NASA Prepares Discovery for Launch

eggoeater writes "Yahoo! reports that Kennedy Space Center is buzzing with excitement over the likely launch of Space Shuttle Discovery this Spring. It's been just over two years since the Columbia tragedy and the Discovery has been outfitted with many new safety features, including the removal of the foam from the external tank and pressure sensors on the wings that would detect an impact. Quote from launch director Michael D. Leinbach: 'It's all converging on what looks like May 15 to start flying the shuttle again.'"

Comments

Oh finally!

[ForestGrump]

They can finally service hubble, instead of letting it fall into the ocean.

Grump
no, i'm being sarcastic.

Re:Oh finally!

[luvirini]

Nope, as NASA has become a bunch of scared old folks basically. Every mission they do has to follow a set of safety standards, among them the fact that the shuttle has to have the option of evacuating to the international space station. Hubble's orbit makes this impossible, thus no direct resque missions.

Re:Oh finally!

[Long-EZ]

You are laboring under the practical geek perspective. You definitely aren't seeing it from the congressional perspective. Their job is not to do as much science while spending as little money as possible. That would be practical. They're political. Their job is to spend as many tax dollars as possible, in their own districts. So, they make deals. I'll vote for your pork if you vote for my pork. Taxpayers vote for the biggest pork politicians, and the cycle repeats.

The only cure is to stop voting for more pork, and I don't see that happening. As a nation, we're far too short sighted and self interested.

So, if congress is the boss because it controls the purse strings, how do you think NASA will behave? Just like any employee, they quickly realize the boss's goal and agenda and make it their own. So, the people who manage NASA are not in the business of cost effective space exploration. In fact, quite the opposite. They're in the business of spending tax dollars in several congressional districts.

And that's why we need private space exploration and development, and we finally have it. Many companies now see the possibility and they have the vision and motivation to do what NASA couldn't.

It's sad that NASA did so much in the early years and then the political process ruined it late in the Apollo era. Despite some very bright scientists, engineers and astronauts, they just can't help being a government bureaucracy. Why? As usual, it has everything to do with the movement of little green pieces of paper. Lots of little green pieces of paper.

Sounds good, but expensive.

[bigtallmofo]

I'm glad the shuttle program is going back online but with the price of launching a Soyuz being about 1/25th the cost of a shuttle launch, I'm not sure how much we should depend on the shuttle.

Re:Sounds good, but expensive.

[jokumuu]

The Real problem is that while the shuttle was being built (and fought over in budgets) NASA intentionally tried to stop all other forms of space flight to keep the shuttle program alive. The end result was the the shuttle had to fullfill so many missions that it became a "jack of all trades, master of none." So currently US does not have anything approachng Soyuz in capacity as alternative to the shuttle.

Re:Sounds good, but expensive.

[Docrates]

A Soyuz doesn't have the cargo capacity that the Shuttle has, which is why ISS construction has been halted and supplies are running tight.

The real question is if America should continue supporting the construction of the ISS. Circumstantially I think she should, even if the scientific and engineering profit from the program is limited.

Re:Sounds good, but expensive.

[demachina]

Here is the proposed Russian replacement for Soyuz called Kliper. Astronautix has a little more detail on it. They are planning to show a full size model at the Paris air show in June.

Its an interesting hybrid of lifting body and capsule, it will reenter like a lifting body but pop a parachute and land with a thud like Soyuz. I think its fairly similar to canceled X vehicle Burt Rutan was developing as the ISS lifeboat.

It will carry 6 people or 700 Kilo's of cargo. If you hang one of these on the ISS as the emergency vehicle you could raise the manning level to six people and actually do some research on it for a change. The cargo capacity also appears well suited to resupply the ISS, it can carry a lot more than Progress and Soyuz.

They hope to have it flying by 2010 which just happens to be about when the Shuttle stops flying. They need $10 billion roubles to finish it which sounds like a lot but the exchange rate is 28 roubles to the dollar so that is only $350 million dollars. By contrast NASA is wasting $500 billion on CEV this year alone and they wont get ANYTHING for it other than pretty computer generated images. Building CEV is going to cost at least 36 times as much as Kliper and is scheduled to be 4 years later for its first manned launch, 2010 versus 2014.

Sure looks to me like Russia is hoping to fill the void the Shuttle is going to leave in 2010 with Kliper and essentially take over the ISS if they get the funding to develop it. Whatever happens the Russians are going to be the ONLY people putting people in to LEO on a regular basis from 2010 to 2014, maybe the Chinese will launch a few people too. NASA ought to be ashamed, very ashamed, again.

Seems to me like the Europeans or Japanese should jump at helping with the funding for Kliper. Their investment in ISS has been largely destroyed by NASA's failures, most of their modules are sitting on the ground and they may never get the astronauts onboard the ISS needed to do their planned research. For $350 million they could save their ISS investment and in partnership with Russia develop their own manned space program free of the boat anchor that is NASA, Boeing, Lockheed.

Seems to me like the Chinese could partner with Kliper as well with their new found wealth and jump start their rather slow manned space effort, especially if they get technology sharing in return for cash.

P.S.

I submitted the Kliper article when it came out a few days ago and it was rejected. It is real news versus this fluff piece. Hate to break it to you the shuttle has been scheduled to launch in May for a while now, its not news. The breaking news will be if they manage to stay on schedule for a change.

Re:Sounds good, but expensive.

[willith]

By contrast NASA is wasting $500 billion on CEV this year alone and they wont get ANYTHING for it other than pretty computer generated images. Building CEV is going to cost at least 36 times as much as Kliper and is scheduled to be 4 years later for its first manned launch, 2010 versus 2014.

That's because CEV's intended role, as a platform that can be used for interplanetary expeditions, is much broader than Kliper's intended role as a bus to ferry people and cargo to LEO. The competing CEV design teams have a lot more complicated problems to solve, like, how do we keep the crew from being fried by radiation while they're hanging somewhere in the spaces between worlds, and how do we engineer a complex, multi-role vehicle that can launch, go to Mars, send down a lander component to deliver people and cargo, lift back off and rendezvous, and then return those people and cargo to earth?

You're not just comparing apples to oranges; you're comparing apples to 747s.

Re:Sounds good, but expensive.

[demachina]

If you read the article, and I should have mentioned it in my post, the Russians have plans to use Kliper to go to the moon too. I doubt there is really ANY difference in the mission requirements between Kliper and the first iteration of CEV.

I hate to break it to you, the only reason CEV is so vastly more expensive is because NASA, Boeing and Lockheed are in the loop and of course the wage rates are higher in the U.S. than the U.S.S.R., especially after Boeing and Lockheed slap on their overhead. I assure you NASA, Lockheed and Boeing are experts at wasting money, you need look no further than the Shuttle and the ISS to see that.

As best I understand it the CEV prototype launches in 2008 wont address ANYTHING involving manned flight, going to the moon or mars. Its going to be a tin can that isn't man rated launched on a more less existing booster, heavy lift versions of Atlas, Delta or Titan and will barely make it to LEO. Not sure the first launches in 2014 with men will do anything but LEO either. Somebody is going to have to build a major new heavy launcher to go back to the moon or do multiple launches (i.e. fuel and a space tug on one, and then the CEV on another).

Its very much open to doubt if the CEV in its first iterations will address going to the Moon or Mars at all in 2014 either though it remains to be seen what they propose. I think there is at least a chance they will have to develop landers on top of the CEV to go to the moon(and a better booster). I'm skeptical that they are going to land the whole CEV on the moon and blast if off from there. The Apollo strategy was the right one for a lot of reasons. To do the Moon right chances are a several vehicles will be required.

Its completely delusional to think CEV will be usable at all for going to Mars. The requirements for going to LEO and the Moon are VASTLY different from those for going to Mars. If you use the same vehicle for all three its going to be either complete overkill for LEO and the Moon or woefully inadequate for Mars. The Mars vehicle is going to have to a completely different vehicle and boosters, its going to have to be way bigger or the crew will both run out of supplies and go bonkers trapped for that long in a tiny capsule.

I wouldn't be surprised if they try to do a shuttle with CEV, and do one size fits all for all three missions, but it will be the same disaster the Shuttle was, heavy and expensive, jack of all trades, master of none.

Best scientific quote ever

[rbarreira]

Several important matters remain unresolved, including what to use for in-flight repair of the thermal tiles, which protect the shuttle's nose and belly from temperatures of more than 2,300 degrees Fahrenheit upon reentry.

Five methods are being studied, including a giant caulking gun that dispenses pinkish-orange goo.

Re:Best scientific quote ever

[mattkime]

Five methods are being studied, including a giant caulking gun that dispenses pinkish-orange goo.

Who knew that Taco Bell hot sauce was so versatile?

70s technology

[luvirini]

The basic problem of the shuttle come from the fact that it is mostly 70s technology with some glueover.

Thus the materials are so much heavier than corresponding would be today an so on.

The Way NASA has been trying to keep this program alive by more clue is likely to end in further embarassments.

Too bad there is not enough focus to do great things, instead NASA has just become another CYA organisation.

Re:70s technology

[jokumuu]

Seems to me they lost track of their vision somewhere as organisation. I am not saying there are not dedicated people as such there, there are many, but the organisation itself has lost it's goals.

Re:70s technology

[Long-EZ]

I find it to be amazing that 95% of NASA can be so talented, intelligent and motiated, and the organization can be so completely ruined and its effects minimalized by the 5% who are plugged into the funding and end up calling the shots based on the political process. When the entire organization exists to spend money, the science is often an unintended result, at least from the perspective of the people who are writing the checks and setting policy.

NASA is now too political to be anything but a festering mound of poot. I feel sorry for the many technical people who are trying to do good work in that environment. I couldn't do it. Hopefully, the best and the brightest will get a good job in the new commercial space ventures that are popping up and can finally have their dreams realized.

Re:BOFH?

[digitalchinky]

Doesn't snopes or one of those other urban legend sites have something about that pen, fully privately funded by fisher, nothing at all to do with NASA. Price tag was 2 million as well.

The russians also use 'pens' by the way. Pencil dust and all.

Re:BOFH?

[vidnet]

Which pen? This one?

Big Dumb Boosters

[Peter777]

Anyone remember from 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress', that Heinlein predicts rocket tech will have evolved into something far simpler that what we have today (or back then even)? His summary of space tech for the next couple of hundered years went something like:

1. Exceedingly basic and unreliable.

2. Exceedingly complex and expensive.

3. Basic, reliable and cheap.

I wonder when no.3 will arrive...http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byte serv.prl/~ota/disk1/1989/8904/8904.PDF

Re:Big Dumb Boosters

[LWATCDR]

I think Helnlein got this wrong. A better model would be Airliners.
1. Is correct.
2. is right.
3 Exceedingly complex, expensive, reliable, and efficient.

Modern jet airliners are not basic or cheap. But they are reliable and efficient. All this talk of going back to Big Dumb Boosters is like saying Lets stick with DC-3s they are so much cheaper and simpler than 777s.

OT: Amusing contracted headline

[Anonymous Coward]

I opened this story in a new tab (in Firefox), and the title was contracted to "Slashdot | Nasa Prepares Disco...".

Re:BOFH?

[dbIII]

As Americans, we over engineer

I think you'll find the phrase is really "micromanage and change direction often". Also the basics are not looked at sometimes. After reading "Dragonfly" about american astronauts on Mir, it appears that the psychological testing which I always thought was the only non-fiction part of "I Dream of Jeanie" was also fiction. People that were not suited to the task of working in a closed environment as a team for months were sent into space without being tested to see whether they were suitable or not. One glaring example of the management problems at NASA some years back was that the people who knew about the fault that led to the challenger accident did not have a way to get that inforamation to the people at the top of the organisation without going through an outsider that had a Nobel prize (so had some serious credibility).

The pen story was a myth anyway - reality is far worse - components assembled at greater cost in different states for the purpose of political pork barrelling.

8 missions left

[scotty777]

Right now NASA has firm plans for eight missions to deliver space station structure. The ISS needs those truss sections and solar cell arrays to become fully functional. Those cargos are too big to fit under the payload shrouds of the other available launchers. I guess that a few modules may be lofted for ISS partners, but after that the shuttle has no mission.