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.
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.
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
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."
Some higher being must be really pissed off with Florida.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
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.
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.
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.
Clearly you had far, FAR cooler merry-go-rounds in your youth then I ever had... Best mine did was break down and make off-tune organ noise...
Hate me!
Each of them a unique size and shape, no doubt.
Eric in Seattle
Unfortunately you can't plan out that far for hurricane hits at this time, so instead of flying them out for every false alarm they take a chance with the orbiters in Florida.
Besides it's safer to have the orbiters buttoned down well in Florida, than have them caught off guard by a fast storm like Andrew with one of the orbiters still in process to be mated with the aircraft.
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.
Are you kidding? They are slated to be moved from service once they have replacements, and if they had been destroyed, they would not have been rebuilt. Instead, the money would have gone to accelerating the projects to replace it, and would have been a politically acceptable end to the program that has been a dismal failure to it's original goals (cheap reuseable spacecraft, remember!). For the future of the space program, it may have been better if they had been destroyed so we can get on with the real future.
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.
Guam
Saipan
The US Virgin Islands
Peurto Rico
American Samoa
Nah, the USA dosen't have any colonies...
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.
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".
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.
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
I may be on the left coast, but not the left coast of North America. Plus the left coast of Australia is geologically stable.
If the left coast of the USA gets an earthquake soon, Chicago, Detroit and New York get hit by a massive blizzard, a few tornadoes in the south, can we start to assume that the higher beings hate the US?
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
The fact that Florida is seismically stable doesn't hurt either.
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.
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
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
Maybe you haven't been paying attention. The only thing that would be FORCED if we lost an orbiter or two, would be the cessation of all funds related to manned space travel. Congress hates our expenditure on NASA. If you give them a reason, they WILL shut it down, and it will never restart.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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"