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)
I really can't believe they're actually resuming Shuttle flights. I was worried that we would bury our heads in the sand for a few years like we have after similar accidents in the past.
I'd still like to see an actual, cheap, reusable space vehicle though.. The shuttle isn't so hot on that front (no pun intended).
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
Maybe they should think of some better uses for the shuttle than literally shuttling stuff back and forth from the ISS.
It's time for something new and exciting.
discovery.com is just now reporting a new problem with the shuttles; the force of the exploding bolts that detach the boosters has been found to be too close to the strength of the dome that catches them. they predict that this will ground them further.
Perhaps it's time for NASA to take a look at how the Russians handle things -- their track record for the last 25 years is much better. At least no fatalities, and guess who had to step in when the US didn't dare send up another shuttle to rescue the stranded ISS 'nauts.
Regards,
--
*Art
While I am all for a manned space program, it's time to stop flying the shuttle. It's a white elephant, and the costs of keeping it up in the air are siphoning money out of developing its replacement.
And note that they aren't even discussing the 40 pound bolt fragment that periodically comes off the SRB's.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Without getting overly technical, that's not feasible because it's necessary to have a significant percentage of the thrust be variable and steerable. While the SRB nozzles can gimbal a bit, the thrust is totally predetermined. Also, I don't see sitting next to huge steel cylinders of ammonium perchlorate/aluminum powder as being safer than the cryogenic gasses used by the SSMEs. There was much resistance at the outset of the shuttle program to using solid fueled boosters on a manned vehicle, and those concerns are still valid. No, I'm not a rocket scientist.
Until they have a better platform, they will probably continue to use the shuttle.
Perhaps if the open source movement were to desing and implement a shuttle replacement, we might have a working replacement faster than if NASA were told they have to come up with a cheaper faster replacement.
For those thinking of suggesting that Soyuz would work, might I remind you that every Soyuz capsule is a one time use vehicle. Even when everything goes right, it doesn't get re-used. It has no airlock, so either everyone gets suited up, or no-one does a space walk. It has no payload capability, so no sattelite recovery. It has no manipulator arm, so you can't rely upon it for doing sattelite maintenance as the shuttle crew has.
The shuttle may not be perfect. It was designed for a set of missions that have very little to do with what it is doing now. (The military provided some of the specs to support black projects, few of which have ever been attempted.)
The Civilian side of the project was to haul people and material to and from the space station that was being desinged by NASA, which was not the international space station. It was also decided to use it to deploy sattelites as well once the capacity of the payload bay was defined.
As a jeep, the shuttle has done an ok job. If you think we need a better design, I am all for it. Start working on that better desing, and give us status reports as you find the time.
-Rusty
You never know...
Its going to make the shuttle one incredibly expensive taxi service for the ISS.
When the shuttle launches equipped to dock with ISS, it has an ammount of its payload bay consumed with the docking adapter.
If the shuttle is used for the originally slated US module launches, this would indicate a valid use (although still very expensive in comparison to a Soyuz module launch).
Now, here's my thinking. The Shuttle was a severe compromise of an originally good system (Flight launch Horizontal TakeOff and Landing) but ended up with the return vehicle pointlessly (and expensively) attached to an SRB+LOX rocket system.
NASA is now likely to resume using the Shuttle - apart from anything this is quite political with China probably joining the elite club of nations who have launched people into space later this year. What NASA ought to be doing is saving the pennies by retiring the shuttle - not neccesarily immediately, but soon and putting out to tender a contract for a brand-new cost-effective launch system.
The new system could be based around the original Ho.T.O.L concept which was mean to be the Shuttle.
At the same time, NASA can be doing lots of new research into aerodynamic re-entry to safeguard lives in the future (FYI 2 aero-re-entry incidents to date - 1, X-15 and 1, STS).
The major sticking point is simple: The U.S. government would have to get their wallet out!
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
One thing to remember is that most of our rocket technology is based around getting ICBMs off the ground, and over the horizon. In other words they are designed around high thrust to weight ratios, and fairly high G forces.
There have been a few other concepts for rockets, including variable thrust and SCRAM jets, (for the in atmosphere portion at least) that do not have the same requirements for thrust to weight, and can be less costly to operate.
Another observation is that there are several alternative launch mechanisms that do not require nearly the volume of fuel that the current mechanism does, as they launch from higher altitudes, or from launch platforms that are already moving in the direction they desire the orbiter to go.
As far as space travel being safe, it is neither safe to stay in bed, nor to get up. And that's without leaving the planet. That's part of life.
-Rusty
You never know...
IAARS, and the reason the limit it to the station and the hubble is because the hubble is a masive PR booster for NASA : Look what human in space can do, see we can service this telescope that takes all these pretty pictures. Not that I think thats a bad thing, since working on SM3b paid for my summer living expenses for 3 summers.
Its good that America wants to keep sending people into space but I can't help wondering about the politicism of the date.
After all, rumoured to be around December this year, China is preparing to strap a hero of the communist state (a Taikonaut) to the front of an over-engineered Long-March rocket and send him for a couple of laps.
I hope that NASA isn't being asked or pressured to rush things.
In Communist China the rocket launches you!......oh wait......
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Actually, if you look at the rate shuttles were being launched in 1985/January 1986, we still haven't recovered. in 1985, there were 9 launches, in 1986, we were on a 20+launch pace. There are other reasons for the slowdown, but regardless, we slowed down dramatically.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
This is somewhat offtopic but I wanted to give you guys a different perspective on shuttle related issues.
I live in Nacogdoches (Nak-ah-doh-chez), Texas, the place where most of the shuttle debris fell. Once upon a time, NASA news hardly even made the paper. All that has changed. Everytime a NASA scientist sneezes, the local paper mentions it.
A few weeks ago I was fortunate enough to hear the local sherrif Thomas Kerss talk about the disaster plan he and other local officials dynamically implemented to handle the shuttle disaster and the ongoing recovery effort. There is no template for a disaster like this in any city office our county office in the nation, so local officials had to act fast to keep local residents safe, to manage the recovery effort, and to manage the press surrounding the event. They did such a great job that there is now a template for disasters like the Columbia disaster and its called the "Nacogdoches Plan".
The recovery effort that Sherriff Kerss and others implemented was especially lauded, as the Sherriff quickly received assistance from the Stephen F. Austin State University Geosciences lab and the SFA Forestry department (the finest in the nation). By using the maps provided by the geosciences lab, they divided the area where the shuttle fell into blocks of a few acres in size. They immediately dispatched deputies armed with GPS locators to locations where citizens were reporting fallen debris. The deputies would identify the debris, call in their location to central command, and central command would mark the detailed maps with the locations of debris and descriptions of what was there. For debris locations in public places and for important items, national guardsmen or law enforcement officials were dispatched to guard those places.
The recovery is ongoing and like some have said, they will be finding things for at least another decade. In fact, its rumored that they've found a mini-cassette that might provide insight into Columbia's last moments.
Seeing that the shuttle will fly again soon is fantastic news and is what everyone in this area has been hoping for. They talked about changing the landing flight path so that they won't go over populous locations but I'm not sure if that's been decided yet. I figured they start landing it in California as rule like it used to be. If not, I can guarantee that the majority of East Texans will be trying to catch a glimpse of the shuttle when it flies overhead on its way to Cape Canaveral.
Why is NASA still putzing around in low earth orbit with the space shuttle? NASA (and the rest of us) need to aspire higher and undertake a project that will serve to inspire the current generation in the same way that the Apollo project did in the 60s.
I'm a big fan of Robert Zubrin's Case for Mars proposal to send astronauts to Mars using current technology. For those of you who aren't familiar with this, read the book or visit the Mars Society website for more information.
Nasa admits a more realistic date will be in April sometime. The problem is that if they miss the December 18 launch date, orbital dynamics will prevent them from launching for a few months if they intend to catch up to and dock with the ISS. (something about alignment of the ISS and Sun would cause heating problems on the shuttle -- I'll find the article if anyone really cares)
The cost was insignificant to anyone who is/was floored by this picture. Anyone who looked at that image for the first time and did not feel the hair stand up on the back of his/her neck (or some equivalent response) probably does not possess adequate intelligence to express a rational opinion on federal spending.
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF