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
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.
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.
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".
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