Slashdot Mirror
Space Shuttles Survive Hurricane Frances
maggeth writes "In an update to a previous story, NASA damage assessment teams have begun work at the Kennedy Space Center, which was hit by Hurricane Frances. It appears that there was no damage to any of the space shuttles, according to the first word from NASA. Although more details still are to be released, we know that Frances died down in strength before making landfall, limiting the amount of wind damage."
Reader knix writes, though, that "It looks like NASA did have quite a bit of damage from Hurricane Frances," pointing to an AP story which adds some detail, and noting that besides a knocked over Mercury-Redstone rocket, the massive VAB (Vehicle Assembly Building) had 1000 panels missing after the storm hit. According to the AP, "The holes left by the missing panels created 40,000 square feet of 'open window' on two sides of the building."
This is extremely good news! As I said previously, if we had lost any of the orbiters, the shuttle program would be over. And if the shuttle program is over, manned space flight as we know it would be over. While many think that the shuttle is a very poor vehicle (actually it's amazingly engineered, but always lacked a real purpose), having it around pushes Congress to fund something simpler and cheaper.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
40,000sqf = almost an entire ACRE!!!!
wow
...Upon the arrival of the next large hurricane citizens should take refuge in the nearest space shuttle.
I'm curious if anyone could fill me in on why they chose Florida as their center for launching vehicles with the potential each year for hurricanes?
If the shuttles are meant to travel through the atmosphere a minimum of two times, and possibly more for a few, I should hope they can survive a little thing like a natural disaster. After all, if the US space program can be destroyed by a little thing like a hurricane, I shudder to think what an extraterrestrial disaster would do to us.
It's only an insult if it's not true.
another one is headed that way now....
My name is a variety of floral rose, and no, it's not blue
From what I've heard the maintenance budget probably won't even cover replacing the torn off panels.
Given the safety cord and lack of oversight, it is good that if this had to happen, that it happened now, rather than when the shuttles were on 'active duty.' Now at least there isn't the pressure of a pending mission, and hopefully the engineers can have some time to thoroughly go over the orbiters to verify that there has been no damage.
My
Too bad, if they had been damaged perhaps progress would have been made on other methods to get to orbit that are just a little more efficient.
Manned spaceflight is essentially over as the shuttles survived and will further suck money and life out of NASA. As for losing the shuttles being the end of the space program I would disagree. Sure having them means we have "manned missions" but they also put us at an increased risk of having NO MORE. If one more shuttle goes, then what???
It is an amazingly engineered vehicle, over engineered. It also is nothing more than a jobs program for NASA and a bunch of support companies who all are based in areas with important Congressmen shoveling money for votes.
Kill the shuttle, I just wish nature had so an accident didn't. It would be better to have 3 orbiters for display around than the country than 2 or less.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Weren't there any protection to somehow shield these expensive vehicles? Or is it because they didn't think any natural disaster may hit Florida?
Another side question - is it possible to fly Space Shuttle easily and safely on earth? Like flying to another state?
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
I took a tour of the Kendedy space center a while ago and i thought i remember them saying that it was made to withstand winds of hurricane force up to 150mph or something like that. I dont see what all the hoopla is about. Well that is if i am remembering correctly
--- Sig test. 1...2...3...
When ivan strikes.
Kazachstan[sp]
Kazakhstan
G
So he lined up and tried another shot. Clouds of dirt and sand and ants went flying again. The golf ball didn't even wiggle.
Two ants survived. One dazed ant said to the other, "Whoa! What are we going to do?"
Said the other ant: "I don't know about you, but I'm going to get on the ball."
Matt Fahrenbacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
So the space shuttles survived Frances, huh? Good. But now, another hurricane looks to be barrelling down on them. Hurricane Ivan looks like it might be making an appearance in Florida next weekend. Shoot, at this rate, one hurricane per week, the shuttles may have a dozen or so hurricanes by the time hurricane season is over. If they can survive all of that, I'll be really impressed.
That redstone rocket is basically irreplaceable. I'm sorry to see such a significant historical artifact destroyed.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You hit preview three times, and you think you'd catch golf being spelled incorrectly... sigh...
Well, the X-Prize folks haven't gone anywhere yet and the Russians can barely afford their current feeble effort and don't seem to have any plans to pay for the design and development of new spacecraft or missions outside LEO.
(I'm deliberately discounting that little coast up to 60 miles. I want to see the private sector put payloads on the order of at leat 100 tons in orbit. That's the kind of capability we need to actually go somewhere.)
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Reading the AP article regarding the fallen rocket there is a photo with the caption: "A rocket similar to this was used to launch Alan Shepard on the first unmanned suborbital mission.
That's why it's so incredibly stupid to include tons of dead weight in the form of wings, landing gear, 1st stage engines and extra heat shields to protect them all in addition to the payload.
I have to imagine that if the shuttles had been destroyed, they would have built new ones. I don't know how much each ones costs, but wikipedia seems to indicate that it costs $500 million just for the launch.
:-)
Now, assuming that they had been destroyed and would be rebuilt...lets go on to ponder how many people are currently without homes/food/clothes down there in Florida. And how many of them could be fed/clothed for $500 million? Not all probably, but many.
I guess my only point is that I am surprised this made headlines. We should care just as much about the people down there getting their federal relief funds as we should about NASA fixing their walls. I'm all for space flight, but we should take care of those in need as well. Maybe once NASA fixes the hole in the wall, everyone can move in there!! Sounds like a big place.
space isn't the final frontier after all! ...
so much to nukes and bad funding
it may be the most affordable reusable vehicle in the world, but isn't the argument against it that disposables are cheaper?
i'm sincerely curious. space flight isn't one of my hobbies, just one of my taxes.
What about the cost implications of using non-reusable orbiters?
Each of them a unique size and shape, no doubt.
Eric in Seattle
Everyone worries about the shuttles that aren't even on the launch pad. What about the Titan IVB now on the pad or the inaugural Delta IV heavy lift?
In terms of exposed national assets the Cape has as much to worry about.
If it just has to go up and come back down once, it's a lot cheaper than making sure the ship can go back up and back down many times. That's why the shuttles are overengineered flying bricks.
503 Sig Unavailable
The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
Interestingly enough, the cost per pound to put something in orbit was significantly lower for the (expendable) Saturn V than for the (reusable) Space Shuttle. Even when you take inflation into account.
screen doors
The vehicles weren't damaged because they weren't there.
Nitpicking, but the space shuttle isn't single-stage to orbit (SSTO). It's more like 2.5 stage (SRBs being one, tank being half a stage, orbiter being the final stage).
And the shuttle is still much more expensive than it could have been (and was originally intended to be, before the DoD got involved and added a whole bunch of requirements that added weight and maintenence and never even ended up being used.).
The damn things are designed to go 18,000 miles an hour. If 140mph wind caused problems, I'd want my money back.
OTOH, the shuttle alone can't be taken as sufficient evidence that SSTO is a bad idea, or that VTHL is a half-assed way to put a winged airframe someplace without air, or that reusability either is or isn't worth its extra effort. nonetheless, i believe we should note that the shuttle is not and never was cheap to fly, that it has a sucky safety record, and takes a continuing enormous investment of time, money and manpower to operate.
it's been, what, thirty years since it was proposed and twenty since it first flew? maybe - just maybe - we could do better these days, with the lessons we've learned from it?
Congress? simpler and cheaper? have you ever read a U.S. newspaper?
If congress does anything to change the status quo, the change would probably be more complicated and more expersive!
Open Source Sushi
"It appears that there was no damage to any of the space shuttles, according to the first word from NASA. " said by the same people who said," don't worry it was just foam"......
The National Hurricane Center is tracking Hurricane Ivan, which is currently on a path similar to the one that Frances just took. It's projected to be here by this weekend, if it does hit Florida (and if their predictions hold true). NASA has already stated that they won't even have time to put on a "band-aid" fix by then, so if Ivan hits, they've got very serious problems. FYI, I live in Orlando, due west of Kennedy Space Center, and I'm getting rather weary of tropical weather systems.
A simple capsule design can be reusable; just slap a fresh heat shield on the bottom an launch it again. The Gemini capsules were initially designed for reuse. They were going to use a parasail to glide to a landing on a runway on extendable skids. They only used splashdowns on the actual missions because parasails weren't fully debugged by 1965; that probably wouldn't be an issue today. The Soviet Union also test-flew a reusable capsule design.
The bulk of the shuttle system isn't very "reusable" anyway. The huge fuel tank that helps to orbit the extra dead weight costs as much as many smaller rockets by itself. I saw a blurb somewhere that claimed that it costs more to recover and rebuild the solid boosters than fresh ones would cost. The high-strung liquid fuel engines also require hugely expensive overhauls at regular intervals.
Bottom line is that the space shuttle serves mainly as a glaring example of the old phrase "Penny wise, Pound foolish".
I hear it has a safe operating range of anywhere between 1 to 0 atmospheres.
Or are you saying that every time theres a hurricane/flood/tornado/blizzard/wildfire/earthqua ke that NASA should scrub a launch and donate that money?
I've been through a couple of hurricanes lately. Floyd and Isabel. Lost most of the roof in Isabel. The longest wait was waiting for a reputable company to redo the roof. The insurance company came out, inspected, sent me a check the next day.
Do some people need more help? Sure. But the world shouldn't stop because Florida had a hurricane.
Instead of NASA, why don't we pick on the DOT for funds? Or INS? Or some other federal agency.
The sign was supposed to read: A rocket similar to this was used to launch Alan Shepard on the first unchimped suborbital mission.
For those interested, Wikipedia has a good piece about how the shuttle evolved from a cheap, fast turn around time spaceplane to the expensive, overbuilt monstrosity it is today.
Will they have everything secure for Hurricane Ivan?
"And if the shuttle program is over, manned space flight as we know it would be over. While many think that the shuttle is a very poor vehicle (actually it's amazingly engineered, but always lacked a real purpose), having it around pushes Congress to fund something simpler and cheaper."
Manned space flight has been over in any real sense since the shuttle's inception. All we've done is putter around aimlessly in earth orbit.
Some higher being must be really pissed off with Florida.
I tend to think he'd be more pissed off with you ridiculous fucktards on the left coast. Expect an earthquake soon.
ttfn
These things are designed to withstand 6000 mile an hour "winds" and rock-melting heat... why not a hurricane?
Something doesn't add up. If hurricanes were an actual threat to orbiters and other space vehicles, why would they build America's space port in frickin' Florida?
They knew about Florida hurricanes in the 60's, when they decided to build up Cape Canaveral.
They knew about Florida hurricanes in the 70's, when they designed the shuttle to fly from Cape Kennedy.
They knew about Florida hurricanes in the 80s, when STS flight operations began.
They knew about Florida hurricanes in the 90s, after the Challenger review of flight safety.
But now we are led to believe that we could lose a multi-billion dollar orbiter and cast the entire manned program into doubt because someone forgot that there might be a hurricane this year?
Bullshit. This is hype. The orbiters are safe in Florida. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Ummm, they're in Florida... Florida gets hit with hurricanes... They KNOW hurricanes can get up to Cat 5 strength...
Why not build the freekin' buildings that house these MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR pieces of hardware to withstand, oh I don't know, Cat 7 strength?
maybe these series of hurricanes (fueled by warmer oceans) will wake them up to the possibility that global warming is real and shouldn't be dismissed by Shrub.
I spend 1/2 the hurricane in Orlando, and the other half in fort lauderdale, and this was not a hurricane, even after landfall ( about 8 hours I belive) they changed it to a tropical storm. It was so tame we drove through most of sunday night 3 hours, and there was minimal damage, and I really have yet to understand what the "10 billion" in damages is from.
TruePunk | Games
Doesn't anyone think of the children ?
The shuttles have been a black hole into which we throw the space exploration budget. They failed in their mission to provide cheaper access to space through reusable vehicles.
We can't seem to put them out of their misery. Was hoping Frances would.
They are designed to go that fast forward only. They will break apart if they go sideways or backwards at much lower speeds, not to mention that they aren't protected against flying sharp objects carried by said wind.
Dammed Beavers
Read my blog: HansMast.com
The projected path of Ivan is very, very different from Frances. It's projected to imminently hit the Lesser Antilles and enter the Caribbean Ocean, which Frances did not.
Are you adequate?
Abolish Nasa. Let Corporations step up to the plate and take on space exploration. If they don't then going out into space really isn't necessary, now is it. Just get the fscking government out of everything.
I was wondering why they keep saying the shuttle is needed to complete the ISS, since Russia managed to get Mir up there without using a shuttle.. Any thoughts?
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
The way I understand it, later this week GWBush will personally take credit for the hurricane not destroying the shuttles and reinforcing his vision that everything is going to plan and, heck, we'll be landing on Mars any day now.
(We'd be on Mars now, if the probes real intent, to find oil, had discovered anything, it's truly amazing how fast Halliburton can move when properly informed in advance while potential competitors have to scurry to come up with a plan)
And you blame congress...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Article references unpersons. Fix.
Capsules may be cheaper, but think of the capability of the shuttle. There does not exist another vehicle that can COMFORTABLY take 10 people into space and back, AND cargo too. The largest capsules only seat 3 people, and have no room for anything else. I think when you measure it as cost per capability, the reusable Shuttle is still a winner.
Come on, if the Space Shuttle were knocked over by a hurricane, maybe we would finally be FORCED to upgrade aging technology. Writing off the existing program really isn't all that bad a notion with that in mind. Besides, China trying to puff their chest out every now and then (whether they're serious or not) is sure to keep the manned space flight program alive. ...Wonder what the deductable on a Space Shuttle is, anyway ;)
You need a FREE iPod Nano
What they didn't report is that those panels were designed to pop out. They are like punch-out panels and they worked exactly as planned!
0 08 53.jpg
2 000-000 614.jpg
;-)
When a hurricane comes there is a serious drop in pressure... well with a building that large (one of the most volumous buildings in the world) this creates a serious pressure differential and if parts of the building do not give, or of there is not some sort of equalization, then the whole thing would explode from the pressure.
So they built a few thousand of these punch panels designed to pop out during a hurricane in order to save the building. I dont know why that wasn't in the article. These panels are on the north and south faces of the building and can be viewed here:
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LARGE/GPN-2000-0
(the brownish panels in the center section)
and here:
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/GPN-
Also if you don't think the building is all that large, look at the second photograph and notice the water tower
I grew up in Orlando and knew many many people that were engineer types; I feel very fortunate.
When I was in the Boy Scouts (yes I am an Eagle), I actually got a tour of the SSPF, the VAB, the SPF, and LP Complex 39-A. On this tour I learned about these panels.
This wasn't the normal tour though. One of our Scoutmasters was in charge of designing the lav and the escape hatch for the SS and had basically unlimited access. We essentially got the VIP/Congressional tour. I actually got to touch, (and yes I mean physically touch), Columbia as I walked underneath it and around it. I was 5 ft from the SRBs, I got to stand on the launch pad, on the crawler, 5 ft from the Michealangelo module for the SS, and underneath one of their 205k ton cranes.
That tour was something I will never forget for the rest of my life.
Libertas in infinitum
(blatently ripped off from someone)
We need to
a) Fly shuttle to international space station.
b) Use duct tape to tape shuttle to international space station.
c) Astronauts use escape pod on international space station.
d) Shuttle uses engines to either deorbit shuttle and space station into pacific ocean, or change orbit such that it intersects with the sun.
They're not the only space-goers to take inflation into account.
if a shuttle can't survive sitting stationary through a hurricane, how in the hell would it survive re-entry?
;)
a few storm shutters on your house in a hurricane should do the job...
i'd like to see a few storm shutters help a spacecraft on re-entry
-judging another only defines yourself
What we need is shuttle REPLACEMENTS.
:)
:)
We need a simple, cheap (reusable if its cheaper, otherwise not) booster that can launch large masses into space and get them to whatever location is desided (e.g. space station parts, sattelites, parts for ships/bases on the moon/mars or whatever).
I dont know if anything in the Titan or Atlas rocket families is large enough to handle all this or not but if its not, build something that is.
Then, build a shuttlecraft designed to cary smaller parts, tools, equipment, docking adapters and such. Oh yeah, make it able to cary astronauts too
About the only thing these 2 new vechicles cant do that the current shuttle can is retrieve stuff from space and that isnt exactly a feature thats used very often
... and we may end up with better tech we can use to survive space conditions. And Vice Versa.
...
A case of specialization versus generalization, I know, but it seems ironic to me that $Billion programs to create tools, techniques and technology for harsh environmental control are unable to suffer a little storm here and there
Just like those space-hab like structures being built on Antarctita by the Germans may one day give us habs for Moon, Mars and beyond, it seems to me that a "better shuttle" (easier said than...) should give us something we can use to house Floridians in the years to come, protect those precious orange crops, etc...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Whew, even God doesn't support Bush. Two hurricanes and a third on its way is a strong message for the people of Florida!
If we lose the Shuttle now we lose the Hubble
This has nothing to do with Hubble. NASA has decided against flights to Hubble. In fact, they won't be flying anywhere other than the space station.
I'm well aware of the capabilities of the Saturn, and the Energiya. But, there aren't any to "grab". Crews to support and launch them do not exist. Missions requring them do not exist. Payloads with a mass of 100 tons do not exist and no one is planning to build any.
More importantly, no one in the private sector is going to spend $10 billion on an endeavour unless that mission earns more than $10 billion in revenue. Do you know how to get that kind of return from a single launch?
I'm not rejecting private sector space travel. I hope it happens. But, the private sector can't take on money-losing activities.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I seem to remember that an old Mercury/Redstone got blown over last time a big hurricane hit the cape (three - four years ago?). They're not having much luck with them, perhaps it was the same one?
I ask you this: So what if the shuttles were destroyed by a hurricane? Do you really think this would end the Space Program completely?
I for one think not. I think we'd see a new NASA, one as we do not know it yet. It'd be born out of the wreckage, like a phoenix from the ashes if you will. I feel they are in need of new ideas, new designs. New shuttles sure, but what else could the engineers and scientists come up with if they could start completely from scratch, with newer technologies, instead of doing upgrades and maintenance on the aging hulks of the current fleet.
It's about time for something radical in aerospace, in spaceflight. There has to be something under wraps that we've not seen, stuff at Area 51 or the Skunk Works. Show it to us! What can we do to help, NASA? Some of us have jobs we're only doing because we have to. If you were to issue the call NASA, some of us would come running!
Why not bring in the guys who are competing in the X-Prize? Get 'em NASA sized budgets. What could they accomplish then? If Burt Rutan can come up with the wicked design he did to get a man into LEO on a limited amount of money,what could he do with a bigger piggie bank? I envision weekly trips to orbit the Moon.
I dreamed of being a pilot and then an astronaut as a kid. Now I just would love to be a passenger on a spaceship. What of those kids now who like me dreamed of floating in space, living in a space station, walking on the moon? Insprire us more, NASA, like you did in when Kennedy was in office, when the Eagle Landed, when the Cold War was on, and most recently by having incredibly cool rovers on Mars! Generations now and in the future should to go to the stars. NASA could lead the way.
There's one more storm coming. I'd love to see it wreck the existing fleet. If I'm right, maybe then we'll see something amazing.
...the same damage assessment team from the Columbia mission.
I didn't touch the tile itself but the landing gear. I knew about the oil possibility and wouldn't want to run the risk of messing anything up.
What absolutely amazed me was that each and every single tile had a serial number on it with its history stored in a computer somewhere. That's a huge undertaking!
Libertas in infinitum
The article says they are without pour and don't know when they can make repairs. Does that mean they will be closed to tourists next week? I'm hoping to visit while I'm down in the area. I can't find info on the website. Guess I'll have to look later in the week.
Yeah, they need to be completely torn down and rebuilt between every launch because they run at over 100% of their rated operating capacity. Because the shuttle design wound up going way overweight.
The heat tiles require a lot of inspection and refurbishing between launches as well.
In short, the Shuttle is best described as "able to be rebuilt."
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
as for cargo, there's not a whole lot of good reason it has to go up along with human crew. if something needs to be assembled or maintained in orbit, why can't it be sent up into a parking orbit by itself for a week or two and the personnel to do the work on it be sent up separately? this not only lets you choose launch windows a bit more freely (since the two launches might be different in those regards - only one of them needs to be able to return, for a start), it also lets you use cheaper, non-manrated lifters for dead cargo and save the expensive, reliable ones for humans.
one of the main reasons the shuttle is what it is was that the Air Force wanted the capacity to bring large loads back down from orbit. that's why the thing has that huge, ever-present cargo bay instead of a disposable payload shroud, basically. 'course, this ability has actually been used about three or four times, but who cares, right...?
Corporate Gadfly
Jonathan Archer: the most beaten up Enterprise captain in Star Trek history
As much as everyone likes to dis the US shuttle as being expensive, it's the most affordable reusable VTHL SSTO vehicle in the world.
The "reusable" bit is rather questionable. Given that the shuttle orbiter needs what amounts to a complete strip down and rebuild after every flight. Originally NASA claimed that each orbiter would require only a two week service between missions. There is also the "bottleneck" of having only one facility for various parts of the pre-launch assembly, thus having more than one orbiter dosn't help much with time to get things ready.
--
Using GNU/Linux - Windows-free zone!