NASA Plans Discovery Launch May 15

Haxx writes "More than two years after losing the space shuttle Columbia and its seven crew, NASA said Friday it has set May 15 as its target date for once again launching shuttles into space." Reader gollum123 writes points out Reuters's version of the story, which says that "May 15 was chosen as the launch date for Discovery and its seven-member crew because of lighting conditions and thermal issues related to the shuttle's launch and docking at the International Space Station."

Comments

What have they done

[koreaman]

What exactly have they done to fix the problems plaguing the original space shuttle?

Re:What have they done

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I believe that they have changes both the formulation of the foam on the fuel tank, and also how it is attached? Something like that...

Re:What have they done

[Anonymous Coward]

They fired all of the engineers and outsourced to India.

Re:What have they done

[Anonymous Coward]

They are setting up cameras to watch the fuel tank throughout launch as well as arranging to track it via satellite.

Additionally, they are looking at ways to guard it against debris, wrapping a thick layer of duct tape round the O and P rings, and developing ways for astronauts to repair their craft in orbit.

Re:What have they done

[koreaman]

Thanks for the info everyone :)

Re:What have they done

[cot]

Firm believers in the "Everything old is new again" adage, they waited a few years in hopes that the aging fleet would come back around to being the latest and greatest thing again.

Re:What have they done

[Pentrant]

I'm somewhat frightened by the prospects of this and future launches. I have a friend who works at NASA, and he was telling me the other day about the "mandatory changes" list that NASA had implemented; basically, a list of things that had to be finished before the next launch.

He said that what started as a daunting list started shrinking as items were eliminated or down-played due to budget or time contraints. It started with small things, but as pressure was put on NASA to launch again, bigger and bigger items began taking on secondary or even non-existant importance.

The bottom line: this shuttle is launching with things that should have been fixed not fixed at all. What's scary to me is that this is the same situation that resulted in both previous shuttle explosions: problems that were known about but downplayed as unimportant. As history tells us, this was hardly the case, resulting in the loss of two shuttles.

My friend's analysis of the situation fits with some of the studies done on the NASA disasters; NASA should be allowed to do its job without budget or political pressure, for without this they can assure the safety of the people sent into space on their vehicles.

Unfortunately, this will likely never happen, and even the most brilliant of designs will be rushed out the door or underfunded. Tragic, really.

Re:What have they done

[roseblood]

The also have the Alexei Leonov standing ready to launch a rescue attempt incase the Discovery has any problems with its computers, or the leading edge of a wing were to strike a black monolith.

Re:What have they done

[ArsSineArtificio]

My friend's analysis of the situation fits with some of the studies done on the NASA disasters; NASA should be allowed to do its job without budget or political pressure, for without this they can assure the safety of the people sent into space on their vehicles.

If NASA cannot do its job under budget pressure, then it cannot do its job as well as private industry would. If it cannot do its job under political pressure, then it is a failure as a public agency, and is unaccountable to the public.

Re:What have they done

[PresidentKang]

What they have done is implemented the recommendations from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) report.

With respect to the Orbiter itself (aside from management and flight rules), the main changes are the following:

1) Redesign the insulation foam on the external tank around the area of the bipod struts where the foam detached on STS-107.

2) Get the makers of the Canadarm (robotic arm) - MDA Space Missions - to design and build a second arm that will be used to inspect the underside of the Shuttle for damage when it reached orbit. Check a picture of the Shuttle with two arms at the Jan 26, 2005 press release.

3) Always launch missions during the day to the ISS only (hence the Hubble discussions) and have a spare Orbiter (in this case Atlantis) ready to go for rescue missions.

Re:What have they done

[Illserve]

There's no amount of changes that can make the Shuttle a relative safe means of space travel (relative in comparison to the Soyuz or other capsule approaches).

The shuttle is an inherently crappy space launch vehicle and no amount of to-do lists are going to change the laws of physics.

So in a sense, it's good that they've had to drop these to-do lists, because more accidents are inevitable.

What NASA really needs to do is grow a pair and get on with it. Why is 7 people dying such a tragedy? We lose hundreds a month in Iraq, and unlike astronauts, many of those had no idea that they were signing up for something dangerous when they signed up with the reserves. Are those people somehow less important that we don't even bat an eyelash at their loss but spend untold millions to secure the safety of our tiny handful of astronauts? And it's not even clear that these millions can have much practical benefit.

So NASA, at some point we'll get back to capsule based launches when it's finally sunk into your thick heads that reuseable launch vehicles are just not going to work ( and that needs to happen ASAP). In the meantime, buck up and deal with it. Space travel is hard, and dangerous. So is living.

Nasa needs

Re:What have they done

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so suprised. If this is your first interaction with how any government agency reacts to an incident, get used to similar behavior in the future. After an incident occurs, a critique is performed. This critique *recommends* corrective actions to be taken *or* removes the authority of the agency to operate (or in some cases fires the head of the agency and puts in a puppet leader to put more focus on corrective actions). If the Columbia Accident Investigation Board had no confidence that NASA could launch safely, they would have recommended that the shuttle program be abandoned outright. This is not the case because they believe that if NASA follows the intent of the corrective actions no further accidents are likely to occur.

Once the critique is completed, and NASA has the list of corrective actions, NASA will complete them but report to noone but themselves. This is because there is fundamental trust relationship in the government and because the corrective actions were not meant as punishment. How NASA completes these actions are up to their own interpretation.

If this scares you, then realize that nuclear reactors, tanks, airplanes, and basically any other engineering project that the government controls are operated this way. You usually hear nothing because critiques happen at many levels (from an out of specification gauge to a airplane crash in the desert).

Re:What have they done

[Cracell]

ya that's basically it really need to design a brand new shuttle, but whatever Basically they replaced some glue that held on foam, that is considered responsible for the last incident

Re:What have they done

[Anonymous Coward]

To be utterly blunt, NASA cares about the loss of space shuttles because they believe that if they lose another Congress will cut human spaceflight from their agency.

To NASA it is critical that they make these space shuttles safe, and fly them again for a limited time, so that Congress has confidence in their abilities once they try to get funding for the CEV in the future. If the space shuttle does not fly safely to decommissioning, NASA space missions will basically be cut down to robotic explorations. NASA will look like the ESA today.

Re:What have they done

[Anonymous Coward]

Going from 10 to 17 dead astronauts is hard. Going from 1010 to 1017 dead soldiers is easy. The public is used to the massive losses in Iraq. The public is not used to small losses at NASA.

Re:What have they done

[Artifakt]

For starters, try:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew s/1107178933995_11?hub=SciTech

There's four major changes - 2 of them help spot problems, not fix them:
1. NASA launches only in daylight, so they have a better chance of photographing any damage that may happen.
2. The crew has a kit to help inspect the shuttle for damage.

Two changes actually reduce the risk of an accident:
1. The crew has a rudamentary repair kit, although NASA admits it's not as good as they had hoped for.
2. The main tank foam system has been redesigned. The biggest piece that it should be able to shed is supposed to be no bigger than a dinner roll, compared to the suitcase sized piece that hit Colombia.

What NASA hasn't done: 1. Gone back to a non-foamed tank design. 2. Found more ways to improve the range and scope of the repair kit, or else they haven't paid enough to implement every repair kit tool or patch they thought of.

Re:What have they done

[nightski]

Dude,
You have some major issues man. Are you try to tell me that many of the SOLDIERS in Iraq had no idea they were signing up for something dangerous? You would have to be a *total idiot* to sign up for the military and not know that you life is at stake. It is part of the job.

Secondly, it wasn't just that 7 astronauts died - which yes, that is a tradegy in itself. But it is the fact that each launch costs us taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars - and if they aren't going to be safe & secure, then there is no point in spending the money.

Re:What have they done

[Anonymous Coward]

Are those people somehow less important that we don't even bat an eyelash at their loss

Actually: yes. Let's face it, the recruits are useless uneducated redneck idiots aka cannon fodder.

Re:What have they done

[Stagemonkey]

With regards to Number 2 on your list: What exactly is the difference between this new second arm and the one that already existed on the orbiters? I looked at the high-res version of the picture you linked to, and could not see any readily-identifiable difference between one arm and the other. Does this new arm have greater flexibility? Does it telescope in some way the original did not, which allows it to get at the underside of the orbiter to check for damage? I guess what I'm getting at is, what's so special about this new robotic arm that warranted its installation? What was the limitation of the existing arm that did not allow it to perform this inspection?

Re:What have they done

[Illserve]

The National Guard is being used.

No, they sure as hell didn't sign up to be shipped overseas to get shot at by hostile insurgents.

http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=3651

Re:What have they done

[PresidentKang]

Good question. Sorry for not elaborating before.

The first and original arm has joints (shoulder, elbow, wrist) which allows it to manipulate and move the various pieces of the ISS it installs and other payloads (e.g. HST). But unfortunately, it is not long enough to view the complete underside of the shuttle (it could have seen the damage on the wing of Columbia, but that mission didn't have an arm installed).

The new arm - which is built from the spare booms from the original one - does not have joints, just solid pieces to link the booms together (although much of the hardware was already in existence, which is partly why MDA won the contract. It is a solid 50 foot extension with a camera/sensing package on the end.

Essentially, the original arm (the one in the far side of the picture or on the right of the shuttle looking out of the cabin window toward the tail) will grab the extension boom (Orbiter Boom Sensing System or OBSS) at the Grapple Fixture (the thing that looks like it's sticking out of the arm and the close end) and will simply swing it under the Shuttle. The camera/sensing package at the end of the boom will survey each tile on the bottom of the shuttle for damage. I can't find the animation somewhere, but Discovery Channel just did a segment on it.

When complete, the original arm (Shuttle Remote Manipulator System or SRMS or Canadarm) will re-berth the OBSS on its side of the payload bay and will then go about the rest of the mission as normal - installing payloads, moving astronauts around on EVAs, etc.

Re:What have they done

[suresk]

"If NASA cannot do its job under budget pressure, then it cannot do its job as well as private industry would."

Umm... Yeah.. Just like the airline industry, for example. How many billions of dollars have we given them to keep running?

When private companies face budgetary pressure, they know what to do: lie! "What's that Mr. Ebbers, you say our numbers aren't good enough? Let me 'innovate' some numbers."

And how would NASA be privatized anyway? The sorts of things it undertakes are not commercial in nature, and since there is no profit, there is no private sector for it.

"If it cannot do its job under political pressure, then it is a failure as a public agency, and is unaccountable to the public."

Ever think that maybe our congress is failing them, and not vice-versa?

Re:What have they done

[Anonymous Coward]

What NASA really needs to do is grow a pair and get on with it. Why is 7 people dying such a tragedy?

Maybe you missed the part where there were body parts and bits of the Columbia strewn from Nevada to Louisiana.

When a space shuttle orbiter is destroyed, it really is a significant and sad event.

Re:What have they done

[tmortn]

NO they didn't expect to ever be called on to get shipped over seas to get shot at by hostile insurgents.

very big difference between not signing up for it and just never expecting that part of the deal to every become real.

Re:What have they done

[eobanb]

They've included a sentient 9000-series computer to automagically fix any problems that may crop up.

Re:What have they done

[tmortn]

Well the choice would be to either continue with Shuttle doing what can be done... which isn't much really. Or to scrap it and redesign.

Crew escape was never really an option. It has been studied and rejected in every phase of the shuttle program. Pretty much went out the window with the idea of side mounting the shuttle on the gas tank... the reason for side mounting the shuttle is due to the difficulty of maintaining aerodynamic control of a rocket with wings at the front. There is a reason wings are always at the tails of rockets, missles etc....

So I agree shuttle is launching without meeting the board recommendations. But really the only way to meet all of those was to use something besides Shuttle.

What have they done ? If they really solved the foam problem the solved what downed columbia by all evidence.

If they improove imaging and on orbit inspection of damage then they solve what made the event a surprise when it probably should not have been.

They can only go to ISS so they have a life boat to survive until resuce can be mounted so in the event of a damaged heatshied they can in the future avoid having to re-enter and pray. And all things considered that is probabbly what would have happend to columbia had they correctly interpreted the debris damage while on orbit.

So is a future shuttle mission going to be safer than it was before columbia ? Yes. A great deal safer ? I doubt it. Shuttle probably is.. and always has been as safe as is *humanly* possible. People fuck up. and when you have thousands of people invovled in a process there will be fuck ups. You try to avoid it. When they happen you try to make sure they don't happen again. This does not mean it will never happen again. If a condition of space exploration is that fuck ups can't happen then we had best stop now. Cause they will happen. No matter how much money is spent. No matter how much time is spent. No matter what we do mistakes will be made and in an activity with so little margian for error then some of the mistakes made will undoubtebly cost people their lives. This has already happend. And it will continue to happen.

This does not mean I think no effort should be made. But this zero tollerance for error has got to end.

Re:What have they done

[J05H]

>What NASA hasn't done: 1... 2...

3. Switched back to capsules and good old fashioned rockets instead of riding to space on the side of an explosion.

4. Succeeded in designging the "Shuttle Successor" - Failures in this: NASP, DC-X (destroyed, maybe delibrately), X-33, OSP, CRV, ACRV. And those are just the past 15 years - Billions to Lockheed and Boeing for show-nothing "development", and those companies keep killing astronauts.

I wish Discovery, Cmdr Collins and everyone involved the best of luck.

Josh

Re:What have they done

[Illserve]

I don't think getting shipped overseas is part of the National GUARD mandate.

Re:What have they done

[tmortn]

The Army National Guard begs to differ.

The last paragraph is the really pertinant one but the entire selection is from the website.

http://www.arng.army.mil/About_Us/

"The Army National Guard (ARNG) is one component of The Army (which consists of the Active Army, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserves.) The Army National Guard is composed primarily of traditional Guardsmen -- civilians who serve their country, state and community on a part-time basis (usually one weekend each month and two weeks during the summer.) Each state, territory and the District of Columbia has its own National Guard, as provided for by the Constitution of the United States.

The National Guard has a unique dual mission that consists of both Federal and State roles. For state missions, the governor, through the state Adjutant General, commands Guard forces. The governor can call the National Guard into action during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, fires, earthquakes or civil disturbances.

In addition, the President of the United States can activate the National Guard for participation in federal missions. Examples of federal activations include Guard units deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo for stabilization operations and units deployed to the Middle East and other locations in the war on terrorism. When federalized, Guard units are commanded by the Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are operating."

The others all have similar statements.

Again they did not EXPECT to get called on for a long term federal commitment to a conflict overseas. That is not the same as saying they did not sign up for one if it occured.

Re:What have they done

[LordoftheLemmings]

DC-X was done for the department of defense not for nasa.

Re:What have they done

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that NASA's first act was to fire and/or prosecute the greenies who forced them to change the formula for the insulating foam on the main fuel tank from a compound that worked to a concoction that flaked off like bad stucco, striking and damaging the leading edge of the Shuttle's wing.

All you Sierra Club and Greenpeace granola crunchers out there - stand up and take a bow. You and other environmental wackjobs like you incinerated 7 American astronauts like so much toast.

Re:What have they done

[J05H]

... and then transferred to NASA control and flown as "DC-XA". At which point a NASA tech disconnected the hydraulic line to one of the extendable legs, causing the vehicle to crash. This was not part of planned maintenance during the flights.

josh

The astronauts will miss...

[bc90021]

Star Wars III: ROTS (Revenge Of The Sith)

Frankly, I think that being dozens of miles from earth when that comes out mightn't be such a bad thing, actually... ;)

Re:The astronauts will miss...

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, ROTS is already available... on XBox and PC. (I've completed the PC version)

Re:The astronauts will miss...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they will get to see the last episode of Star Trek: Enterprise. (May 13th) :)

Great

[Legodude522]

We finnally get to go back up. any plans for the future?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

...any plans for the future?

Well, I was thinking of going fishing, or maybe I should stay home and make pizza? Dunno... Still thinking it out.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no. Although they have addressed the safety issues and scheduled a launch, NASA surprisingly does not have any plan for the future. A senior NASA official said "yeah, we've been so busy getting it ready, the whole 'future plans' thing kind of got away from us."

It is likely that, until they formulate some plans, they will initially use the sophisticated software systems for reading Slashdot, looking at porn and maybe playing some Minesweeper. The cabin and cargo bay are currently full of empty Doritos bags and all the engineers hang out in it all night drinking beer and playing Halo. NASA's wife is reported to have remarked "this is sooo like NASA--huge friggin' budget, all-nighters, parts all over the kitchen table and constant blather about how amazingly 'useful' this spacecraft will be around the solar system, but in the end it winds up gathering dust out in the hangar."

Re:Great

[pnewhook]

I resent my earlier post being labeled as flamebait by the moderators.

Bush's space policy effectively cancels the shuttle program in 2010, so the shuttle has no future.

Bush also created the largest federal deficit and debt in American history, right after Clintons' record budget surpluses.

Both of these statements are fact and easily verifiable, so how can it be considered flamebait?

Re:Great

[pnewhook]

I resent whiny little liberal crybabies such as yourself being allowed to post on Slashdot at all.

So much for the land of the free and the first amendment. I guess everyone is allowed to have an opinion except for those people who happen to disagree with you.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not the government, so I'm not bound by the First Amendment. You however are bound by me personally to either stop whining or lose even more karma.

Just think of me as an anti-whine antibody in Slashdot's circulatory system. Its nothing personal - I would do the same thing to any other germ.

Re:Great

[pnewhook]

Why don't you grow up and get a life. Geez. I'm not bound by you to do anything. Post with your real name red neck coward.

And while you're at it why not take a good long hard suck of my ass.

Breaking news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shuttle launch delayed by software patent infringement!

Re:Breaking news!

[Anonymous Coward]

What was the fucking point of this comment? Not topical, not funny. Try harder next time.

About Time

[Dipster]

The sooner we can finish off our commitment to the ISS, the sooner we can focus on the next generation of transports. Ones that are cheaper to operate and can take advantage of all the stuff we've developed in the last 10 years instead of having the astronauts take laptops with them because its cheaper than removing the outdated computers currently in the shuttle.

Re:About Time

[flyingsquid]

Question: what exactly do we need to transport humans for? They're bulky, they don't like vacuums, they have a low tolerance for temperature extremes, they can only function for about half a day at a time, and they need thousands of pounds of things like space suits, artificial atmospheres, airlocks, sleeping bags, toilets, etc. to function with. Meanwhile, robots don't have these disadvantages, and are becoming increasingly capable of doing anything we might want to do up in space.

The budget is finite, and it's not even particularly interesting to send humans up on rockets anymore. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone talk about the space station. I mean, people hang out up there (right?) but they aren't doing much more. All the interesting, exciting science/adventuring is being done by robotic probes like the Mars rovers and the Hubble. Can the humans. We've had our day. If people want to go up in space, great, but let's let the space tourism industry take care of that, because the scientific justification for it is rapidly fading.

Re:About Time

[Planesdragon]

Meanwhile, robots don't have these disadvantages, and are becoming increasingly capable of doing anything we might want to do up in space.

No, they're not.

Skip all of the cultural and boundary-pushing arguments, and just go show me a robot used full-time on Earth to walk around and do science.

We don't use robots for biology, geology, or archeology, save for when they're absolutely necessary (such as, going to see if it's safe for humans.)

Robots are used in space because they're cheap and expendable. That's it. If we were to spend 100 trllion on mars exploration, we'd just send a crew over to mars. There's a point where people really are cheaper than interplanetary telepresence.

Re:About Time

[Platinum Dragon]

Meanwhile, robots don't have these disadvantages, and are becoming increasingly capable of doing anything we might want to do up in space.

Except for anything outside of their programming or equipment capabilities. If androids are developed, that's a different story. Until then, the robotic exploration is great and useful, but there are many things we won't be able to find out until actual ugly-bags-of-mostly-water learn how to get around, survive under harsh conditions that would normally kill them, and operate in new places.

Re:About Time

[Illserve]

Humans Fix Problems and Do Stuff that robots cannot.

If we had only sent robots to the Moon, we'd have accomplished far less.

Re:About Time

[TheAdventurer]

The reason they man the ISS is because they are studying the science of humans living in space. It is a good field of study since (hopefully) it will be a necessary body of knowledge once we are travelling space frequently.

Re:About Time

[golgotha007]

I can't remember the last time I heard anyone talk about the space station. I mean, people hang out up there (right?) but they aren't doing much more.

Are you kidding me? We are still studying the long term effects a zero-G environment has on a human body. So far, studies have shown that periods of weightlessness reduce the body's bone mass, cause muscle-wasting, depress the immune system and lead to changes usually associated with aging.

If we're ever to seriously think about colonizing space or even another planet, we need to focus on the afforementioned obstacles first.

Re:About Time

[kd5ujz]

Robots can not set up mirrors, collect rocks, and hit a few golf balls?

Re:About Time

[Pig Hogger]

Robots can not set up mirrors, collect rocks, and hit a few golf balls?

They can't show that humans can perform perfectly normally in Space.

Re:About Time

[demachina]

If you look at the Boeing CEV web page I think you will find their design is remarkably the same as everything Apollo did 40 years ago. The Crew Control Module is going to be a cramped conical capsule almost exactly like Apollo's from the picture. Their proposed Delta IV booster is going to be exceptionally weak compared to Saturn V or a derivative of the Shuttle stack. Its not clear but I think they are going to have to do two or more launches and dock the pieces in orbit to get them to the Moon and back. The lunar landar is pretty similar to LEM except its got an inflatible top on it. They don't seem to have any plans for surface habitats other than their lander which kind of looks like its for very short stays.

Obviously you can put new computers in it and take advantage of material advances, etc but I think if this is actually what they build you might find you are disappointed comparing it to 40 year old Apollo technology, especially the booster.

I also wager their lunar missions are going to end up remarkably like Apollo, fly three people, stay for a week, fly home, and after 1 or 2 of them people are going to ask what exactly we are wasting all the money for, because we really don't have any particularly good reason to spend billions to put people on the moon other than to do geology or prestige nostalgia. You might justify it if you harvest Helium isotopes for fusion reactors, or water if there is any, or lunar dirt for shielding but I wager it will end up like most NASA manned missions, something you do for its own sake as you desperately try to figure out a reason to justify it.

Now if they were really going to Mars that would be exciting but Boeing's early concepts aren't even remotely realistic for a multi year mission to Mars. A Mars vehicle is completely different from an LEO and lunar vehicle. I really doubt you will reuse much of anything. In Boeings concept they are using the same conical capsule for the Crew Command Module and man that would be cramped for a two year mission. There is an inflatable habitat referenced but its not clear that that will be habitable in transit or that anything will be shielded enough to protect against radiation on a long duration space mission. Most space profiles have a habitat inside a water tank and are using water for some shielding, plus you need a LOT of water anyway for a multiyear mission. A Mars ship should be more like a small space station, with toilets, showers, kitchen, exercise gear, substantial shielding, with some hefty cargo capacity and an even heftier propulsion, unless you want to torture the astronauts for a couple of years. What Boeing has there looks like something they threw together to justify their modular approach though I doubt it would work to use LEO/Lunar components for a trip to Mars.

Re:About Time

[demachina]

The Boeing CEV concept page.

The Wikipedia CEV page

Re:About Time

[gloth]

Skip all of the cultural and boundary-pushing arguments, and just go show me a robot used full-time on Earth to walk around and do science.

We don't use robots for biology, geology, or archeology, save for when they're absolutely necessary (such as, going to see if it's safe for humans.)

Biology, geology and archeology are done on earth, where it's very cheap to "maintain" humans. Space is no such place. That was one important point that the GP tried to make. You didn't even address that.

There's another flaw to your arguments though: it's not important for a robot to be able to do everything a human can do. When you're in orbit, what does it matter if you can walk around?

To maybe help you get acquainted with this perspective, think about this one: Even today, computers are still somewhat weak about certain aspects of the chess game; strategy being on thing, AFAIK. But they excel in other areas, like patience and tactics. The net result is that their strenghts at least make up for their weeknesses, and the number of humans able to compete with them dwindles. Soon there may be no human left capable of that, even though computers might still be somewhat lacking in certain areas. But it just won't matter.

Re:About Time

[Rich0]

For the cost of Apollo they probably could have had a robot walking around every other crater.

If they only sent as many robots as they sent humans they certainly would have accomplished less.

No question that a human can do more than a robot, but which gets more science done for a 100 billion dollar budget:

1. Sending 100 robots to the Earth's moon, 10 robots to every other moon in the solar system, 50 robots to the heliopause, 5 orbiters around every terrestrial planet, 20 proof-of-concept probes testing exotic power and propulsion systems, 15 orbiting observatories around the earth, and a few radio observatories at Lagrange points around the solar system. (That's an understatement - based on historic costs you probably would get ten times as much done.)

2. Landing six guys on the moon for a few days each.

For what we spent on sending humans to the moon we could have done a LOT more with robots. Voyager cost a small fraction of the Apollo program and it probably generated far greater returns.

Life is about tradeoffs. When you spend money on putting a human in space you have less money to spend on other stuff...

Re:About Time

[DerekLyons]

Ones that are cheaper to operate and can take advantage of all the stuff we've developed in the last 10 years instead of having the astronauts take laptops with them because its cheaper than removing the outdated computers currently in the shuttle.

The problem with this rant is... The laptops are used for functions that the flight control computers wouldn't be used for anyhow. (Mostly payload control functions, data logging from experiments, email, etc.. etc..)

That aside, we could replace the flight control computers... But after spending $MEGA_BUCKS, there'd be no difference in Shuttle flight performance and little to no difference in Shuttle system performance. (Nor would their be any significant weight difference, reduction in flight software costs, etc...) So why spend the money to gain essentially nothing?

Out in the real world "old" doesn't mean "useless" as it does in GeekSpeak.

Re:About Time

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Uh, robots are cheaper and can do more in space, go farther and longer. The transit time to Mars is about three months at best, three months with NOTHING to do. I don't buy that humans are cheaper for that. For one, a trip to mars is IMO nearly prohibitive risk. Not only is it a long trip, you don't get the convenience of a re-supply ship like they had with Mir, Freedom or Skylab, nor do you get the emergency getaway capsule. Then there are radiation risks, to go outside the Earth's magnetic field that far and that long hasn't been done, save for a few days at a time during the Apollo program. The South Atlantic anomaly in orbit is a lot, IIRC going farther out is a progressively worse dose. Nuclear rockets are a solution, but politically impossible.

If humans were cheaper, we wouldn't have sent Viking, Pathfinder, Spirit or Opportunity to Mars. Nor the Pioneer or Voyager series probes through the solar system. The reason we send humans is because it is more glamorous. It costs a lot to lift the meatbags, and the cabins to house them, the food, batteries, fuel, and their redundant systems to make sure the meatbags don't die. We are talking thousands to tens of thousands of dollars per pound to lift this stuff into orbit.

Re:About Time

[kd5ujz]

Humans can not show this either. We are 100% dependant on machinary.

Re:About Time

[Planesdragon]

Uh, robots are cheaper and can do more in space, go farther and longer. The transit time to Mars is about three months at best, three months with NOTHING to do.

Once those humans get there, they will be able to far more each day than any droid-mission we've ever sent.

It's a question of scale. Sending one probe a year is far beneath the balance point. Sending one probe a week is way, WAY over it.

Humans are a fancy, high-maintencance, VERY USEFUL computer and machine combination. Beyond a certain point of risk/reward, we really are far, far cheaper than any other form of explorer.

If we were willing to let people die, we'd be EVEN CHEAPER.

But, for now--because I know that anyone who could call his own species "meatbags" is going to miss the point--robots are done, because they're only way to get anything at all done with the spending level we have now.

Re:About Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't this topic been discussed to death, yet? Why do I bother reading anything posted on this website anymore? It's the same shit, day in and day out. How's that for insightful?

You have to wonder...

[floridagators1]

Why is NASA so adamant on going back up? I mean, honestly. What are they going to do right now in space that the Russians can't? It's all about the ISS, and if the only reason we're going to risk more lives is to work on something that Russia and other countries, for the interim, can handle, I think that's stupid.

Re:You have to wonder...

[Dipster]

Russia can't handle the ISS. The shuttle is the only vehicle that can handle lifting the larger parts of the station. Russia can only resupply and and lift small items for the ISS. Until the shuttles get back into it, ISS constuction is on hold.

Re:You have to wonder...

[Richard_at_work]

Russia put together several fairly major space stations over the past 30 years, without the Shuttle. Im sure that if they wanted to go it alone, they wouldnt have any trouble coming up with a way to resume construction with what they do have.

Re:You have to wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

For the price of one shuttle launch the Russians can reactivate the Energia program, which can lift almost twice as the shuttle.

If I were NASA I'd go to Baikonur and buy the whole outfit, and be done with it.

Re:You have to wonder...

[reality-bytes]

I seem to remember they have at least one complete Energia launch set mothballed at Baikonur which was originally destined for a Buran launch.

Re:You have to wonder...

[J05H]

RSA and Energia use the medium-lift Proton rocket for delivering both the Zarya and Zvezda modules. They are each roughly equal to the Unity lab in size .

Soyuz rocket flying Soyuz or Progress capsules can only handle several tons to ISS, but the other rockets in Russian fleet can handle upwards of 30-40 tons.

Welcome back, STS Discovery...

[helioquake]

...and God speed, Commander Eileen and her crew.

Re:What really happended to Columbia

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll-O-Riffic(tm)!

What about Atlantis?

[FuturePastNow]

The article says that Atlantis is being prepped simultaneously for a possible rescue mission. I doubt it actually be on the other pad when Discovery launches, but how realistic is it for NASA to set up another launch on two weeks' notice?

Re:What about Atlantis?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFSR. Read the freaken' slashdot regularly. ;)

Re:What about Atlantis?

[someonewhois]

I think the issue has inherently been that they can't get another one up there on two weeks' notice - so they're making sure they have 2 ready to go up so that if one has issues, they can immediately send the other one up. That's why they've got it prepared ahead of time.

Re:What about Atlantis?

[kalidasa]

Go to the Return to Flight page. Atlantis will be ready for a launch on July 12: that's not an emergency turnaround, but a full-fledged mission. I don't imagine that Discovery will be in a position to act as emergency rescue vehicle for that mission, though, as even July 26 (i.e., 2 weeks after the planned launch date for Atlantis) will be only 2 months after the shuttle's planned landing on May 27. Endeavour is in major modification mode.

Re:What about Atlantis?

[redheaded_stepchild]

So instead of one highly-trained crew and gobs of expensive equipment stranded in space, we can have two? Seriously - if they're that worried about the first flight, how can they be confident in the 'rescue' flight?

Re:What about Atlantis?

[PresidentKang]

As was said in an earlier post, Atlantis is being scheduled for it's own mission on July 12, but it will be on the Launch Pad for the Discovery launch to support a resuce mission if required. Even for the Columbia mission, they could have gotten another shuttle ready to fly (all testing, etc.) in 28 days if all testing was done without failures and the minimum required was done. The current plan is to have Atlantis with basic testing done and final turnaround and pre-launch testing should be able to be done within 7 days if necessary. This is well within the window of a typical 16 day mission which can be stretched to 28 days in emergency situations (by rationaing food, fuel, etc.) or even longer with a bailout at the ISS.

Re:What about Atlantis?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just realized that I might not have been 100% clear: not only is it likely that Discovery will be ready to act as a quick backup to the May 15 launch, but its planned flight is only 2 months later.
Kalidasa

Re:What about Atlantis?

[antispam_ben]

The article says that Atlantis is being prepped simultaneously for a possible rescue mission. I doubt it actually be on the other pad when Discovery launches, but how realistic is it for NASA to set up another launch on two weeks' notice?

One of the original goals with having four shuttles was to do a new mission every two weeks, and so turn around time of each shuttle was supposed to be every eight weeks. They never approached that rate of launches long-term, but they came close a few times. The ill-fated the 1986 Challenger launch was just 16 days after the launch of the previous mission:

http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/archives/y ear1986.html

In the year before, 1985, there were nine Shuttle missions, more than in any other year:

http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/archives/y ear1985.html

That's still an average of less than one a month, and after having lost not one but two shuttles, they're sure to 'try harder' to put safety above turnaround time. Now that may mean not launching one until the next one can reasonably be launched within two weeks.

Just not excited anymore

[Platinum Dragon]

Semi-rhetorical question:

Why is NASA even bothering with shuttle launches at this point? Shouldn't the Columbia disaster have been taken as a sign that the spaceflight program needed a complete overhaul?

Sometimes, I wonder if NASA support for other human spaceflight and heavy-lift systems stagnated due to some bizarre political desire to fling the Shuttle into orbit, regardless of the cost. I almost get the sense that bureaucrats are afraid 99% of humanity would forget about outer space, never mind human exploration, if NASA stopped for a few years to put some time and resources into developing something better?

Re:Just not excited anymore

[FTL]

> Why is NASA even bothering with shuttle launches at this point?

Because if they don't, nobody in the world will ever partner with the USA in space again.

History lesson: In the 80s Europe and Japan were both making steady progress towards building their own manned space program. In the 90s, Russia was undertaking a project to build Mir2. But the USA persuaded all these countries to put their chips in with the US effort and build an international space station.

If the USA cancels the shuttle (which is the only possible vehicle with which to finish the space station), the rest of the world will have spent two decades and billions of rubles/yen/euros in vain. If that happened, none of these parties would partner with the US again.

When you make a promise, stick with it.

Re:Just not excited anymore

[LighthouseJ]

So one disaster should cause a national halt on space travel indefinitely? It is a horrible disaster and some very special people didn't have to die, but we have to move on and the astronauts knew that something like that could happen. I think 2 years is a good time to rest, reflect on what happened and try again and show the world we can get back up on our feet and try again. We all get knocked down, but the important thing is that we get back up and try again.

Re:Just not excited anymore

[Alien Being]

Let's not forget that Russia did not live up to its own obligations in the project. The US was left holding the bag for $billions.

Re:Just not excited anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

> Let's not forget that Russia did not live up to its own obligations in the project.

Let me guess, you're American.

Let's not forget that the project would have been a total write-off without Russia. The USA screwed up so big that we're now 100% reliant on Russia to keep the station operating.

Re:Just not excited anymore

[Alien Being]

"Let me guess, you're American."
What's your point, AC? Despite our current administration, I wouldn't trade my US citizenship for any other.

"Let's not forget that the project would have been a total write-off without Russia."

All you're saying is that Russia made good on some of its commitments. It doesn't change the fact that the US had to dig deeper into its own pockets to cover what Russia failed to pay.

Re:Just not excited anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

> Despite our current administration,
> I wouldn't trade my US citizenship for any other.

Ignorant fool.

Re:Just not excited anymore

[Platinum Dragon]

So one disaster should cause a national halt on space travel indefinitely?

This is two disasters now, in a horribly expensive program (far, far more expensive than originally planned) that now goes nowhere other than a space station of currently dubious utility. The space shuttle was supposed to be relatively cheap, reliable, versatile, and used far more frequently than it is now. The shuttle program is showing its age. Note that I didn't call for a halt to all space travel, only that the time be taken to put an old workhorse to rest, and to develop a new system without some of the political crap that burdened the predecessor. I want to be excited about people going into space again (ISS residents aside). The numerous robotic Mars missions currenlty in progress are exciting. Cassini is exciting. The New Horizons mission is exciting. SMART-1 is exciting. These programs are discovering new things, built on ever-newer technologies and techniques. Why can't NASA put that much energy into developing new human space travel systems? (Another semi-rhetorical question; I understand budgetary problems, but that's a whole other kettle of fish you don't want me to delve into. Trust me.)

I think 2 years is a good time to rest, reflect on what happened and try again and show the world we can get back up on our feet and try again. We all get knocked down, but the important thing is that we get back up and try again.

Piffle. Dreams are great. Dreams built on obsolete frameworks need to be moved to new, better frameworks, or they will go no farther. The shuttle has had its run. Why is there a reluctance to do something new? This, incidentally, is precisely the mindset I was complaining about in my post; the bizarre sense that if NASA stops spaceflight to develop something new, it will never happen again OH MY GOD WE HAVE TO DO THIS NO MATTER WHAT!!!

Come on. Human space travel won't be perfectly safe; I know this. That doesn't mean bulling through on an old transport that has seen better days and is now limited to, effectively, one destination, until it's finally put to rest anyway. Mothball the shuttle program, take that money, brainpower, and time, and put it toward something new and revolutionary.

Re:Just not excited anymore

[Platinum Dragon]

But the USA persuaded all these countries to put their chips in with the US effort and build an international space station.

And that was a mistake--monoculture, single points of failure, eggs in one basket and all.

If the USA cancels the shuttle (which is the only possible vehicle with which to finish the space station), the rest of the world will have spent two decades and billions of rubles/yen/euros in vain.

I have the sick feeling that will happen anyway, continued shuttle missions or not. The more I learn about the development of space programs in the past couple of decades (your post included), the more I come to think that a lot of resources have been spent on complicated, bold promises with no flexibility or alternative plans, a recipe for disaster.

When you make a promise, stick with it.

Or admit you can't come through and take responsibility for the consequences. I hate saying it, but this might be exactly what needs to happen for space travel to move beyond Big Prestige Projects that have turned into money pits. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing China, Europe, and Japan collaborating without the US or Russia for a while--let space travel diversify while the old-timers retool, rebuild, or get out and leave it to new generations and teams.

Re:Just not excited anymore

[DerekLyons]

So one disaster should cause a national halt on space travel indefinitely? It is a horrible disaster and some very special people didn't have to die,

Sadly, from a programatic point of view there was nothing special about the Columbia crew. For each and everyone, there's ten more equally trained and capable in Houston and hundreds if not thousands more ready to volunteer and more than capable of replacing them.

The real disaster is the loss of a virtually irreplacable asset... The Orbiter itself.

Re:Just not excited anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorant fool

Yes you are, fuckstick.

What do they do in space stations?

[adeydas]

Except conducting experiments that require zero gravity, what does astronauts do in space stations? I know its a silly question, but its something I don't know either.

Re:What do they do in space stations?

[mOoZik]

They exercise, urinate/defecate in vacuum lavatories, roll around and bump the walls, oh, and experiment unique ways of ingesting bad food in freefall. Do you see why we need the shuttle flights and space stations? ;)

Re:What do they do in space stations?

[FTL]

> Except conducting experiments that require zero gravity, what does astronauts do in space stations?

First of all, microgravity is an astonishingly useful thing to have when conducting experiments. For instance, imagine how much better one can grow crystals if everything is just floating and one doesn't have a dish to corrupt the crystal formation. Not interested in growing snowflakes? Crystals grown from organic seeds allow one to develop medical cures. So it's not a stetch to say that a microgravity experiment might be what cures AIDS or cancer.

Second, even if one doesn't care about microgravity, space has another feature: vacuum. Lots and lots of it. The Japanese science module is specifically designed to conduct experiments in the vacuum outside. They've got an exposed pallet and a bunch of waldos.

For lots more examples, see NASA's ISS science page.

Re:What do they do in space stations?

[Anonymous Coward]

They exist, come back, and tell us what it was like.

That's enough.

Re:What do they do in space stations?

[Anonymous Coward]

For instance, imagine how much better one can grow crystals if everything is just floating and one doesn't have a dish to corrupt the crystal formation.

Imagine how much better one can grow crystals in a lab where the whole place isn't vibrating from the air supply system. Imagine how much better one can grow crystals when you can have as much lab bench space as you want. Imagine how much better one can grow crystals if the $100millions spent on pointless shuttle launches was spent on funding postdoc researchers into crystallography.

Experiments During the Launch?

[Space_Soldier]

More importantly, are they being efficient about this launch? It is a waste of resources if they launch just to see if they can bring it back in one piece without another crew dying. I hope that they plan to do some important experiments up there. The article didn't say anything about experiments. Also, from now on, all the data collected up there should be transmitted to earth before landing. They lost a large portion when Columbia was lost.

Personally, why I love space, I don't like NASA. I think that it is a waste of money. The Mars rovers mission is the most successful since the moon landings. I hope that someone can destroy the bureaucracy and politics. A lot of brain power is lost.

Re:Experiments During the Launch?

[vondo]

You mean we lost the data on whether ants can build tunnels in zero-G? The Columbia was doing science experiments suggested by grade schoolers, not "important experiments." The scientific output of the shuttle and ISS is about zero. With only two or three astronauts on the ISS, there is only time to keep the ISS running. Nothing else.

Re:Experiments During the Launch?

[X0563511]

I want to know who's grand idea it was to NOT transmit the data as soon as it is finalized. Same deal with probes. So what if we have to leave an receiver running and deal with comms lag (although anything beyond mars/venus I understand, but LEO?).

Re:Experiments During the Launch?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it's about time to finish the damn thing in order to get the science rolling! Sheesh!

Re:Experiments During the Launch?

[Artifakt]

The method goes back to one of the space program's big successes. The first half of the Apollo project was very much a one step at a time program. We put one mission up with the whole major point just being to test if the CSM could turn around and dock with a LEM style hatch, and get set up in a configuration to go to the next stage of a moon mission, all done with a smaller booster than the Saturn V and never leaving earth's orbit.
Most of those early Apollo missions were about what's called "space science", meaning figuring out how to protect humans in space and still let them do other jobs, with those jobs to be determined later. Most of it didn't have a lot of any other science going on, although the general NASA rule was, (and mostly still is), if the astronauts aren't doing anything else at the moment, they can fill bags with vacuum samples, take photos out the window, or something.
NASA's new plan for the shuttle adds more "space science", as in using an inspection kit to check out the vehicle. From NASA's view, that's not dropping some science, it's doing more of one kind of science and having to do less of others. If you ask about "important experiments", they don't speak the same language you're using. You'll have to specify "important experiments that aren't space science" or most engineers and all the paper pushers will just blink at you. You've got two valid criticisms in your first paragraph, but speaking the lingo will help.

Re:Experiments During the Launch?

[Detritus]

In the real world there are limits. Higher data rates require more power for the transmitter. There are a finite number of ground and space based tracking stations. Terrestrial data links have finite bandwidth. Bandwidth and tracking/receiving systems cost serious money. The people needed to operate and maintain this stuff cost money.

Re:Experiments During the Launch?

[sconeu]

We put one mission up with the whole major point just being to test if the CSM could turn around and dock with a LEM style hatch, and get set up in a configuration to go to the next stage of a moon mission, all done with a smaller booster than the Saturn V and never leaving earth's orbit

Nope. The only Saturn 1-B launches were Apollo 7 and Skylab crew (and possibly Apollo-Soyuz). Apollo 9, which is the mission you're thinking of, was a full Saturn V.

Re:Experiments During the Launch?

[iamlucky13]

You bet they are. From the spaceflight website

1. Return to Flight test mission.
2. The Multi-Purpose Logistics Module, or MPLM, carries supplies and equipment to the station.
3. Delivers the External Stowage Platform to the station.
4. Remove and replace Control Moment Gyro.

Those are the highlights of the mission. In English: make sure the shuttle works, deliver some food and air, deliver an overdue piece of the space station, and fix a broken gyro. Additionally, they will be testing three tile patch kits to determine which works best in a microgravity vaccuum.

Somebody replied to you implying that the ant experiment on Columbia was the highlight. I don't feel like making two posts, so I'll point out here that it was one of over 80 experiments carried by Columbia. That particular experiment was highlighted simply because it was from students.

So....

[brian0918]

So, it's alright for them to fly up to the useless space station and do their "experiments", but they can't head over to Hubble and do something useful with taxpayer money?

Re:So....

[Planesdragon]

Hubble and do something useful with taxpayer money?

Kindly show me an emperical benefit of Hubble. We learn a lot, yes, but it's not exactly USEFUL.

Space travel, OTOH, is an accomplishment.

(And let's not forget that we may wind up replacing Hubble with a better telescope for cheaper than the repair bill.)

Re:So....

[alex_ware]

Um, wallpapers??? ;-)

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hubble is in a different orbit from the ISS. If they went to Hubble, and something went wrong, there is no chance of them doing an orbital maneuver big enough to dock with the ISS for a "safe haven".

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

We learn a lot, yes, but it's not exactly USEFUL. Learning = not useful?

Re:So....

[brian0918]

"Space travel, OTOH, is an accomplishment."

Yes, and we've accomplished it already. If there's currently no reason to go back, why the hell do we keep doing it? Does NASA have some obligation to Tempur-Pedic???

Re:So....

[Planesdragon]

Yes, and we've accomplished it already

No, we haven't.

We've sent a few guys into the uppermost atmosphere, and a few more around to our moon. But we have yet to even leave our own planet's gravity-well.

Re:So....

[winwar]

Yes to part 1

No to part 2 (something about being against informal government regs regarding use of taxpayer money :)

Re:So....

[brian0918]

"But we have yet to even leave our own planet's gravity-well."

So our next mission should be to send someone out to infinity?

Re:So....

[The One and Only]

I assume by "someone" you mean "Darl McBride"?

Re:So....

[Planesdragon]

No, doofus.

It would mean to send someone to a spot where earth's gravity is negligible--i.e, they're not themselves nor upon something that rotates our planet.

Mars is a good choice.

I am SO going to the launch

[Anonymous Coward]

All my life I've wanted to see a launch in person, and I'm finally going to do it. Started looking at flights to FL last night when I read the date had been set. I'm going stay that entire week, just in case of any delays. Hopefully that will be sufficient time.

It looks like

[dj245]

Nasa has gone Safety bananas. Theres a limit to how safe something can be, and space is inherently very dangerous. The more safe you want it to be (with a clunky, ultra-complicated flawed vehicle) the more money and time you will spend. You will spend money and time exponentially approaching an asymtopte. Funny thing about asymptoptes- you can never really reach them by spending the money.

You would think Nasa would realize that.

Re:It looks like

[antispam_ben]

Nasa has gone Safety bananas. Theres a limit to how safe something can be, and space is inherently very dangerous. The more safe you want it to be (with a clunky, ultra-complicated flawed vehicle) the more money and time you will spend. You will spend money and time exponentially approaching an asymtopte. Funny thing about asymptoptes- you can never really reach them by spending the money.

You would think Nasa would realize that.

I see it as a cost-benefit thing. Of course it's dangerous, there are unknowns, it's a complicated thing and there are a lot of things that can go wrong.
But losing a spacecraft has so many huge costs, not even counting human loss, that it's a very good idea to spend lots of money on safety, and spend it as appropriately and as efficiently as one reasonably can. It's not like "Aww, shit, we lost one, well let's keep on the schedule for tne next one next month." The retutn-to-space time after the Challenger exploded was "only" 18 months, and it's been two years since we lost Columbia (we don't have Feynman around to help this time). That's three and a half years sitting on the ground instead of doing experiments, getting the money to launch big sattelites, adding on parts to the ISS, and generally doing the business of manned space exploration. Furthermore (and since it affects NASA's pursestrings, this may be the biggest cost), it's just not politically expedient to lose a spacecraft.

It's certainly bad that so many eggs are in one basket, but since that's the case, we should have the best basket we can afford.

Re:It looks like

[cmarkn]

NASA does realize that. The problem is that Congress does not realize that. In fact, Congress does not seem to realize that space in inherently dangerous and that things always go wrong, nor does Congress seem to realize that safety costs money. Read the reports on both the disasters, and you'll find that engineers were calling for more tests and having them denied because there was no budget for them. The results of the investigations were running those tests.

At the top, it is Congress that makes the budgets, and it is Congress that sets the goals for the space program. It's too bad they can't seem to get those two things aligned, but then they don't have to. They can put the blame for any problems on NASA management instead of on themselves where it belongs.

The Shuttle: Promise vs. Reality

[windowpain]

I should probably submit this as a seperate story but I'm too lazy. Here's a quote from a story at DigitalJournal.com to remind us what NASA originally promised:

"David Aiken, an associate professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Maryland, worked at the Kennedy Space Center soon after the shuttle program was approved in 1972.

He believes that in hindsight the reusability aspect of the Space Shuttle was grossly overestimated.

'Actually the original mission model had 500 missions in ten years for a fleet of five orbiters. Every orbiter was going to fly every two weeks. The idea was that it would land, you would do 160 hours worth of work on it, that's basically two shifts per day five days a week for two weeks - and then you'd be back on the launch pad ready to launch again,' he says. 'Now it's turned out that it doesn't take 160 hours of time to turn it around again, it probably takes more like 3,000 hours of time.'"

Yeah, yeah, I know all about all of the unknowns that they faced. The pioneers are the ones who get arrows in their chests. But this is ridiculous.

I remember NASA experts and PR flacks saying so glibly how using expendable rockets was like driving across the country and throwing away the car after every trip.

Yeah and maybe shooting a gun is like throwing a really tiny knife and leaving it in the target.

Maybe rocketships aren't like cars. Maybe we would have been way, way better off in terms of cost--and probably human lives--if we had stayed with expendables.

Re:The Shuttle: Promise vs. Reality

[TheGavster]

At some point, we're going to need reusable vehicles. There's no way you can scale building these massive rocjets for every launch. Imagine if you needed to build new airliners for every flight; even if you had the money, you'd eventually run out of steel and aluminum.

Emergency Rescue Options...

[LordZardoz]

Some posts ask about what sort of rescue options Nasa has handy in the event of catastrope.

Well, Presuming that the bugger does not blow up on launch, this thing is going to the ISS. If they cannot come back down due to a safety issue, they could conceivably stay up there for a while.

Also, the ISS has a Soyuz for emergency escape. They coould come down on that.

Or they could have the Russians send another Soyuz up specifically for evacuation purposes.

Using a Shuttle for a rescue is probably overkill.

And if the shuttle is destroyed in the same manner as Columbia, well, once your in atmosphere on your way down, your either land in one piece or you land in many pieces.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:Emergency Rescue Options...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Also, the ISS has a Soyuz for emergency escape. They coould come down on that.

The seven shuttle astronauts wouldn't fit in a three-person Soyuz. And even if they did, that would leave the three ISS astronauts with no lifeboat and no method to get home.

Or they could have the Russians send another Soyuz up specifically for evacuation purposes.

Assuming Russia had lots of these in stock (they don't), it would take four launches to bring down the seven shuttle astronauts (Soyuz requires one pilot, but can launch with two empty seats).

If you are thinking of squishing in four or five (or seven) people into a Soyuz, you'll wind up with corpses after landing. Soyuz is a product of Sovient engineering, it is cheap, reliable and dreadfully unconfortable. Cosmonauts have to sit in couches which are specially molded to their body shape. Soyuz can hit 14Gs on reentry, if there were someone lying on top of you, you'd have more than two tons on your back. That's about as survivable as being crushed under a car.

> Using a Shuttle for a rescue is probably overkill.

Using a shuttle for rescue is your only option.

Re:Emergency Rescue Options...

[Anonymous Coward]

once your in atmosphere on your way down, your either land in one piece or you land in many pieces.

once you're in the atmosphere on your way down, you either land in one piece or you land in many pieces.

Re:Emergency Rescue Options...

[DerekLyons]

Some posts ask about what sort of rescue options Nasa has handy in the event of catastrope.

Well, Presuming that the bugger does not blow up on launch, this thing is going to the ISS. If they cannot come back down due to a safety issue, they could conceivably stay up there for a while.

True. Estimates range from 100 days to six months for the amount of time they could stay at the station.

Also, the ISS has a Soyuz for emergency escape. They coould come down on that.

Or they could have the Russians send another Soyuz up specifically for evacuation purposes.

False. The Soyuz currently as ISS is required for the ISS's own crew. Also, Russia pretty much builds Soyuz on an 'as needed' basis, so there isn't another one to be sent for a while - and that will be at the cost of delaying the crew rotation that Soyuz is already earmarked for. (There is speculation and Russian hints that could be changed with a crash program... I.E. massive infusions of American dollars.)

But at any rate, none of Discovery's crew has a Soyuz seatliner - and that means a broken back if they try and land in one. (Soyuz lands *hard*, and frequently tumbles on landing.) Also, IIRC, some of the Shuttle astronauts are taller than are allowed to fly on Soyuz.

Using a Shuttle for a rescue is probably overkill.

Nope. It's the only possible way.

And if the shuttle is destroyed in the same manner as Columbia, well, once your in atmosphere on your way down, your either land in one piece or you land in many pieces.

Odds are that the next Shuttle accident (if there is one, the odds are against it) will be something that comes from left field and bites us on the butt.

Re:Emergency Rescue Options...

[winwar]

"Well, Presuming that the bugger does not blow up on launch, this thing is going to the ISS. If they cannot come back down due to a safety issue, they could conceivably stay up there for a while."

Funny about that. I thought one of the official reasons for the small crew on the ISS was due to the requirement for sufficient escape vessels (Soyuz capsules). If seven additional astronauts can stay on the ISS for a bit without sufficient escape vessels, why isn't the ISS crew larger. I mean, emergency or no, if it isn't safe to have more people than means of escape, why should the shuttle be allowed to dock at all? What if there is an accident? Oops.

Or should I not be using NASA logic against it? :) I mean, if I keep going, I just may assume most of what NASA does is based on PR value and not science or risk....

Re:Emergency Rescue Options...

[Anonymous Coward]

what you do in a life or death ememergeny is very different from what you do in normal situations.

for an anology consider ships. say a ship is sinking and another nearby ship picks up the survivors from the lifeboats. Lets assume the lifeboats cannot be stored on the second ship (which seems quite likely)

should the second ship refuse to take the survivors because it wouldn't have sufficiant lifeboats in the event of a second emergency?

Been there, done that

[Pausanias]

I think most in the USA have a "been there, done that" attitude towards our human spaceflight programs. Sure, the space station is supposedly laying the foundation for future manned exploration missions, but right now, all we're essentially doing is a repeat of the 1980s. Weren't they doing 0 gravity experiments back then too? And what do we have to look forward to? Mr. Bush's plans to boldly return where we went 40 years ago? And after that grow some money trees so we can somehow get to mars?

Unmanned spaceflight has made great strides and clearly had a far, far greater impact on the public's love of space than our boring, so-tired manned spaceflight program. It's time to get creative, or else leave the mission to the robots.

Re:Been there, done that

[DerekLyons]

I think most in the USA have a "been there, done that" attitude towards our human spaceflight programs. Sure, the space station is supposedly laying the foundation for future manned exploration missions, but right now, all we're essentially doing is a repeat of the 1980s. Weren't they doing 0 gravity experiments back then too?

Long term human endurance research combined with research into ameliorating the bad stuff? Nope. (The Russians theoretically were, but they were lax on documentation and even laxer on experimental controls and protocols. Frankly, their 'scientific' approach to this research wouldn't get past a 6th grade science teacher.)

And what do we have to look forward to? Mr. Bush's plans to boldly return where we went 40 years ago? And after that grow some money trees so we can somehow get to mars?

Frankly, about 1% of our (America's) social budget, (or about 5% of the DoD budget) would increase NASA's current budget ten-fold... More than enough to go to Mars even at NASA's inflated costs. No need for money trees at all.

Unmanned spaceflight has made great strides and clearly had a far, far greater impact on the public's love of space than our boring, so-tired manned spaceflight program. It's time to get creative, or else leave the mission to the robots.

Real exploration *IS* boring. The robots make the news because they are unusual, but Hubble (which has been doing real science and exploration for over a decade) doesn't. Like most people, you don't actually want exploration, you want "Fear Factor meets Survivor... In Space!". Decades of NASA propoganda and Star Trek has completely warped your sense of what 'exploration' really is.

lotsa haftas

[jpellino]

Thsi sounds like they have to get thihngs done at that time under those conditions and they hafta do it RFN... this makes pressure to launch which hasn't been a friend to getting things done right/safe.

I Have A Friend...

[reallocate]

I have a friend who works for the Air Force and he was telling me the other day about the alien masterminds who've secretly run the government since the Truman Administrations and who...

Air Force

[Spy Handler]

Right now the Air Force still needs the Shuttle to haul into orbit stuff that won't fit on the Delta or Atlas.

Did you know that back in the 60's, the first spy satellite (Corona) was disguised as a NASA scientific mission? Well.......

Really?

[Mr2cents]

NASA cares about the loss of space shuttles because they believe that if they lose another Congress will cut human spaceflight from their agency.

I heard that before, but suppose another tragedy happens. Do you really think the mighty US would be willing to show they are incapable of human space flight, while Russia and now China routinely shoot people into orbit? I think not.

why bother with the shuttle?

[skoby]

I dunno why NASA is even bothering with the space shuttle anymore, its nearly 24 years old for crying out loud! I think NASA should be focusing more on research and development to get new technologies to accually get us further into the solar system and perhaps beyond into deep space, than bothering with this piece of junk thats clearly not fit to fly. However, good luck to the crew of Discovery.

Re:Fr1st Pr0st

[Anonymous Coward]

Joo failed it.