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."

31 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 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

    3. 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

    4. 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.

    5. 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...

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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...

  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. 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'.
  4. 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 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.

  5. 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?

  6. 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".

  7. 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
  8. 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

  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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...

  12. 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!
  13. 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)
  14. 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?

  15. 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
  16. 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.

  17. 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.