Slashdot Mirror
Columbia Accident Board Preliminary Recommendations
fwc writes "The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) has released some preliminary recommendations to NASA - To do a better job at inspecting the leading edge of the shuttle's wings, and also to ensure that pictures of the orbiter are taken while in orbit. More recommendations are to follow in the full report which is expected in June. More detailed information on the recommendations are at space.com and spaceflightnow.com. NASA Administrator O'Keefe seems optimistic that they will be able to return the shuttle fleet to flight by the end of the year since there has been no show-stopping problems which have been discovered during the investigation."
CLIT
They use high powered telescopes to verify you own your nickname.
I'll gladly volunteer to go up on any shuttle missions to test out the safety :) I can't help but feel that the shuttle program, with all its warts, is still vital and needs to continue.
The more you know, the less you understand.
Here's my recommendation: stop sending people into space to be destroyed you cum monkeys!!!
Dead people! Haahhahah! FP!!
Stats to the max - Yellow
0 1FE7DD1
S pecial:0 184D1
0 10185D1
HitPoints:
01FE7BD1
01017CD1
Attack:
01017ED1
Defence:
01FE7FD1
010180D1
01FE81D1
010182D1
Speed:
01FE83D1
01
Genes:
01FF85D1
01FF86D1
Stats to the max - Red/Blue
HitPoints:
01FE7CD1
01017DD1
Attack:
01FE7ED1
01017FD1
Defence:
01FE80D1
010181D1
Special:
01FE82D1
010183D1
Speed:
01FE84D1
Genes:
01FF86D1
01FF87D1
by http://www.azureheights.com
"there has been no show-stopping problems which have been discovered during the investigation."
Well no, other than the strong suspicion that a chunk of the craft can fall off during lift-off and fatally damage the vehicle...
at got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)
NASA Administrator O'Keefe seems optimistic that they will be able to return the shuttle fleet to flight by the end of the year since there has been no show-stopping problems which have been discovered during the investigation."
So a 1-in-50 catastrophic failure rate is not considered a show stopper? At this rate, we'll be out of shuttles in another 150 flights. Would you use software that crashed 1-in-50 times? The shuttle is the "Internet Explorer" of space vehicles...
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
Need Another Seven Astronauts
Shouldn't NASA be fully aware of this already? I think in pretty much most cases they know what they are doing, at least more than anybody else knows what they are doing...
A Mirror in progress...
(please wait while wget finishes mirroring everything...)
STOP SENDING PEOPLE UP INTO SPACE TO BE DESTROYED YOU CUM GUZZLING BEAURACRATIC MONKEYS!!!!
--
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
Poblems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
Probems regahding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
So again, what do they do if they find a problem? Just upload an MP3 of "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun"???
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Reminds me of something I saw here..
The president, when presented with the findings, gave it much serious thought and consideration then recommended drilling for oil in Alaska.
Anyone else notice another attempt to sneak that through in the last few weeks.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The problem I have with there being no "show-stopping problems" is that they are white-washing the risk away. There is inherent risk in space flight and the public is stupid if they think that it's now somehow safe (until they are shocked when the next O-Ring or Leading-Edge-of-the-Wing fails.)
Here's a good analysis from 1996 about the Challenger disaster and inherent risk that people need to accept.
Why do I h8 apple?
from the picking-up-the-pieces dept.
Michael, you are either (a) thoughtless or (b) have one sick sense of humour. Or both.
Be more careful! As if NASA wasn't already careful.
I'd have recommended that they didn't cancel the 2nd generation shuttle part of the SLI. Can you believe they want to keep flying those death traps till 2022? Jeez.
Space is some scary, dangerous shit. You dont want anything to do with it, trust me.
Finish Doom 3 please.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I mean, they go over it with a fine-toothed comb before they launch, and then a couple of weeks later they just say "OK, everybody buckle in, we're heading home". Sheesh, it takes more than that to fly a private plane, doesn't it? You do a pre-flight check, you fly, you land, then you do another pre-flight before you fly home again. Is that so hard a concept to apply here?
How come they don't have some tethered drone camera dingus that does an inch-by-inch surveilance of the important bits while they're still in orbit? Why bother with all the "well, if we use a 3-foot-long-telephoto-spy-lens..." crap?
Heck, here's another opportunity for Canada to come to the rescue, just add another attachment on to the big shuttle bay crane arm.
Write your congressman and President Bush and make the following things clear:
- We will not tolerate acts of terrorism from the nation or people of Syria
- We will take action when our national treasures (in particular, our space program) are attacked
- We will not tolerate rogue states with active chemical and biological weapons programs
- We cannot allow an outlaw nation to harbor Iraqi fugitives and war criminals
Syria has long been a staging ground for nefarious acts of all shapes and sizes. It's time that we let them know that this must come to an end.Shouldn't that be "shuttle" instead of shuttle fleet?
to make everyone sympathetic to that jew who was on board, or maybe they had some nuclear weapons on board, or maybe it was a just a distraction from the heat Bush was getting for the world war he's started.
Noticed everyone rallied round the flag for these poor seven people who died on a nice little space flight, but nobody gives a fuck about the thousands of people who starve every year, or the people that got killed and maimed by USA bombs in Iraq. Yeah, good priorities. Fuckwits.
Honestly, do you have any contingency to examine in space and fix the shuttle if it does have problems? No, well, see you back here in another 10 years.
when the shuttle launched, a piece of debris broke off and hit the wing. Back then they said it didn't matter, then the shuttle exploded on re-entry. Now, months and months of 'careful study' they find that the wing had been damaged. No sh*t... what a useless exercise. And the recommendation: study the shuttle more carefully! Ummm. yeah, how much are they being paid for this?
-Larry Niven
Display some adaptability.
I sure am glad we're spending 50 million dollars to find out why an old, damaged spacecraft exploded, killing several people who knew what they were doing, and only 9 million to find out how our government's inability to communicate with itself allowed 9/11 to happen. Our government sure does have its priorities in order.
*This page intentionally left pointless*
They don't need to check the wings better, they need to be 'on their feet' when there is and anomoly during lunch, and respond intelligently.
love is just extroverted narcissism
The space shuttles are man made vehicles designed to take people into space! There are going to be inherent risks with such undertakings, but this is the nature of space exploration. Time will provide safer alternatives, but for now 1/50 isn't bad.
The astronauts know these risks too, and they willingly assume them.
PS: The Internet Explorer comment is unnecessary.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
... and that is the space shuttle program itself. Too many variables, too inefficient and too easy to break. What is really needed is a fundamental rethinking of the space program. The shuttle is still useful as a "space truck", perhaps. But to use it to just jet people into space for scientific experiments is a huge waste of resources. They need something smaller, lighter, safer, and easier to maintain. NASA is one major accident away from getting its program sacked completely. The shuttle it a ticking time bomb.
Don't crash spaceships.
Face it, they're rocketting around in technology that's 25+ years old. It's time to redesign from the ground up.
The U.S. just paid 75 billion on a war in Iraq, most of which was wasted money. I mean the fuel bill alone to send an aircraft carrier to the Gulf would set me for life.
Maybe they don't spend more money on Nasa is because in space there's nobody to kill.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Both Challenger nor Columbia were caused by human error. In Challenger's case, the politicians/managers made the decision to go despite warnings from the engineers. In Columbia's case, they had the opportunity to take pictures of the shuttle in orbit, per suggestions by the engineers, but decided not to do so. (What they could have done to save the crew is a separate topic.)
So when we talk about the dangers of space flight, or how unreliable the shuttle fleet is, let's not forget how much of an element human decision-making is.
-Thomas
The problem with that argument is there's still no clear way that the impact could have done enough damage for the shuttle to burn up. Either it was a very, very unlucky hit in just the wrong place, or there's some other problem which, in combination with the impact, lead to plasma coming in through the wing. For all we know, the wing could have been damaged prior to launch (either due to errors in handling on the ground or pure old age) and the normal stresses of orbital maneuvering could have led to the same damage on this or a later flight.
I was hoping for a Flaimbait on this one. Oh well, maybe next time!
The space shuttles are man made vehicles designed to take people into space! There are going to be inherent risks with such undertakings, but this is the nature of space exploration. Time will provide safer alternatives, but for now 1/50 isn't bad.
Really? The Mercury/Gemini/Apollo program didn't kill anyone in a flight (3 were killed on the ground and another 3 came about as close as possible) and that was in the 60s and they were going to the moon. The reason the space shuttle has a higher failure rate is simply that it has more moving parts and things to go wrong. The shuttle failure rate would be significantly higher if it really flew once a week as it was designed to and if the per flight costs were what they were expected to be. Doesn't the fact that it flies 1/50th of the amount it was designed to tell you something about the difference between the expected failure rate and the actual failure rate?
The astronauts know these risks too, and they willingly assume them.
They are brave people, no question. I'm sure, given the choice, they would rather fly in a safer space craft and risk there lives for something more important than studying the effects of weightlessness on tiny screws.
And what if the columbia had broken up over a populated area of California rather than empty portion of Texas. Would all those people who gave their lives appreciate the risk that was being taken on their behalf?
PS: The Internet Explorer comment is unnecessary.
Well IE never killed anyone (although I could be wrong on that) -- they are both crap though.
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
Hasn't anyone ever played C & C on large maps? CONSERVE the resources close to home and exploit those that are harder to protect and defend, before everyone has a chance to use them. That makes your home resources veeeery valuable in the end-game when money is tight, and denies your opponents access to the resources you used in the beginning. So, yeah, lets keep importing oil until we HAVE to use ours.
Chuck
It was really a good thing that Columbia blew up... I mean peoplekeep focusing on the fact that the astronauts had families... blah blah blah...
But I look at it as: At least one good thing was there was an Isreali on board when it blew...
since there has been no show-stopping problems which have been discovered during the investigation. /
What, other than the fact that NASA keeps ignoring trends that point to a possible loss of life/loss of vehicle?
(Challenger- Ignored a trend showing that in cold weather the O-rings sealing the SRBs could fail)
(Collumbia- Ignored a pair of worsening trends-
The age-related deterioration of the TPS, and the worsening trend of debris shedding from the ET)
I would call NASA decision making capabilities the show stopper.
No doubt the plan is going to be to pay Bechtel and MortonThiokol a few billion to redesign and upgrade the whole bloody shuttle.
(The Bechtel crack is a response to the free ride the Bush administration just gave Bechtel in Iraq)
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
"The force of the impact tore him from his seat, threw him across the cabin, and knocked out several of his top front teeth; he tasted blood as it filled his mouth."
Expected Provda news the next day: "Cosmonaut successfully undergoes routine dental procedure to remove painful cavities."
Table-ized A.I.
One question I have about the proposed visual checks is whether or not they will be using infrared thermography or just plain visible spectrum checks once the shuttle is in orbit... IR thermography allows non-destructive detection of sub-surface cracks and other imperfections that visible analysis cannot show, but I rarely (if ever) hear it mentioned as a possible means of integrity verification. Does anyone know what NASA would intend on using in this situation?
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
...needed is to update the entire fleet to today's technological standards, and not continue reliance on 1960s technology. It's quite obvious that we have the know-how to produce an advanced spaceplane/cargo craft.
I read a report (in the la times, I think) that the analysis of the damage during the mission (that showed the damage from the foam was nothing to worry about) was just some hand-waiving analysys in an excel spreadsheet.
There is NO way anyone can do a reasonable analysis of damage from an impact in a freakin' spreadsheet. They probably just did something that amounted to fitting a curve to historical data and extrapolating... sheesh! And this was deemed reliable enough analysis that they didn't need to image the damaged area when they had a chance...
Houston, YOU have a problem!
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
So if you're wondering why the CAIB said nothing about the foam impact, that's why. And when you hear O'keefe say "no show-stoppers" he means they haven't discovered any fundamental design flaws.
The suggestion for better inspections of the wings' leading edge is because the CAIB has found the present methods inadequate. And they are, the tiles don't get near enough respect. Just because it's got no moving parts, and is essentially just a bunch of dumb bricks doesn't mean the thermal protection system is really that simple and not much can go wrong.
The other suggestion about viewing the shuttle on orbit is just pointing out that one shouldn't ignore any data source.
One final point, mission control was aware of the foam strike and was worried about the landing gear. When they saw the above normal heating and sensor failures they had pretty much decided to call for a bailout. They never got the chance, since comm was lost, and it wouldn't have mattered anyway since the shuttle was still way too high and way too fast, but it's important to realize that until 9am on Feb 1st bailout was considered the "worst case" scenario.
Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
the REAL reason
Know-how!=motivation or ability. Not to mention money. They *are* upgrading the shuttles, on a pretty much continuous basis. However, neither the money nor the political will is there for much more than a tweak here, and a tuck there.
Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
What the preliminary findings point to is the RCC (reinforced carbon carbon)degrading and deteriorating beneath the tiny pinholes visible on the surface. (From the L.A. Times April 18: The panel, headed by retired Navy Adm. Harold W. Gehman Jr., is investigating whether pinholes and hidden breaches in Columbia's left wing allowed superheated gas to penetrate the orbiter and cause it to blow apart. Investigators are also seeking to determine whether such possible defects were worsened during Columbia's Jan. 16 liftoff, when chunks of foam insulation fell from an external fuel tank and struck the wing. To help prevent disasters, the board said Thursday that NASA should intensify its inspections of a "reinforced carbon-carbon" thermal protection system. That composite material protects the critical leading edge of the shuttles' wings. Under current procedures, shuttle technicians typically inspect the carbon-carbon lining by eye and hand, said Michael A. Greenfield, NASA's associate deputy administrator for technical programs. They also take a closer look when the shuttles are overhauled every few years. The accident board said "current inspection techniques are not adequate to assess structural integrity of [the reinforced carbon-carbon], supporting structure and attaching hardware." Greenfield said NASA and its contractors are considering new X-ray, ultrasonic or thermographic tests that could yield more information about the heat-shielding system. He added: "This is very difficult material to inspect.") In addition, NASA is not even sure that the foam insulation struck far enough inboard to cause the catastophic failure near the wing root. The problem, it seems, is not with shreddy foam, but with shreddy high-strength carbon carbon which the shuttle depends on to protect the aluminum airframe.
While I consider the exact cause of the accident important, I've seen a few articles here and there hint that engineers concerns don't make it to or get considered properly by NASA management. And while this kind of bungling may just be annoying for most of us, it's not something that should be tolerated when people's live are at stake. In fact we could even draw congress into this mess since they're the ones who cut NASA's budget. So in my humble opinion, the root cause of the problem hasn't changed since the Challenger iccident.
Note that even though they plan to use military spysats to examine the shuttle after launch, they can't do anything about damage unless they:
- launch into an orbit that can dock with the space station, or have enough maneuvering ability to get there
- have another shuttle ready to launch nearly immediately even so, they would have to skip some of the normal countdown, and it's unclear that there would be a reasonable probability of a second launch before the first shuttle's consumables are expended
- have an unmanned rocket ready to be launched with consumables to resupply the shuttle until some other rescue mission can be cobbled together
After the Columbia disaster, the Japanese government was quick to announce that no Japanese astronauts would fly on the shuttle until it is determined to be safe. I guess we can expect to see no future Japanese astronauts on the shuttle, since it was never determined to be safe in the past, nor will it be in the future. Some things are worth doing even if they aren't safe.ABC News has an article that discusses data from the magnetic tape of the OESS (Orbiter Experiment Support System). According to the article, the launch data show a spike in temperature just after the foam struck the leading edge of the left wing. The spike was in the area of a sensor behind one of the left wing's spars and was registered for 40 seconds. It goes on to say that this sensor would have normally shown a steady to decreasing temperature under normal conditions.
"Prepare to commence pre-mortal religious ceremonies, 10, 9, 8, ..."
"...Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
if its broke you can just leave it up there, the astronauts are dead anyway, might as well avoid having to clear up all that debris.
That's what we get for hiring the two biggest aviation companies to handle the shuttle for us. They'r more interested in bleeding money from the shuttle program than developing a more efficient way to get the job done. Why would they want to produce a shuttle that let them collect less from NASA?
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
NASA should order some Buran shuttles from Energia. Buran is a proven design, and can lift more weight to orbit. Outsourcing the US space program for competitive reasons makes good, hard sense.
given: the rules of the f.a.a. are written blood.
there is a reason why pilots need to go around the plane, it's to see and check for any physical damage or obstructions, ( not easy to do on a 747... ).
given the above, what has me scratching my head is that:
1. the first 30 minutes of descent is the most dangours, why does it have to be this way? consider having a 'powered' decent, one could have more time to handle excessive heat events.
2. the shuttle is not set up for (a) the crew to bail out, and (b) enough fuel to get back into orbit. there are still billions of volunteers that would happily get on the next shuttle, but when the 3rd one burns and crashes...
yes the above all involve more weight. but are the experts using weight as a cop-out. maybe the 'scram' jet engine should get a harder look at. maybe shuttle crews need more freedom to make 'mid course' corrections.