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.
Holy crap! You mean debris traveling at thousands of kilometers per hour is hazardous to a vehicle that's also taveling at thousands of kilometetrs an hour? Seems to me this was already known and isn't a danger only to the shuttle but to anything in orbit.
You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
That debris layer is our ablative "alien shield" defense system. Bring 'em on!
--
make install -not war
Why don't they just raise the shields?
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
Mega Maid!
maybe you should have a watch of this Anime series -all to do with the lives of "Debree Collectors" quite relevant to this story indeed
Mission "Space-Dump", to dispose of excess rocks, paint, coins and the homeless, has been a sucess.
Of course little bits of rock are probably more of a threat than big bits of rocks. Sure the big ones might make a dent but the surface area of a small one is much less and therefore much more likely to make a puncture mark.
Or as one of my university professors once said
"When you are travelling faster than a rifle bullet, its a bit of an issue when you hit something that is the size of a rifle bullet"
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
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.
I read somewhere that since they eject (or did at some point) their bodily wastes from the space station, everything that returns from orbit is now covered in a thin coat of urine.
Anyone know if this is true/false? Google doesn't show anything.
If true, I guess that changes the meaning of "whizzing around the Earth"
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.
the moon really isn't made of cheese.
And by the way, even a paint fleck moving at that kind of speed presents a risk to the shuttle.
- Think for yourself, question authority.-
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."
Funny... I would have thought the shuttle's biggest threat would be the current administration.
Afterall, you won't need to worry about FOD if you have to worry about getting off the ground in the first palce.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Shurely Shuttle's biggest threat is the mac-mini?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Maybe this is the kick in the pants that NASA, ESA, JSA, and others need to ensure that they stop leaving junk up there.
Satellites and other space-borne objects need to be equipped with some means of safely deorbiting them, or else we're soon going to find that putting anything up in orbit and having it say there unharmed will be nigh on impossible.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
The shuttle needs some serious design revisions and these latest findings only serve to underline this. I think the following changes are required:
a) Separate the rear propulsion units from the main vehicle and keep them as far apart as possible.
b) Increase the area of the heat shield, while allowing for a narrow profile in orbit (using, say, a large saucer shape).
c) Fit a big deflector shield to the front of the main drive section.
d) Install maintenance tunnels throughout the ship (all of which can be based on exactly the same design)
e) Give the captain a bigger, more comfortable, chair and tell him to lighten up with his crewmen at the end of each encounter.
Debris is Shuttle's Biggest Threat
No, gravity is the shuttle's biggest threat.
Over the last 10 yrs several satelites have suddenly stopped functioning, due to unknown causes. Besides basic failure, "collision with a small object" is listed as probable cause for failure in many of those sats.
Make no mistake, the odds of hitting something up there (with proper planning) is remote, but there are still objects in orbit we don't have on our map, and collision with them creates significant risk. Put in everyday perspective, if getting a flat tire was almost gauranteed to kill everyone in your car, you'd be a lot more interested in street sweeper effectiveness at removing nails from the road.
High profile activities like space shuttle launches will always attract heavy criticism for safety regardless of the precautions taken or the known risks involved, so the people that plan these things have to take every step practical to protect the mission. If tracking space debris takes the risk of a shuttle disaster from 1:2000 to 1:2100, they will spend the bucks for that extra margin of safety.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
The closer you get to the planet, the more crap there is. Some of it is really interesting crap, but it's still deadly crap.
We're still in the very early stages of spaceflight. It's still dangerous, and it will continue to be dangerous for decades to come. And debris in orbit is only a small factor. The Challenger wasn't hit by debris in space. Neither was Columbia for that matter. Should we stop going into space because of some debris? No. Should we stop going because of the other dangers? I'll tell you what, if we come to a point where the astronauts who are risking their lives, decide it's too dangerous, then I'll start to listen. After all, they're more acquainted with the exact nature of the dangers they face than any civilian or politician (John Glenn excepted).
You want to talk dangerous, go be a soldier in Iraq. That's dangerous. Why don't we outlaw wars, particularly unjustified, needless ones.
And while we're on the topic of dangerous, let's talk about automobiles? They're not a great deal safer than the space shuttle.. Why don't we actually make driving tests difficult in the U.S. and outlaw people who can't drive? That will really save lives.
Space flight is certainly not going to get safer if we stop doing it. The only way to improve is to just continue doing it and making improvements as we learn. Will some astronauts die? Of course. And they know that. It's the risk they signed up for. Why not let them be the ones to decide whether or not it's worth it.
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.
Resulting in a 'Blue screen of death'?
Unfortunately, electronics are easier to rad harden than people, so the shuttle must fly in "riskier" orbits from a debris impact point of view. The shuttle is protected in two major ways that I know of: first, a box of space around the orbiter is constantly monitored by NORAD radar. If something enters that box, they assess it's threat to the orbiter and can order course corrections if necessary. This helps dodge a lot of bullets. Second, after the infamous paint fleck that took a chunk out of Challenger's window, flight rules were changed so that the orbiter is oriented with the main engines facing toward the direction of flight at all times. So much better to have a paint fleck put a hole in an ablative nozzle that isn't being used and that will get refitted anyway than have that same fleck cause an explosive decompression.
"At 1/5 the speed of light, dust and atoms might not do significant damage even in a voyage of 40 years, but the faster you go, the worse it is - space begins to become abrasive. When you begin to approach the speed of light, hydrogen atoms become cosmic-ray particles, and they will fry the crew. So 60,000 kilometers per second may be the practical speed limit for space travel."
This has been a problem for the last 40 years and, as far as I know, hasn't suddenly become any worse.
Anyway all objects > 10cm are currently being tracked and catalogued by USSPACECOM radar. I guess eventually we'll reach a point where blasting these debris out of orbit with an Earth or space based laser will become a necessity.
I have in fact been in simulator training for just this job for the last 10 years, and as an added bonus I am also able to accurately hit those bloody annoying UFOS that make the woo woo woo noise.
God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
There was a reason. The sponge in question became a bigger star on Nickelodian than anyone expected. Although the sponge, we'll call him "Bob" was more than enthusiastic to go, his agent wouldn't allow it.
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.
2. Collect debris left on the moon
3. Profit!!!
(c'mon, it was what, 1979? Too young to know what I'm talking about? Here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/9 782/salvage1.html