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."
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.
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
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.
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.
The Shuttle launch complex at Vandenberg AFB, SLC-6, was built with heaters originally. Had 39B at Kennedy been so equipped, there is a good chance the Challenger tragedy would never have ocurred. Of course, no Shuttle ever launched from Vandenberg and SLC-6 was abandoned in place. There was a particularly haunting photo that was floating around the web back in the 90s showing SLC-6 sitting there all rusted out (I googled but couldn't find it). I believe SLC-6 has since been rebuilt to fly Atlas-Centaurs.
Since they had no way of repairing anyway, not enough reserves to get to ISS and no "life boat," what difference does it make? I imagine the crew would rather risk re-entry than definitely freeze to death while sitting in a quickly decaying low orbit that would result in burning up anyway. ...just a thought.
agreed. it's ridiculous for the entire space program to grind to a halt every time there's an accident. it's a dangerous business, i'm sure all the astronauts accept that.
When you're never tried to put anyone into space it's rather easy to prevent deaths.
Give the EUians time. They'll fuck up very soon.
I wonder about the logistics of two orbiters being tracked. I'm sure NASA has some pretty fine software, but I don't know if it was ever designed to work with two orbiters in flight. For example if both shuttles use the same frequencies for telemetry the software may not have a way to tell which one it is speaking to. What if they had to cut power to Columbia while Atlantis was enroute to prevent interference? There are many questions like this that would have to have been asked and answered before they could send up another shuttle.
Well, they set up an in-orbit rendezvous between two Gemini capsules in the mid-60s pretty successfully, if you recall. The technology and expertise are definately there -- it would certainly take some dusting off because a space shuttle is not a Gemini. But it's not impossible.
But I think the best thing that could have been done would have been to keep all the astronauts on the ISS while awaiting a rescue mission from a Soyuz or another shuttle.
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.
"or doubling the size of the current ISS (into something useful) in ONE THROW"
Um... no, think about it for a moment. That won't work unless you can collapse all those parts as if they were empty cardboard boxes and then re-assemble in orbit. I doubt many of the big workhorse rocket designs ever lift close to their true capacity - the awkwardness of the payload (in terms of aerodynamics and balance) is not trivial. And then if you get that to work but require human assembly at the destination, you still need to send people up, except now you're sending them on something else at the same time. Now you've got to manage two spacecraft designs, two coordinated launches, and so on.
While I agree with your general idea (learn from the old stuff and do BETTER), spaceflight hasn't gotten any easier, and upgrades to spacecraft aren't as simple as swapping out a video card and loading new drivers...
(Personally, I think we should try to do everything at once - do better rockets AND build the space elevator. They are different enough projects that they wouldn't steal specialist engineers from each other, thus we could work on both at the same time. If either one works, we win, and if the elevator works we really really really win)
There was a lengthy article in the Atlantic Monthly about the whole thing, and the short answer is: you're wrong.
NASA had a few viable options had they know it was a major problem. Engineers at NASA asked the Air Force to take pictures of the damage with spy satellites, outside of normal channels, and the Air Force was ready and willing to comply. NASA managers CANCELLED the request because it didn't follow proper procedure. So, you could make the argument that NASA's beuracratic garbage doomed the shuttle.
There's no telling if any rescue attempt would have been successful, but by failing to even try, or even to take the necessary steps to determine if there was a problem, NASA reduced the odds of survival to zero.
He's right and wrong. White Sands is the tertiary landing spot, after Kennedy and Edwards. The space shuttle Columbia landed there in 1981 (or possibly 1980?). I have a patch commemorating the event.
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).