Slashdot Mirror
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."
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...
libertarianswag.com
They fired all of the engineers and outsourced to India.
Shuttle launch delayed by software patent infringement!
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in the last 10 years instead of having the astronauts take laptops with them because its cheaper than removing the outdated computers currently in the shuttle.
...and God speed, Commander Eileen and her crew.
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?
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
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.
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.
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.
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?
You would think Nasa would realize that.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
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.
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
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.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
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.
Insert witty sig here.
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.
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.
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
For starters, try:w s/1107178933995_11?hub=SciTech
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNe
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.
Who is John Cabal?
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.
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."
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.
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.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.