Slashdot Mirror


Space Shuttle to re-launch in May

Goeland86 writes "CNN reports that NASA is on it's way to prepare for a shuttle launch in may. Considering the damage caused by the Hurricanes this season, I think it's quite impressive that they're even thinking of a launch next year altogether."

7 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Scrapping the Shuttle? by Kazrath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought they were scrapping the shuttle? This might of been interesting if it was 20-30 years from now and they were taking their "restored 57 Chevy" out into space. Personally I am to the point where these shuttle flights are a big waste of money "if" they are not doing anything innovative to help the next breed of space capable crafts.

  2. I thought... by gandell · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was under the impression that NASA may be considering a move away from the Space Shuttle projects. Could this be one of the last missions, or are the rumors greatly exaggerated?

    --
    Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
    1. Re:I thought... by pointyhairedmba · · Score: 3, Interesting

      NASA is moving away from the Shuttle... but not for anouther 20-28 missions. There simply is not enough lift capability that can support the current design on the various ISS modules. They were built to fit in the Shuttle and not in another heavy lift booster. My guess is the net present value of the science + ecomonic gain will dip below 0 if the remaining components have to be redesigned. So we need to keep the Shuttle active for most of the remaining build out time of the ISS.

      Hey, on the bright side, the Shuttle was built specifically to go to a space station (space station Alpha, then Freedom, etc) which never materialized until well into the Shuttle's life. So at least it's doing what it was supposed to do (hence the name Shuttle)...

  3. Re:By the grace of God, let's hope NASA's fixed th by ckaminski · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Exactly 1 since the dawn of U.S. manned flight has ended up in the ocean before nominal mission end.

    One was scattered all over the South.

    One caught fire on the launchpad.

    A pretty fucking remarkable record if you consider that a rocket is nothing less than a million pounds of high explosive in a tin can.

  4. Damage? by kzinti · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Considering the damage caused by the Hurricanes this season...

    What damage? The VAB lost a number of sheet-metal panels. The tile fab shop lost a roof. Some other buildings sustained minor water damage. The OPF lost power once or twice. NO FLIGHT HARDWARE WAS DAMAGED. The schedule slip was due as much to the hurricane preparation exercises as to the repair activities. Schedule impact was measured in weeks, not months.

  5. Re:NASA has no choice by igny · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As usual in capitalist world, they put monetary equivalent for the obligations. A couple of years ago Russia was behind their obligations, which put them at ~$60-70mln in debt. Since they didn't have money to compensate, they used barter. Namely, Russian cosmonauts worked on American projects aboard ISS. I don't know exact figures, but they charged $500/hour or so. Russia have also been repaying their debt in the last months by supplying their Soyuzes. Their outstanding balance became officially $0 after that work they did to fix the break circuit in American segment of the ISS (I read somewhere that they charged 500 of work hours for that job).

    From then on NASA has been falling behind. Since Congress prohibited paying cash to Russia, they will use barter again. Now American taxpayers should expect astronauts to work on Russian projects.

    --
    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
  6. Re:NASA bashing: Think it through. by jimhill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "[W]e've got that great big investment up there called the ISS. Shall we just abandon it? Didn't think so."

    Think again. If I take a thousand dollars in cash and throw it down a sewer drain I don't call it an "investment". The ISS has been so scaled down that even if completed its science value will be negligible. This is a pig in a poke, the countries that have pulled out have done so wisely, and only our pig-headed obstinance (or steadfast resolve, if you're on that side of the aisle) keeps us throwing billions at that turkey.

    "'Disasters' - We've had two. Fewer than the Apollo program. They suck. Really they do. And they have been attributed to the 'make it work anyway' group."

    I am admittedly not a space fanatic but I remember the Apollo 13 cockup -- which didn't kill anyone but really, really should have given the circumstances -- and the Apollo 1 fire, which killed three. 13 had a hardware fault, which is going to happen occasionally despite the best intentions and zero-defect policies. 1 suffered from a combination of poor engineering design (an inward-opening hatch? Oy) and the schedule-pushers whose successors killed the two shuttles.

    Both shuttle accidents could have been averted if the engineers had been listened to by the managers. The Columbia report revealed that NASA didn't learn a goddamned thing from the Challenger disaster and I bet a dollar to a doughnut the Endeavour report will reveal that NASA didn't learn a goddamned thing from the Columbia disaster. (Not to pick on Endeavour, the next killemall shuttle cockup could just as well be one of the other two.) NASA's management culture is not capable of changing.

    "[W]e really need the shuttles flying, if only to develop the replacements!"

    Why? Not being snarky, but why will the presence or absence of shuttle flights assist in the design, manufacture, and testing of a next-generation (yet equally superfluous) orbital vehicle? Obviously NASA will _use_ the shuttle, if only to justify its continuing existence, perhaps to fly parts up and let them undergo the shake, rattle, and roll of a launch, but what makes the shuttle a _necessary_ part of the design effort?

    I have made and continue to make a relatively unpopular statement. I'm not trolling or baiting or trying to be funny, but I feel strongly about this: De-orbit the ISS. Ground the shuttle fleet. Put all that money into the unmanned program and flood the solar system with rovers and parachuting probes and orbiting instrument platforms. They don't have to sleep a third of the time, they don't need air, or food, or water, or as much radiation shielding.

    We won't, though. The US as a whole has an enormous amount of national ego built into its status as a space-faring nation. It's like cities that don't feel "world class" without a professional sports franchise writ large. Never mind that we spend way too much, go nowhere, do little of value, and periodically kill everyone onboard.

    Perhaps things will change.

    --
    Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus