month *after* the accident, the best minds on the planet still can't figure out how the foam drop could have done enough damage to threaten the orbiter.

Double, Triple or Quadruple NASA's Budget...

[EminenceFront]

Why isn't this the first thing that serves as a solution? Bush wants to sped 695 Billion on a tax cut, 300 Billion on killing taxable dividends, 50-100 Billion on a war with Iraq (and more during the aftermath). Why don't we just DOUBLE, TRIPLE, or QUARUPLE NASA's BUDGET and stop asking them to perform miracles on less than one-tenth of one-percent of the overall US budget?

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