Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Plans Discovery Launch May 15

Posted by timothy on from the could-it-lift-its-weight-in-$1-bills dept.

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."

11 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. About Time by Dipster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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in the last 10 years instead of having the astronauts take laptops with them because its cheaper than removing the outdated computers currently in the shuttle.

    1. Re:About Time by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    2. Re:About Time by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:About Time by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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...

  2. Just not excited anymore by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    --

    Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    1. Re:Just not excited anymore by FTL · · Score: 2, Insightful
      > 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.

      --
      Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    2. Re:Just not excited anymore by LighthouseJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Just not excited anymore by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
  3. So.... by brian0918 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  4. It looks like by dj245 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  5. lotsa haftas by jpellino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."