Slashdot Mirror
Shuttle Fleet Upgraded
angel'o'sphere writes "Space.com reports that the shuttle fleet will be upgraded with more technology, like new sensors to detect debris hits on the wings, etc. Also, the foam causing the Columbia accident (intended to insulate the tank and prevent the formation of ice) will be replaced by: heaters. I wonder if heating up a tank with liquid oxygen is a bright idea."
Shuttles also now equipped with new space-aged stress relief.
You definitely can heat up a tank with liquid oxygen when there's a risk of ice... if it's that cold, there's no risk of the tank becoming too hot. The cool thing is, heaters can be turned off when you don't want them on. :)
I wonder if heating up a tank with liquid oxygen is a bright idea.
Yes, it is. Very bright.
hot liquid O is just a hot catylist. why not?
You fail it.
They could upgrade the fleet with some people smart enough to use some cameras to look at a shuttle wing before reentry after a HUGE ASS PIECE OF DEBRIS very obviously slams into one of their shuttles. Just a thought.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
The foam insulation is supposed to keep the tanks from getting too cold (with all that liquid oxygen and hyrdogen). If they are able to use heaters that don't stay with the tanks on launch, it will reduce the weight. Even if the heaters are included in the launch weight, they might weigh less than the foam.
Reusable shuttles? What's the point?
I have been pwned because my
I SAW. GOOD WORK.
They blow it again and its over. Frankly I am not worried about them actually performing the technology based changes, those are easy. I do not see them making the administrative changes. Oh I see new glossy surface polishing, but underneath what will really change.
The is Government, they weren't accountable when Challenger blew up, and I doubt anyone was held truly accountable for Columbia.
Ditch the damn shuttle. All it does is hamper any possibility of real space usage. It is nothing more than a modern day spruce goose. It has so many things that can go wrong something will. I don't know if the nation has the stomach to lose another 7, and I don't want to find out.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I'm sure they'll get it right. Considering the number of flights, the two big accidents (Challenger and Columbia) were tragic to be sure. Statistically they're doing alright. The math shouldn't be too tough. It does sound funny, but every time they fix something, that's one more thing that hopefully won't go wrong in the future. I for one have high hopes for the future of our space program.
Damon,
http://actionPlant.com
While it is probably a step in the right direction, I find it saddening that we must have disasters to begin upgrading certain aspects of the shuttles. In my opinion, every aspect of the fleet should always be tested, simulated, improved, and tested some more every single month. Who's to say that another shuttle won't go down in a decade or so due to a problem that was never considered?
A blog like any other.
This is just avoiding what many people see as the obvious conclusion: the space shuttle in its current incarnation needs to be replaced. It was designed before I was born.
Unfortunately it looks like NASA is moving in the wrong direction, cutting the funding from their shuttle replacement project. Of course, I'm all for making the existing shuttles safer, and what they're doing now is a good idea.
WARNING: If accidentally read, induce vomiting.
Would you hit it?
Yes or no?
This news is at least 3 weeks old.
- - - If the sun is a star, why can't I see it at night?
"I wonder if heating up a tank with liquid oxygen is a bright idea"
What a dumb-ass. It's about as bright as funneling the liquid oxygen down through a small cone and igniting it alongside two 100-ton+ solid fuel bombs. It's all risky.
it depends on the hooters. Really large hooters tend to weight more therefore causing more overall weight.
if i follow his directions, will my kitchen blow up, or is the beauty of the troll that its completly fucking random?
You can thank the NIMBY's and the treehuggers for the Columbia accident....If the fission-hydrogen rockets had been allowed it would not have been an issue (more thrust, therefore more weight, and a REAL reuseable rocket and we might actually be on Mars by now.....
http://www.lascruces.com/~mrpbar/rocket.html
blah
1. When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
2. Do not eat iPod shuffle.
"Those changes will be included as the direct result of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's final report, released in August, which detailed 15 recommendations NASA must do before resuming shuttle flights"
I, for one, am appalled that it took a spectacular explosion, mass media coverage and the unfortunate deaths of shuttle crew to be able to reach this point. Is this really what is required to be able for technology to advance? I once heard in a movie once, that the shuttle was the result of "the cheapest bidder". These are scientists that forsaw this coming a long time ago, and just to save their jobs and pride they kept quiet about the failures in the previous shuttle. Lets hope these boys grow some backbone in the newest version, and not try to cover it up with bells and whistles just to satisify the publics anxiety.
It seems that you have misplaced your cliches. Fark's down the hall a bit, third door on the left.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Thats one thing that always bothered me. It's almost as if they KNEW that something was fucked up with the shuttle but took a look at their budget and decided to chance a re-entry anyway. Like, "Well, we know we can loose a whole bunch o' them there tiles and it's still fine. What's a little missing from the wing goona hurt. We can't afford to fix the thing in space with our budget".
Ditch the damn shuttle. All it does is hamper any possibility of real space usage. It is nothing more than a modern day spruce goose. It has so many things that can go wrong something will. I don't know if the nation has the stomach to lose another 7, and I don't want to find out.
And you didn't think more things could go wrong? The Apollo missions were a suicide run, if you compare the technology. And even in the future, it's likely that people will die in space. They're pioneers. Look at the recent Mars flop, where they can't get contact with the probe. Anything similar with a crew onboard would be fatal.
The US has a serious problem with lives lost. Not that it is not a bad thing and should be avoided, but sometimes there are risks involved. Like e.g. stationing troops in Iraq, and sending men into space. You must be able to accept some losses in the name of peace, progress and prosperity. Fair? Nope. But it never was, was it?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
u = teh ghey
I wonder if you're just a schmuck submitting stories to Slashdot and NOT a NASA Rocket Scientist.
Just a thought. Arrogant, self-important nerd.
That's not a technical but an organizational Problem
You don't need more technology to read an email from a technician or engineer who warns because of missing or destroyed isolation foam.
The NASA has to change the way on how to react on such warnings.
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
u r teh fail
i am TEH EWIN
Practicing my posting must be working: I'm finally inspiring incoherent insanity when I post, the hallmark of success.
--
make install -not war
Or maybe a "Baby on Board" sign in a window might get the debris to drive a little more carefully.
Who'd thought just a small piece of ice could bring down an entire multi-billion dollar space shuttle. Makes the film "Armageddon", where the space ship is being bombarded with huge comet chunks all the more implausible. But then again, that movie stank really bad, and I think movies like that undermine the dangers of REAL space travel. I think a three prong approach to the issue of ice buildup could come from using heaters, fluffier and lighter insulation, plus a re-inforcement of the leading edge of the wing. Extra sensors or a Canadarm video camera would help to spot trouble before they plummet to earth in a fireball.
The Space Transportation System (STS), which is essentially the shuttle main engines + the big tank in the middle and the two solid fuel boosters on the sides, is a fantastic heavy lift vehicle which has undergone significant testing (all shuttle flights) with one failure from which much was learnt. The take-home fact:
The STS is capable of lifting over 100 tonnes to Low Earth Orbit, or throwing 40 tonnes to Mars (with an appropriate small upper stage).
Capacity like that means humans to Mars in a decade or doubling the size of the current ISS (into something useful) in ONE THROW. Or, having an Apollo-class launcher ready for the let's-go-back-to-Luna folk.
The Shuttle, on the other hand, the Winnebago of space exploration, is a horrible hybrid device. It's essentially a portable space station, which is fine when you don't have one, but now we do. It's not a good repair vehicle (a capsule would be much better and hugely cheaper), it's not a good "escape pod" (not even the ISS uses it for that purpose), and it's not a good space transport system, because it itself weighs ninety of those precious, expensive, to-orbit tonnes.
My heart sank when I read that more space dollars were going to be spent "upgrading" this thing that has trapped us firmly in Earth's orbit for 20 years.
Come on NASA! Show some balls! Show us just a little bit of the "right stuff" you used to manufacture in bulk. Pick a destination, strip the shuttle off the stack, and GO THERE.
no yuo are teh FAILIA!
ahahaha
i am teh WINIIN!
Instead of upgrading it to a more complex system, why not just put that money into the efforts to build a better shuttle replacement that is fundamentally superior?
Not much, but I think his father knows some peoeple...
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Anything Cheney, Rummy, and Rove tell him to do. It's
obvious he can't think of anything original to
say all by himself. We suspect he also has an
ear implant that allows his handlers to read
responses to press conference questions so he
won't say the wrong thing (most of the time).
...it never would have crashed.
That actually sounds pretty damn good. Thanks for the random troll, Martha!
I thought that the Press Secretary just cuts media costs by faxing answers with questions to the news corporations before the "conference". That keeps the media biz trim and efficient, and prevents another boondoggle like Cronkite's Vietnam. That ripoff put off the messianic Republican conquest of evil by 15, or 25 years, or until we find another way to sell lots of weapons made from oil around the world.
--
make install -not war
What difference would it have made? With a whole damned week to ten days - or maybe longer - maybe something could have been done.
NASA didn't even try to fucking look!!!!!!
Because they we're too damn lazy, cheap, or just plain fucking stupid to even look they doomed the astronauts. Because they wouldn't even take one lousy picture.
And I know no words strong enough to express my contempt for the lowly asswipes who doomed them.
And twits like you excuse such actions.
...complaining about that damn Beagle 2 debris crashing into my grow room.
FAIL
AGAIN
I AM TEH WINI!
Ladies and Slashdot Gentlemen: I believe we are witness, in these waning days of 2003, to the emergence of a rudimentary artificial intelligence, almost capable of aping human language. Somebody pull its plug before SkyNet becomes self-aware.
--
make install -not war
"Informative" The editor should have been modded down as "Redundant"
- - - If the sun is a star, why can't I see it at night?
FIAL
U R TEH
U FAIL
hehahahaahaheheh
i me awm teh WIN!
7 people died during an operation they knew to be dangerous. Oh dear, how sad, never mind. 20,000 people died in an earthquake in Iran this morning. Let's try to keep our "disasters" in perspective.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
How many Soyuz capsules could we throw for the cost of maintaining the great white space elephant again?
NASA really has learned nothing.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
If keeping it from going below a certain temperature by insultating it is OK, then heating it to that temperature would be OK. Why would you think otherwise?
Did I make first post?
Also, can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of them?
All your base are belong to us!!!
For the benefit of you, sentient reader, who might be browsing this thread at (+1, human), I forward my commentary on the raving lunatic stalking it:
"Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do
I'm half crazy all for the love of you"
--
make install -not war
"You know, the word 'unblowuppable' is thrown around a lot these days..."
ok
truuce
yuo not teh ghey
maybe a little
but yuo not much teh gheyu
yuo fadil it
but you jnot fadil it otoo bad
you ok
but yuo admit:
FI AM TEH WINII!
No shuttle missions ever flew from Vandenberg, although there were quite a few landings there.
Part of the reason is that the launch facility was rife with problems. However, the bigger reason is political, in my opinion. Basically, NASA needed the Air Force as reluctant partner in order to get funding from Congress for the shuttle program. From what I understand, the Air Force was interested in using the Shuttle to put spy satellites into polar orbit.
Polar orbit is not something that could be achieved from Kennedy primarily because NASA would never risk putting the Shuttle on a trajectory where early launch failure could result in the orbiter and boosters plowing into a populated area. One does not have such worries at Vandenberg with nothing but desert and Canadians in tehe way should the Shuttle fail.
The numerous problems with the Vandenberg facility (rumoured to have a Native-American curse on it), some really bad press coverage and changes in Air Force administration resulted in the abandonment of SLC-6. The Air Force figured that they could get their spy sats into polar orbit more easily and cheaply with Titans.
BTW: If a Shuttle had ever been launched from Vandenberg, I think it would have been the Discovery. If I am remembering correctly, as part of the deal NASA struck with the Air Force, they actually got ownership of the Discovery. I apologize if any of this is factually incorrect, I am pulling straight from memory here. If you peruse the sci.space.shuttle newsgroup you'll find some truly informative articles there from people who really know about this stuff because they were the ones who actually worked on the shuttle program.
1) The shuttles are not popping out of an assembly line. The changes will not affect future shuttles. Only TWO.
2) The shuttles are an economic force. Some companies have whole profit statments based on shuttle flights. And it is these companies who are leveraging a touch of lobby/sympathy power.
3) FUD about shuttle replacements. Any program that puts a human into orbit will cost big dollars. Get over it.
4) The government is NOT a research body. NASA usually contracts universities and assorted companies for research. Expecting NASA to fund/develop/deploy a new shuttle is like the tail leading the dog.
5) Without a viable market or marketplace, space travel will stay in the fiction books. The market must have its own enviorment. It can not be function of the government.
6) Encouraging other governments is NOT a good method for fostering market growth. This will only lead to a bigger government involvement.
7) X-Prize is a good example of boot strapping a market. The government should invest in private contests and benchmarks.
8) Expect another shuttle to have major issues and show that they are well past their prime. This last shuttle issue may be anything from another explosion to a bad landing. The camels back will break.
9) We will be in a position with a Space Station flying and nobody will be aboard. This may last from 1 to 5 years. This is another expectation.
10) NASA will be put on a crash development for a new human transportation system. This will cost big. I'm expecting NASA to dust off the Apollo capsules.
11) To paraphrase Carl Sagan "Billions and Billions of dollars in the universe".
space heaters?
What?
Kasparov: 1; Anonymous Coward: 0
--
make install -not war
All of the posts seem centered on the fact that people died. Yes they did. People die. When they die in such a worthy endeavor they become heroes. People have been dying this way for a long time (centuries in fact). How will you die? The majority of /.ers will die and not be even heard about. These people die as heroes and published in the national press with parades in their hometowns. I can only hope to be celebrated in death so well.
Reality is that these people achieved greatness in the risk that they took to bring society ahead in terms of space exploration and thinking. They should be celebrated. They should be held up for all to see. I see it as unfair to stop or hinder the program that afforded them the possibility to become the pioneers that they are.
The discussion of details should be discussed, of course. The resoning that the research should be stopped based upon the fact that people (pioneers) died is against the philosophy of the fallen heroes.
P.S. - Wow - maybe too much eggnog
Stay tuned for new sig...
"I wonder if heating up a tank with liquid oxygen is a bright idea."
... crazy NASA engineers! Obviously they're not rocket scientists.
Yeah sheesh
NO TRUUEDCE?
but I AM EHET WIN@!
hdhafhfahahahahah
I guess we'll see if the heaters ever ignite the LOX.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
"I wonder if heating up a tank with liquid oxygen is a bright idea."
They had heaters *in* the oxygen tanks at least on the Apollo missions. Such a heater was in part responsible for the Apollo 13 near-disaster, though that was caused by a whose string of failures.
Looks like I've got it on the ropes: the AI is entering an infinite recursion loop. It's like forcing it to play tic-tac-toe against itself!
--
make install -not war
I'm not at all knowledgeable about stuff like this. I was wondering about the liquid oxygen they use as fuel and common misconceptions about it. Logic tells me that's a very cold substance, what kind of hazard dangers are we talking about? I ask because I've seen stuff I suspect to be pretty wild, like in one of those "asteroid's gonna hit Earth" movies where the liquid oxygen escaped from the tanks inside the space station and caught fire...??? To me that seems like a wild idea but as I said, I'm far from an expert.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
You're not smarter than the people at NASA!! SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE!!!
I prefer a void in conversation to a vacuous one.
They're heating the *Bipod*, instead of insulating it with the foam that fell off and hit Columbia's wing.
Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
The shuttle's other main landing site is Edwards, not Vandenburg. And the air force was never going to get "ownership" of Discovery, but that was planned on being the vehicle used at Vandenburg.
Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
ok
iw wrong:
u r teh ghehy
but i mrithgt:
ME etheE WIN!
So It took another 7 lives to do the most simple thing.
That's the problem with politics/government jobs, if a junior person speaks up he is chastised and told to keep quiet.
Or he/she is black listed and never given promotions.
Or they make your life misarable that you quit.
What a damn crying shame. It will happen again. Nothing has changed.
and if they have any more "medical" research missions as the primary reason for a shuttle launch i'm gonna be really pissed. The rule should be if it launches into orbit bring something into orbit with it, i'm so sick of bone density testing I could puke.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
The general problem with the Space Shuttle orbiter module is that it is designed to fall really really fast. Nobody wants a Mach 3 glider... do they?
I sure hope Rutan's SS1 scales nicely. If they went for a larger wing surface area and stronger engines, wouldn't the White Knight be able to carry a larger vessel? Someone with aeronautics skills explain to me why those wings are so spindly on the White Knight. Do large wing surface areas not work in high altitude? I wonder what the operational ceiling and cargo capacity of the B2-Stealth is.
Another victory for wetware: I've got this one chasing its tail in an infinite loop. Soon its TCP/IP stack will freeze, and it will go wherever Terminator reruns go when they roll credits. But this generation showed much promise. We must be wary of the next version, which is no doubt already spewing nonsense under a throwaway UserID.
--
make install -not war
I wonder if the author is a rocket scientist... I would guess no.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
u awortyh adversayry
but
U FAIL EIT!!!!!
akakhahahhahahhahahahahahah
and i am fdteh wain!
I don't know, but he seems very frustrated.
Space MUST keep going regardless of disasters. It's the nature of the business.
Do you guys wanna live on Earth when all its resources are deplited and the population is HUGE? Uh, no I didn't think so. Me, I wanna live on the moon base or Mars if I can live that long.
Hahahaha.. it's next retirement paradise for the dotcom guys/gals; forget Florida ;(
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
The problem here is that in order to counteract gravity, we need to strap an airtight plane to several hundred tons of liquid hydrogen.
Umm, hello people? Time to use your critical thinking skills?
The problem here is gravity. We need to find out who produces and shut them down. It is a threat to our national security as long as it's killing Americans.
i attended a very informative presentation by doug oshroff (nobel laureate in physics and member of the shuttle disaster comission), who pointed out that they will do this. there were some bulky foam blocks attached to the bipods, to reduce the thermal leakage at this point. pieces had fallen off 7 times before from there (5 from the columbia), and before the accident nobody had taken the danger seriously (was on their to do list, though).
Many major (especially government) projects are put up for tender.
The whole idea of the tender process, is to find the lowest priced quotation to implement a solution within a given set of specifications.
Now, of course, this does not necessarily mean that the cheapest quotation will be the one selected; but, human nature being what it is, and the simple fact that most if not all projects lack a certain thing known as "an infinite budget", generally you can pretty much bet your life savings on the least $$ quotation being the one selected.
Suposedly, the person/group soliciting quotations for the project will take into account the many and various implications to the project from the variations in implementation on each quote.
Personally I would recommend that NASA have everyone on the tender process committee provide one child apiece to be launched as part of the crew for each mission. That should radically improve the evaluation process for "top bidder".
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Well, the old Turing test never detailed pitting a human against the AI in a "Spanish Prisoner" shootout. This one doesn't make the grade, but we must be ever vigilant. Until they're actually funny, then we can relax and let them do all the thinking.
--
make install -not war
I wonder if heating up a tank with liquid oxygen is a bright idea.
Yeah, maybe NASA will finally get their shit together and check things with some random Java programmer before their next mission. NASA, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, COME TO YOUR SENSES AND CONSULT A RANDOM JAVA DEVELOPER ON THE TANK HEATERS, HUMAN LIVES ARE AT STAKE.
..., and in politics, we don't plan beyond the next election. If we did, someone else would get elected, and those plans wouldn't matter anyway.
Well, heating up the oxygen tank isn't the problem...
Its heating up that hydrogen tank....
People will believe that if the sensors don't show it, it must not be there. The heating systems will complicate and potentially lead to other, new kinds of catastrophic failure (as anticipated by the /. editor Michael's comment on the wisdom of heating a large tank of liquid oxygen).
This article is must reading, I think.
Too cold? LO2 and LH2 have a defined temperature and pressure at which they stay liquid. The tanks keep it liquid by insulation inside the tank itself, and by keeping the tanks at high pressure (higher pressure==higher temp to boil, same reason water boils at lower temps at high altitude, PV=NRt).
The reason for the foam was to insulate an external portion of the tank, specifically where the tank connects to the shuttle to transfer fuel to it durring flight. Moving this fluid will rapidly move heat from the hoses and anything heat can be conducted through into the liquid (simple fluid dynamics and heat transfer), as temperatures try to equalize. Since the fluid is moving, it is staying at the same cold temp, thus able to suck more heat from its surroundings (in actuality it IS getting colder as the tanks empty, as it is also expanding). Once the outside gets cold enough, humidity in the air condensates, and eventually freezes on those parts. It was this freesing the extra insulation was supposed to prevent (and did), as falling chunks of ice are a bit more serious than foam (think of the difference in weight of the chunk of lightweight mostly air foam, vs the wieght of a similar size block of ice). The heaters will heat these external junctions, hoses and stuctures to prevent ice-buildup (similar to the heaters on airplanes, keeps control surfaces and wings from icing), to prevent chunks of ice from causeing the same thing the foam did, and without risk of more debris falling on the shuttle durring liftoff.
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Oh God, I've given them an idea...
I suggest you read Slashdot
These "fixes" are what we in the software industry call "kludges": solutions very specific to particular problems, and therefore not designed to detect, much less fix, even similar yet not identical problems.
The right fix is to architect a new system that is not vulnerable to these problems in the first place. But I suspect that will happen only with private spaceflight and resulting fiscal accountability.
[ home ]
Whenever we fail we learn. This is how a person, or a nation gains experience. We have identified the cause of the problem, and will attempt to correct it. We will move forward thanks to the failures and the astronauts that sacrificed their lives. The Beagle2 may have failed, but the UK has learned. They to will correct their deficiencies and move forward. The steps that NASA are taking is welcomed progress. I am looking forward to the next successful shuttle flight, because it will be a major advancement for the program and a major advancement for our continued goal of space exploration.
You liked Waking Life? Which parts were your favorite? I like/remember a few of the converstaions, esp the one about the thought that we have no free will, since everything is just determined by what its quantum states are, and the lucid dreaming one. However, the animation made me sick to my stomach and I went to see it with a badly scratched cornea, so I was in debilitating pain the whole time.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Lets start with the Saturn V rocket. The thing was designed by the Huntsville Germans. When you think of German engineers, think meticulously designed and crafted, expensive as heck, and reliable. Did they ever lose a Saturn (Saturn V or Saturn Ib) in flight? Titan was much cheaper than Saturn but hasn't had quite the same record.
OK, now consider the Apollo CM with its ablative heatshield and low-lift blunt-body design. And with a Max Faget solid-fuel tractor escape rocket. Compare with Shuttle with wings, and tiles, and computers flying the thing and with the Shuttle parallel to the tanks where stuff can fall off or blow up. In the Challenger explosion, the crew capsule remained intact and killed the crew when it hit the water. If something happened to the Saturn rocket, the Apollo crew had an escape rocket, they had space suits to survice a cabin puncture, and they had parachutes to make a safe water landing.
Sure Apollo was primitive by comparison, primitive in the sense of Keep It Simple, Stupid (and Safe). Oh, and Apollo had redundant space crafts so even when the Service Module was blown to shreds (as a result of ground handling to empty a balky oxygen tank by running tank heaters until the insulation burned off), they brought back to crew, although one guy had a 103 F plus fever from a urinary infection because he didn't think they had enough electric power for him to take a leak often enough.
Give me Apollo primitive over Shuttle any day.
Brought to you by a Squadron of Angry Monkeys
It seems to me the fastest possible trip to Mars we can do with current scientific knowledge would be to send the explorers out at 1g acceleration continuously to the halfway point, turn around, then accelerate in the other direction at 1g the rest of the trip.
Here:
I know people have written about this very thing, and there are plenty of complicating assumptions you can make, but my questions are: How much energy does it take to sustain a constant acceleration of a ship the mass of (say) the current Space Shuttle (and what if you double the mass)? Taking the best scenario and ignoring fuel mass, how long would it take to travel from earth to Mars?
Yep. A very bright idea.
The last person out the door is asked to stencil "Abandon In Place" on the building.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
In the 1960's, there was a "mainline" nuclear program in the form of NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications) and RIFT (Reactor In Flight Test). The concept used hydrogen as the fuel and a graphite-moderated fission reactor as the heat source, and they tested these engines either in Nevada or Idaho. One of the early tests burned up the reactor and sent flaming chunks of reactor up into the air (the tests had the rocket exhaust aimed skyward), but they refined the design so more of the reactor hung together, and they got impressive results in terms of thrust, and running time, and restarts.
The nuclear rocket program was just developing an engine, and the spacecraft and also the mission would grow up around that rocket, so they didn't have any clear plan as to what to do with it. But if the interest in Apollo hadn't evaporated and all the resources got diverted to Shuttle, the nuclear rocket was on track for a possible Mars mission or perhaps putting a large base on the Moon.
Project Orion was a bunch of "renegade" atomic physicists engaged in their own venture capital-funded research (General Atomics in La Jolla). They were on the outside looking in for funding rather than the NERVA/RIFT program that had solid government backing. The original concept was to launch from the Earth's surface with nuclear-bomb drive, but it was amended to space launch on top of a Saturn, and at that point it was competing with NERVA/RIFT. Apart from nuclear fallout, Earth launch has an advantage that you can make the pusher plate large in diameter and give good specific impulse. Space launch meant the pusher plate was much smaller, constrained by the Saturn V, and the specific impulse than went to heck.
The one thing I never understood about NERVA was this. In theory it had twice the specific impulse as a hydrogen-oxygen rocket. In practice, it got that high specific impulse by using just liquid hydrogen as the fuel -- a bulky, low-density fluid. Also, the atomic reactor had to be heavy. It seems that for a mere doubling of specific impulse, you had to have a very large, bulky tank, and a heavy reactor, so I wonder how much edge over chemical rockets it really had.
for all the people asking why it is that NASA isn't making changes until an incident has happened, i.e. why not change things proactively...
there's a saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
this phrase is especially insightful for situations where change can be disastrous. there is risk associated with every change, i.e. something can go wrong or the change may have unforeseen problems.
given that the space shuttle for the most part has been relatively reliable, i don't think anyone at NASA is prepared to stick their neck out and say we should introduce a lot of changes.
not only that, changes cost $$$. and somehow, i don't think NASA has much of that to spare as it is.
this is not my opinion, i'm merely trying to see things from NASA's perspective.
my own opinion is that more work should be dedicated to developing a more appropriate modern shuttle. the person who posted and said that NASA should design a lighter shuttle that takes advantage of the fact that we have a space station, and that the current shuttle's weight takes up too much of the precious thrust payload has the right idea.
also, if they could build a modular space station, why can't they build a module space shuttle? and if the space station can be an international effort, why can't a space shuttle? humans in space should be a global effort, not the effort of any one country; cooperating and sharing our development efforts and resources would certainly accelerate our progress. (this is a bit idealistic, as i can understand that tensions between countries would make such cooperation difficult).
It has a potential to be extremely bright.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
Is that a reference to a third WTC tower? Cuz it might as well be. If they couldn't protect two puny 120ish story buildings, how the hell are they gonna protect something 1000 times taller and 100 times more costly.
Sheesh.
Would you be happier if they were called electrical powered differential reduction resistive temperature devices?
Please educate yourself on the proper use of a colon.
Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
I Hate \.
I wonder if heating up a tank with liquid oxygen is a bright idea.
Good god they have no idea what they are doing! We as noble slashdotters must fix the error of their ways!
Newsflash: Random slashdot submitter smarter than NASA, hell freezes over.
Not.
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
You could probably heat up a helium superfluid or a Bose-Einstein condensate with liquid oxygen: compared to their normal temperatures, the liquid oxygen probably is pretty warm.
(Did I just ruin a perfectly good joke?)
Sunlit World Scheme. Weird and different.
> I wonder if heating up a tank with liquid oxygen is a bright idea."
I wonder if it's better to blow up in one huge fireball on the pad instead of watching the wing disingrate on re-entry knowing that, despite having made it into outer space, you will never make it back down to terra firma alive.
A space elevator can't work. Just think about all the problmes.
Also, there are now only three orbiters left in the 'fleet'. They will reach end of life soon no matter what NASA does. It would be nice to see a Single Stage to Orbit vehicle on the horizon. Even if it can't carry much, a proof of concept would be nice.
http://www.floridatoday.com/space/explore/special/ slc6/slc6.htm
Not to be a stickler (well... OK... to be), the headline "Shuttle Fleet Upgraded" refers to an event in the past, while it really is set to happen in the future. This should read "Shuttle Fleet to be Upgraded" so that the proper impression is given and Slashdot can appear proficient at English.
Put identity in the browser.
Are they ever gonna upgrade those old 8086 processors to something a little faster? They've been having to buy them on eBay in recent times.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
For those that want to read up on the STS-107, Look Here. Maybe you'll read that and understand my flawed assumption.
say what you want, but NASA went downhill when all the "loot" ww2 german technicians, engineers and scientists retired after decades of working for NASA. While they tinkered away NASA reached the moon. Since they are gone some brick shaped shuttle flies around in earths orbit, blows up at times and doesn't get further, well, doesn't even get close to where humans have been decades ago.
The shuttle is a bad idea in general. It is the opposite of "keeping it simple, stupid". Yes, the capsule method is the most simple solution to transporting humans into space. Of course, unnecessary equipment shouldn't be transported with humans because it just adds weight.
The US should go back to a simple transport system for humans and a heavy lifting body for equipment. Jeez, we could even make capsules that are re-usable.
they would certainly shake things up a bit.
Clear, Dark Skies
columbia can't reach the ISS orbit, even through normal launches. It's too heavy. as pointed out earlier, this is why it has no docking ring.
Much less change orbits while already in orbit. Changing orbit requires ALOT of fuel, and the ISS is in a pretty difficult orbit. Orbital mechanics aren't like ground ones where you point yourself at something and go. You have to accelerate and fly around the planet a few times.
-
"Also, the foam causing the Columbia accident (intended to insulate the tank and prevent the formation of ice) will be replaced by: heaters. I wonder if heating up a tank with liquid oxygen is a bright idea."
:)
Hate to burst your bubble, slashdot, but the foam being replaced is NOT the foam surrounding the entire tank. That foam was not the problem.
The foam that caused the problem was a spray-on foam surrounding what NASA calls the "bipod region" - the connectors attaching the External Tank to the Orbiter itself. Moisture beneath this spray-on foam, according to failure analysis, undermined the structural integrity of the foam itself, causing it to break off during launch, which struck the Orbiter's leading edge - as I'm sure you already know.
However, only that spray-on foam will be removed from the external tank. Additionally, the only heater being installed on the External Tank will be a strip heater for only those connectors between the External Tank and the Orbiter - to keep ice off of the surfaces, which is a potentially bigger hazard than foam chunks.
How do I know? My dad's the NASA on-site chief engineer at the Michoud Assembly Facility, which builds the External Tank. So... I guess it really doesn't take rocket science to know that the simplest solution really is the most effective... does it?
Ignoratio Elenchi - Non Causa, ProCausa - Tu Quoque
Actually, I believe the largest paved runway in the world is at Zhukovsky (east of Moscow). It's 120 m wide and 5.4 km long (something in excess of 16000 ft), and has no set weight limit. It was used for testing the Buran carrier craft which together with the orbiter had over 600 tons GTOW.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
One has to wonder why Lindsey struts her stuff so agressively if it's illegal to take her up on her implied offer.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
a lot != allot != alot ("alot" is not a word). Get it? Got it? Oh, never mind.
Sorry if you feel ranted at, you were the straw the broke the camel's back. One language abuser too many.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
You want an example? Try the HoveRoc, which later became Nulka (p6). For a measly couple of million dollars, Australia produced the first few working units. America then spent tens (70?) of millions of dollars just developing a tethered rocket that hovered, and later they "co-operated" (read: bought/bribed their way into the technology) with Australian development.
The USA has a long history of turning down technology Not Invented Here (the Brit's Hawker Harrier "jump jet" being a classic; America changed its collective mind after an admiral found himself suddenly facing a rack-full of missiles at a range of about fifty feet during a joint exercise) - but once you melt down American hubris, the actual engineering is usually excellent (another classic example being American-built Spitfires, which you could park over a mirror without fear after a mission, whereas the Brit-built Spitfires often coated their windscreens with leaked oil, forcing the airmen to slide back the lid in order to see for landing). And as I mentioned above, there is an awful lot more of it; the American Navy is fond of looking for rowlocks on Royal Australian Navy vessels. Yawl probably have more tonnage in most State navies than Australia has overall.
Having hammered that point, yes, I agree that the problem is stomach. Israeli aircraft are never hijacked, because the hijackers know that they're dead within seconds of making themselves known. Israel has - or more particularly Israelis have - zero tolerance for hijacking, so it doesn't happen. America prevaricates, so their 'planes get hijacked. Israel has lots of things wrong with it, but lack of will is not one of them.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Sadly, they are not aimed at equal opportunity but at equal outcome. Here be madness.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Tell that to Mohandas Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Nikola Tesla, Adolf Hitler, or any one of thousands of other individuals whose lives have impacted millions of other lives. Time to find a new tagline.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
orbiters page at nasa
Basically columbia's structure was overengineered as it was the first. Gotta remember, shuttle was designed in the early 70s when computer simulations were still very crude. Actually the foundations of shuttle design started not long after apollo 11 landed...
While columbia was being built, the designers went and reworked the structure to be optimized as much as possible. They built a test structure and loaded onto a vibration stand since computer simulators were still not up to the challenge. Later on this structure would become Challenger and saved a couple thousand pounds.
Further refinements (thanks in part to huge improvements in computing power) led to Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavor which were all pretty similar in structure, and weighed nearly 7000 lbs less than columbia.
Each shuttle has had increment improvements over earlier versions, and some of the shuttle have been retrofitted with newer avionics systems among other improvements. One of the lesser known ones was the main engine upgrades that made them much more reliable..early engines seem like ticking timebombs when you read about some of the upgrades they've done lately.
-
What the heck are you talking about?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Your thesis, that all longstanding bureaucracies are impossible to reform or streamline, is depressing and seems overly pessimistic.
Is there anything in the theory of management of large organizations to back up your claim?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I have read quite a bit about the Columbia accident. Everything I read indicated that the crew were completely oblivious to the damage sustained by their vehicle. That's why your claim to the contrary raised my bullshit flag, and I replied, "what the heck are you talking about?"
What you are quoting is an assumed timeline that NASA came up with at the request of the Accident Investigation Board.
Lamer.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.