Slashdot Mirror
Hurricane Threatens Shuttle Program
evenprime writes "Hurricane Frances may end NASA's space shuttle program. John Logsdon, a member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and the head of George Washington University's Space Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., has said: 'If there were serious damage to one or two of the orbiters or the facilities needed to
process and launch the orbiters, I think it would raise a very large question about
the continuation of the shuttle program.'"
Of course it would be a disaster if the shuttle program was seriously damaged by this storm. But one positive by-effect would be that NASA would be forced to consider better booster solutions. A lot of the work done by the shuttles could be done safer and cheaper by a booster.
I doubt they (politicians and beaurocrats pulling the strings in NASA) ever planned to get it off the ground again. The direction NASA funding was going, I expect a lot of pencil pushers were relieved by the Columbia accident, since it made things a lot easier to shut down.
While i think that the space shuttle program itself is pretty ineffecient for what we need out of a space program right now. (why bring back so much of the stuff you just spent billions sending up there) I'd hate to see the space shuttles scrapped unless we had some plans to replace it with some other program.
I'm getting the feeling though, that it will not be replaced by anything for awhile to come, & this may signal the end of American manned spaceflight for a long time.
Finally the shuttle boondoggle would die a long deserved death, freeing up resources for real space travel. (as if). A 5-digit number of unique tiles? And they criticize software engineers for bad design. Meanwhile, look how much the Russians spend to put people in LEO!
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Except the space program in its current state is only a sideshow for the media. Most if not all of the manned space missions could be better accomplished by robots. The shuttle can barely get to low earth orbit. We need to scrap it all and start over. I hope no one gets hurt, but I don't think it would be such a bad thing if the hurricaine wrecked our space program.
The old Apollo missions were the right direction. Imagine what we could do now, or ten years from now, with better materials, infinitely better computer simulations, better communications, and a deep understanding of the conditions in space. Maybe if we start all over and reach further instead of not as far, we'll have some real progress. To quote Jerry Pournelle, "I always dreamed I'd live to see the first man walk on the moon. I never imagined I'd live to see the last."
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
The question I pose is that why werent the buildings designed to withstand a SUBSTANTIAL Huricane. It is not hurricanes are a new danger, designeing buildings not to be able to stand up to direct hit isnt a smart gamble in my books.
If I wanted water, I'd ask for DiHydrogen Oxide!
This is a very serious problem. The damage would have to fairly severe I would imagine, however it does have the possibility of ending the shuttle program.
I was lucky enough to be able to speak with one of the people in the group commisioned to investigate the columbia accident. He told me that one of the reasons they were adamant about finding the trouble behind the accident and making sure it did not happen again (beyond the paramount fact of preventing the loss of human life) was because it was a solid fact based on budgeting that NASA could not continue its shuttle program if it lost one more orbiter. He was fairly confident in the fact if one more was lost it would end program for good.
telnet://zombiemud.org:3000
We won't run out of raw materials that soon. A few that we really shouldn't be using anymore anyway, yes (there's plenty of oil to last a very long time, but most of what's left is locked up in shale deposits that take far more energy to extract than it can be burned for), but things like metals, silicon, and so on are in good supply for a good time yet. If we can get to the point that we rely on hydrogen instead of oil, or even uranium, then we'll have a virtually limitless fuel supply covering 70% of the planet up to several miles deep.
Climatologists have been pointing out that weather patterns have been getting more extreme for some time now.
I'm sure we could all argue until the end of time as to why this has been happenning but I find it rather hilarious that, any time someone mentions the possible negative effects that mankind is having on his environment, hundreds of otherwise sensible people throw rational thought out of the window and refuse point blank to even concede the possibility - even the very smallest chance - that climate change for the worse might be partially our fault.
Here in Britain we've just gone from having the hottest August on record in 2003 to the wettest August on record in 2004. Climatic extremes like those experienced here, in the US and elsewhere aren't things to be taken lightly, they're things to be studied and, ultimately, acted upon. Collectively shrugging our shoulders and sticking our heads in the sand when it comes to finding out why these things are happening with ever greater frequency aren't model solutions.
But, hey, that's just my worthless point of view. Until there's more money in sorting out the problem than there is in exacerbating it, nothing's going to change. Well, at least not for the better.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I think you're looking at things the wrong way. The administrations goals for the space program have little to do with the "civillian space program". The "military space program" is thriving.
Could it be possible there are some who are looking for a reason to shut down the shuttle program? Ala a graceful exit? I won't substitue my opinion for their judgement, but I've had the hunch for a long time they are looking to shut the program down -- for whatever reason, but most notably it might be time to re-invent the shuttle program with more current and efficient (and hopefully safer) technology.
I wish I had mod points, but I don't. Always the way when you really want them :-(
:-(
Heat = Energy
More energy/km^3 = more phase-space for the atmosphere
more phase space = more extremes
extremes in the phase space = nasty stuff.
Premise: It's not the probability of something happening that is important, it is the product of the probability and the consequences.
Problem: humans as a species are less likely to plan for infrequent problems or long-term goals than frequent problems or short-term goals. Combine with premise and consider asteroids, global warming, oil dependence, etc.
Result: we're screwed if the weather-scientists are right
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
1. The Vehicle Assembly Building is built to withstand a category 5 hurricane. The accessory and newer buildings are only built against a category 3. However, nothing will save the VAB from a category 4 that tears the roof off a nearby cat3 hanger and mashes it into the side of the VAB.
2. KSC at current projections is in the worst spot possible. The eye passing overhead would be merciful if it happens - the eye passing south is worse. The N.W. corner of a hurricane is the strongest in the northern hemisphere.
3. Otherwise, there is still a (anyone?) 30 foot storm surge to contend with.
4. Does anyone know if Atlantis is still in the VAB? I haven't checked. If you do check, make sure you shut the lights off when you are done.
Best case scenario - no one is hurt, and NASA files a gianormous insurance claim Monday morning for a new manned space program.
Kulakovich
David was only a Tropical Storm. Tropical Storms have winds 74mph. Frances is a category 4 hurricane, with potential to reach category 5. If it makes cat 5, that's over 3 times the wind speed of TS David. BIG difference.
Whether or not manned spaceflight is worthwhile in itself is another argument (which I'm sure will be covered somewhere in this discussion). But spending vast sums of money just to duplicate what cheap and proven Russian equipment already does just fine thank you? That's a _massive_ waste.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Ah, but on the topic of man in space, Robert Heinlein said:
"We'll be there to stay someday. 'We' will most certainly be humans, but they won't necessarily be speaking English."
Additionally, this project would be a spectacular demonstration of US technological and economic superiority - and let's be honest here, the US's prestige has been a little tarnished lately. Let's see what America's really capable of, shall we?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
The EU has a much larger combined GDP than the US to play with - and even with the (relatively) paltry "central pot" (EU budget), has plenty of money to spend on spaceflight if they wanted to (scrap agriculture subsidies anyone?). It should be noted that it's doubtful that ESA (not the same as the EU, though mostly EU members), even with more money, would '''want''' to spend it on manned spaceflight - but my point is that potentially the resources are there.
China, much of the population may not have much, but it's a tiny amount of their GDP needed to have sufficient resources for even grander manned spaceflight than they are planning. But to do so would be a gross disservice to the people, for whom the money could be much better used. (The ESA members for similar reasons are unlikely to ever spend as much on spaceflight as the US, even if combined they can spend more by using the same % GDP)
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
The shuttle's wings allow a glide re-entry, which saves fuel. The tanks and various systems required for the additional fuel would mass more than the wings. RTFM.
The next stop after L5 is the asteroid belt. Resources galore, easily shoved into new trajectories for slow delivery nearly anywhere in the system.
Somebody show George Bush this post. Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bush Administration are the ones destroying the space program... first Hubble, now this moon base nonsense.
There are large supplies of oil which are too deep (or a variety of other factors) to pump economically *at today's prices*. If prices rise, they become economic to pump. Canada's vast resources of tar sands, right near the surface, are barely even tapped currently, but will be quite economical if prices rise (they're starting to become economical on their own simply due to advances in technology). Methane hydrates are essentially untapped; while they wouldn't be general purpose, they could be used for heating in place of natural gas and heating oil. And, geez, I'm just getting into hydrocarbon energy sources here...
;)
Fission power is barely tapped; the main restraint is people's fear of it. If energy prices rise, people will have a clear choice, the way they do today with coal vs. solar/etc power (pay more for less theoretical risk, or pay less - which do people choose currently?). With today's inefficient fission power plants, we have enough known deposits alone to last 200 years. With advancing fission tech, that could be extended to 500 or so years. With unfound deposits (again, exploration has been largely limited by usage), you're looking at 1000, 1500, 2000, etc years worth of fission power. But it gets better! With breeder reactors, you can change U238 (normally not usable in fission power) into a usable fission power source, giving 10-50 times as much energy production from a given amount of ore.
We're looking at 10s of thousands of years of power at current rates. Even if we assume that our power consumption continues to grow (despite regular efficiency improvements in devices that consume power), we're still going to be looking at hundreds to thousands of years. If we haven't figured out fusion power by then, we don't deserve to continue on as a species
I just invaded Grammar Czechoslovakia and duped Grammar Neville Chamberlain; now it's on to Grammar Poland.
The Great Depression was worldwide, economists now understand that the damage was mostly self inflicted through poor understanding of how economics works, nobody was in a fit state to help anybody else.
Space exploration business directly supports the advancement and the construction of new weapons systems. Maintaining a space exploration program would therefore seem to be a reasonable way to invest in future defence technologies.
Providing food to underdeveloped countries is a less than satisfactory way of helping starving people to feed themselves. Other activities aimed at improving these countries ability to sell their goods and international pressure to prevent local wars are a higher added value investment than food dumping.
The shuttles though ultimately flawed because they were built before their time are part of a program that draws international respect and admiration. It would be a pity, though somewhat ironic if they were lost to a storm - a storm being the sort of thing in a third world country that would usefully cause us to send food.
We live in an interconnected world and a great deal of it watches American tv, in many senses the world is America these days. Those shuttles are just as much ours for those of us living outside the states as they are for those who live in the US. I for one am keeping my fingers crossed or as they say in Sweden "thumbs held".
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
"The space shuttle is a very expensive white elephant."
-- Story Musgrave, astronaut.
Manned space flight is about ego and politics, not science. Right now we have a lot more pressing issues in this country that money could be spent on than toy plane pipedreams. Like most other government programs, the Space Shuttle is many hundreds of times over budget. It's time to retire this white elephant and get past our Cold War masturbation fantasies.
They must really hate to lose the Labor Day weekend revenue.
"I still don't get how anybody can even THINK of abandoning iron-to-gold alchemy. Sure, unusual chemicals are fragile and expensive. Sure, it's cheaper to just mine it. But CRIPES, people. It's an adventure! It's a new experience for the human race. That, IN AND OF ITSELF, is more than enough justification for continuing."
Let's face it. Humans aren't built for space. Put down the science-fiction magazine and think about reality for a while; just because we want something to be so doesn't make so. (Queue Clarke's quote about magic here...)
It really wasn't untill WW II that we earned the respect of Europe sense we almost single handled destroyed the Germans.
While I agree with the rest of your statement, it was the Russians who almost single handedly destroyed the Germans. The US single-handedly got them out of France and western Europe, and hastened their demise, but at the time most of Germany's resources were going to their Eastern front.
The US's largest contribution to WWII was probably their defeat of the Japanese in the Pacific theater.
You complain about hauling wings in and out of orbit and yet you want to descend the moon's gravity well to make a base? That's insane! Why waste fuel hauling your stuff up and down when there are perfectly good trojan points... the moon's resources are lame and not worth the fuel costs.
So, why bother with the Lunar Trojan points for a base? Nothing there at all. Better to build a station at geosynchronous orbit, if we aren't going to the moon.
The shuttle's wings allow a glide re-entry, which saves fuel. The tanks and various systems required for the additional fuel would mass more than the wings. RTFM.
And yet...Apollo, Gemini, Mercury, Soyuz, etc. didn't have wings, and managed to get down nicely. The Shuttle's wings are an enormous waste, unless we are planning to bring large heavy things down from orbit. And they're not optimal even then.
The next stop after L5 is the asteroid belt. Resources galore, easily shoved into new trajectories for slow delivery nearly anywhere in the system.
Hmm, ~2.4Km/s deltaV to deliver lunar raw materials to Earth. ~5.5Km/s deltaV to deliver asteroidal material to Earth. So delivering asteroidal materials takes longer, and costs more deltaV. Great trade-off, don't you think?
Seriously. We need the lunar base, as a construction point for more ships, if nothing else. Build the structures on the moon, add rocket engines and control systems made on Earth, add lunar oxygen and terrestrial hydrogen for lifesupport, water, and fuel (don't want to take lunar water for this - Moon is a Harsh Mistress, remember? Using lunar water for fuel/reaction mass would be disastrous in the long term).
After we have the moon base, we move along to Mars and the outer system. Venus can wait, unless we choose to terraform the place. Mercury would be nice, but requires too much deltaV to reach easily.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
It is unlikely that the UK could have continued to fight Nazi Germany without the planes, tanks, ships, guns, food, oil, etc. we shipped them.
It is slightly more possible that the USSR could have continued fighting without the aid we sent them, but only just. Only thing the Russians built enough of were tanks. They built those at the expense of the other tools of modern war (trucks ;) ).
And while the Russians built a lot of tanks, they also lost a lot. Assuming that the Soviet Army was up to TO&E, they lost more than 2/3 of the tanks they built from 1941-1945. And they weren't up to TO&E....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Look at the Palestines. Which as a whole are on international welfare - incredible population growth!
That proves my point. The food and water resources available to a "Palestinian" are 20% of what an individual Israeli gets. Yet the Israelis have children 40% less frequently.
Well, I mean they do have a 747 used just for moving the shuttles around. They don't need to go far, and they have about 36 hours until this thing hits Florida. Load as much as you can, as fast as you can, and get it out of there! You can't tell me that they never considered this to be a possibility, in THE most hurricane-prone area in the country.
Or can you? Did nobody ever think that a kickass storm might come barreling through one day and wreck everything left on-site? Some moron actually put hundreds of billions of dollars at risk because of a lack of an emergency relocation plan?
Wow.
Personally, I prefer having some attitudinal control during re-entry.
Personally, I'd prefer to survive re-entries after losing control.
When that happens to the Soyuz, the crew is lost in the wilderness for 10 hours until a retrieval team eventually finds them. When the Space Shuttle messes up a re-entry, the crew is scattered into a pinkish mist spread over 3 states.
unless you plan to do like the Soyuz, and just bail out the pilot and flight computer while the majority of the spacecraft smashes into the earth like a hypersonic missile.
Yep. That's the way to do it. Considering that building a whole new disposable spacecraft is less expensive (and more reliable, and even more scalable) than refurbishing a reusable vehicle, that's the prudent approach. (Building the disposable vehicle is cheaper, because the vehicle itself is a lot simpler, since it doesn't need features to survive re-entry)
Hmm... needs more maths. I suspect gliding re-entry is still going to win, though.
Wrong. It's not even close.
The shuttle's glide re-entry is a totally useless, counterproductive feature. Even if the wings did cause re-entry to need less fuel, it's not enough of the savings to make up for having needed to lift those wings into orbit in the first place. The wings were a drag on the liftoff, and a drag on all manuvering done in space. Just having them there increased the fuel-usage of every other mission activity.
The winged spaceplane is a project that justifies itself in terms of itself. The wing features allow the Shuttle to be reusable. That's good, because the Shuttle is expensive. And the Shuttle is expensive because it has wings....
Nicely? I don't think I've ever heard a Soyuz landing described that way. But in any case those are non-reusable craft, if you're going to compare them to the shuttle we shouldn't even be discussing wings at all. The argument you want is reuseable versus one-use craft. Disposable spacecraft can't perform the Shuttle's mission, because reusability is a mission goal. Since we've used it to bring Westar and Palapa-B down already, it definitely works optimally enough. And the Shuttle's a pretty incredibly crappy design, incidentally; I preferred the designs with air-breathing engines that the USAF rejected... one of them was designed to carry a dozen people in shirtsleeve comfort.
Care to explain the derivation of those numbers? Seems awfully simplistic to me. What kind of trajectories are you limiting yourself to? What use are you making of other local masses for acceleration and deceleration?
Nonetheless, I will cheerfully concede that it takes much longer, and time ~= money. But the resources should be better, lots of nearly everything in the asteroid belt the astronomer boys tell me. And don't forget the trojan asteroids if you don't want to enter the belt proper.
Hands down, RAH's best book. But, anyway, I still disagree. It could be a close call (because it would be easier to construct spaceships in low gravity than floating in space) but I think the light flimsy ships that you could quickly spew out of a trojan factory would get more done for far less investment than building an industrial base on the moon capable of using the local resources.
I think you like gravity too much... why bother with planets at all? Leave Mars and Venus to the BEMs and live in rotating space habitats constructed from moonlets, asteroids and eventually comets.
You, my man, are a bona-fide American patriot! Damn, I didn't think there were any of us left since the religious fanatics and Randites redefined the word "conservative".
Importing Earth Water to replace Lunar water makes no sense at all. Importing Earth HYDROGEN to add to Lunar Oxygen for fuel/reaction mass is a much better propostion. 1/9th the mass to be moved, and the moon has a lot of Oxygen bound up in the rock.
The factor supporting asteroidal materials is that the potentially could have high concentrations of useful metals. No proof of that, of course. But we do know that they're not common on the moon.
"Useful metals"? I happen to think aluminium is useful. And Iron. And Magnesium. All of which were found on the Moon by Apollo. Hard to extract? Perhaps, but we do have a lot of solar energy, and no atmosphere to obscure it there.
Are there other metals we'll want? Sure, lots. But we won't want too many others in large quantities. And so we can build most of a spacecraft (by mass) with lunar raw materials, once we have the base in place. WAY cheaper and easier than building it on Earth and putting it into orbit, given the original investment in infrastructure.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"