Shuttle May Fly Again In '04

Come back smarter? by BizidyDizidy · 2003-10-04 15:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Doesn't it seem at this point that "coming back smarter" is getting away from the shuttle system in general?

I'd be much happier to hear that we could expect spaceflight based on rocket technology in 2004. Whatever happened to that article?

--
The safest way to approach lava is to have another person with you and he goes first.

Space Shuttle by DaBjork · 2003-10-04 15:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm glad they are keeping this program....IMHO the space shuttle is what has kept us from mars...too expensive and very not reusable.

Re:Space Shuttle by VanillaCoke420 · 2003-10-04 19:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
And that is good in what way? In my opinion, they should keep the shuttle but complement it with another system. Here is my idea:
- The Shuttle, for use when they need to launch a crew and cargo at the same time, or when they somehow need the land-like-an-aeroplane ability.
- A Reusable Capsule, for about 5 people perhaps, when all they need is to ship people to and from orbit. This capsule should be modular in that they can attach, say, a modul underneath with heatshields and gasbags when they land on earth, and perhaps a module similar to the lower stage of the Apollo LEM, with legs and landing rocket if they want to launch people to the moon.
- Cheap launch rockets, when they need to launch cargo only and a crew is not necessary.
Re:Space Shuttle by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-04 20:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is needed on every flight to the ISS, since the station wants lots of big thingies all the time (until it is built; then it will require lots of food and water instead.)

One word: Progress

How do you think ISS survived without a problem half a year without a shuttle and will survive at least year to come? (and could survive...whole its life, just like Mir)
Of course you can say "but I meant assembly also". Well, there's nothing stopping us from using cargo rockets.
Re:Space Shuttle by tftp · 2003-10-04 21:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

But I doubt that it would be too expensive to develop such a launch system?
It would require redesign of a lot of systems. Soyuz, for example, is powered by kerosene + liquid oxygen, but Proton (designed by a different team) runs on dimethylhydrazine. The former is harmless; the latter is deadly. Guess which one would you choose for a manned flight? Then we would go into redundant, voting systems, crew ejection tower, and many other things that do not even exist on cargo rockets.
Some people would even say that you need to design the whole rocket from scratch. Imagine, for example, that you need to upgrade your Ford Taurus to win Indy or F-1 race. Where would you start? And consider that failure of any single part can doom the mission; so you need to go through *all* parts and improve them or make sure the failure will be contained.
It's not like NASA haven't done it before. The trick is that the old rocket scientists of Von Braun vintage all retired long ago, some are dead already. Nobody at NASA (or at Boeing, etc.) has a clue about where to begin. Design from scratch, and then testing, and then inevitable failures will take many years (say ten) to reach good reliability numbers.
If you compare this situation to Chinese, Russian and European efforts - which are up to date, and quite finely debugged by now, and for which trained technicians and engineers exist, then you will see that NASA painted itself into a corner. It has only Shuttle, and nothing but Shuttle. Today it can't operate anything else, and it can't develop anything else either (proof of that is in many canceled X-projects which were meant as a replacement or a companion for the Shuttle.)
The Ariane 5, for example, was initially developed with the french shuttle Hermes in mind.
Show me this Hermes thing in orbit, and then I will take it seriously :-)

I'm all for exploration too, but... by sonnik · 2003-10-04 15:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

...after seeing an article like this, it does seem that NASA is more reactive than proactive in fixes of this nature.

Granted, we're only going to hear about stuff like this after something happens...

However, I'm really wondering why we still spend a crapload of money more or less flying around in circles above the Earth.

How much more can we really learn from the shuttle? Put the money in some other form of space research...

Re:I'm all for exploration too, but... by SoIosoft · 2003-10-04 15:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

For the work that goes on in the shuttle, it's probably the least expensive way to fly circles around the Earth. A lot of experiments are conducted in zero-gravity and a lot of worthwhile inventions and discoveries have come out of research conducted for and by the space program.

I think that NASA should have probably made sure to be better prepared for repairs to be conducted on the space shuttle. On the other hand, sometimes it takes a catastrophe like this to bring it to the attention of the rest of the government and the public. And that's about the only way to secure the funding that's needed to make improvements and reforms to the space program.

It's too bad that it takes the lives of seven astronauts to get government officials and Congress to wake up and figure out that they can't keep cutting funding to the space program and still expect it to still be successful.

--
Help me. I've been modbombed by a few people with entirely too much time on their hands.

Article Text by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-04 15:44 · Score: 2, Informative

JOHNSON SPACE CENTER, Texas (CNN) -- NASA set a September 2004 target date for the next space shuttle launch, CNN has learned.

The space agency decided in recent weeks that it needed more time to develop systems for detecting and repairing damage to shuttles in orbit, forcing the agency to retreat from plans to launch in March or April.

The space shuttle fleet has been grounded since the Columbia disaster in February in which all seven crew members died. Insulation debris from the external fuel tank has been blamed with damaging the leading edge of the left wing soon after launch, which doomed the Columbia as it returned from space.

Modifications to the external tank design, development of a boom to inspect the shuttle's exterior during orbit and kits for repairing tile and wing damage are under way.

The latest launch window is September 12 to October 10, NASA said Friday.

If NASA sticks with its current rotation, the Atlantis would be next in line for space flight.

Keeping things in perspective... by reiggin · 2003-10-04 15:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is a big difference between "smarter... safer" and "smart.... safe."

Go Space Program! by GreyWolf3000 · 2003-10-04 15:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Maybe this is that eight-year old Trekkie in me, but I really believe we need another space race. Our overall progress in space during the first thirty years of the Cold War greatly overshadows anything since that time, and I wholly reject this apprehension towards more people going into space after tragic accidents. My condolences, of course, to the friends of family of those who've died in a space suit.

Let's see if we can dump some of that massive defense budget and sink that cash into a more active space program. Let's see if we can get to the moon. We already know we can blow up the world pretty good. We don't need to prove that we can, and if the situation actually arose where we needed to unleash our arsenal, then the world would be screwed anyways.

I bet I sound like a naive, idealistic fool...sue me.

--
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.

Re:Go Space Program! by fingers1122 · 2003-10-04 18:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your post is reminiscent of Adam Smith's free-market philosophy: Without competition, there is little progress. I agree. The only thing that will really stimulate our development of better space technology is competition from another government. It's sad, but true. Right now, there is no real incentive for our government to invest lots of money into improving a system that--at its most basic level--already works well. In short, we will not see big improvements in space technology from NASA until we see big improvements in space technology from other countries.
Re:Go Space Program! by grozzie2 · 2003-10-04 20:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

Maybe this is that eight-year old Trekkie in me, but I really believe we need another space race.
There's 2 factors that come into play, economics, and political will. Political will is generated by 'the masses', and the economics are generated by political will. The 60's were a wonderful time to grow up as a young boy interested in science and exploration. As a pre-teen i watched the first landing on the moon live, on a black and white tv. Even then, I knew, I was watching one of those historical moments that happens but once in a century.
The environment of the space race in the 60's was brought on by a political will to make it happen. The entire country was focussed on the space program as a point of national pride. It wasn't there to be efficient, it wasn't there to be 'cost justified', it was there so folks could watch with pride, wave the flag, and say 'we are the best'. It worked, and worked well, the focus of the entire country was on research, development, and 'do the impossible'. Nasa was the fledgling young organization tasked with 'do the impossible', and they did it with tremendous pride.
The political will does not exist today. The politics of today are focussed on military expenditures, and doing whatever it takes to contue justifying the existence of the military industrial complex. During the cold war, this wasn't to difficult, the percieved threat was real enough that everybody 'bought in', and life went on happily. Nasa got shovelled aside to play with shuttles, while the real expenditures went into the military.
Today, the achievements of Nasa are viewed by most as 'just a money pit' for tax dollars. National pride is focussed on the military invasions overseas. It will take time, but that tide will shift once again. Folks are already tired of hearing about body counts, and little things like 'we need another 87 billion dollars to keep this up'. it would have been easy to keep the momentum in this area, but, the politicians are finding, they have been called up on statements, and, cant back them with enough facts to convince folks anymore. The population is rapidly losing the political will to continue feeding the military industrial complex now that the price is measured in bodies as well as dollars.
Achievements in space have always been a big point of national pride in the USA, but it's something that is kind of taken for granted today, most americans believe that the USA is still the leader in space development and exploration, and this is something that goes without question, is taken for granted. But, one has to look at a few facts, to check this out carefully, the assumption is no longer valid.
As it sits today, the american space program consists of sending american astronauts to an international space station, riding up and down on soviet hardware. That's not much of a 'leadership' role. Now, look around, the Europeans are flight testing the next generation in space propulsion that is required to do longer range missions. The Chinese are launching rockets on a regular basis, and will have a manned mission in orbit before the year is out. They have a stated goal to reach the moon with a manned mission, while the european flight test hardware is already on it's way to the moon, to validate the new concepts in propulsion.
The ducks are starting to line up for a major shift in the cards of political will. Joe average on the street doesn't even realize that the Chinese are going to be launching people into space imminently. When it happens, it's going to be a wake up call to todays generation, similar to what sputnik was to mine. I dont believe Joe Average is willing to conceed the leadership as a space exploration nation, it's far to big a point of national pride.
It isn't going to happen for 2004, but, the ducks are lining up to create a groundswell of support for a 2008 campaign, one that is prepared to de-emphasize military conquest, and re-emphasize scientific achievement.
Then again, I could
Re:Go Space Program! by sql*kitten · 2003-10-04 21:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

The politics of today are focussed on military expenditures, and doing whatever it takes to contue justifying the existence of the military industrial complex.

You are forgetting where all the dollars spent on the space race actually went: into the so-called "military industrial complex". Saying that politics today is all about that is missing the point; the politics of the 1960s were all about that too!

The finish line is a permanent installation on the moon, and a year or two from now, we'll find out if there's more than one competitor in this race.

No, the finish line of this particular race is a permanent settlement on Mars. There's simply too little by way of resources to build a self-sustaining colony on the Moon, sure you've got a lot of silicon and oxygen, but it's all in a very hard to get at form, and there's no readily accessible carbon, hydrogen, etc etc. Dr Robert Zubrin has written extensively on the feasibility of colonizing Mars using present-day technology - there's surprisingly little that we'd need to do that we can't already do, if the will was there. His main idea is to do it in small stages - there is a proven process for generating rocket fuel from the Martian atmosphere, so the first thing to do is to send an automated fuel extraction plant, and set it running. Once it's up and running, the manned mission won't have to carry fuel for the return trip. Supplies such as food can also be sent in an unmanned module, and cached on the surface waiting for the astronauts to arrive.

According to Zubrin, however, NASA has too much ego tied up in using one vast spaceship to go there and come back, assembled in orbit. They'll never adopt an incremental strategy because too many managers have staked their careers on orbiting shipyards and the like. If NASA is left in charge, the US has already lost the space race.

Free Link by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-04 15:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Google Link

NYT Reg free link by FannyMinstrel · 2003-10-04 15:46 · Score: 2

Here

Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report by thedillybar · 2003-10-04 15:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think it's great that NASA can recover so quickly from such a tragic incident. I think it's very important that they launch another shuttle to show the public they're still hanging around.

However, I think the CAIB Report released in August raises some very interesting points that need to be addressed (if they haven't already been). It mostly discusses long-term issues that will only be solved over the long term.

The last thing NASA wants to do is jump into anything to quickly. Let's face it: one more accident resulting in injury/death will destroy NASA's reputions for many, many years to come. Maybe they should elect to take some years off now, watching out for their own future? Let's just hope they've got 100 people thinking about this...and everyone else actually listening to them this time...

Re:Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report by Ty · 2003-10-04 16:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Your horrid use of bold makes me NOT want to read your comment despite any insight you might actually have.

extremely limited launch windows by shams42 · 2003-10-04 15:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

A more detailed version of the article can be found at the NY Times site. According to this article, the restrictions imposed by the new safety regulations constrain the shuttle to daylight launches, where adequate ascent video can be obtained. This unfortunately results in am extremely limited number of launch windows to reach the ISS. (It seems that there are only 4 between September 2004 and March 2005, and two of these are very narrow.)

Now I certainly want the thing to be as safe as possible, but is anyone else think that the level of acceptable risk has gotten too small? We should make the shuttle as safe as possible, but we shouldn't do this by compromising the shuttle's ability to fulfill its mission. Remember, we now have a space station up there that is going to need lots of maintenance, supplies, and fresh crews if it is going to be able to carry out any of the science work that are ostensibly the reason for its existence. Albatross or windfall, we put the thing up there, now we have to take care of it -- otherwise we've wasted a lot of money and political capital.

I wish I could believe it that easily by coolmacdude · 2003-10-04 15:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'll also guarantee you that we're getting an awful lot smarter about this and we're going to come back stronger and safer as a result.

The same kind of stuff was said after Challenger. Then over the years everyone got complacent again and reverted to the old attitude. Maybe they've learned that lesson now and won't make the same mistake three times. It remains to be seen though.

--

-You may license this sig for only $6.99.

Re:I wish I could believe it that easily by zulux · 2003-10-04 19:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Maybe they've learned that lesson now and won't make the same mistake three times.

If they make the mistake two more times, then there won't be *any* more problem to worry about.

--
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

safer? by mOoZik · 2003-10-04 15:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

C'mon now. The shuttles can't be safer because it takes a disaster for a potential problem to come to light. Challanger blew up. Columbia blew up. What's to keep from Atlantis or Enterprise from blowing up? I think they are fundamentally flawed and just making changes to them as disasters happen is a poor way of going about it. NASA needs to re-evaluate the way it conducts research and development and start from scratch.

--
A blog like any other.

Other Changes Needed by Omega037 · 2003-10-04 15:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think there needs to be a lot more changes at NASA than just shuttle design before they try to go back to space. Repeated failures seems to be the norm for this agency, and the Columbia disaster, while tragic, should not have been that surprising. I feel the problem isn't jsut the technology, but the organization behind the program.

My best friend's father is actually an engineer at NASA and I would sometimes talk with him about some of the problems there. He said NASA has become too bureaucratic and that the management barely communicates with the engineers or with other managers. He also said that NASA was lacking an atmosphere where innovation would be welcomed and that there was no big goals for them to strive for.

I personally think that NASA either needs to completely recreate itself or it should be replaced with a new organization altogether.

Re:Other Changes Needed by sgage · 2003-10-05 00:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Regarding private industry and space:

First of all, private industry has been building the space program hardware all along. And they profit from it. Their customer is NASA.

Developing man-rated space hardware is hideously expensive, which is why governments foot the bill. Just like governments foot the bill for building bridges and roads and such. A space program is not like making cars or some other consumer item. It's more like public works.

Space travel is difficult, and the profit from going there is hard to see. If there is any, it will be long-term and after a huge investment. That's why you don't see private corporations avidly going after space programs on their own. As far as I know, nothing is stopping them, other than the fact that there's no good business reason to go there.

Other than commercial satellite launches, wherein private corporation make profits from employing technology derived from years of research and development funded largely by public money.

The idea that all we need to do is "get some profit motive in there" sort of ignores the fact that there is no profit to put there! At least not the kind of profit that shows up within the planning horizons of most any corporation on Earth. How do you propose to get some profit motive in there?

I'm not defending NASA - there are real flaws in the culture there. But invoking the idea that "private enterprise" as some sort of magic incantation that is going to solve every problem is a bit over the top.

That should be *somewhat* stronger and safer by Y-Crate · 2003-10-04 15:52 · Score: 3, Informative

How many problems with the shuttle can we really hope to fix?

When the shuttle launches again, the current problems will still remain:

- There is still no viable crew escape system. During launch you theoretically have a chance to abort as long as the emergency doesn't involve the SRBs. In reality though, there is not much you can do. A mid-launch abort is more of a fantasy concocted to make astronauts and the public feel better. Once you're in space, hope that you can either get to the ISS (assuming all your navigational and propulsion systems are working properly), or that there is another shuttle almost ready to go...and you manage to survive the shuttle-to-shuttle transfer.

- Repairing the shuttle is still pretty iffy. NASA developed a substance that can be injected into small breaches in many parts of the shuttle to ensure the craft survives re-entry. Note I said *some* parts. The repair does not work on leading edge of the wing and you couldn't really hope to fix it in orbit even if you happened to have just the right spare part with you. (which is unlikely in of itself)

Repairing the shuttle can actually inflict more harm on the craft. There is a good chance anyone going over the side to look at the heat tiles will actually damage more in the course of the repair.

- The launch systems....mainly the SRBs are still horribly broken technologies that are absolutely not fault-tolerant whatsoever. Hundreds of things usually go wrong with the shuttle during the course of a mission. Little things here and there. If something goes wrong with the SRBs, you will probably die.

Re:That should be *somewhat* stronger and safer by tftp · 2003-10-04 17:06 · Score: 2, Informative

There is a good chance anyone going over the side to look at the heat tiles will actually damage more in the course of the repair.
That would be the case if an untrained spaceperson does that (like those on Columbia). However it is trivial now to establish means for safe inspection, and all astronauts can be trained to use them.
I don't work for NASA, but even I can think of soft rubber shoes and gloves that would allow you to touch the surface w/o damaging it. The spaceman would be weightless, so no static pressure would be applied; he only needs to keep his moment in check, which is easy as long as he is not in a hurry (and does not weigh a ton :-)
Re:That should be *somewhat* stronger and safer by Timesprout · 2003-10-04 19:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

However it is trivial now to establish means for safe inspection

I know this is /. home of the bland statement but come on. This is space we are talking about, not your garage. Nothing is trivial. If it was we would all have our own orbiters and I would be abducting Venusian women. Inspection is not easy and repairing any damage is considerably more than your average stroll in the park. Procedures must be designed and verified. Tooling must be designed and built to carry out repairs. The Austronauts must be trained. Then if things go pear shaped and a repair is required they must do all this in what is a very unforgiving environment. I dont see where trivial comes into this at all.

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Re:That should be *somewhat* stronger and safer by applemasker · 2003-10-05 01:00 · Score: 2, Informative

One of the return to flight requirements is that NASA develop an "extension" to attach to the end of the RMS (robot arm) that can be used to inspect otherwise not viewable / inaccessable areas of the orbiter.
Spaceflight now (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/0310 03target/) indicates that there are multiple technical goals for the first return to flight mission: "Mission STS-114, currently assigned to the shuttle Atlantis, will include a robot arm extension and sensors to look for damage to the ship's heat-shield tiles and leading edge panels; a spacewalk to test tile and leading edge repair techniques; another spacewalk to install a new gyroscope on the space station; and supply and equipment transfers to and from the lab complex"
As for the repair techniques and possibility that additional damage could occur... I would think that the RMS would be used as the work platform, as it has for other satellite-service missions. Depending on the kind of repair (I'm envisioning some caulk or spackle-like substance), it should be fairly easy to apply without too much danger of additional damage. The problem with this inspection or repair with Columbia was that there was no robot arm onboard for this mission. CAIB report, however, demonstrated that a scaffold/ladder of some kind could have been devised to allow inspection and access to the left wing leading edge.

--
Bush Lies On the Record.

Ok, it shouldn't be a huge deal. by YahoKa · 2003-10-04 15:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Really, it shouldn't be a huge deal. We're launching ourselves into space and we expect it go problem free? Ok, no matter how great you are you'll make mistakes, people will die & money is lost. It happens, but it's not a good reason to stop doing it (although there may bemany other good reasons.) There are probably more people who die of starvation each minute than have ever died related to accidents in spacecraft (and the people in the spacecraft knowingly take a risk.) We probably spend as much on porn as we do in space research. So what's the big deal?

...Yeah... by RyanFenton · 2003-10-04 15:59 · Score: 2

...And penguins will fly!

[Looks at a model of the space shuttle, thinks of what animal the shuttle most closely resembles.]

Um... never mind.

Ryan Fenton

Good ol' Nasa by Streiff · 2003-10-04 16:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

I can't wait to see what happens to Nasa if China starts a new space race.

Re:Good ol' Nasa by tftp · 2003-10-04 17:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Probably nothing will happen. NASA, that young sprinter of 70's, now looks like old Sumo wrestler, and is as agile as a snail. If China challenges NASA, it will take years for the bureaucracy to even comprehend the challenge!
As matter of fact, China already announced its intentions - to fly to the Moon and beyond. What transpired at NASA? You guessed it. Nothing. As if China does not exist.
On the other hand, NASA does not have resources to do anything even if the challenge is valid and immediate. Imagine that China establishes its Moon base in June 2004. What NASA can possibly do? It is even cut off of space at the moment, and its best chance to launch anyone would be ... in a Chinese capsule :-)

Shuttles are unnecessarily complex by melted · 2003-10-04 19:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

And that's their main problem. In order for something to work reliably this something MUST be simple.

USSR had a superior shuttle program, "Buran" which got cancelled because of three simple reasons:
1. It was way more expensive than rocket-based space launches (which kinda defeated the purpose of having a reusable spacecraft).
2. It was less reliable than rocket-based stuff.
3. Russians had proven they can build a better shuttle than Americans (Russian shuttle flew its first flight unmanned and landed all by itself) which back then was a big thing.

Here's more info on Buran: http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya5.htm

Re:Shuttles are unnecessarily complex by RedWizzard · 2003-10-04 20:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

Buran was technically superior, mostly since the Russians got to see the US' attempt with the Space Shuttle before they designed their own.
USSR had a superior shuttle program, "Buran" which got cancelled because of three simple reasons
Your reasons are wrong. Buran was launched via a rocket-based system (Energia). It is essentially just one type of payload for the Energia system. It did not have significant expensive/reliability disadvantages compared to other rocket-based systems. Buran was cancelled because there was no clear, compelling role for the vehicle, and with the breakup of the USSR there was no money available to continue the project without a very strong reason.
Re:Shuttles are unnecessarily complex by tftp · 2003-10-04 21:40 · Score: 2, Informative

18 SU-30MKM were sold to Malaysia yesterday for $50M each. But the customer requested a lot of optional equipment.

Stanislaw Lem said... by SharpFang · 2003-10-04 19:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

"If a chance of failure of one element in the device is one to billion, in a device with a billion components something HAS TO fail."

KISS, the more complex it is, the more it will cost. Reentry and horizontal landing cost fortune in development cost, fuel, payload capacity and quite a few other domains. Carrying all the life support space and devices on flights that could be perfectly performed by unmanned devices is plain stupid.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

Shuttle has no future by steveha · 2003-10-04 19:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

Individuals inside NASA may be genuinely smart and caring, but NASA as an organization is a horrible morass of red tape. Nothing important will change. They will slap a bandage over the Shuttle's current problems and that will be that.

The Shuttle is only about 99% reliable. In other words, if you fly it 100 times it is pretty much certain to have a fatal failure. We have two Shuttle orbiters left; that's about 200 flights we have left. Maybe less.

My suggestions:

Make sure anyone who flies on the Shuttle is a volunteer. You will get volunteers who want to be in space so badly they are willing to risk a 1% chance of death, so that's okay.

Immediately start finding ways to ship people and supplies to the Space Station without using the Shuttle. Never again use the Shuttle for any mission that could be done by, say, a Russian rocket.

Immediately offer a large, tax-free, cash prize for the first company to put 1000 kilograms in the same orbit as the Space Station, and then do it again within three weeks. Offer another, almost as large prize for the second company to do this. Also offer contracts for delivery of supplies and people to the Space Station.
Something everyone needs to realize: there is no amount of money that anyone could spend that will buy another Shuttle orbiter. They are done. There are two left in the world, and that's all. When those two explode or whatever, there will be none left.

Something else everyone needs to realize: NASA is incapable, as an organization, of building any reasonable system for going to space. If we let NASA build a "Shuttle II", they will first spend billions of dollars, hire many people, and conduct many studies and write many documents. Perhaps even, someday, some hardware might fly. That hardware will be a haywire monstrosity almost as bad as the current Shuttle. Conclusion: don't give any additional money to NASA, and don't ask NASA to design any new spacecraft.

steveha

--
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely

Good to see by ScurvyDawg · 2003-10-04 20:31 · Score: 2

Good to see them get going again.

I look forward to seeing what they come up with for a replacement. The suttle design has worked out fairly well as a low earth orbit vehicle. If they can work out the catastrophic bugs, the next generation should be impressive.

I think we need to get back to the moon and create vehicles that are appropriate for moon travel. The where further inovation will gestate.

Re:Good to see by sxpert · 2003-10-05 09:08 · Score: 2

If they can work out the catastrophic bugs

That's the easy part: fire those inept managers that refuse the photo opportunity (Lynda Ham (sp?) in particular seems to be the culprit here, according to the CAIB report)

I hope this is US grammar ... by BillsPetMonkey · 2003-10-04 21:02 · Score: 3, Funny

a shuttle (possibly Atlantis) could fly again next fall.

"Fall" is a comment on the reliability of the shuttle program, or the US for Autumn?

--
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax

Energia was the most expensive booster ever built by melted · 2003-10-04 21:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Energia was the most expensive booster ever built by Russians (if the same thing was built by NASA it would be the most expensive booster ever built). Boosters required to propel equivalent payloads via more traditional technologies were almost an order of magnitude cheaper and did not require an insane number of subcontractors to build parts (Energia/Buran as far as I know required more than a thousand subcontractors).

At one launch per year (which was a tentative plan) it did not make financial sense to keep Buran around and that's in essence why it was canned and rocket-based stuff was not.

Re:perseverence by Kulic · 2003-10-04 21:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is a reason for the shuttle using *outdated* technology. It is because of the need for rigorous testing of the systems intended for use in manned vehicles.

The shuttles use 486DX66 processors in their flight control systems. Actually, they use 4 processors which each perform the same calculations and then submit the results to a fifth processor. This processor then takes the (hopefully identical) results and control the shuttle in whatever it is doing. The reason for this is that any potential damage caused by radiation in space can cause anomalous results to be produced. If only three of the processors agree, then the extra result is discarded.

The other issue I mentioned earlier is testing. The 486 processor has been around for so long that its behaviour is extremely well known and it has had no flaws found in it (would you want to man rate a new processor every 6 months, with a real time OS which needs to react in sub-millisecond time frames, and verify that all of your code executes exactly the same)? Since essentially the same operations are performed today in getting the shuttle to orbit as were performed 20 years ago, the processing speed is still more than adequate.

Not everything in the shuttles is outdated though. Discovery (and maybe the other shuttles) had their cockpits upgraded in the early 90s to allow the pilots to interpret more information at once, and in a more intuitive fashion.

Of course, any new space vehicle development (eg OSP) will likely incorporate new computer hardware and software components.

A sick joke... by nicodemus05 · 2003-10-04 21:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

On July 28 a CNN.com Article posed the question, "Should we send a manned mission to Mars?",and gets the answer,

"We can go there after all the things wrong on Earth are fixed," said Betty Collatrella, a retiree from Caldwell, New Jersey. "I'm totally against any of it. It's a total waste of money we need for our kids, for illnesses, could put somebody's kids through college, could cure so many diseases."

And why don't we cure injustice and human suffering first as well? Bleh. We have heard those arguments for decades, but they scare the ever living hell out of me... What's the good of sending kids to college if we stagnate here doing nothing? What good is one more .com founding MBA if the taxes they pay aren't going towards something other than money for more kids to go to college and start more .coms?

Enthusiasm for the program of space exploration was greater among younger adults, those with more education and those with higher incomes. Whites were more likely than blacks and men were more likely than women to think the shuttle should continue to fly.

Let's all just stay home and knit sweaters. Liberal women and their damn social welfare concerns.

More than half, 56 percent, said they believe civilians should be allowed to participate in shuttle missions, while 38 percent said they should not.

This makes no sense to me... Should we send soldiers off into space against their will, or should we ask for volunteers? I think astronauts understand the risks involved pretty well. This article concerns me because the polls show ignorance and lack of ambition. There are also priceless lines like this:

"I think it's all bogus," said Claudette Davidson of Jonesboro, Georgia, who does accounting work for physicians. "I just do not believe they've gone to the moon. I saw Capricorn One," she said, referring to a 1978 movie that featured O.J. Simpson and included a faked trip to Mars. "That did it for me."

My head was about to explode after reading that.

Well, Claudette, do you believe in alien abductions? Maybe the extensive education necessary to perform your job doing 'accounting work for physicians' gives you a unique insight into the veracity of the government's claims regarding the space program. I've got to say, though, that I've seen Catch Me if You Can, and I feel fairly certain that your employer is not only a con artist, but that he is in fact Leonardo DiCaprio.

It's too bad that people like Claudette get to vote.

So the government isn't going to get us to Mars as long as people like Claudette and Betty have any choice in the matter. What we need is a private venture to take us there(see the X Prize) or a good scare provided by the Chinese (see the 100 Day Countdown until China puts a man in space, which may or may not be on hold or on target, I haven't checked) to jumpstart the government program. China is already talking of a moon base. Would that be enough to wake the government up?

Probably not. Claudette wouldn't believe that they had actually gotten there.

--
while (!sleep){

sheep++;

}

Re:A sick joke... by bill_mcgonigle · 2003-10-06 01:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

"We can go there after all the things wrong on Earth are fixed," said Betty Collatrella, a retiree from Caldwell, New Jersey.

Betty hasn't heard about our sun. And yes, that means I believe we'll never solve every problem everybody has on Earth to the satisfaction of everybody. Until that condition is fulfilled, Betty's argument stands.

I think J. Michael Straczynski said it best:
Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Meanwhile, Concorde goes out of service by panurge · 2003-10-04 22:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

I guess the European equivalent of the Shuttle program was the Anglo-French Concord(e) aircraft. Loads of national pride involved, and basically no-one liking to admit that it was fast but cramped, low payload, expensive to maintain and never covered development costs (the weasel expression "operating profit" was a giveaway.)

Just as with the Shuttle, a fatal (and much more lethal -113 people were killed) crash occurred as the result of a known weakness - easy projectile rupturing of fuel tanks.

Despite attempts to bring it back, the thing is finally going out of service. It's old technology, and it is always expensive to maintain small volume old technologies. Of course, there is no replacement supersonic passenger air travel. But it hardly matters. Long haul flight is now cheaper and more fuel efficient than ever before for "normal" passengers, and the thing that did not exist when Concorde was first built - efficient video conferencing and around the world networking - is now commonplace for urgent communications.

I think the analogy is worth pushing. Why is the Shuttle needed? The Russians have shown that bread and butter manned flight can be done relatively cheaply and more reliably with non-reusable rockets. The things that didn't exist when the Shuttle was first launched - really sophisticated, small robotics systems - are now commonplace.Eyes, ears and other sensors can be put on other solar system bodies using increasingly sophisticated remote robots. The development of miniaturised electronics and ion drives gives the enabling technologies for really interesting long range missions that would not be possible in manned versions for many years to come. So why keep the Shuttle flying at vast expense rather than do something new? Inertia?

--
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.

"trivial" is not in our vocabulary by khallow · 2003-10-05 01:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Anyways, it is most definitely understood that anything involving space is a little bit more difficult than eating a pretzel. In this context (which is presumed to be blatantly obvious to /. readers) it _is_ trivial to equip an astronaut with soft gloves, compared to the much less trivial matter of launching him to the orbit in first place.

Several points here. First, soft gloves aren't sufficient for handling tiles in bulky spacesuits, these things are too delicate for that. Ie, astronauts shouldn't be touching tiles under any conditions. That brings me to the second point. Never ever use the word "trivial" when discussing a space walk.

It sure is a lot harder to launch a shuttle for the ground controllers and the people repairing the shuttles and building the disposable parts. But the astronauts are just along for the ride.

In a space walk, on the other hand, they risk not only their lives, but the integrity of the equipment that took so much effort to get into space. In other words, a space walk merely to look for damage on the bottom might cause more damage through accidents than it finds.

Then there's the matter of training astronauts to repair the space shuttle. A lot of this sort of work can be done on the ground. But because the tiles are so delicate, the first real test of the repair material, kit, and process will be when something gets punctured.

Stop Repeating this Urban Myth! by DrMorpheus · 2003-10-05 08:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

NASA spent a million dollars developing a pen that works in zero/micro gravity. The Russians just used a pencil......

ARRRGGGHHH! No they didn't! Both NASA and the Russians used pencils until Fischer (the pen manufacturer) approach NASA with a pen of their design which would work. NASA didn't pay them a dime, they did it out of their own pockets!

--
Debunking the "59 Deceits"

Re:But in reality the reitrees are right by sxpert · 2003-10-05 09:15 · Score: 2

Shows your total ignorance. Most of the research done on the ISS is of what you describe in the second paragraph.
For example, microgravity is useful in growing crystals for computing (allows extremely large samples of perfectly aligned atoms), and protein research (allows for protein folding that can't be done on earth because of gravity))
Research before you post !

47 of 186 comments (clear)