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."

13 of 112 comments (clear)

  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 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

    3. 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...

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  2. 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.
  3. 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?

  4. 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 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...

  5. 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!
  6. 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.

  7. 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?