Slashdot Mirror
Debris is Shuttle's Biggest Threat
Masq666 writes "Tiny rocks, paint flecks and other fragments of junk whizzing around the Earth pose the greatest threat to the shuttles and the astronauts on board, according to the preliminary results of a new NASA risk study.
Even coin sized fragments can cause great damage to a shuttle, and the damage can be lethal, if it hits the windows or the heat shield."
The article doesn't tell us anything we don't know already...
I thought there would be at least mention of new prevention measures, or theoretically possible clean-up solutions being proposed.
It is just sad that humans smart enough to put objects in space are still not smart enough to not make a stinking mess out of everything. As the old saying goes "Don't shit where you live."
San Francisco Photographers
I think exploding fuel tanks and foam insulation have done far more damage than any paint flecks. The biggest threat to the shuttle is management overriding safety concerns in favor of keeping schedules or to save money.
When all else fails, run.
The point is, they're looking at the in-orbit phase in a new way compared to launch and re-entry, which at first glance seem to carry far more risk. This is simply NASA increasing their safety measures in one more direction.
Whether or not these actions are a bit late can still be argued.
Just wondering, because I read that since Congress actually called them out on it, they're trying to retroactively produce their risk analysis to justify the decision, and this is the kind of bullshit that sounds an awful lot like their same old "we're too scared to do anything anymore" attitude.
Software piracy is victimless theft.
Polarizing the hull plating would make more sense [in Enterprise at least]. I'm sure once we figure out that deflector dishes should be standard fare, these accidents will take place much less often.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Yeah. The Vogons will be SO pissed!
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
Sure, debris in space is hazardous to the shuttle. It's also hazardous to everything else up there, too - including any other manned vehicles we might put up, the ISS, and the entire constellation of satellites in LEO.
If we're going to stop sending shuttles up, that's not the best reason - the reason to get rid of the shuttles is because they're too expensive, too unreliable, and too inherently flawed for what they can do. Not because they might get punctured by space debris.
Meanwhile, what we (meaning any terrestrial space agency, not just the US) should be doing is preparing the next suitable for LEO vehicle that can solve most of the shuttle's flaws, and then used unmanned rockets to get cargo into space.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
actually, that's bullshit.
at the velocities they go they're not likely to bump off, big or not. big one is just going to go through your armor. your prof would have said that it's even bigger issue if you hit a wall with that speed.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Scrapping the shuttle without any plans for a replacement and no way to pay for it if we did, is just another nail in the coffin of medicrity that the US has laid herself down in. In 3 years we will see plans annouced to outsource manned space missions to China and India. It will be sold as a cost savings but what it really will be is an acknowledgment that the US is no longer capable of producting anything but an entire country of middle managers, ad execs and wal-mart clerks.
I'd wager that the biggest threat to Shuttle is hanging the payload off the SIDE of the rocket. That has doomed 2 Shuttles already, while orbital debris has only caused minor damage. No "but, this COULD be a bigger threat", either - the major danger to Shuttle and crew is one of the vehicle's "features". Rockets with payload and launch-escape system on top of the contained explosion are inherently safer than mounting the valuables next to the explosives.
Capsules and rocket-launched cargo make so much more sense than this pseudo-plane. If we are going to have "spaceplanes", they should be in the heritage of x-15 and SS1, not Shuttle. 'We' in this context is the US and the open passenger market mostly. If tickets were available right now, I wouldn't even consider flying on Shuttle, whereas Soyuz, SS1 or any of the historical capsules are all safe enough. Compare the evidence of Soyuz, Apollo or X-15 to Shuttle for safe ops vs. a dangerous design.
I'm going to be real cynical for a moment: Not A Space Agency shouldn't be allowed to say Not Another Shuttle Accident ever again! Never A Straight Answer from them...
The fleet should be grounded and put in a museum and that money rolled into a crash capsule fly-off prize (1 year unmanned, 3 years first manned) and after that paying for tickets instead of operations and hardware.
Josh
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Its been said before and I will say it again here.
The shuttle has to go.
It should have been replaced years ago with not one but two new spacecraft.
One would be a heavy lift launcher capable of launching things like parts for the international space station etc. The ideal solution here is just a big rocket engine (or engines) designed to be as cheap as possible to make and launch without the need for fancy systems.
Should have a low turn-around time so that once one is launched the time it takes to get ready for another launch is low.
The second vehicle would be designed to carry crew, tools, equipment, instruments, docking modules (so it can link with space stations like the ISS) and so on. It would be reusable (with as few components needing replacement after each use as possible). Such a vehicle would not need the design compromises that make the space shuttle the way it is.