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."
The closer to the equator you are, the less additional power you need for taking off (don't get me wrong, you still need a huge amount).
That is why ESA launches from French Guinea[sp] instead of the UK mainland and the USSR launched from Kazachstan[sp] instead of Russia itself.
You can see the effect the speed has on you when you're on a merry-go-round. When standing on the edges you are pushed off of it by the centrifugal forces, but when you're standing near the center you don't have to worry about it.
bash$
Another side question - is it possible to fly Space Shuttle easily and safely on earth? Like flying to another state?
IIRC the shuttles never really "fly" even in Earth's atmosphere... they only glide back to earth. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Here's a good link regarding the choosing of Florida for the space program.
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
Kazachstan[sp]
Kazakhstan
G
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?
They were protected, hence why the Shuttles were undamaged.
The VAB was damaged, which is unsurprising as its a big (3rd largest by volume in the world) square building, and as such catches the wind a little.
It's not as if that's the only one in existence, though. IIRC, there's one standing in the main hall of the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum in Washington, DC, which is relatively safe from hurricanes.
That is correct during mission operations, but between missions, the empty orbiters are shuttled from place to place piggybacked onto Boeing 747s. That's how they get back to Cape Canaveral after landing at Edwards AFB in California.
Aerodynamically, the shuttles are essentially maneuverable bricks. During its return from orbit, the pilot can control the direction and angle of its descent, but that's about it. The wings cannot produce enough lift to gain altitude, certainly not from a standing start on the ground using the onboard engines (and with what fuel?).
This is why the shuttles have to be ferried atop a 747 back to Canaveral when (usually due to weather conditions) they instead land at Edwards AFB in California. So if NASA wanted to evacuate the orbiters, they'd probably need to, um, shuttle them out one at a time on the jumbo jet.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Florida was about as far south as the US could go, while still being able to launch over the ocean (instead of a populated area). ESA was able to go further south. The same reasoning is what lead Boeing to set up Sea-Launch, which operates out of Long Beach, but sails the launch vehicle down near the equator and launches it from a floating platform.
yeah and then there also is hawaii, not a colony but further south than Florida.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
My mistake, I meant 10 sq. Gunter's Chains. It's actually 160 sq. rods.
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".
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.
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.
The fact that Florida is seismically stable doesn't hurt either.
Googling for shuttle stall speed turns up meaningless links, but, google for landing speed and you get this . Scroll down, and you'll find it's using 213 to 225 mph as touchdown speed, and it's likely a valid assumption the range depends on all up landing weight. Working backward using traditional 'airmanship' numbers, touchdown is approximately 110% of stall speed, unless limited by tires etc, so it's probably safe to 'guess' the shuttle stalling in the area of 180 to 190 mph. Again, this is all somewhat subjective, as stall is truely based on angle of attack, and since the shuttle is unpowered, hard to measure a 'level flight' scenario, but, it's pretty reasonable to assume it is incapable of gliding slower than 180 to 190 in a sea level atmosphere just based on it's touchdown speed.
Another little detail, in order to have the wind 'pick up' the shuttle, it'll have to be nosed into wind, and set with the wings at the optimum angle of attack. A shuttle on the wheels is very distinctively 'nose low'. So, not only will you need a cat 5 hurricane, you also need Nasa folks to park it on a slight rise to get the angle of attack right.
I think nasa can rest assured, a shuttle exposed to a cat 5 hurricane by 'just parking outside' is not going to suffer a blow over. It may take some damage from flying debris, but, it's not going to blow over. I believe the structure itself is quite capable of handling hurricane force winds assuming it's parked nose to the wind, it endures much stronger aerodynamic forces during landing.
The launch facilities may be at risk to hurricanes, but the shuttles themselves, are probably safest parked out in the wide open away from potential debris, nose to the wind, and tie-downs are quite optional.
The main launch point for American space missions is as far south as practical because that gives space vehicles the maximum boost from earth's rotation. At the equator, a spacecraft could pick up 1000mph for free (Well... not for FREE, it saps earth's rotational energy, but...). Given how chemical fuels can just barely get themselves into space, current rockets need all they can get.
For the Apollo project they actually considered alternative launch sites and both Hawaii and Christmas Island where considered, but due to the remoteness would be TWICE as expensive, other options where systems comparable to sealaunch but in shallow water
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
VAB has its own weather systems inside. You really have no idea what the scale is without having been there.
Look at it this way - you could stick Yankee Stadium on the roof and have some extra space left over.
45 degree angles or curves are not going to change the fact that that is just a HUGE amount of square footage that would be facing into the wind, no matter what.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
The Energia was a highly configurable rocket. In its Vulkan configuration, it could lift ~150 metric tons, and in its Hercules configuration, it could lift a whopping 175 metric tons! That's way more than the Saturn V.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The Shuttle's were NOT built in Flordia. Many of the components were (and still are) made in CA, although much of the assambly is done in FL. Also, if we are going to build a new state of the art ship, let's build a new hanger/repair bay to go with it!