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
And I hope they never stop. No matter what disaster strikes or how trgic it all seems at the time. Hopefully they are looking at new safer technologies at the same time though.
I went to battle MC Escher but drew a blank
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!
Last time we lost a shuttle, it took almost 10 years to recover, this time we are pressing on. Smarter harder and quicker.
Lesson Learned moving on now.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Continuing to fly the shuttle,l and explore space is definitely the best memorial they could ever give to the people on Columbia.
Strap on a couple of extra SRB's and get rid of the damn external tank and it's foam. It's a bloated piece of equipment anyhow. And the SST main engines don't really do much for getting the SST into orbit anyhow.
Yes, this is a gross oversimplification, but I think it's a valid topic point without getting into the gross technical details of how to implement it.
Okay, so now you have to deal with the newly reported explosive bolt problem....but still...it seems like a better idea to me than riding atop a giant tank of liquid hydrogen and oxygen.
When so many people are at fault, nobody is at fault.
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.
Disagree all you want to, I'm just happy that the space program was not ended.
Fly on, NASA.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
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
This is the best news I've heard all week. It is good to know that NASA has a timeline for the next shuttle launch. And I thought I was being optimistic thinking they would launch this time next year. This is a good omen amongst all of the scandals, lawsuits, and wars we've been reading about lately.
I can't help cheering at this news.
OK, a really bad thing happened, but let's learn from it and move on to bigger and better things. I really feel that launching the shuttle again is, symbollically if nothing else, a positive sign that NASA won't abandon manned space missions, something that seemed to be on the cards after the Columbia disaster.
Space exploration (or just working in space) is dangerous - it always has been and (for the forseeable future at least) always will be. There will always be setbacks and it's an expensive 'business', but exploration and curiosity is one of the things that makes us human (see my sig).
"Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
The explosion of the shuttle Columbia in February was a similar test of American resolve, but the test was much more concentrated... on the space program, particularly the shuttle program. On the heels of that disaster and through the months that have followed, our message is clear: we are not going to let calamity or insanity destroy our dreams for the impossible. We are going to continue to explore our universe, both near and far, and no minor disaster (minor on the timeline of human history) is going to offset the progress of human knowledge.
Face it, is the the American way. In fact, it is the human way: Life will go on, and we will always be there to try to make it better.
Unless a method unlike our rockets is developed, a cheap vehicle for leaving the earth is impossible.
It is unrealistic until we gain alot more experience, to expect space travel to be safe. All that can be done is try to minimize risk. Those travelling should be fully informed as to the dangers. I doubt many astronauts expect it to be fully safe.
Space travel is too important to mankind not to pursue it, even at great expense and some loss of human life. Congrats to them on keeping the shuttle going. If the program died, it might not be replaced in such a shortsighted world.
The amazing thing to me is how FEW atronauts have died in such dangerous conditions.
We live in a doubly amazing age. An era when machines became intelligent entities, and when the naked apes learned to leave this little rock called earth. Evolution is AMAZING!!!
HenryJamesFeltus.com
Dec 18, LotR: RotK, or the shuttle.
:D
Guess which I'm more excited about.
... to see that this useless vehicle is put back into operation, wasting money that could be spent for good space science and efficient transportation.
A winged vehicle has nothing but disadvantages, except looking nice on TV when landing:
- Wings impose a huge weight penalty
- Re-entry with wings is unstable and requires active control
- Wings are vulnerable due to their large surface
The space shuttle is anything but re-usable. The boosters are not re-used, the tank is lost anyway and after landing, the shuttle is completely dis- and re-assembled.
State-of-the-art expendable launchers can haul people into space (and bring them safely back) at a fraction of the cost: use a ballistic capsule with escape rocket and a parawing for enhanced flexibility during landing.
The shuttle's only purpose is to fly to the ISS. The ISS's only purpose is to justify the existence of the shuttle. For the Hubble telescope alone, the shuttle would never have been built.
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.
Re-usable craft are (in theory) safer, potentially cost-saving (although they haven't been so far), have tended to be more spacious, and have a significant psychological effect, which should not be discounted.
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.
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.
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.
Mixed feelings on this, the shuttle has to go, but till we pull our heads out and get something better (and vastly more simple) we are stuck. I worked with Commander Rick Husband's brother, who is an Airline Captain. Rick made a few visits out to our hangar and did some great PR after his first shuttle flight. By all accounts, he was a fantastic guy and a great ambassador for human spaceflight. We all followed the progress of his flight, and I was stunned when I saw the footage of the accident. These are real people on these missions, with family and friends, and I pray that NASA and the beaucracy that puts up the shuttle never has another disaster.
People, myself included, have faulted NASA for past mismanagement of safety concerns. But my real concern is that they spend billions upon billions of dollars and employ thousands of the brightest engineers and scientists, and still make some of the stupidest mistakes which cost lives and money, but most importantly time.
They have monopolized space exploration in the US far too long and provided a poor model for the rest of the world to follow, which has stifled innovation. They should be handing out research and exploration grants like the NSF does and performing reviews of the results to determine future funding. Not running a single space program for a single space station. All our eggs in one basket, as it goes.
Arguments about the airworthiness of the space shuttle to me are pointless. It is a big machine with lots of parts and carries some risk of failure. It has been show to be able to fly successfully a high percentage of the time. Nothing they do to it will fundamentally change that situation. But by being the only game in town there can be no comparison of risk and no judgements made based on that comparison.
NASA asks us, either fly or do not fly. This is not a free choice, to those of us that wish to see humans fly it means that we must choose the space shuttle regardless of risk or incompetence or anything.
NASA will undoubtedly want more money to increase the safety of the space shuttle flights, but to what end? Any machine can be better maintained or operated, if we collectively choose a single means, and spend our collective resources and will on that means we could be on a fools errand. Like driving a car into the ocean. Sure we can keep tuning our procedures and plugging the leaks, but it ain't gonna get us to the other side. So that basic questions of design or operation are essentially meaningless when one only tries or has a single means. Like voting for the only candidate, the choice presented to us is meaningless. To go or not to go. To live or to die. Of course we must go, as we must live.
Or do we? Maybe, when such a stark choice is put before us we must refuse to make it. Refuse the question. Should the shuttle fly or not? Ignore the question, it is inconsequencial to that which many of us care about. Space exploration is the purpose and the question, not the shuttle.
Exploration of space is dangerous and will not survive safety concerns of collective action. Liken it to any human endeavor of significant unknown and danger and you will find it must be done by individuals. Individuals that have clarity of vision and certainty of purpose. It must be done by people, not by institutions or incorporations. People who know the risks, people that see the dangers, people that take the leap because they see the oppurtunity. People that learn and reason.
If we are to keep NASA at all, then it must only be to find those people and give them a little bit of money or help. Like Queen Isabella giving Christopher Columbus enough money to get the supplies and men he needed. Not too much money though, because we know that to succeed in Space one will have to travel lightly, and the tendency of people with too much money is to buy things. We know that to succeed in space one needs to be quick, but the tendency of people with too much money is to spend time spending money.
I expect the shuttle to fly again, because there are a lot of people who depend on it for their livelyhood. I expect that the shuttle will fly again because looking at the world a certain way, it makes sense to continue to do what we have been doing for the last two decades. I expect the shuttle to fly again because it is a link in a chain that could mean the end of the space station. Because it would mean the end to an entire generation's way of thinking.
So there it is, the heads of NASA would like us to choose between their shuttle and nothing. Between the aspirations of mankind and bondage to this rock. It is a false choice.
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 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.
Winter is a bad time to launch rockets. O-rings freeze and crack overnight. Foam freezes and causes significantly more damage than expected when little bits fall off.
Mid-December is too close to Winter for my tastes. Given the shuttle's notable weather sensitivity, I think launches from Florida should be made only between March and November. Build a Hawaii launchpad and perhaps year-round launches are reasonable, but Florida in mid-December?! These rocket scientist-turned-administrator folks haven't learned a damn thing!
My opinion on this: The persuit of space is worth the loss of life. There are people willing to risk their life for these goals. I wish we could get the kind of zeal for the space program that religon has, i.e. have people willing to climb aboard a rocket that MIGHT kill them, instead of strapping a bomb to their chest that WILL kill them.
If we do not achieve a colony on mars or the moon soon, we will get hit by a rock, and the only known setient life form in the universe will be destroyed. And we will be to blame. Me, you, everybody.
I believe if we could redirect the energy given to religon to the persuit of colonizing mars or the moon, we could have it DONE (or at least have ships on the way) within a decade, easy.
M@
Krispy Cream is people
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)