Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Shuttle Set for Launch on Dec 18th, Says NASA

Posted by michael on from the getting-back-on-the-horse dept.

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."

9 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. New Guidelines by frieked · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:New Guidelines by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "So when bad stuff happens, someone actually does something about it."

      They did do something about it. They asked the engineers if it was a safety problem, and the engineers said "No".

      "So when bad stuff happens and someone actually does something about it there's a way home."

      Yeah, provided you're willing to risk another orbiter and its crew to fly up there, crossing your fingers that whatever bad stuff happened to the first shuttle won't also happen to the other one. Though if you're going to lose the first shuttle anyway it doesn't really matter what happens to the second once since the shuttle program will be dead, dead, dead whether it's left with one or two orbiters.

      "Why was nothing done about this previosly?"

      NASA were developing a fix for the problem, which would likely have gone into place sometime next year. No-one was ignoring the problem, it just wasn't considered to be as high a priority as fixing the numerous other problems which haven't destroyed a shuttle yet.

      Incidentally, I was under the impression that the only launch possibility at or around Dec 18th was a night launch, so if they have to launch in the day, they can't launch then.

    2. Re:New Guidelines by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Didn't NASA used to keep an extra shuttle on standby?"

      No. There have been occasions when there were two shuttles on the pads simultaneously, but there's never been an active requirement to have a second ready to launch... more normally, there's one on the pad and one a month or two away from being ready to go.

    3. Re:New Guidelines by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 3, Informative

      They did do something about it. They asked the engineers if it was a safety problem, and the engineers said "No"

      The engineers said there 'might' be a problem and it needed investigation. The beauracracy said 'No Problem' to the point of cancelling the engineer requested satellite image gathering.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    4. Re:New Guidelines by dpilot · · Score: 4, Informative

      It isn't that simple. Stop flying the shuttle so we can fund a replacement, and I'll wager that the saved money finds its way out of the NASA budget, and the replacement is never developed. ie- the US manned space program would stop until political pressures push us back into it, and then it would most likely be another limited single-goal effort like Apollo.

      Of course if the single-goal was to match a sustainable moon base, I just with "they" would start applying the political pressure.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    5. Re:New Guidelines by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 4, Informative

      they aren't fixing any of the actual problems

      Thank you Dr. Nasa. At least you made your ignorance known first thing. The CAIB report should be out next month - that's what will address the constraints to flight.

      Steps are currently being taken to correct the ET foam issue, the weld on the SRB bolts have too low of a factor of safety so a fix will be incorporated there, and procedures are being generated and analyzed for on-orbit TPS inspections. I'm sure there will be other recommendations - more technical stuff and maybe Nasa cultural type stuff (civil servants vs. contractors w/r/t program duties).

      Please, don't pass off your ASSumptions as fact. Sorry for the rant, but it rubbed me the wrong way.

  2. Re:Just a thought... by rand.srand() · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:Needs Another Seven Astronauts by DivideByZero · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  4. FACTs on ISS module launches by reality-bytes · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.