Slashdot Mirror
Shuttle Set for Launch on Dec 18th, Says NASA
Tony J Case writes "Just a quick note for you guys - According to space.com, NASA's target date for the next shuttle launch is Dec. 18th, with a whole bunch of new guidelines."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
The new guidelines:
No night launches for the foreseeable future.
So they can see any stuff that falls off better.
A revamping of mission management from the ground after a shuttle crew takes off.
So when bad stuff happens, someone actually does something about it.
Jettisoning the external tank during orbital daylight.
So they can see any stuff that falls off better.
And under consideration:
Limiting shuttles to flights to the International Space Station or the Hubble Space Telescope.
So they can see any stuff that has fallen off better and so they have a place to stay when bad stuff happens.
Keeping a second shuttle on standby when a sister ship launches.
So when bad stuff happens and someone actually does something about it there's a way home.
To me it seems like most of these new guidelines are things that should have been taken care of before any accidents happened. Did you know that foam has fallen off the "bipod" of the shuttle's tank "on at least six other shuttle missions." Why was nothing done about this previosly?
Hopefully now they'll be willing to put the extra effort (read money) in that it will take to make space flights safe(r)
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
Apart from the 'non-reported' incidents (which, of course, never happened), there's been at least one flight that ended in the death of 3 cosmonauts. I can't remember if the capsule de-pressurised during re-entry or the 'chutes failed and it hit the ground a little too hard.
Shortly after the Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986, a sick joke started circulating. "NASA" was reported to mean, "Need Another Seven Astronauts."
Unfortunately, as news reports come in about disregard for safety for Shuttle Columbia, it appears that such joke has a major element of truth. NASA bureaucrats (and probably politicians up to and including at the White House, as well) disregarded Morton Thiokol engineers in 1986, and we're now hearing that engineers warned NASA officials and the President prior to Columbia's launch that the Shuttle system itself was prone to such a disaster as witnessed yesterday. We know that Columbia was hit with something ("foam" or more likely, ice) during its launch on January 16th, and apparently, officials didn't take it seriously enough (Cain slew Abel; did Leroy Cain slay Columbia?). The excuse that "Columbia's crew was doomed from the start because they couldn't make repairs" is both silly and illustrates the current "can't do" attitude of today's NASA, which is far different than the NASA which both put humans on the Moon AND safely returned a crew to Earth after Apollo 13 had a "major malfunction" way up there.
For NASA's bureaucrats (and some politicians), it appears that risking astronauts' lives, NOT for the "unknown variables," but for glamour, expediency, and selfishness, is "acceptable." Perhaps this is to be expected in today's America where style and appearance are far more valued than substance and tangibility.
The joke way back in 1986, "N.A.S.A. = Need Another Seven Astronauts," has tragically turned out to be 2003's reality.
No, much cheaper since the engines did not need to be reusable.
It was the collapse of Communism that did for Buran (ironic really since the costs of Buran had directly contributed to the busting of the Soviet economy). The Russians performed a miracle in keeping any part of their space industry going - let alone developing new vehicles (which they have managed), but the cost of that was the loss of the interplanetary programme and Buran.
Since Buran was every bit as much a political animal as the Shuttle, it had no support when the Soviet Union imploded. It was not widely missed, the ending of the Russian deep space programme was a major blow as it left NASA as the sole player in deep space exploration. And we all know how that budget has been dicked around with to keep the Shuttle going.
I hope that the Russia/ESA collaboration on probes will yield a new golden age in space exploration, there is a huge amount of talent in the former Soviet Union that produced some truly remarkable vessels; its time they got another chance.
Best wishes,
Mike.
The reason you have been modded as "funny" (for those who think this is a serious post) is because your idea is truly funny. The SRB's are probably the most dangerous part of the STS. They are just a big tube of uncontrolled fire, and when you light them, they burn until they burn out. The could burn out normally, like in 114 of the flights, or they could burst, like on one of them. Even if the techs has seen the plume of smoke coming out of the shuttle at liftoff, there was nothing that could be done.
A big tank of hydrogen and oxygen is not all that dangerous compared to an SRB . In fact, the majority of the fuel on Challenger poured out of the ET and impacted the ocean uncombusted. Remember, the fuel must mix with the oxygen before it can rapidly combust (or at all).
-twb
The purpose of the SRB's is to get the shuttle above the atmosphere and escape drag. After they fall away the shuttle is still something like 5000 m/s away from orbital velocity (which itself is 7000ish m/s), but the relatively "weak" main engines don't have to fight the atmosphere.
Even more, the last 20% of the fuel is really what kicks the shuttle along. They have the full power of the engines, but nearly all of the boost weight is gone. The thing boogies whereas on the ground they couldn't get the shuttle off the pad.
The external tank, main engine set up is one of the more amazing accomplishments of the shuttle design, without it the "land like a plane" would never have happened.
Maybe you need to do a little more research.
Also, I think you need to also take into account that during a fair chunk of the time you're mentioning, the Russian space program was kind of out-of-order - If you cut the regeme change period out, it could take you back to the good old days...
March 18, 1980 - a Vostok rocket exploded on its launch pad while being refueled, killing 50 at the Plesetsk Space Center.
It's not true that this winged vehicle has nothing but disadvantages. For what the shuttle was originally designed for, carrying very large and heavy payloads into and back from space, a winged vehicle was the only solution that would alow for reentering with heavy loads. Although as it has panned out, the shuttle hasn't carried many heavy things back to earth. Back in the early days it was thought that commercial satellite launch and recovery would help subsidize shuttle launches.
- The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind. -- Humphrey Bogart
"Don't forget the prunes." L. Francis Herreshoff
I am sorry but you are incorrect on a couple of points. The boosters (SRBs) are reused. They are collected out in the Atlantic Ocean and towed back, disassembled, inspected, and reused. Also the shuttle is not dissembled after every flight. As a matter of fact, Columbia did go through a complete overhaul, and upgrade about a year ago where it was (just about) totally dissembled, but that was the first time for the Columbia.
- The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind. -- Humphrey Bogart
The Russian Energia Booster (in current production) can lift 100 ton modules into LEO - this against the shuttles 30 ton payload.
Russia has already launched the major modules Zarya and Zvesda using the Proton launch system.
ESA is also in the future slated to launch a private module using the Arianne 5 launcher
It is feasable (but undesirable) that the ISS could be completed without further use of the Shuttle (Although this would require a gigant re-think) Perhaps US modules could be sent to Baikonur with HeavyLift
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Russia has lost crews (dunno how many men. no more than 3 each) on reentry I think. One accidently vented his air to space (the capsule landed automatically) and one had a heater failure and had an ice cube for a parachute... impacted siberia at about 400 mph.
The SU has had some spectacular failures on launch (big boosters make big explosions), but supposedly no deaths on launch.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
WHAT??? Your kidding right? The Soviet/Russian space program has more accidents than the US has had.. and at least 4 deaths of astronauts. I seem to recal there being a larger number.. but can only find 4 ATM.
Look here and here.
and guess who had to step in when the US didn't dare send up another shuttle to rescue the stranded ISS 'nauts
And guess who has been financially bailing out the Russian space program? And remember, the Russians have said they are running out of money for Soyuz construction.
Sheesh, no way the parent deserves a 4.. it's all incorrect information.
The foam is frozen because of the -420 degee liquid hydrogen behind it...
IIRC, to dock with ISS, the shuttle must carry a docking fixture that takes up a substantial portion of the payload bay. In fact, this is why, had Columbia been on the same orbital plane as the ISS, they would not have been able to dock with it since the payload bay was full (SpaceHab, FREESTAR, and the EDO kit), and not carrying the docking fixture.
Does this mean that all future shuttles will have to carry the docking fixture?
A clever person solves a problem, A wise person avoids it. -Einstein
We did get a nice selection of Moon rocks and core samples, which wasn't as simple as just picking up some rocks at random and shipping them back home. The Apollo astronauts had a lot of geological training, and one of the astronauts was even a professional geologist.
We also got that nifty laser retro-reflector on the surface and a few other scientific instruments.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)