Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Shuttle Missions Will Be Monitored From Space

Posted by timothy on from the big-picture dept.

los furtive writes "According to this news article NASA has made an agreement with the U.S. military so that all future shuttle missions will be monitored by National Imagery and Mapping Agency satellites."

112 comments

  1. and this will help how? by trmj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok, I put that subscription to good use and read the article be being able to post. The only problem is that I still have the same question as I had before I read the article.

    What is this really good for? In the article, they say it's to prevent disasters like the Columbia space shuttle not doing such a great job on re-entry?

    --ok then--

    How will this help prevent disasters like the Columbia space shuttle not doing such a great job on re-entry?

    If you all will remember correctly (or if I didn't pay enough attention and got some misinformation), the Columbia space shuttle had a heat plate problem on the bottom. These plates are made to hold up while being heated to temperatures above that of the surface of the sun. NASA knew that something happened. They were pretty sure one of those plates was damaged.

    They knew and said there was nothing they could do about it while the shuttle was in space.

    If another shuttle gets a plate damaged, and NASA can clearly see it while the shuttle is in space, what will they be able to do? They shuttle doesn't carry enough supplies to keep the people out there until a spare part can be brought out, and even if it did, there virtually no way to fully secure it and make it work.

    So, I ask: What will this do other than waste photograph time? If anybody could elaborate I would appreciate it.

    --
    Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
    1. Re:and this will help how? by Kegetys · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I thought they said there was nothing the shuttle crew could have done. If I remember correctly, NASA examined the foam incident and came to the conclusion that it was not harmful and that it was safe to do the re-entry. Surely they would have not done that if it they would have known it was not safe, I also remember a nasa representative saying in some interview that in case of an emergency they can prepare and launch another shuttle in a few weeks to which the existing shuttle crew could move to.

    2. Re:and this will help how? by vandelais · · Score: 0, Funny

      "If another shuttle gets a plate damaged, and NASA can clearly see it while the shuttle is in space, what will they be able to do?"

      They could at least aim it at Iraq.
      -or France-

      --
      Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
    3. Re:and this will help how? by john_roth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Any number of things could have been done. Even with Columbia, knowing there was a disaster in the offing, I'd expect some creativity under pressure, if only sending up Soyuz to take them off.

      And in future, I expect that NASA will have a contingency plan or two availible, with fuel and supplies to implement it.

      John Roth

    4. Re:and this will help how? by ecalkin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      a *long* time ago (20+ years), when the shuttle was first going up, they had a lot of worries about the tiles. i remember someone stating worry about the 'nauts not have eva suits because they had some sort of 'temporary liquid tile replacement' stuff. an ablative (like the apollo capsules) that would protect a missing tile by burning away (and taking heat with it).

      even if this was myth or no longer viable, it's amazing what kinda tools and solutions you have *if* you don't stick you head in the sand and say 'i don't want to know about it'

      eric

    5. Re:and this will help how? by KingFoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember that before Apollo 13, the same might have been said about the chances of the crew's survival if a service module had an explosion, but they worked on the problem, and got the crew home alive. I'd imagine that a shuttle 'could' stay in orbit for quite a while on it's supplies if it really had to. Probably wouldn't be comfortable, but it's better to know.

    6. Re:and this will help how? by marktoml · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is possible that they could have altered the approach to favor the wing with the damage. This would NOT have let them land, but might have gotten them low enough to be able to bail out...

    7. Re:and this will help how? by Musashi+Miyamoto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, if they had some sort of monitoring like this during the disasterous re-entry, they might be able to tell specifically what caused the accident. Instead, they now are working on conjecture and rumor.

    8. Re:and this will help how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American aiming as it is ie bent they would more likely hit Mars.

    9. Re:and this will help how? by helix400 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've heard two good ways this would help

      #1 - I read somewhere about a plan that may have saved Columbia had they known. It involved Columbia shutting down almost every key system they had, and having the crew relax. The goal is to conserve as much oxygen as possible...stretch out their reserves. During this time, supply rockets with more Oxygen reserves and some CO2 filters would be rushed to Columbia and quickly as possible. Of course, this would be difficult, but I believe the European Space Agency's Aryan 5 (if I spelled that right) was ready to lift off...so that would have been the first to be used for an oxygen shipment. More would follow, allowing Columbia's crew to be sustained in orbit while they figure out some kind of solution.

      #2 - There has been some talk recently of making the cabin be able to eject. If a problem is discovered, they can simply eject the cabin. As for how it gets back to earth, I would assume they just come back via Apollo mission capsule style, with a heat shield and parachute.

      Disclaimer: I couldn't find the news articles for both these links...so what you heard was from my memory. If anyone wants to comment on them, go ahead.

    10. Re:and this will help how? by zeno_2 · · Score: 2, Informative
      #2 - There has been some talk recently of making the cabin be able to eject. If a problem is discovered, they can simply eject the cabin. As for how it gets back to earth, I would assume they just come back via Apollo mission capsule style, with a heat shield and parachute.

      I dont think our shuttle has any sort of ejectable cabin. The russian shuttle that they copied from nasa (dont remember the name) had an ejectable cabin, and a few other nice features, but I do not think nasa has incorporated any of that.

      The reason I see this being of help is that were dealing with human lives up there, and having the ability to check out the shuttle before going back to earth is going to help make things much safer I think. In the article it stated that the national imagary and mapping agency approached nasa to see if they wanted any shots taken of the shuttle, but nasa declined. That shuttle then came down and exploded, as well all know. I know that when we look at this now, we can pick out all the little things that weren't done right, and say that these certain people are bad, but it happens. Putting this extra step into checking the shuttle out should make it safer though, and having the ability to get shots of the shuttle from satellites, and having an easy way to do so can only be good.

    11. Re:and this will help how? by helix400 · · Score: 1

      Ya, there definitely isn't an ejectable cabin now. The article that I read mentioned that its a good idea to implement one, however, it would be very difficult. Some googling did reveal another article that discusses an ejectable cabin idea, its found here.

    12. Re:and this will help how? by Sethb · · Score: 1

      An ejectable cabin wouldn't help you either, as without shielding, it'd burn up in atmo faster than the damaged Columbia orbiter did. You have to dissipate all that speed/heat on the way down either way.

      --
      When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
    13. Re:and this will help how? by ncc74656 · · Score: 2, Informative
      There has been some talk recently of making the cabin be able to eject. If a problem is discovered, they can simply eject the cabin. As for how it gets back to earth, I would assume they just come back via Apollo mission capsule style, with a heat shield and parachute.

      IIRC, NASA considered an F-111-style cabin-ejection system for the Shuttle in the early stages of design. It more than likely got dropped because of the added weight that would be needed for the latching system, an ablative heat shield, extra connections between the cabin and the rest of the shuttle, etc.

      Columbia was originally built with ejection seats for the pilot and commander, but they were removed during a refit in the mid-'80s. At the altitude and speed at which Columbia broke up, it's not likely the seats would've done any good if they had still been in there anyway...and with only two of them, the other five astronauts would've been SOL.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    14. Re:and this will help how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The photos are knowledge. Knowledge is power. I suspect that this is part of an overall solution. It's not at all unreasonable that the photos will be used as part of a go/no-go rescue operations trigger.

      1) NASA might always have some sort of 2nd system ready to launch if serious problems are detected. Say a capsule system to retrieve astronaughts.

      2) NASA might be able to reroute to the ISS rather than burn up another shuttle.

      3) NASA might loft a repair kit if needed.

      4) NASA might rework the shuttle to have the escape capsule thought of so long ago and the first sign of serious trouble could cause that to be detached and sent back to earth.

      All of the above?

      [This damned thing won't let me log in! Char-Lez komori_san @ hotmail.com]

    15. Re:and this will help how? by TC+(WC) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There has been some talk recently of making the cabin be able to eject. If a problem is discovered, they can simply eject the cabin. As for how it gets back to earth, I would assume they just come back via Apollo mission capsule style, with a heat shield and parachute.

      I wonder what the weight difference between putting ablative surfacing under all the tiles as a backup and creating a completely independant ejectable cabin would be.

    16. Re:and this will help how? by Soft · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Any number of things could have been done. Even with Columbia, knowing there was a disaster in the offing, I'd expect some creativity under pressure, if only sending up Soyuz to take them off.

      There is a limit to what creativity can do. In this case, the shuttle's orbit was not inclined enough to be reachable by Russian rockets--unless they launched from elsewhere that Baikonur, but their pad in Kourou won't be in service for years.

      One possibility would have been to launch Atlantis a couple of weeks early, but they would have to have known about the seriousness of the damage early in the mission (so that Columbia's crew could conserve power and have resources left to stretch). But this was luck (what if no shuttle was waiting?), and it would still imply to skimp a few safety procedures; gamble, one shuttle and seven crew lost, or two shuttles and nine crew?

      And in future, I expect that NASA will have a contingency plan or two availible, with fuel and supplies to implement it.

      They're speaking of scrapping all shuttle missions not going to the ISS--not that there were many--except the final Hubble servicing. In other words, don't build a safer vehicle, don't take risks, reduce our capabilities...

    17. Re:and this will help how? by Soft · · Score: 1
      I believe the European Space Agency's Aryan 5 (if I spelled that right) was ready to lift off...

      Not quite, Ariane 5 was still grounded after last October's failure of the first uprated one. There was talk about chancing it anyway for launching Rosetta, since the basic version seemed to be unaffected, but the unusual flight profile was deemed too risky.

      However, shuttle Atlantis was due for launch the following month. They might have tried to race for it.

    18. Re:and this will help how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the European Space Agency's Aryan 5 (if I spelled that right)

      At least you didn't mention the war!

    19. Re:and this will help how? by b1t+r0t · · Score: 1

      Apollo 13's problem was fixed without an EVA. Columbia's problem was on the outside and couldn't be fixed without an EVA, plus it was configured with a science module in the cargo bay, making EVA more difficult. Also, Apollo 13 was actually two spacecraft in one, since they had the Lunar Module.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    20. Re:and this will help how? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1
      the European Space Agency's Aryan 5 (if I spelled that right)
      That's the ESA spacecraft from the alternate universe where the Nazis won WW2. ;)

      (It's "Ariane.")
      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    21. Re:and this will help how? by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Okay, I know you're just asking an honest question, but there have been a lot of comments along those lines. Frankly, I've had it with this negative attitude that "There's no point in knowing, since we can't fix it". *SO WHAT* if we can't fix it in orbit? Since when has being ignorant of the problem ever fixed anything? If we had done this for Columbia, we might know what the problem is, and fixed it on the other shuttles. Instead, we have an investigation that is going to take months longer, and in the meantime we'll be sending up shuttles with some unknown problem that hasn't been fixed, putting others at risk.

      Saying that "We couldn't have fixed Columbia, so there's no point in knowing" is like saying, "There's no point in having a video of a murder, since the victim's dead anyway" or "Why bother knowing about Windows exploits, we can't patch it anyways". Having knowledge of the problem may not help you fix it right then, but it might help you make better decisions in the future. Besides, when has ignorance ever solved anything?

    22. Re:and this will help how? by C21 · · Score: 1

      when a shuttle enters manual mode, and is being flown by the astronauts, this exterior observance could be critical in helping the shuttle maneuver down to earth safely. i.e. exterior damage is taken, all the pilot sees is a warning, wouldn't it be great if someone on earth could tell him exactly what just happened.

      --
      this is not a sig.
    23. Re:and this will help how? by jafac · · Score: 1

      So we can KNOW. Really KNOW exactly what the fuck happened, so we can do something to try to fix it before the next launch.

      instead of what we are doing, which is guessing what was happened, and hoping we fixed the right things. If at all.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    24. Re:and this will help how? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The point is, with most of their fuel and generating capacity gone, they managed to get back and land safely through a lot of ingenuity and getting some of their equipment to function in a way it was never intended to.

      Compared to burning up or freezing, I'd think 'more difficult' isn't so bad.

    25. Re:and this will help how? by jelle · · Score: 1

      I heard that that tile replacement stuff did more damage to the surrounding nondamaged tiles than it added protection to the patched area...

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    26. Re:and this will help how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the russian shuttle that they copied from nasa (dont remember the name) "

      I asked google, and it responded: buran and also pointed to this detailed comparison and photo page.

      One of the buran's seems to be in Australia, another in the russian 'star city', and maybe another mothballed somewhere else (or maybe there is just one real one that has been moved around finally ending up in Australia plus maybe a mockup or so).

      Interesting pictures: compare the buran cockpit with the new shuttle cocpit or even the old one.

    27. Re:and this will help how? by barawn · · Score: 1

      C'mon, you know about the Apollo 13 mission. It's NASA's only instance where there was an emergency they definitely knew about (a crippled spacecraft), and we came through. You just don't think about failing. You do whatever is necessary to make it work.

      Go and talk to the astronauts right now and ask them - if they had been asked, would they be willing to go up on Atlantis to save the Columbia crew?

      I'd bet a lot of money you'd get almost all of them to respond. We could've done it. There's no way you can honestly believe that if we had known about the problem, we couldn't've saved them. Or, more importantly, we wouldn't've tried. We would've tried. Human lives are worth far more than any amount of money.

  2. Hmm... by laserlights2000 · · Score: 1

    I wonder how this is going to affect NASA getting back on their feet again after the columbia incident

    1. Re:Hmm... by KDan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hmm... doughnuts.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    2. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      posts like this remind me why i browse at +2

    3. Re:Hmm... by happyhippy · · Score: 1

      Then how did you see the parent post then dipshit?

    4. Re:Hmm... by laserlights2000 · · Score: 0

      what exactly does that mean?

    5. Re:Hmm... by KDan · · Score: 1

      I was just pointing out how brainless the parent post was.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
  3. So the next time they blow up... by OpenSourced · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ... they will have better pictures of it. Jesus! That technology is too old. Either do it right and spend a friggin lot on a new shuttle program or forget about the idea of putting people on space for twenty years and see if the economics of space travel have changed. But getting on with the actual shuttle program is IMHO dangerous and serving no purpose.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    1. Re:So the next time they blow up... by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      It seems there's at least three reasons they want to rush the shuttle back before fixing it:

      - it's too embarassing to have it and the ISS unused
      - the chinese are about to put guys in orbit
      - the europeans are about to robotically orbit the moon

      Personally I'd prefer to see cooler, cheaper robotic NASA missions - more ambitious robotic mars exploration & robotic exploration of other planets/moons where the possibility of human exploration will probably never exist in my lifetime

    2. Re:So the next time they blow up... by Nate+B. · · Score: 1

      They already have the pictures. I received these in email, so they must be true!

      --

      "Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
    3. Re:So the next time they blow up... by OpenSourced · · Score: 1
      To the three things you mention (I know you are not defending them) I would answer:

      - it's too embarassing to have it and the ISS unused


      Less embarrassing than having another disaster


      - the chinese are about to put guys in orbit


      They will find the same economics to it than everybody else.


      - the europeans are about to robotically orbit the moon


      Good for them! Let us look at the photos afterwards.

      --
      Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
  4. the future... by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 2, Insightful
    2002: "We couldn't have fixed the Space Shuttle Columbia even if cameras on the ISS had shown that there was indeed iron-clad evidence of tile damage."

    2006: "We couldn't have fixed the Space Shuttle Tranquility (sponsored by Nike) even if cameras on the satellite had shown that there was indeed iron-clad evidence of tile damage."

    Now that's progress.

    --

    -
    Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
  5. Is this a "feel-good" response? by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Immediately after the accident, NASA officials said that they had considered using NIMA satellites to look at Columbia, but had rejected the idea. Primarily because the previous times they had used the satellites had not provided useful data. They commented on the problems of photographing the black underside of the shuttle in the contrasty light of space. So my question, is this something useful, or is NASA doing it to prove it is doing everything possible?

    1. Re:Is this a "feel-good" response? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Immediately after the accident, NASA officials also said that there is no black box on the shuttle.
      But last week they found it, and now they are analyzing the content.

    2. Re:Is this a "feel-good" response? by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 2, Informative

      As has been reported, that was not a black box. It was a data recorder that survived reentry. There is a difference between a black box and a data recorder. A black box is specifically designed to survive accidents, that data recorder had no such special protection. Calling that data recorder a black box, is like calling that video camera whose tape survived a black box. Neither was.

  6. Outer space. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have a better idea. What they should do is build a space shuttle out of indestructible materials so that even if the thing crashes at the speed of light into a sphere of iron the size of Earth and more dense than the universe before the big bang, it will be the sphere that will break and not the shuttle. And they should use these materials to build space ships the size of the whole planet and fly them around in space. Someone from another galaxy will be looking in their telescope at the planets and they'll see this thing move around and they won't understand what kind of weird orbit that "star" is in. It'll really get them thinking. Then, they'll fly over here to investigate it, find that Earth is rich in natural resources and kill us all in order to take these resources. At least that'll put Saddam out of power.

    1. Re:Outer space. by TummyX · · Score: 4, Funny

      Stoned huh?

    2. Re:Outer space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thunks for the laff.

    3. Re:Outer space. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1, Funny
      Didn't you read my sig? "C2 H5 OH. Because Denial is a river in Egypt." In case you don't have a masters degree in chemistry like I do, C2 H5 OH is the chemical formula for ethanol, otherwise known as beverage alcohol. Can you guess what I do with this substance?

      I don't need drugs to get high. I'm high on life.

    4. Re:Outer space. by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 1

      Stoned huh?
      No, obviously drunk. See his sig?

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    5. Re:Outer space. by freeweed · · Score: 1

      You must be drunk if you think it takes a master's degree in chemistry to know the formula for ethanol :)

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    6. Re:Outer space. by PD · · Score: 1

      Intoxicating enemas?

      Don't laugh. Some very primitive peoples have that tradition, though not with alcohol. I'm sure that a nice vodka enema retained for an hour or so would get you good and plastered.

      Not much on google about it though. I searched for "intoxicating enema" and just got a couple references.

      --
      If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
    7. Re:Outer space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet; make the ship in a cube and fly around assimilating other civilizations.

    8. Re:Outer space. by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Salut!

      [ lifts glass ]

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  7. spy? by stonebeat.org · · Score: 1

    these fotografs will be de-classified and released to NASA, that make these satellites, non-spy satellites.

    --


    Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
  8. Watching from above by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Funny

    The article title left almost nothing to imagination. Jokes will spread all around, like that the next problem will appear as reported by "Monitor 9 from Outer Space", or if the next mission have an astronaut with religious conviction will say "somebody watch for me up there".

  9. The way to avoid another Columbia tragedy by Steven+Blanchley · · Score: 0
    As another poster noted, and as NASA has acknowledged, no amount of imaging could have helped the Columbia tragedy. Yes, it's conceivable that in a future disaster this specific fact might be different. But the real way to avoid another Columbia tragedy is: Don't send people into space.

    Besides being dangerous, as we just saw, sending people into space is quite costly. (IIRC, if there was free gold in low earth orbit, at current prices you would lose money if you brought it back to earth and sold it.) And it is not needed. Space tasks can be accomplished just as well, maybe better, by sending machines into space and controlling them 'from home.'

    Sending people into space is really little more than a risky, expensive, unnecessary publicity stunt. This new monitoring won't change that.

    1. Re:The way to avoid another Columbia tragedy by Stonan · · Score: 1

      Good idea but humankind is not made up of pesimistic(sp?), paraniod 'I'd rather keep my head in the sand than see what's over that hill' people.

      This is the same thinking that kept the 'discovery of the new world' from happening years earlier (Ship crews were known to kill their captains if they sailed out of sight of land)

      Facing the risks of crossing a new frontier has been one of the main driving forces of our race. How many scientists did we loose trying to create nitroglycerin? Because of their courage and sacrifice we have medication for heart attacks.

      Also sending machines into space is expensive and not reliable. (There are 2 multi-million dollar piles of high-tech garbage on the surface of Mars to attest to that)

      As long as there is something to explore and people are willing to face the risk (and there are governments willing to pony up the cash), there will be tragedies.

      All we can do is learn from our mistakes and CAUTIOUSLY go where no one has gone before...

      --
      The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
    2. Re:The way to avoid another Columbia tragedy by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

      We are already in space, we're just sitting at the bottom of a gravity well. We can be ignorant of the universe around us or we can move forward and learn as much as possible about it and ourselves.

      If we really want to avoid catastrophe's we should stop smoking, stop drinking (yeah right), stop driving, stop playing with guns, stop being human sheild's for iraqi madmen, and stop any other number of fun things.

      The space has provided any number of medical and scientific benefits the improve the lives of those on earth. We do need to strive to improve our methods, but we shouldn't just stick our heads in the sand and just try to die as slowly as possible (As of course, good health is just the slowest way to die).

      --

      Use your head, can't you, use your head,
      You're on earth, there's no cure for that       - S. Beckett
    3. Re:The way to avoid another Columbia tragedy by Xilman · · Score: 1
      How many scientists did we loose trying to create nitroglycerin? Because of their courage and sacrifice we have medication for heart attacks.

      Very few, actually. Parts of scientists, on what's left of the other hand ...

      Paul

      --
      Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
  10. They have been watched for some time now. by infonography · · Score: 3, Funny
    The Greys and Gary Seven have been monitoring our space program for ages.

    We should just ask them for copies of theirs.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  11. Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Now we can get birds eye view of the explosions!

  12. In related news... by tlambert · · Score: 4, Funny

    In related news...

    American Airlines has announced that the regular "Atlanata Shuttle" flights will now be monitored from Atlanta.

    -- Terry

    1. Re:In related news... by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      . . .Which makes far more sense than monitoring the flights from Pensacola Beach, even if Pensacola Beach was far more comfortable. :)

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  13. God, I miss... by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...the 480 RTG.

    God bless all at Langley.

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  14. Re:sounds bogus by laserlights2000 · · Score: 0

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/03/29/sprj.colu .shuttle.photograph.ap/index.html The United States news did know about it, just isn't really making headlines right now

  15. Next Gen Shuttle? by E-Rock-23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, when is this new shuttle going to be rolled out? I've heard bits and pieces about it for a while now, along with some who say it's a few years off. Anyone have any info? Talk amongst yourselves...

    --
    Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
    1. Re:Next Gen Shuttle? by Soft · · Score: 1
      So, when is this new shuttle going to be rolled out?

      There isn't any. The only new project in that field is the Orbital SpacePlane, whose primary purpose is to stay docked at the ISS for 7+ crew rescue. A recent tacked-on requirement is that it could be launched on a conventional rocket with people aboard and possibly go beyond Earth orbit, but with virtually no cargo.

      This is interesting, but not a replacement for the shuttle, although it will likely be just as expensive to operate. The current plans call for it to fly in 2010 in addition to current shuttles, which could remain in service through 2020.

      But according to the latest couple of updates of the Space Access Society, don't hold your breath, since NASA hasn't managed to design any new vehicle since said shuttle...

    2. Re:Next Gen Shuttle? by LWolenczak · · Score: 1

      There was the X-33, but that project got canned because it went something like 130 million over budget and they kept having trouble with the fuel tanks collapsing when they were being welded in to place.

  16. This Practice WILL HELP avert future disasters by rodney+dill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This practice will help avert future shuttle disasters. It may not as you indicate help the potentially future damaged shuttle that they take a picture of by satelite.

    Remember all the activity that has been underway to determine the root cause of the Columbia disaster? A picture wouldn't have necessarily saved the Columbia, but it could provide the needed information to have prevented future catastrophe's. The benefit is long term and possibly immediate if something is found to be fixable in flight

    But more importantly who will be the first to put advertising on the bottom of the shuttle for the picture?

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that     - S. Beckett
  17. The shuttle is broken. Screw the shuttle. by jd_esguerra · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They knew and said there was nothing they could do about it while the shuttle was in space.

    If another shuttle gets a plate damaged, and NASA can clearly see it while the shuttle is in space, what will they be able to do? They shuttle doesn't carry enough supplies to keep the people out there until a spare part can be brought out, and even if it did, there virtually no way to fully secure it and make it work.



    They couldn't do anything about the heat plate. BUT, couldn't they have sent an unmanned (or manned) rocket(s) to intercept the shuttle with supplies for X days? Or even to serve as temporary shelter? Then, they'd at least have time to figure out how to get the crew back. So yes, I agree that there was nothing they could do for the shuttle. But had they known in advance that there was a good chance it was going to burn up I think there were several BETTER options than trying re-entry. And while I don't have any suggestions other than what I mentioned above, I bet the engineers involved with the mission could have thought up a few.


    Note the key phrase above--"had they known." They had no clue as to the severity of the damage. Now they will.


    Bottom line: If the shuttle is broken, then scrap it, and save the crew. Now (hopefully) they'll know if the shuttle is broken.

    1. Re:The shuttle is broken. Screw the shuttle. by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Also if you could send up fuel for the OMS and have a way of refuling that in flight you might be able to make it to the ISS where it could be secured *and* eventually repaired (EVA vehicles, which the Columbia did not have on board would be necessary). This could even provide valuable problem solving which could be necessary for further, more long distance space travel. (Doing basic work is one thing in space. Major repairs OTOH could be much more challenging.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:The shuttle is broken. Screw the shuttle. by Soft · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Also if you could send up fuel for the OMS and have a way of refuling that in flight you might be able to make it to the ISS where it could be secured *and* eventually repaired (EVA vehicles, which the Columbia did not have on board would be necessary).

      Not even close, I'm afraid. Changing orbital inclination is expensive; the amount of fuel necessary for the mere 15 that would have been required, according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, is 1.5 to 2 times the mass of the shuttle itself, 120-160 (metric) tons. Nobody on Earth has the capability to launch that in less than maybe five launches (think months of preparation).

      Furthermore, the ISS has no repair facilities; they would have to be shipped--by Progress, since only one shuttle can dock at a time--and before supplies ran out, with three times the normal crew...

  18. Black Box - Why? by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

    I hope someone can explain this to me.

    Why do we rely solely on a "Black Box" to record flight data in the Space Shuttle and commercial aircraft? It's prone to destruction and tampering.

    Why not also beam encrypted flight data to command central where it can be safely stored no matter what catastrophe? It would also work as a "mirror" so that if the black box or the data in command central were tampered with, the data could be compared in the other (assuming the black box made it). Or beam the data to two locations for that matter.

    1. Re:Black Box - Why? by HeghmoH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They do this with the shuttle. But, while the craft was busy melting and disintegrating, they kind of lost the radio telemetry feed. Due to how the accident worked out, the chaos and destruction cut the radio feed a little earlier than the black box kept working, and understandably the data that only got onto the black box was rather interesting, being right in the middle of said chaos and destruction.

      As for commercial aircraft, I've never heard of an accident investigation being hampered because of destruction/tampering/loss of the black box. The only places you're likely to lose the black box would be in the middle of nowhere where it would also be very impractical to maintain a high-speed radio link to somewhere to store your flight data. Not to mention the cost of setting up flight data recording centers all over the world when their data will not be necessary for 99.9999% of flights.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    2. Re:Black Box - Why? by nagora · · Score: 1
      As for commercial aircraft, I've never heard of an accident investigation being hampered because of destruction/tampering/loss of the black box.

      When the A320 crashed at the Farnbourgh airshow, Air France tampered with the boxes and then had a court order taken out to certify the crew as insane when they complained. Unfortunately it turned out that Channel 4 had filmed them with the boxes.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  19. So by monitoring do they mean... by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1

    "Ooh, there's your radar blip going by," or "Hey John, pull up your fly!"

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
  20. Nice to get replies, but... by Steven+Blanchley · · Score: 0

    my point seems to have been largely missed. I did not suggest 'sticking our heads in the sand' by ending space exploration. What I was saying is that everything that is now being done in space can be done without sending humans there, and generally better. For the things the machines can't do on their own, simply control them from down here on nice, cozy Earth. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

  21. Ermm by Skreech · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you meant 2003.

    Oh well. I never do get a good grasp on the odd-numbered years.

  22. Re:Well, duh by Blaine+Hilton · · Score: 1

    Interesting concept, although I doubt the range is large enough.

  23. space porn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    does this mean there will be a webcam feed of astronauts doing it in space? maybe if they took jenna jameson to space they could cure some of their budget woes.

  24. This is Ground Control to Major Tom by I-R-Baboon · · Score: 2, Funny

    We can see you mooning Russia

    --
    -1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
  25. If no useful info gets to NASA, then why do this? by Silent_E · · Score: 1

    There are a couple of posts that have mentioned that NASA has looked into using this info in the past, and found it didn't make a lot of sense.

    What this says to me, is that there is another reason for doing it. When Kennedy (?) created the Space Program, he wanted it to be separate from the millitary so that its findings/mission could be broader than the security/defense mission of the military.

    By using military satellites at all, by making a link, the US begins to blur the distinction between the space program and the military. I'm not trying to bash the military here, but I do wonder at potentially useless collaborations between the military and NASA.

    If we can save lives of more astronauts, we should. But we should also be wondering why NASA is pairing up with them more explicitly.

  26. Re:Well, duh by toddestan · · Score: 1

    Why don't they do something like this? They could take a camera (somewhat better than X10 I would think), and they could do an inspection by simply tossing them overboard. It would be cheap, probably higher resolutuon than a spy satellite.

    I guess you do have the problem of space junk. I see two solutions, either do it in a lower orbit so the camera will eventually burn up, maybe as the shuttle starts to descend - though I don't know how low they could go before they couldn't abort a landing. Either that, or I suppose they could make a retrievable one - just use the arm to place it outside, the pilot would then do a roll or whatever so the camera can see the underside of the shuttle, then use the arm to retrieve it. Sounds cheap and simple to me. Probably makes too much sense if you ask me.

  27. Re:Well, duh by Blaine+Hilton · · Score: 1

    This is something that I think most of us thought they had already. I meen they are NASA! They should be space experts and their thousands of pages of manuals for any possible event should have that covered too. Its my bet that if they really thought it was a problem then they could have jerry-rigged something together, however it seems like the ground control told them everything was fine and not to worry. Theres a lot of pressure to with budget cuts and having to meet tight deadlines and show results.

  28. Re:If no useful info gets to NASA, then why do thi by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

    A little cooperation over some pictures is pretty irrelevant next to designing the Shuttle in collaboration with the Air Force, regularly launching military satellites on NASA launchers, and dedicating Shuttle missions to military purposes.

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  29. So it�ll go like .... by michajoe · · Score: 1

    Fm: Mission.Control@nasa.gov
    To: STS-134@nasa.gov
    Sb: Shuttle, you have a problem

    Hi guys!

    We have received some alarming pictures of the shuttle from the military. It looks like the edge protection is gone from a wing, there are hundreds of tiles missing from the belly and it looks like some control surfaces have serious holes in them.

    The guys here have started placing bets on which one will get you. Of course, theres nothing that you or we could do about the problems.

    So the question is: Do you want to disintegrate on re-entry, or do you want to stay up there as long as it takes?

    Let us know how you want to proceed

    Mission Control

  30. Here is how, possibly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Here is a scenario that *might* work in the future: once ATV (ATV ) becomes available, it could be detached from the space station and sent down to pick up the people from the shuttle. It could then fly back to the space station and deliver the shuttle crew there.

    Doing this would require proper docking equipment on the shuttle, life support equipment on ATV (which, interestingly, is being implemented as far as I understand), and appropriate flight software to allow the docking to take place.

  31. Monitored from space? by Spudley · · Score: 1

    Shuttle Missions Will Be Monitored From Space

    Why don't we just ask the aliens? Everyone knows they're already monitoring all our space flights. ;-)

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)
  32. Truth be said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an overkill. Both NASA and the Air Force have several high quality optics systems. They can film the descent right here from Earth. Everybody has seen footage of the shuttle descending. Why isn't it routine to film the craft at all times during reentry? It should be a given.

    The problem with this shuttle accident was that nobody at NASA was looking. They didn't bother to. That's the naked truth. Slackers!

  33. Why are there no orbiting lifeboats? by Deslock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Identifying that there is a problem is important, but so is having a plan for how to deal with it.

    Why doesn't NASA put up some unmaned orbiting life-boats (at extremely high orbits with the ability to be manuevered remotely to lower orbits) with supplies and re-entry capabilities? If there is a problem with the Shuttle, ISS, or whatever, have a life-boat rendevous with the problematic vehicle and all crew transferred.

    In addition, why doesn't NASA have several unmaned rockets filled with supplies ready to go on a moments notice as an additional contingency?

    1. Re:Why are there no orbiting lifeboats? by renehollan · · Score: 1
      You know, that is actually a good idea.

      On practical problem I can see is the size of such a life boat and getting it "up there". Another problem involves the fuel cost of transfer orbits if it isn't in the same orbital plane as the shuttle. (Though, I'd think that if it were "high enough", in theory at least, you might be able to use the gravitational potential to drive the orbital plane change, but I know of no practical way of doing this.)

      Kudos for the out of the box thinking, even if it still appears to have some serious problems. That's how all solutions start out.

      --
      You could've hired me.
  34. Early detection could have saved the crew. by clv101 · · Score: 1

    If it had been identified at the start of the mission that Columbia could not re-enter a rescue mission could have been launched. If the crew knew from the start they would have to stay up there as long as possible then they could have conserved and survived around a month. The next shuttle to go up could have been rushed through it's preparations to launch within that month. The shuttle can launch with a minimum of 2 and can seat a maximum of 9. So the rescue of 7 would be possible. It would be a tricky logistical problem - the shuttle can't dock with another shuttle so the seven would have to space walk. Columbia didn't have 7 space suits so the rescue shuttle would have to have to bring more. The air lock can only hold one person at a time. The actual transfer of people could have taken over 24hours. Getting to the space station was not possible with the Columbia mission since Columbia is too heavy and can't reach the space stations orbit. Future missions could be carried out 'in reach' of the space station enabling it to act as a safe haven.

  35. From an email forward by megazoid81 · · Score: 1

    Apparently, pictures of the latest Columbia shuttle disaster were taken by an Israeli satellite. An email about this was doing the rounds on the net, but the whole story turned out to be an urban legend. But, do check out the pictures - they are kinda cool! Apparently, they are adapted from Armageddon.

  36. Hurry up NASA.... by Vandil+X · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hurry up NASA... We've only got 60 more years until Zefram Cochrane is supposed to invent Warp Drive!

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
  37. I dont get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I didn't get something....

    Are we saying that NASA will be using some multimillion-dollar satellites, with some secret technologies just to take some pics at the shuttle in orbit???

    Couldn't buying some of those little wireless cameras whose email ads we all get every day do the same thing????

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you don't need a multibillion-dollar satellite to take a pic of your belly.

    -Alex

  38. Troll, huh? by Artful+Codger · · Score: 1

    well, better keep reading

    --

    ... plans that either come to naught, or half a page of scribbled lines...
  39. Hindsight by overlordhab · · Score: 2, Informative

    Strange how emergency procedures are ussually seen as to costly. Then the shit hits the fan and suddenly the budget for emergency procedures are almost more than the original project. I think its great that they can now monitor the shuttles entry. They did not find a lot of it after the crash and (from my point anyway) the best clues as to what happened so far are from amuteur footage. I'm suprised NASA did not have its own video cameras pointing to the shuttle on entry or lift of. On TV you see that one video clip of some camera mounted on the nose of a rocket that lifts of. Why does the shuttle not have one mounted? I'm sure a camera like that would have noticed the tile being broken. hmmmmmm the camera though migh get fried on reentry. Don't you just love budgets cuts.

  40. The obvious? by Nathan+Forget · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think some of you may be missing the obvious: the point isn't to prevent future space disasters, that will be done in other ways. The point is to know a lot more about them when they do happen by having as much information as possible.