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

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.

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?

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.

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?

[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

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...".