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."
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. :)
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.
Reusable shuttles? What's the point?
I have been pwned because my
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.
Actually, the purpose of the foam is to keep the tanks from getting warm (as liquid hydrogen/oxygen have very low boiling points) and to keep ice from forming on the exterior.
A blog like any other.
They would still need foam.... you only want the skin temperature to be raised. If there were no insulation you would basically be boiling the liquid oxygen inside the tank.... obviously a Bad Idea.
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
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/
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.
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.
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".
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...
NASA, like many other big organisations and corporations, has long since reached critical bureaucratic mass. What this means is that ANY big change is only going to increase bureaucracy, and never reduce it. Even if the intention is to reduce bureacracy, you'll end up with NEW administrative positions creating procedures for doing so, and enough paperwork for the bureacracy reduction to warrant at least a 5% increase in administration, or if this is not possible, at least a 5% increased administrative workload for non-administrative positions.
The only way to get out of this is if a new organization or company can take the place of the old. When we're talking about government-funded large scale operations like NASA, it just isn't going to happen any time soon. Our hope, ironically enough, is that China gets their space program together. Then, and only then, can NASA die and be replaced with something less porky.
Regards,
--
*Art
I keep seeing this argument and I must protest. I routinely fly aircraft that were designed and built long before I was born. The space shuttle is not a car. They don't just haul it in every three months for an oil change and then pray that the "check engine" light stays off during launch. While I believe improvements need to be made, writing something off simply because it's old is wasteful and short-sighted.
irb(main):001:0>
I believe the movie was Apollo 13 (although I could be wrong) and the quote was basically "How does it feel to be sitting on 2 engines that can produce x thousand pounds of thrust and were assembled by the cheapest bidder". My concern is that by operating in that manner you lose all feedback as well as the brains of the people actually putting it together, once it's finshed
Normal people worry me!
Exactly that was my thought and thats why I ask: why is it a bright idea to use heaters on a tank filled with liquid oxygen and lyquid hydrogen ito prevent ice, instead of insulating it?
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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).
You assume the damned thing could change orbit and catch up with the ISS. It had enough fuel to do a de-orbit burn and that's it. Also, Columbia wasn't outfitted to rendezvous with ISS in the first place: that's NO DOCKING RING. So great, you've got a snowball's chance in hell of getting to ISS, after which you've now hosed your ability to "safely" de-orbit if possible and even then, the entire crew has to walk over to the station risking flying off into the wild black yonder. At the end of the day, you've got an untethered beheamoth listlessly dangling right next to the ISS with no gas.
That's like setting your brother Billy-Bob's R.V. on a hill pointing at your house with no brakes hoping that Bobby-Ray will show up with the truck to haul it away before it drives through your living room.
GREAT.
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
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 ]
TM
p.s. IAAME (i am a mech. engineer)
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
>Whoever said space travel was supposed to be safe?
Screw safe - how about cost-effective? The Shuttle was already the most expensive launch vehicle in the world on a per-pound basis BEFORE this latest disaster. Manned or unmanned. Now, it'll be even MORE outrageously overpriced.
It should be dumped immediately and replaced with Soyuz for manned launches, and an array of unmanned boosters for cargo launches. Giant-sized payloads can wait for the higher-capacity Atlas, Delta and Ariane boosters that are slated to come online over the course of the next decade. The tens of billions saved over the Shuttle's remaining "lifetime" (deathtime is probably more like it, given the vehicle's record to date) could be dedicated to constructing a viable replacement for Soyuz for manned orbital launches.
Yeah, and NASA is an acronym for "Need Another Seven Astronauts"
Well, the first stage was designed largely by the Germans. They built it simple, reliable, and strong. The original design for the Saturn V first stage (the S-1C) called for four F1 engines. When this was later bumped up to add a fifth engine, engineers found that the structure was sufficiently beefy that little extra bracing was needed. It was fuelled by kerosene (JP-1) and liquid oxygen. It was simple, rock-solid, sturdy, and reliable. It was a truly beautiful monster, and it did its job admirably.
North American designed the second stage (the Saturn S-II). Since the S-II stayed with the rocket longer and higher, weight was much more important. Liquid hydrogen had to be used for its higher energy density than kerosene. Traditional rugged German rocket engineering would have made the S-II solid, reliable--and too heavy to fly. The S-II components were designed to bear a load precisely 1.5 times the load anticipated in flight. Parts that were too strong were shaved down and tested until they failed at exactly 1.5, so as to save every ounce of weight.
Probably the biggest engineering challenge of the S-II was construction of its common bulkhead between the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen tanks. Despite both being cryogenic liquids, in use they're about seventy degrees (Celsius) apart in temperature. Usually this was a nonissue: the top of one tank and the bottom of the other were hemispherical, and met at only a single point. Unfortunately, such construction added weight, so for the S-II (and for the third stage, the S-IVB) a common bulkhead design was used, where a single hemisphere formed the wall between the two tanks. Entirely new techniques had to be developed to assemble the structure--miles of perfect welds were required; the metal was shaped by being pounded into a mold with explosives. And they had to do it twice for each S-II--two thin hemispheres of aluminum sandwiched a layer of insulation to make the bulkhead. Absolutely phenomenal, and way beyond anything that the Germans (or anyone else) had done before that point.
Anyway, IANAA (I am not an American) but I hate to see all of the engineers at North American Aviation and Boeing (for the S-IVB) get shrugged off--the Germans were instrumental without question in the early US space program, but credit where credit is due...the S-II and the S-IVB worked absolutely perfectly (to my knowledge) throughout the Apollo program. (Almost--a single J-2 engine of the five on the S-II failed to ignite on Apollo 13. This alone had no impact on the mission, and certainly was the smallest issue that 13 faced.)
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.
The redundant spacecraft didn't exist because NASA anticipated a possible accident (explosion of the service module) and supply an extra spaceship. There was a second ship present because the mission required it--the only way the Americans could get to the moon on a short schedule was by leaving most of the craft (command and service modules) in orbit, and landing the smallest ship possible--the lunar module. It was a lucky coincidence that Apollo 13 could use the lunar module in that way, and even then, it wasn't really designed with a 'lifeboat' capacity in mind. A favourite example is in the case of the ship's scrubbers--lithium hydroxide canister
~Idarubicin
Right, so we can go ahead and destroy it.
You can't handle the truth.