Crack Found in Shuttle Tank

hpulley writes "The shuttle's new fuel tank, supposedly redesigned to be safer, has a crack in it. Pictures were sent to the manufacturer who decided that it is too small to be worrisome. Hmm, what caused the Columbia disaster, pieces of foam? Meanwhile, there will be a second shuttle on standby, just in case the first one has problems after being hit by foam, etc. If the first shuttle has a design flaw, what's to say the second one isn't afflicted by the same problem? Won't there be a good chance of them stranding the rescue crew in addition to the original crew? If an aircraft crashes and the redesign to fix it crashes, would you send another of the same type to rescue it? Of course not! The ISS is going to be a smelly, scary place with the regular complement and two shuttle crews onboard and no way home but a Russian Soyuz capsule that isn't slated to launch again until September and has seats for just three..."

Comments

Why?

[DarkHelmet]

I know that the tank itself was redesigned, but the whole concept of the shuttle is incredibly outdated.

STS was originally conceived in the 60s, implemented in the 70s, and was launched in the 80s. I turned 24 today. The space shuttle first took off when I was six days old.

From a technology standpoint, I don't use the same computers that were out in 1981. I don't drive a car that was made or designed in 1981. I don't even talk on a phone whose carrier techology was around in 1981.

So why, WHY are we launching people into space with a program older than I am? And of all things, if we're really so keen on going to Mars, why should this of all things be our jumping off point?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

STS was originally conceived in the 60s, implemented in the 70s, and was launched in the 80s. I turned 24 today. The space shuttle first took off when I was six days old.

Sounds like Unix. And we're still using it, too.

Re:Why?

[nametaken]

I guess because its really expensive to start from scratch? I'm with you though... time for a clean start.

From the summary: Pictures were sent to the manufacturer who decided that it is too small to be worrisome.

I say, tell that to the astronauts who have to sit on top of the goddamn thing.

Re:Why?

[turnstyle]

Happy birthday! Did you want to be an astronaut when you grew up? ;)

Re:Why?

[mabinogi]

It worked in 1981, it works now.
The existence of newer, better stuff doesn't make older stuff automatically stop working.

Also, I'd be surprised if they really were using all the same computer equipment and software from 1981.

Re:Why?

[LWATCDR]

If it makes you feel better the shuttles do not use the same computer they did in 81.
They have been updated a lot since they first flew.
The Air Force flys Bombers designed in the 40s and built in the 50s. Fighters that where designed in the 60s and built in the 70s. Even the Boeing 747 was first built in the 60s as was the 737. I agree that the shuttle does need to be replaced but it is not the same shuttle that flew in the early 80s

Re:Why?

[kizzbizz]

The technology in the planes you fly in are over 50 years old. Old doesn't always necessarily equate to Bad. NASA doens't have the kind of private sector innovation that the computer you use or the car you drive has. They only have themselves. Hopefully as the X-Prize evolves the private sector will be able to get its foothold in, but untill then, the Shuttle is all we've got. And just because its 24+ years old, doesn't mean it isnt capable.

Re:Why?

[StimpyPimp]

Look at any government program, they usually don't spend their cash on updating their equipment. I don't completely blame them, it costs a ton, and will be out of date quickly. But if we are going to get serious about space travel, they will need to work on some upgrades. I suggest investing in a meglev, enabling pods to be shot into space, screw all that rocket fuel, and the dangers that go with it.

Re:Why?

[Chess_the_cat]

I don't even talk on a phone whose carrier techology was around in 1981.

Guess you don't ever talk on a landline then because the technology in them hasn't changed since Alexander Graham Bell.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

From wikipedia:

Internally the Shuttle remains largely similar to the original design, with the exception that the avionics continues to be improved. The original systems were "hardened" IBM 360 computers connected to analog displays in the cockpit similar to contemporary airliners like the DC-10. Today the cockpits are being replaced with "all glass" systems and the computers themselves are many times faster. The computers use the HAL/S programming language. In the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project tradition, programmable calculators are carried as well (originally the HP-41C).

Re:Why?

[Man in Spandex]

I could tell you why we are still using 30 year old shuttles but that would involve me using the Chewbacca Defense.

Re:Why?

[Frumious Wombat]

According to a couple of people I know who are pilots, the issue with any aircraft isn't physical age, but hours in the air. This is why you can still safely buy and fly a Piper Cub, or, if you're SAC, a somewhat updated B-52, first built back in the '50s.

Those shuttles are probably finally making it to broken in, from an airframe standpoint. (even if they are approaching the day for that one, last, flight to the Air and Space Museum)

Re:Why?

[Bullfish]

Because it takes on average about 15 years to go from initial design phase to prototype for an aircraft. A spacecraft is even more complicated.

Re:Why?

[NanoGator]

"So why, WHY are we launching people into space with a program older than I am?"

Heh. Won't you be surprised when you find out how old some of the planes are that are making round trips every single day.

Re:Why?

[kramtark]

Somehow, the word "surprised" seems a bit too weak here.....

Re:Why?

[agraupe]

Your analogy is correct, but remember that most of the early (-100 and -200) 737s, and almost all 747-100s are out of service now, and the 747-200 is well on its way. Now, some of the old Russian planes are still in service for much longer (such as the Aerogaviota An-24 I flew on in Cuba), so what does that say about their reliability? ;)

Re:Why?

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

Dialing numbers instead of asking your operator to connect you with "Steve from down the block"? Touch Tone? Not having to share your line with all the neighbors? Digitized fiber trunk lines? International calling via satellite instead of transoceanic cables?

I think you're the one who's got the crack.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess you don't ever talk on a landline then because the technology in them hasn't changed since Alexander Graham Bell.

That's actually not true at all. Originally phones were "party lines" where you could pick up your phone and listen to all the phone traffic for the neigborhood. It worked because you mostly didn't have too many people using them at once.

Then they had operators that switched the phone calls for you manually. You picked up the phone and got the operator and asked her to connect you to somewhere else, and she did.

Then there was pulse dialing with those old rotary phones.

Then they added touch-tone.

The phone signals are now often digitized when send over long distances and turned back into analog signals on the other end.

In actual fact, phone technology has been (and is still being) upgraded a LOT.

Re:Why?

[Daikiki]

I agree that the shuttle does need to be replaced but it is not the same shuttle that flew in the early 80s.

No it's not. Those both exploded.

As a matter of fact, they both exploded because something seemingly trivial went wrong, something that nobody in a million years would have thought could endanger the orbiter. Something like a tiny crack in the foam on the external fuel tank. All the processing power in the world won't help one iota if sloppy security procedures and pressure to push the launch through cause yet another seemingly trivial thing to go wrong. I just hope NASA knows what it's doing.

Re:Why?

[NoGuffCheck]

That attitude is the exact pussified reason we arnt walking around on mars and pickin up space chicks right now.

The greatest accomplishments are made by people who succeed with what they have.

If man could make it to the moon in 1969 useing the processing power of a calculator and we still havent made it to mars yet, then its only because of a shift in attitude.

Re:Why?

[Professor_UNIX]

So why, WHY are we launching people into space with a program older than I am?

Because all the programs that were slated to replace the shuttle have been scrapped for various economic and political reasons. We need a vehicle that can take off from an airfield and fly into space without complicated and expensive launch mechanisms to support it for space travel to ever become safer and more commonplace. Look at SpaceShipOne for an excellent start to what NASA SHOULD be concentrating on. Don't blast the thing into orbit on enormous dangerous rockets, fly into the upper atmosphere on wings and then use rockets to boost into space. Unfortunately NASA's single-stage-to-orbit program has long since been axed. It's a pity really.

Re:Why?

[DarkHelmet]

Trust me... That kind of stuff worries me too.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but the ideas have been rethought and reimplemented a few times since then. how many actual at&t sysV installations are still running? how much effort would you undergo to avoid having to use one?

The shuttle isn't the worst design ever nor necessarily useless just because it can legally buy liquor, sure. But there's better ideas, better materials, and better methods of doing things now; which arent being explored because NASA doesnt want to try explaining them to congress (to take a polite view of it).

Personally, I'm all for that. Let the private companies make the progressive steps, let NASA become as forgotten as the government organ that regulated slavery. Maybe, that way, i'll be able to afford a trip to orbit sometime, eventually. NASA's rates are way too high.

Re:Why?

[jbrader]

The age of the shuttle is irrelevent, just because its 24 years old doesn't mean it's unsafe. After all, Challenger was only something like 5 years old when it exploded. The reason the shuttle is unsafe is because everytime there's a problem (e.g. cracked o rings, defective foam or cracked fuel tanks somebody says "Oh that's not a big deal take off."

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the XML programming bit.

Re:Why?

[georgewilliamherbert]

I agree that the shuttle does need to be replaced but it is not the same shuttle that flew in the early 80s.

No it's not. Those both exploded.
As a matter of fact, they both exploded because something seemingly trivial went wrong, something that nobody in a million years would have thought could endanger the orbiter. Something like a tiny crack in the foam on the external fuel tank. All the processing power in the world won't help one iota if sloppy security procedures and pressure to push the launch through cause yet another seemingly trivial thing to go wrong. I just hope NASA knows what it's doing.

In neither the Challenger nor Columbia losses was the failure something that was completely unanticipated. Both of the fatal problems had been identified as a specific risk and were being worked on and analyzed when the accidents happened.

Inability to conduct reasonable and overriding safety reviews in NASA's operations was a major and legitimate issue, but your claim goes well beyond what the historical record substantiates.

Re:Why?

[gstoddart]

STS was originally conceived in the 60s

Well, so was the Boeing 747

So why, WHY are we launching people into space with a program older than I am?

Because not all technology can be completely re-invented on a 5 year cycle? Hell, from the sound of it, that's exactly what we're seeing.

Re:Why?

[happyemoticon]

I have a lot of gripes with the shuttle. If we ever seriously want to get into space, we need something less Industrial Revolution, something that's reusable and doesn't involve burning a metric assload of solid fuel and tend to cataclysmically explode.

However, those shuttles represent billions upon billions of dollars. Sure, all the blue-sky types at NASA want something more reliable, sustainable and smaller. However, in the current "budgetary climate," as they say, with Bush trying to start World War III with Islam and the economy still dusting itself off, your chances of getting Congress to authorize a new project are slightly less than zero. The shuttles are the only toys NASA has, and if they break, they're not going to get new ones.

Re:Why?

[shadowbearer]

Look at it this way - you are flying in designs that have a LOT more testing, redesign and rebuild on them then new, more untested designs have :)

Cheers ;-D

SB

Re:Why?

[king-manic]

Guess you don't ever talk on a landline then because the technology in them hasn't changed since Alexander Graham Bell.



On one side thats true, The touch tone phones you use aren't very much different in principle then the ones Alexander used.

On the other side, the routing of the calls is not much different. Alexanders routing system (operators) would have some difficulty routing the modern traffic patterns.

Re:Why?

[vought]

STS was originally conceived in the 60s, implemented in the 70s, and was launched in the 80s. I turned 24 today. The space shuttle first took off when I was six days old.

Sounds like Unix. And we're still using it, too.

That might be the most accurate comparison I've ever read on Slashdot. The thing is, it reads like a troll, but it isn't.

Here are some other thoughts to go with yours:

"Sonds like cars, which still have four wheels and reciprocating engines. And we're still using those too."
"Sounds like the 747, which still has four jet engines. And we're still using that too."
"Sounds like liquor, which still comes in glass bottles. And we're still using that too."
"Sounds like soda, which still comes in cans. And we're still using that too."

You might notice that:

A: All the things we both named have been continuously improved since inception, despite vast advances in the underlying technology.
B: UNIX is the only one unrecognizable in it's current state. (Mac OS X)
C: The Shuttle's concept was not fleshed out properly after it got beyond the design stage. The same is not true of the other designs, which have been forced to compete in competitive markets.

All of my examples (and yours, of UNIX) have done well in the market for over twenty years. The Space Shuttle has not, in my opinion.

I regret that I never got down to Edwards to see the STS land while I lived in California. Odds are it probably won't land there again - unless someone here knows different. The recovery and travel costs are too high for NASA.

Just thought it was worth a comment.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

> But have you ever bought a Dell computer at Wal-Mart?
No. but what does that have to do with anything?

> You know nothing about the space shuttle.
Neither do you.

> Come back when you know programming in XML.
uh?

Re:Why?

[nxtw]

International calling via satellite

That's not an advantage at all over a good transoceanic fiber connection. Not too common. The latency on satellite calls is great; and compression can make call quality sound extremely poor.

Re:Why?

[Short Circuit]

Um...happy birthday? :)

Re:Why?

[Andy Gardner]

By definition it wouldn't be a case of starting completely from scratch though. I can understand it was insanely expensive the first time round when it hadn't been done before and the whole concept of space flight had to be researched and 'invented'. However we've kinda been there and done it now. The science for LEO is here, the technology for LEO is here. With all the space knowlege and improved manufacturing process's that have developed in the last 50 years it shouldn't be anywhere near as expensive to design and build an upto date system as it was with STS

Having said that space flight is still probably one of the greatest engineering challenges and until there is a market akin to the aeornautic industry, with producion line manufacturing etc the bottom line is going to be heavy. However without progress that bottom line is gonna stay heavy.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analogy is correct, but remember that most of the early (-100 and -200) 737s, and almost all 747-100s are out of service now, and the 747-200 is well on its way. Now, some of the old Russian planes are still in service for much longer (such as the Aerogaviota An-24 I flew on in Cuba), so what does that say about their reliability? ;)


Alot of older 60s Boeing and MD jetcraft are still used for freight service. The 737 especially, and the 747 are not ideal choices for freight (in the case of the 747 it is more economical to run a newer nose loading one).

Re:Why?

[bobgoatcheese]

a metric assload of solid fuel

If you can't properly express your units of measure in standard Libraries on Congress I'll have nothing to do with your argument.

Re:Why?

[Dr. GeneMachine]

HAL/S programming language?

Do error messages come in the form of "I am sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.", or what?

Re:Why?

[vought]

Your analogy is correct, but remember that most of the early (-100 and -200) 737s, and almost all 747-100s are out of service now, and the 747-200

Yeah, but that's because they wore out. Most commercial 707s and DC-8s are out of service too, but that doesn't mean a low-hour airframe of either type wouldn't still run on today's avgas and engine oil, or fly in today's atmosphere.

Communist countries served by the An-24 didn't exactly go through 3-5 takeoff/landing cycles per day like 737s, or experience long haul heavyweight flights like 747-100 and -200s, did they?

Russian commercial aircraft are flying older for the same reason that Boeing B-52(G)s designed in 1947 and updated throughout the 1950s are. Not because they are superbly built, but because those airframes get comparatively little time in the air compared to commercial types used in the USA and Europe.

Which one of the shuttles is near it's design-rated 100 flights?

As an aside, this is why many of us here in the U.S.A. suspect our (p)resident of breaking the armed forces on purpose; the machine was so well-oiled and well-maintained during the previous 30-40 years that without the Soviet threat, excercises were not pressuring (with duty use) the equipment of the armed forces of the United States into upgrades. We're still kicking ass with equipment designed and built in the 1970s, for the most part.

The problem with breaking the armed serrvices is that none of the war hawk bloggers on the Internet want to go serve - and neither do the normally pliant small-town college seekers who enlist for college benefits. Nearly 1900 dead soldiers can't be wrong; enlisting these days, whether to get money for college or as a career is pretty dangerous!

Re:Why?

[ciroknight]

What I don't get is why can't NASA do the same thing Boeing does; retire the current standing shuttle fleet, bust out and dust off the blueprints from the 70's, look to see what little tweaks they can make (such as replacing some of the incredibly aged internal support structures with lighter metals/composite materials, replacing the AGED shuttle computers with newer and faster technology for better telemetry and a more complex sensory network across the entire vehicle), take these tweaked blueprints to some contractors, get a few bids, and ask the general public to chip in an effort to build STS Mark II.

Yes, all of that will cost money. And lots of it. But I can assure you that if they diverted the costs from the current maintainance of the shuttle fleet, and designed the newer shuttle fleet to be somewhat forward compatiable (parts designed to go on STS Mark I could be retrofitted to put on STS Mark II), that we could do more work with less shuttles and less maintainance time from landing to liftoff. The whole idea is to keep up with technology.

And one last note; why doesn't NASA subsidize? All the big companies of Corporate America learned a long time ago that it's cheaper to send labor somewhere else than to do it all yourself. NASA's fucking HUGE. Why don't they simply sell off the whole Aerospace division to the highest bidder (Boeing?), take the money from the proceeds and build betters satellites, rovers, and keep telescopes and such running. Turn the National Aeronautics and Space Administration into the National Space Foundation.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why, WHY are we launching people into space with a program older than I am?

For probably the very same reasons they're sending up astronauts older than you are.

Re:Why?

[zymano]

Space shuttle replacements

Hypersonic X-30 cancelled in 1993.

What happened to the X-33.
Cnn article on the troubles of the X-33
aerospike engine for x-33

Re:Why?

[over_exposed]

Yeah! Look at me for instance. I'm only 23 and I'm still *very* capable... take that how you will I suppose.

Re:Why?

[lezerno]

How old is the old reliable Russian craft? I bet it has older technology than the shuttle.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, I had a satphone way back when because I needed it. Latency wasn't any worse than a trans-oceanic call, at least not noticibly. Secondly, compression today is for the most part same stuff used on common cellphones, that is to say GSM. Even back in the day it didn't sound "extremely poor".

Go back to high school.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"so what does that say about their reliability? ;)"

Actually, airline aircraft service life is much more about cost effectiveness than airframe durability. Lot of parallels with personal computers: Yer 486 and P1 still work fine, but don't deliver as good bang for buck as new equipment, and the parts for the old equip gets expensive when you need them. (Airlines, like sys admins, don't have time to go shop on ebay.)

Passenger psychology also comes into play.

Also note the An-24 is a short haul aircraft and isn't dealing with the pressurization stresses that larger aircaft do. The 747-100 and -200 may well be timed out. That type has set hours, whereas unpressurized frames simply undergo unlimited regular inspection. Hence B-18's and DC-3's still fly.

I also don't know how the Russian firms calculate things like airframe life. Their stuff was still behind the iron curtain when I was in aircraft college; they developed their own system from the rest of the world. It's possible some of those old aircraft wouldn't be flying under the same standards. (Not that a little airline in Cuba would be operating to Aeroflot standards anyway.)

To be anecdotal, I have heard the Russian heli's used for logging up here are incredibly more sturdy than their western stablemates. But I've never met anyone who's serviced Antonovs et al, so I don't know if the engineering attitude carried through to fixed wing.

Re:Why?

[termigan]

There's a flaw to your argument. It was the MIX of solid and liquid fueled rockets that caused the Challenger accident. The solid fuel didn't blow up, but the inside combustion did leak out because they flew the rocket in colder weather than it was designed to fly. The liquid fuel actually blew up because it was heated too much.

So, which is safer? Probably the solid fuels. But any way you slice it it's dangerous stuff because you have to pack so much energy into a small volume to get stuff into outer space. If you have a problem that releases all that energy at one time, that's an explosion of epic proportions. I think it's something like the equivalent of 50 or 100 kilotons of TNT sitting on the launch pad when the shuttle is fueled and ready to go.

Re:Why?

[schnikies79]

Not quite. Shipping companies have bought up most of them. I worked at UPS on the flight line and I know they still use several 100 & 200 series 747's, though they are slowly being replaced with 500 & 600 series. As for dc-8's, I believe UPS is the only company still flying them. They buy several junk ones to use for parts since parts are so hard to find. Of course they are going to be phased out eventually.

Re:Why?

[rhennigan]

something that's reusable and doesn't involve burning a metric assload of solid fuel and tend to cataclysmically explode.

Could you please convert that into American assloads, please? I have no idea what you are talking about otherwise.

Re:Why?

[EnderWiggin99]

Wait a minute...I thought he was?

Re:Why?

[buysse]

doesn't involve burning a metric assload of solid fuel

How much is that in Imperial Arseloads?

shamelessly borrowed from the Monastery.

Re:Why?

[starbird]

Soyuz capsules havn't been changed much since the 60s. They're still launched from the same pad that launched Yuri Gagarin in 1962.

Only now is there a replacement for the small soyuz capsule in the design Stage. Called the Klipper, it will be able to carry 6 people and 1 metric ton of cargo into orbit. It uses a lifting body design and will land with a parachute.

http://www.photocenter.ru/myphoto/films/eu6gN6F3c8 hO3c1TIF9ScQ/LMPLy8MOOoUAABZLBrsAAAAE.html

Re:Why?

[drew]

I'm not totally sure about this, but i suspect it has at least as much to do with the number of takeoffs and landings the plan has gone done than the total flight hours, as that would be when the most stress is put on the airframe. of course, for engines and related systems, it's total time running, but most failures tend to be the result of metal fatigue or similar breakdowns, and the stresses that cause metal fatigues are strongest in takeoff and landing (especially if you are flying something like a B-52, where the wings 'take off' quite a while before the plane leaves the ground.

then again, there are a wide variety of problems that can occur in an aircraft and they all have different causes. iirc, the challenger explosion was the reult of a cracked o-ring - a failure like that is usually the result of pure age (and poor maintenance procedures) and has little to do with flight hours logged.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same deal with the Hubble Space Telescope, but everyone here whines every time people talk about scrapping it.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sounds like soda, which still comes in cans. And we're still using that too."

Not if we're trying to be healthy.

Re:Why?

[chickenmonger]

I think a better example would be the Boeing B52. At my last check, the US Military expects these planes to have a lifetime nearing 100 years.

Re:Why?

[NOLAChief]

From the FA (read it?):

"The crack is about the size as a hair on the lens of a camera," NASA spokeswoman Eileen Hawley told reporters at NASA's Johnson Space Center. The crack was located just above the intertank door on the rear of the tank, opposite the orbiter, Hawley said.

It sounds like a small surface defect in the spray on insulation, not in the aluminum tank. Similar defects have probably happened before, but never made the headlines. Most likely the maximum hazard is that they will see a very small amount of ice growth at that site when propellant is loaded. This isn't even a significant threat because the crack is on the opposite side of the tank from the orbiter, so unless you've got some ice that can do fancier flying than Oswald's magic bullet there is no threat to launch.

What brought down Columbia was a large chunk of foam that was hand-applied when the tank was closed out. The hand-application process of the bipod ramp foam tends to leave large voids. That's what popped off and hit the wing. The ramps have been replaced with heaters to avoid ice formation at that location. (Ironically, the foam was put there in the first place to prevent ice from forming on that joint and hitting the orbiter.)

Disclaimer: I work for NASA, but any opinions are my own and haven't been approved by anybody. I'm just trying to inject a little sanity into this discussion...

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"the challenger explosion was the reult of a cracked o-ring - a failure like that is usually the result of pure age"

Wrong. The challenger exploded because it was too cold on the day they were launching, and most of the engineers knew this and did NOT want the shuttle to launch. Unforunately it was a highly political event. Anyway, the o-ring cracked because the air was too cold and this caused it to crack instead of expand. Richard Feynman did a demonstration proving this for the committee investigating the accident.

Re:Why?

[timeOday]

Who said the Shuttles' problem was wear and tear? Heck, they're rebuilt before every flight.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend I know what's really wrong with the Shuttle design, but the thing is horribly expensive and its safety record could be a lot better.

Re:Why?

[I Sil Zah]

How many thousands of people drive over the Golden Gate Bridge every day? And I lived through the 1989 earthquake, and that one DIDNT fall down.

Re:Why?

[nxtw]

First off, I had a satphone way back when because I needed it. Latency wasn't any worse than a trans-oceanic call, at least not noticibly

I was not talking about satellite phones in this situation; I was referring to satellite-carried international calls.

Some people may not notice latency. Given the right conditions, I can notice latency on a cellphone that I don't notice on a traditional local call... although it does not bother me. I can usually notice latency on VoIP, and it tends to bother me a bit. As for not noticing latency on satellite calls, assuming you aren't making this up, I guess you just didn't notice it. Latency on a satellite call will be much greater than a properly routed call carried through copper or fiber carriers, simply due to phsyics.

Secondly, compression today is for the most part same stuff used on common cellphones, that is to say GSM. Even back in the day it didn't sound "extremely poor".

GSM can sound "extremely poor", specifically when using the HR or AMR-HR codecs. While EFR and AMR-FR provide excellent sound quality, they are more expensive (in terms of bandwidth usage) than the half-rate codecs. Since I was discussing international calls carried by satellite instead of satellite phone calls, the situation is different. Destinations that rely on satellite telephone links are more likely to have less advanced telephone systems. Furthermore, since satellite bandwidth is expensive, lossy compression may still be used in between both parties to a call, which will only contribute to other potential detriments to call quality (antiquated/low quality local exchange systems, usage of compression on a terrestrial wireless system, etc.)

Go back to high school.

Based on your spelling and grammar skills (specifically your exemplary spelling of "noticibly", I think you need to go back to high school... if you aren't currently enrolled. At any rate, these issues were not covered in the high school I attended and probably aren't covered at many other high schools, either.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

When the hell did the second one explode? Burning up != explode.

Re:Why?

[Detritus]

The Challenger didn't "blow up", it disintegrated due to loss of attitude control at high speed. The orbiter experienced aerodynamic forces that greatly exceeded its structural design limits. Similar things happen when a high-performance jet aircraft loses attitude control at high speed.

Re:Why?

[AJWM]

but it is not the same shuttle that flew in the early 80s

You're right, it isn't. That one burned up on reentry a couple of years ago. The design, however, is fundamentally the same, modulo a few manufacturing refinements (TPS changes, etc) they came up with in the ones that flew in the mid 80s and beyond (and were all built in the late 70s/early 80s). Even Endeavour, the replacement for Challenger, is in large part made up of "structural spares" made during the original manufacturing run.

Of course they do pretty much tear down and completely overhaul each Orbiter between missions, which is another reason the dang things are so expensive to fly.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep... Those B-52 long-range stratofortress, first built in the late 50's, still going on strong today!

Those incredible, resilent airframe from Boeing is something to reckon with despite repeated mid-air explosions and wind turbulences, to top that off, boast the largest carrying bomb-bay payload of any airplane today.

That's B.U.F.F. to you, Soviet Union!

Re:Why?

[afidel]

Little is left unchanged on the Shuttle fleet except the airframe, which if designed right can almost last forever. The B-52 fleet has many airframes older than the parents of the people flying them for instance. None of the members of the shuttle fleet have that many launches on them, and with things like the entire engine being redesigned and rebuilt and the computers being massivly updated over the years the shuttles are only superficially the same craft as were first launched in the 80's.

Re:Why?

[Detritus]

It stands for High-level Aerospace Language / Shuttle, designed by Intermetrics for NASA. I suspect that the acronym was selected first, and then they found some words to fit it, a common practice in those days.

Re:Why?

[Specks]

The problem with this comparison is that Linux/Unix is being updated to meet the current needs and standards of today and probably will continue to be improved in the future. The shuttle is only being maintained. No improvements were made to it until an accident forced them to be designed, manufactured and implemented and even then it's still using technology that is decades old. Both NASA and the Government have become gun-shy of designing a new shuttle. What are they afraid of?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm...
Excuse me here, but I drive a car made in 1981 (it has 300K+ miles on it and still runs new). A product of superior Japanese engineering. Seems the old ford mustang was designed in the 60's and many people still drive them, too.

Re:Why?

[vought]

Not quite. Shipping companies have bought up most of them. I worked at UPS on the flight line and I know they still use several 100 & 200 series 747's, though they are slowly being replaced with 500 & 600 series. As for dc-8's, I believe UPS is the only company still flying them. They buy several junk ones to use for parts since parts are so hard to find. Of course they are going to be phased out eventually.

Yeah, I flew on one of those 500 series 747s the other day. Whatta ride.

(there is no 747 series beyond the 400 series. The 300- series is a stretched upper deck 200 series with more modern engines, and the 400- series has avionics and electronics modernization from the factory.)

Most 100 and 200 series 747s are out in the desert, being parted out. The ariframes are no longer economical for flight - which was my point. After a certain number of flight hours, it is no longer economically feasible to fly an early 747, simply because of the overhaul costs involved in a third or fourth C-check on a large cargo aircraft.

Re:Why?

[vought]

The science for LEO is here, the technology for LEO is here.

That's not the point.

The risj is in man-rating a vehicle - which is a unique challenge for every discrete design.

Why send a man to do a robot's job? The shuttle's promise was that we could use it to haul parts and the personnel to assemble those parts to LEO.

Instead, the CIA and the Air Force whored NASA out for a couple of years and left her by the bed.

Re:Why?

[Old Wolf]

Sort of like spinning your car into a wall when you misjudge a drift?

Re:Why?

[DerekLyons]

From a technology standpoint, I don't use the same computers that were out in 1981. I don't drive a car that was made or designed in 1981. I don't even talk on a phone whose carrier techology was around in 1981.

So why, WHY are we launching people into space with a program older than I am?

Because in the real world things are often kept around for decades... because they work. In the real world, there is less chasing of technology fads because the hardware costs big money.

There are no intrinsic technologic problems with the Shuttle. It's main problems come from two sources 1- it's a first generation machine and 2- it simply hasn't flown enough to get all the bugs out. (That it's development budget was so severly constrained didn't help matters any.)

Re:Why?

[DerekLyons]

Look at SpaceShipOne for an excellent start to what NASA SHOULD be concentrating on. Don't blast the thing into orbit on enormous dangerous rockets, fly into the upper atmosphere on wings and then use rockets to boost into space.

The problem is... That scheme simply doesn't work. A C-5A is barely big enough to loft a booster that could put a very small satellite into orbit. An aircraft big enough to carry say an Apollo CSM and a booster to take it into earth orbit, would be several orders of magnitude bigger.

At best you'd shrink the size of the booster by 3-4%, tops. To get into orbit you need speed, and no aircraft, not even the SR-71, has even a respectable fraction of the performance required. Thus, you still can't escape the need for "enormous dangerous rockets". (Not that a properly designed rocket is all that dangerous in the first place.)

SpaceShip One is a neat engineering hack for the extremely modest performance needed to win the X-Prize. It doesn't scale however.

Re:Why?

[schnikies79]

My bad on the series numbers, I wen't by the tail numbers and assumed the series' followed them but of course it dosen't have to. Do you happen to know the series that is a lot shorter than a standard 747? It looks like the cut the middle of it out.

Re:Why?

[Detritus]

I'd compare it to top-fuel dragsters and funny cars. They can hit 300+ mph while traveling in a straight line. If the driver doesn't keep the vehicle pointed in the right direction, things get very ugly, very quickly. Rockets have the same problem. They are designed to travel along the roll axis of the vehicle. It only takes a small amount of pitch or yaw error to generate aerodynamic forces that will produce "rapid unplanned disassembly" of the rocket.

Re:Why?

[violent.ed]

"Personally, I'm all for that. Let the private companies make the progressive steps, let NASA become..." let NASA be the FCC of the space 'world', at least here in the usa. just dont give them the outright and overbearingness of he FCC.

Let them be the general populations "seal of approval."

sure they have f00ked up in the past, but you have got to give them SOME credit!

like me having to use BIG M's onscreen keyboard to 'type' this thanks to an unfortunate beer accident...

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the 747 SP -- built for long range. It did indeed have a section removed from the middle, and more fuel tanks added. They're rare now that the newer 747s and other more modern airliners have comparable range (mostly due to beter engines). One is being converted into a flying astronomical observatory for NASA, though.

Re:Why?

[The Tyrant]

For the simple fact that its proved reliable.

I wont argue over if thats actually true or not, since there have been accidents, but that is I believe the theory.

There is a lot to be said for "if it aint broke, dont fix it", and the problem with continually updating systems is that they get more and more complex, and thus bugs creep in, no matter how well you test things. NASA wont use anything unless they can see exactly how all of it works and make damned sure it wont go wrong and cost anyone their life, or a several billion dollar bit of equipment.

Old technology does have one advantage over new. Its much less complex and thus much easier to understand.

Re:Why?

[olafva]

Challenger was definitely preventable, just ask McDonald who was in charge at the Cape, BUT was over-ruled. He has agonized over this for years as he had to carry the Fax down the hall (which he disagreed with) to go ahead with the launch. Also, NASA lacked an administrator then (like now) who could call the shots. Jim Beggs wouldn't have allowed Challenger to be launched, but the DoJ was tying him up with trivial GD legal matters he was later cleared of. But he had to step aside to defend himself from the creww of DoJ attorneys. To some degree you can blame the Challenger disaster on the overly agressive and politically motivated Department of Justice attorneys. William Graham, Beggs temporary fill in, was not an experienced engineer (he was CS), and lacked both the clout and understanding to stop the launch.

Regarding Columbia, it is now clear we should have launched a rescue mission, which (according to O'Keefe) was definitely possible, as Atlantis was at the cape nearing it's launch. The fatal flaw was that taking damage photographs and launching a rescue mission were not pert chart options at Mission Control. In addition, the Crater analysis code (spreadsheet) and supporting Powerpoint slides were seriously flawed, giving the wrong impresssion to those who tried to interpret them. To some degree, Powerpoint was a culprit in Columbia as the Columbia Accident Investigation Report pointed out and why NASA employees were encouraged to take Tufte's course and read his books.

Re:Why?

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Well, technically, both Shuttle accidents involved them tumbling in the airstream at a high mach number, which tears such a craft to pieces. The 1986 event was caused by an explosion, sure, but the tumbling orbiter was torn apart by the airstream. The 2003 event was caused by a structural failure, sure, but the tumbling orbiter was torn apart by the airstream (after the left wing snapped off).

For years, I thought the 1986 involved the Shuttle "blowing up", too, but that's just not correct. Once the Shuttle departed the nose-on profile of flight from the explosion of the tank, things like the wings and tail were simply ripped away from the (Mach 3+?) craft. If it had kept its orientation, it may have sailed relatively intact from the area of the blast effect, and then hopefully regained control long enough to effect an abort return.

Re:Why?

[R.Caley]

Sounds like Unix. And we're still using it, too.

However, unix started out as quite a nice design, and has had ugly cruft glued on top until it is now a horrer from the pit.

The STS started out as a horrer from the pit, and then has had decades of getting older and uglier.

It's no use guys, this is never going to get off the ground.

Hey! Why don't we strap a couple of fireworks on the side! At least that way we can get a launch and when it all goes bang someone will fund a replacement which actually work! Won't they?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The O-Ring didn't crack. It was too cold so the O-Ring didn't expand fast enough to seal the joint in the SRB. This caused hot gas to escape - burning through the seal letting more gas escape which caused the explosion. O-Ring burn had been seen before - but a ring had never completely failed before. Had the burn happened on the other side of the SRB the hot gas would have (safely) vented away from the LOX tank and no one would what noticed.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mods on crack, NASA on crack, where's this gonna end? In other news, DEA raids Cape Canaveral. Film at 11.

Re:Why?

[Flaming Death]

Sorry Sanity and Slashdot.. not your normal cocktail for a balanced dicussion. Would you spend time trying to explain problems like this to a class of 12yr olds? .. welcome to slashdot.

Troll intended.

Re:Why?

[smimi10]

Ummm...I believe it was Columbia that disintegrated. Challenger was the victim of an external fuel tank explosion as a result of a leaking solid rocket booster, if I remember correctly.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the foam don't fit, you must acquit!

Does this make any sense at all? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet they could've just rubbed a little vegetable oil around the edges of those O-rings and we would have been spared all the teary, saccharine Christa McCaullife eulogies.

Re:Why?

[EyesOfNostradamus]

Moreover, the rumor is that the astronauts survived the blast unharmed, but later died a slow drowning death after the craft had fallen into the water...

Re:Why?

[Lumpy]

lest we forget.

The Army's most deadly aircraft the A-10 Warthog was designed and built in the 50's most flying today are 20+ years old. We CANT come up with a replacement that is as safe, effective and DEADLY to tanks as this horribly old aircraft. Men on the ground in the middle of what seems like a hopeless fight gain new hope and even cheer at the sound of the A-10 engines. Enemies around the world have nothing but fear for that distinctive sound... as they know that no matter how high tech your tank,carrier or other vehicle is that aircraft will destroy it easily... Oh the A-10 can be missing, yes MISSING 35% of it's aircraft and still fly home safely, it can also take direct hits to the pilot's location from below and protect the pilot... this thing was designed to be shot at almost constantly.

How about the C-130 transport aircraft? It still uses fricking props! Designed and built in the late 40's the last c130's built were made in the 60's and 70's! they are STILL the backbone for military cargo and transport. These planes can land and take off from places that no other transport can even hope to.

I can come up with thousands of "old" examples that we rely on today because the new device is a piece of crap and can not replace the old one, or there is no replacement because it was designed "perfectly" back then.

How come some new smartypants engineering students have not "redesigned" the geodesic dome? How come none of the great minds coming out of engineering schools can even touch the genius that was Frank Lloyd Wright and his designed from the beginning of the last century?

New does not mean Better. And that is more truthful right now than ever.

computer components today are garbage compared to 5 years ago... hard drives and ram almost NEVER failed. Cars today are certianly no better at effeciency than 10 years ago. I chose to buy and drive a 10 year old car because it is getting better gas mileage than any of the hybrid cars today.

The shuttle is dated, but it also is certianly not running on designs from that long ago. The computrers are newer, the engines were redesigned not that long ago, and we have that nifty new camera on the main fuel tank just a few years back!

Re:Why?

[MullerMn]

It's common knowlege that an American assload is atleast 10x the size of one elsewhere in the world.

Anyone who has visited Florida will have seen the asses the unit is based on.

Re:Why?

[Alioth]

If you travel on the airlines, I'm sure you fly on aircraft older than you.

Re:Why?

[Chanc_Gorkon]

The STS of today is very different from when it first launched. Most of the shuttles have now been converted to the new avionics package with glass cockpits. Also, over the years, there have been many improvements. The airframes may be as old or older than you, but almost every part has been swapped out at some point in the last 20 some years.

Also, the next time you fly, the plane you are stepping on may likely be just as old as the shuttle.

Re:Why?

[VanillaCoke420]

Well the idea is that it's a reusable system, which means you're going to use it for quite some time.

As for going to the Moon and Mars and beyond, I think that what is going to be one of the cornerstones in that programme (at least when we're talking about NASA) is the CEV. However I think that if we're serious in colonising the Moon and Mars then we need something more than the CEV. On a long term I would like to see orbital facilities where one can process and use raw materials from the Moon and NEA's and build spacestations or spaceships.

Re:Why?

[ThJ]

Anyone but me misunderstand "Crack Found in Shuttle Tank"? XD And here I was thinking astronauts were smuggling drugs into space.

Re:Why?

[dan dan the dna man]

Which techinical backwater do you live in? If you think landline technology hasn't changed since Bell, you haven't been near an exchange in many a long year ;)

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

In those days? Because nowadays nobody does it that way any more?

Or was the posts' ending extremely subtle irony? :-)

Re:Why?

[nmg196]

Your first example is extremely poor. Only a handful of people in the whole world are still using the EXACT SAME cars that were built in the 60s. However we're still using the EXACT SAME shuttles (only one new one has been built since then AFAIR). No idea why this comparison was in your list. He wasn't suggesting an alternative to a shuttle - he was likely suggesting a replacement newly designed modern shuttle. I think that was obvious to all.

747 - fair enough, but it has been superceded (not in size, until the A380 but in technology). However there isn't a more advanced shuttle than the shuttle.

The last two aren't even technology examples and are extremely ridiculous comparisons! Your fifth would probably have been "we're still drinking water" or something equally stupid...

If I hadn't wasted my ability to moderate by posting this post, then I'd go for -1, Overrated. No idea how that post got to +5 Insightful - there's nothing insightful about it at all. It wasn't even your idea.

Re:Why?

[Blackneto]

B-52 is probably the best known example.
the design will be 100 years old when it is put out of service

Re:Why?

[mmkkbb]

According to this, it's the 747 SP.

Re:Why?

[Bloke down the pub]

No, that's what I thought at first.

Re:Why?

[mpe]

STS was originally conceived in the 60s, implemented in the 70s, and was launched in the 80s.

Age isn't all there is to the equation. The B52 bomber was designed in 1948 (IIRC). Still considered, by the USAF, to have plenty of life left in it.

I turned 24 today. The space shuttle first took off when I was six days old.

It was a few days late...

From a technology standpoint, I don't use the same computers that were out in 1981. I don't drive a car that was made or designed in 1981. I don't even talk on a phone whose carrier techology was around in 1981.

You'd probably be suprised how much old technology you are using. The likes of power steering and automatic transmission have been around a long time. SPC digital telephone switching dates from the 1970's. With some telephone cabling being decades old.

So why, WHY are we launching people into space with a program older than I am?

Soyuz is even older than the shuttle. As well as being considerably safer.

Re:Why?

[smittyoneeach]

Me, too. Who do these astronauts think they are, professional athletes?

Re:Why?

[pfdietz]

After hitting the water at 200 mph, I doubt anyone drowned.

Re:Why?

[pfdietz]

IIRC, the SRB with the burnthrough later exploded by itself (after the stack had broken up, but before the range safety destruct signal could be sent.) If that's the case, having the hole on the other side would just have delayed destruction of the stack by less than a minute,

Re:Why?

[Detritus]

No. See "B1. How did the Challenger explode? And what happened to the astronauts?" at sci.space.shuttle FAQ Part B.

Re:Why?

[paragon_au]

"Looks there have been cracks before and last time the space shuttle didn't blow up. We're not sure why it didn't, what caused the crack, what effects it has, or infact anything. But we are certin that because nothing happend the last time, it won't happen this time"

Re:Why?

[CrimsonAvenger]

The Army's most deadly aircraft the A-10 Warthog was designed and built in the 50's most flying today are 20+ years old.

The A-10 was designed in the 70's, not the 50's. And it belongs to the Air Force, not the Army.

Note also that we built about 700 A-10's. Not four. Hell, there were more than four prototypes of the A-10. If we'd built shuttles by the hundreds, they wouldn't have this sort of problem either.

Re:Why?

[omnifunctional]

I'm afraid you are mistaken about that. Southwest airlines only recently (last few years) started getting rid of thier older 737's. 747-100 and -200's are in service all over the world. And the newer versions of these aircraft have not been redesigned, only "freshened up" a little. The same as was done to the shuttle fleet in the 90's. New computers, and a host of other small changes. The 747-400's being built today are a 50 year old design being built with only a few minor improvments.

As to the analogy of cars, that is just ridiclous. If any automaker were to build a car as well as Rockwell built the shuttle, it would cost a fortune last pretty much forever.

Re:Why?

[mpe]

The Air Force flys Bombers designed in the 40s and built in the 50s. Fighters that where designed in the 60s and built in the 70s. Even the Boeing 747 was first built in the 60s as was the 737.

Even older Boeing's first jet airliner, the 707. Which is still being flown as the KC-135, RC-135 and E3. With there being not many civilian 707s still flying. (Even when they don't decide to go for a swim in Lake Victoria.)
Similarly the military varient of the DeHaviland Comet is still flying, as the Nimrod MR2

Re:Why?

[Devoid Josh]

and then they found some words to fit it, a common practice in those days. One word. PATRIOT.

Re:Why?

[mpe]

The B-52 fleet has many airframes older than the parents of the people flying them for instance.

By the time they retire it's possible that they will be older than the grandparents, even the great-grandparents of their pilots.
Interestingly NASA's B52 is the oldest in terms of when it was built, but has the least flying hours on it.

Re:Why?

[Taladar]

And probably less than half of that type of aircraft had accidents killing all people on board.

Re:Why?

[mikerich]

Concorde comes close. Designed even before the Shuttle, nothing has come close to its performance and it was retired not because it was worn out, but because of the post September 11th economics. It looks better than the Shuttle as well!

And the Shuttles we see today have had major improvements - their original thermal insulation has been replaced with lighter and stronger blankets, their avionics have been completely renewed and so on. In many respects the Shuttles today are not the same ones that went to the launch pad in the early 1980s.

The problem isn't so much the Shuttle as the insanity of the ISS and the manned space programme as a whole. What are they for?

Re:Why?

[Kombat]

It's no use guys, this is never going to get off the ground.

Hey! Why don't we strap a couple of fireworks on the side!

Incidentally, every space launch uses solid rocket fuel. It is simultaneously the most dangerous (by far the highest energy density, while being incapable of being "shut off" once lit), and only way to achieve the speeds and altitude necessary for orbit. The simple fact is that no amount of liquid fuel is enough to get a craft into orbit, because it needs to have enough energy to lift the heavy fuel itself, as well, and to do so requires more fuel, which adds weight, which requires more fuel... etc. The only way to overcome this limitation is by using solid fuel. And that's why all rockets do.

The use of solid rocket fuel was not some haphazard, risky strategy unique to the shuttle program. The laws of math and physics dictate that it is the only way to do it.

Re:Why?

[mpe]

Had the burn happened on the other side of the SRB the hot gas would have (safely) vented away from the LOX tank and no one would what noticed.

Rather it wouldn't have destroyed the vehicle. It would have been noticed since the autopilot would have reacted to thrust in the wrong place.

Re:Why?

[Kombat]

the A-10 can be missing, yes MISSING 35% of it's aircraft and still fly home safely,

Urban legend, by the way. That is to say, not true.

The only reason "newer isn't necessarily better" in the examples you cited is because it is tremendously expensive to develop new designs. The aircraft you refer to were funded at a time when supplies and labour were cheaper, and there was more money available for projects with large initial capital investment requirements. Nowadays, look how much time, trouble, and expense the military has invested just to get one new jet fighter design (F-22 Raptor). You don't see them calling for new, state-of-the-art bombers, spyplanes, transports, or aircraft carriers to be designed and mass-produced, do you? Not because they can't improve on them, but because of the enormous cost it would require. Rest assured that if they did invest the money in new designs, they would be vastly superior to the designs they are replacing (as the F-22 Raptor obviously is).

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another troll! You must be on a karma-burning streak today, eh Doug?

Re:Why?

[Kombat]

I suspect that the acronym was selected first, and then they found some words to fit it, a common practice in those days.

"in those days?" Look around you, my friend. I refer you to the CAN-SPAM act, the USA-PATRIOT act, the CARE organization, and many other modern examples of this intellectually juvenile practice.

Re:Why?

[mpe]

I'd compare it to top-fuel dragsters and funny cars. They can hit 300+ mph while traveling in a straight line. If the driver doesn't keep the vehicle pointed in the right direction, things get very ugly, very quickly.

These cars are specifically designed so that if something goes wrong most of the energy goes into breaking the car rather than the driver.

Rockets have the same problem. They are designed to travel along the roll axis of the vehicle. It only takes a small amount of pitch or yaw error to generate aerodynamic forces that will produce "rapid unplanned disassembly" of the rocket.

This appears to be a bigger problem with s "spaceplane" bolted to the side of a rocket than with a capsule stuck of top. In addition the latter is typically fitted with a solid fuel motor to get the capsule away from the rest of the rocket if things go wrong.

Re:Why?

[Antyrael]

If you read the parent's ENTIRE post, he goes on to say that each one of those things HAS been improved, EXCEPT the space shuttle. You just argued his point for him.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Commercial aircraft have "cycle" issues due to pressurization.
At cruising altitude they're being inflated like balloons, at landing they're not.

The major stresses on the B-52 are/were incurred when it's mission changed from high altitude nuclear bomber (with very little stresses) to low altitude, fast moving conventional bomber. However, the AF has a pretty good handle on the increased stress low level flights have incurred on the airframe and have beefed up the structure.

Re:Why?

[CrimsonAvenger]

The problem isn't so much the Shuttle as the insanity of the ISS and the manned space programme as a whole. What are they for?

No, the problem is the shuttle. Or, perhaps, the manned space program, but not the way you mean it. Problem is we approached it as if it was never going to be anything other than a few scientists being lofted, instead of industrializing it.

If we'd built 50 shuttles, we could have a launch every four days (allowing 200 days between launches of each shuttle). We'd be able to put 2400T or thereabouts in orbit every year. Note that 2400T is more about ten times as much as the Mars Mission will require.

Fifteen years of that, with half devoted to the space station, and we'd have a REAL space station - 10000T+, capable of supporting some serious industry and whatever science wants to tag along for the ride.

Plus our moon base (and anyone else's who wants one - a real space station makes it much easier for newcomers to get into the game, as long as they play nice), an asteroid mission or two, maybe a probe to look at a monolith on Europa or some such...

The possibilities are endless...

Four, on the other hand. Essentially worthless - they can't do their design mission, they can't build a decent space station, they can't do much of anything....

Re:Why?

[stanmann]

1500 dead soldiers out of 200K+ over there over 4 years are dead thats ~375 per year, or ~1 per day. or 1 per day per 100k individuals. or 187.5 per year per 100k. If you assume that we are sending primarily poor minorities as has been alleged by various media and other organizations, it is safer to be a Black Soldier in Iraq, than to be an average Black Male between 25 and 34, which is the age of your average soldier. the CDC report can be found here.

Re:Why?

[brontus3927]

After the Columbia incident a lot of people complained about the age of the computers used in the shuttle. IIRC, they are the equivilent of 8086 processors. The thing is, they don't need to be any faster than that. The shuttle isn't doing CAD work or downloading pr0n, it's checking internal sensors against programming to insure that pumps and such are working correctly.

The programming for the shuttle is 30+ years old. But that is actually a good thing. The shuttle code has been certified the most stable in the world.

Oh, and the first manned Soyuz launch was April 1967. After problems discovered in the first launch, Soyuz resumed launches in Oct 1968. For all intents and purposes, the Soyuz is the Russian version of the Apollo and it's still going strong.

Re:Why?

[LaCosaNostradamus]

I think that that's a bit more than a rumor. It's just a sensitive issue, hence is not widely reported. But the truth culled from several sources is that its highly likely they survived the orbiter's breakup in the airstream, and that the control cabin was essentially intact. Some oxygen masks were activated. But even if the astronauts were conscious for the 10-mile fall to the ocean surface, they assuredly died upon impact as the control cabin smashed into the water -- and I do mean "smashed", as in smashed into pieces of wreckage, or smashed into a flat piece of wreckage. Either way, the astronauts' bodies were recovered in a condition that hasn't been reported on.

Google a bit and you'll probably reach the same conclusions.

Re:Why?

[stanmann]

Oh, and here is the casualty counterhere

Re:Why?

[Detritus]

If something goes wrong with the guidance system, it doesn't matter whether you have a space-plane or a capsule.

Emergency escape rockets are only usable during a limited portion of the ascent profile. Like ejection seats, their usefulness is limited.

Re:Why?

[Kombat]

Won't you be surprised when you find out how old some of the planes are that are making round trips every single day.

Trust me... That kind of stuff worries me too.

Why? It shouldn't. Airplanes are subject to inspection schedules and maintenance standards far higher than automobiles. They are kept in extremely good mechanical condition. Mechanical failure is very rarely the cause of airplane crashes. The vast majority of all airline crashes are directly caused by pilot error. Of the few that aren't pilot error, they are usually human error somewhere else in the chain (air traffic controller screwing up, a mechanic making a mistake, some other human failure in the chain).

Aircraft mechanical malfunction should be the farthest thing from your mind when flying. If I were you, I'd be far more worried about how much sleep my pilot had last night, or whether or not the mechanic was still upset (read: distracted) about a fight with his wife while he was replacing one of the rudder servos.

Re:Why?

[Kombat]

we need something less Industrial Revolution, something that's reusable and doesn't involve burning a metric assload of solid fuel

It is impossible to obtain orbit without the use of solid fuel. Solid fuel is the only fuel with sufficient energy-to-mass ratio to accelerate both itself and a payload to the required altitude and velocity to attain orbit.

Re:Why?

[LWATCDR]

Actually the B-52 predates the 707. The KC-135/707 where built as a stop gap jet tanker for the B-52. the stop gap just worked too well to be replaced.

Re:Why?

[Nyrath the nearly wi]

So why, WHY are we launching people into space with a program older than I am? And of all things, if we're really so keen on going to Mars, why should this of all things be our jumping off point?

The planners at NASA do not want to use the Shuttle as their jumping off point. They want to scrap it.

However, this would mean breaking several treaties the US has made with Europe and Japan. They paid a lot of money to NASA in exchange for a stake in the International Space Station and have received nothing in return. They have spent millions on their lab modules for the Space Station, and those modules are rusting away in a warehouse somewhere because the Shuttle is the only thing big enough to lift them into orbit.

If the shuttle was scrapped, the US would have zero chance of convincing any other nation to colaborate on any new scientific project.

Re:Why?

[Neurotoxic666]

From a technology standpoint, I don't use the same computers that were out in 1981. I don't drive a car that was made or designed in 1981. I don't even talk on a phone whose carrier techology was around in 1981.

Well you know, some people pay a lot of money for older cars and they can use them as daily drivers without a problem. Those machines we terribly solid and the engines we very tough.

You might not talk on an old phone, but you do know that the wires and poles carrying your signal were probably installed before you were born, right? And that the whole telephone concept was invented WAY before the shuttle...

The shuttle might be old, but upgrades were made to it. The astronauts do not wear the same suits. The Canadian Arm was not there in 1981. The program has been improved over the years and it might still be 100% OK to continue with it.

You know, even if the shuttle isn't filled with cool blue LEDs and covered with silver metal-like plastic, it can be appropriate for what it has to accomplish.

Re:Why?

[green pizza]

By the time they retire it's possible that they will be older than the grandparents, even the great-grandparents of their pilots.
Interestingly NASA's B52 is the oldest in terms of when it was built, but has the least flying hours on it.

The plane you speak of is NASA's B-52A, built in about 1952. From what I've read, it also has many parts from later B-52s, making it a B-52ABCDEFG :)

NASA just recently retired that B-52A and replaced it with a shiny new B-52H that's only 45 years old!

I'm pretty sure their old B-52A is headed for a museum as it was the plane used to carry and release thelegendary X-15 as well as the X-38 and more recently the X-43 scramjet. I think they also used it to test the parachute breaking system that the shuttle uses.

Re:Why?

[real gumby]

Actually quite a number of older planes are in service in third-world countries (less soo for 747s for reasons stated in other posts). I've flown some rather terrifying trips on aging planes in africa (and standing-room-only DC-6 flights in India in the 1970s still give me goosebumps, even though at the time I was far too stupid to appreciate the danger).

Re:Why?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I say, tell that to the astronauts who have to sit on top of the goddamn thing.

The astronauts are well aware of the condition of their craft prior to launch. Indeed, NASA policy is to involve the astronauts as much as possible in the launch preparation process, much the same way that a commercial airline pilot is expected to give his plane a walk-around inspection prior to flying it (although the latter is obviously far more trivial than the former).

Further, nobody puts a gun to the heads of these astronauts. They are volunteers, and at any time any of them can elect to not fly the mission. They are well aware of the risks of flying even a "perfect" craft into an environment where the slightest failure can kill you.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Re:Why?

[decsnake]

this is just plain wrong. The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs used only liquid fuel. The shuttle is the first and only "man-rated" solid booster in the US space program, and it required waiving many level 1 safety requirements, like having to be able to shut it off.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way has soda been continuously improved and unrecognizable in it's current state?

Re:Why?

[decsnake]

good comment, except the part about the shuttle not landing at edwards again. while KSC will continue to be the prime landing site for all missions (if there ever are any), edwards is still the 1st backup site and has far more reliable weather than KSC, as well as just being a lot bigger.

Re:Why?

[Kombat]

The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs used only liquid fuel.

Yes, and none of those programs went to orbit. Read my post again:

"[Solid rocket fuel is the] only way to achieve the speeds and altitude necessary for orbit."

The programs you cited never attained orbit. They explored other planets/moons, and thus had different (lesser) thurst requirements.

Re:Why?

[Josh Booth]

Don't bash the A-10. It can take serious damage before being downed. Once, an A-10 took a missile hit to the inner chord of a wing and flew home on wire control after the THREE HYDROLIC SYSTEMS failed. It can easily fly home after losing an engine and the pilot is protected by an armored "bathtub". While an A-10 may not be able to lose 35%, it can sure lose a lot.

Re:Why?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

You are so deeply wrong here it isn't funny.

Mercury (after the first couple of missions), Gemini, and Apollo all placed their payloads in Earth orbit before they did anything else. Mercury and Gemini never left Earth orbit at all. Apollo, which did of course go to the moon (after leaving EO), required more thrust overall than any other space venture in history, because it had to boost everything necessary for reaching the Moon into EO. The Saturn V was the most powerful booster ever built, period. Even the modern Energiya can't match it.

Re:Why?

[PeanutGallery]

Most likely the maximum hazard is that they will see a very small amount of ice growth

The same substance that made Challenger's engines go "plooie"? Glad its harmless.

Disclaimer: I work for NASA, but any opinions are my own and haven't been approved by anybody. I'm just trying to inject a little sanity into this discussion...

So at the next meeting could you pls ask "When are we gonna stop beating these dead horses? No more bandaids. Lets sell the last of the shuttle fleet to musuems (while there's enough of them left to sell) and move on with life."

Then ask for a raise. Big bloated gov't agencies love "go-getters". ;)

Re:Why?

[mwood]

Well, let's see. On this hand, we have a bunch of new designs we haven't even worked out how to build yet, which will be really cool when they have actually been blueprinted, manufactured, static tested, flight tested, qualified, supplied with trained crews, and launched for the first time. On the other hand, we have something we've already built, tested, used, and paid for, which needs some relatively minor rework. Which would I choose, given that I need to be back in space by last week?

Look at your timeline again. Twenty years from lab. to launch pad. It's going to take a decade or more to have Space Truck: The Next Generation ready for flight. We have needs today. Fixing the shuttle fills that enormous gap between what we want and what we can have.

End-of-life for STS is already set, at a point where there's some chance we'll have a replacement ready. Today all the stuff we have ready to go is older, not newer.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your parents should apologize to you and the world for giving you such bad genes. I mean, "Apollo never went into orbit"??? Are you legally brain-dead? Even the Moon-landing deniers don't deny the Saturn V went into orbit...

Re:Why?

[Psiolent]

Seriously. My first thought was, "Well, I'm not surprised. They probably get pretty tired up there and need a way to stay alert." I did think astronauts would make enough money to buy some good cocaine and not have to rely on smoking crack, though.

Re:Why?

[Kehvarl]

"in those days?" Look around you, my friend. I refer you to the CAN-SPAM act, the USA-PATRIOT act, the CARE organization, and many other modern examples of this intellectually juvenile practice.

What you fail to account for is the fact that the poster is actually in the future, reading old slashdot articles (because after the Dupe-wars of 3109 duplicate articles are not allowed to exist, and so old stories are just recylcled to the front page). He then posted a reply to a comment, hoping to spark new heated debate in his time, but the constant striving for faster and faster computers has made machines that send commands backwards in time, and so the post became available for you to comment on.

Re:Why?

[stevesliva]

And also the 707 variants... KC-135, etc.

Re:Why?

[Mondoz]

They have been making tweaks as they go. Columbia, the first orbiter, had several design elements that the other orbiters don't have. (Look at pictures of the tail in comparison with the other orbiters for a quick example)

All the orbiters are different weights, for another example. As they went, they designed better technologies to acomplish the same goal.

They've been doing avionics upgrades (as discussed above), and had many, many major design changes planned.
Some orbiters have heat resistant blankets instead of tiles to reduce weight and complexity.

Each orbiter was slightly tweaked to perform certain functions.
Due to the station's orbit, any orbiter that was to go to the station had to be modified for weight requirements just to get there.

My personal favorite were the Flyback Boosters. Modified solid rocket boosters designed to fly back to KSC and land like a plane to eliminate refurbishing them after fetching them out of the ocean.

Unfortunately, NASA's budget isn't something they can plan for over a long term period. They have to fight for every penny from congress, and are subject to the President's whims.
When Bush took office, one of his first acts was to scrap two elements of the International Space Station.
How can you plan and budget effectively with things like that happening?

Some of NASA's budget is also diverted over to the 'Save the Russian Space Program' fund. A presidental mandate ensured that we'd be employing Russian rocket scientists so they wouldn't end up going to work for some other country and designing missiles or other weapons.

Other major SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit) designs have been developed (X-33, Delta Clipper) only to be nixed by Congress.

NASA does contract out a great deal of the STS processing; United Space Alliance handles a major portion of Shuttle & Station aspects.

NASA also cannot sell anything. Their charter prevents them from profiting from their research. If NASA could sell some of their technologies (Velcro, Microwaves, UV Sunglasses, Pacemakers, etc...) they'd be amazingly rich.
Unfortunately, they have to give it all away.

Personally, I hope NASA will someday be split into a research organization and an exploration organization. It's trying to do both, and its budget can't really sustain it.

Re:Why?

[werewolf1031]

The same is not true of the other designs, which have been forced to compete in competitive markets.

All of my examples (and yours, of UNIX) have done well in the market for over twenty years. The Space Shuttle has not, in my opinion.

And people wonder why NASA should be dismantled and replaced with a privatized, competetive space industry. It is only through competition that the other products mentioned underwent such vast improvements over the years, especially Unix and automobiles.

NASA has no competition here in the U.S. That lack of competition, combined with the ever-shrinking budget allocated by our gov't overlords, will always hold back the American space industry.

For better or worse, commercialization is the only way to really get anything done in this country.

Re:Why?

[Alcilbiades]

It is important to read before you post btw.

Re:Why?

[sarkeizen]

As a matter of fact, they both exploded because something seemingly trivial went wrong, something that nobody in a million years would have thought could endanger the orbiter. If you read Feynman's account you'll see that O-ring erosion was documented in the Flight Readiness Reviews. Evidence suggests that a number of people on the engineering crew knew that O-Ring failure could be catastrophic. The problem was with faulty logic and bad use of statistics - essentially assuming that the success of a previous flight implies safety. Not only do I think that poor logic and math is something that "someone somewhere in a million years" would consider dangerous but that most people do and everyone at NASA should.

Re:Why?

[randomaxe]

Technically, the Challenger did not explode.

Once the fuel ignited outside of the tanks, the shuttle itself slid sideways, and given that the orbiter was not intended to withstand lateral force, it broke into pieces. There are photographs floating around that show what many to be the cabin, intact, falling back towards the earth.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes time to develop transportation technology. But just because it's old doesn't mean its no good. Look at the U2 and the (mothballed) SR-71, the F-16 and FA-18, even the F-117 stealth fighter. All of those are now decades old, but still prove effective time and time again. Most components in the shuttle (like computer systems) have been proven to work correctly in space. You can't just take a P4 into space and expect it to work (honest). The biggest problems with the shuttle program are the following: Management and public interest. Management because they have to put $ before science and public interest because people in this country could not give a shit about science.

Re:Why?

[werewolf1031]

Oh the A-10 can be missing, yes MISSING 35% of it's aircraft and still fly home safely

Not quite. The "35%" that you quote is of the aircraft's total wing area, including rear aelerons. So, the "Warthog" (actually Thunderbolt II, the pilots nicknamed it Warthog) can sustain a loss of up to 35% of its total lifting surface area and still stagger home.

Re:Why?

[jandrese]

Given that shuttles are estimated to have a disaster in about 1 out of every hundred flights (which has thus far borne out with our space program), that would mean we would have a shuttle lost every year or so.

Also, who is going to pay for all of this fuel for a launch every 4 days? While there is definatly a case that we need to get more shuttle flights (or something) up (there is a backlog of satellites waiting on the shuttle), Isn't 91 flights a year overdoing it a bit. This sounds like one of those evil genious fantasys where you don't have to worry about the money and can build whatever you want.

Re:Why?

[werewolf1031]

The existence of newer, better stuff doesn't make older stuff automatically stop working.

You're right, it doesn't. However, a 50% loss rate (two terminal failures out of a fleet of four) does not bode well for the remaining two.

If half of all 747's fell out of the sky due to defects, and materials fatigue from overuse beyond their expected lifespans, would YOU get on one?

Re:Why?

[Patik]

I don't drive a car that was made or designed in 1981.

I do :( Man, I hate that piece of shit.

Re:Why?

[lgw]

The programs you cited never attained orbit. They explored other planets/moons, and thus had different (lesser) thurst requirements.

I regret having replied to you in previous threads. I've a sneaking suspicion I've been trolled.

Re:Why?

[skarphace]

Well, if we weren't warring constantly, we could pay for all of this. We spend way to much money on death.

And the manned space program needs to go on. We need to find out how to survive. That's the whole point. We are trying to gain knowledge to be able to keep our species alive as long as possible. Once we get a constant and comfortable space program then we can start attacking things like asteroids and comets hitting Earth, and inhabiting another world when ours goes to shit.

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

The ceramic heat shielding and rocket engines of the shuttle are still state of the art. That the implementation is badly done in the case of the heat shielding, well, one reentry accident out of 106? Considering the flight envelope, I consider that fucking amazing. That an SSME that can chew through tonnes (metric or imperial) of fuel per second haven't disintegrated during flight (three per shuttle no less) is also short of fucking amazing.

Now, don't get me wrong, the shuttle is plagued by nasty design decisions (wings, tail, huge reentry cross section, solid rocket boosters, throw-away fuel tank) etc.

NASA hasn't been gunshy about designing a new shuttle. They had plans for years, first in the X33, and then when that looked doomed to the budget axe, the X38 crew return vehicle, which could have been pressed into service mated to a modified EELV like the Delta. Both of which were eventually killed by the Clinton/Bush changeover.

At least in the last cases, unlike all previous attempts (except the STS), they made it to flight test articles, and out of the wind tunnels...

Re:Why?

[darco]

> How about the C-130 transport aircraft? It still uses fricking props!

You say that as if propellors are less desirable than jet propulsion for aircraft. (Of course, after typing out this long reply, I now see that you and I are largely making the same point, but why waste such a good explanation?) This is true only if we are talking about props powered by internal combustion engines--but the C-130 is powered by turbo-prop engines.

It is really a matter of different strengths and weaknesses. In the case of the C-130, a turbo-prop engine was "the best tool for the job". In a way, it is already a jet aircraft--except that the propulsion comes from the propellor rather than from the exhaust.

And in order to stay on topic... a random comment about STS

The most flawed aspect of the STS is the Solid Rocket Boosters(SRBs). The soviet shuttle system (Often called Buran, after the name of the first soviet orbiter) recognized this and did away with solid propellant altogether.

It was in my opinion a superior launch system and orbiter, even if it was a blatant rip-off. Buran also looked cooler too. Too bad it is now scrap. The one intact Buran shuttle that survived the fall of the soviet union did not survive the fall of the ceiling in the building it was housed in. So sad.

But eh. Yeah. Props still have their place.

Re:Why?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Also, who is going to pay for all of this fuel for a launch every 4 days?

The fuel is actually pretty cheap. It's a quite small part of the cost of a shuttle flight.

Isn't 91 flights a year overdoing it a bit?

Not really. Sure, it's changing the fundamental model of spaceflight. To what the Shuttle was meant to be - not a scientific vehicle, but a truck/bus to orbit. If we had the truck leaving every four days, we'd find lots of ways to use the capacity...

This sounds like one of those evil genious fantasys where you don't have to worry about the money and can build whatever you want.

To a certain extent, it is. But even at a couple billion per shuttle, that's only $100 billion for the fleet. And it wouldn't cost a couple billion each if we were to sign a contract for delivery of 50, plus replacement parts.

I hear people on /. complain all the time about the military budget ($400 billion and climbing) - take 5% of the military budget and dedicate it to a reasonable shuttle fleet, and we'd have had our 50 by 1990.

Operating costs for the shuttle include a lot of overhead, amortized over six flights per year. Spreading that overhead over 90 flights per year would lower the cost per flight (probably more than enough to cover the fuel costs ;) )

Given that shuttles are estimated to have a disaster in about 1 out of every hundred flights (which has thus far borne out with our space program), that would mean we would have a shuttle lost every year or so.

Not necessarily. The first shuttle failure wouldn't have been prevented by a larger fleet (though it's safe to say the problem would still have been fixed after just one failure, and so no more of that particular failure mode would be seen ), but an extant space station (say, once it got to be 20 times as big as the ISS) would have allowed for both inspection of and repair to the damage suffered by our second failure. Being able to repair the shuttle at a space station would significantly reduce the failure rate (it would eliminate 50% of the failures we've seen to date ;) )....

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

It's funny that you don't mention the nearly 50 year old B52, some of which (barring major war) will be nearly 100 before their useful life is deemed over to the U.S.S. Enterprise which is rapidly approaching her 50th birthday. Hell, the F14 is older than I am, and although there's talk about removing it from the inventory, there just isn't a replacement available that can carry the payload it can, and fight the fight it can. It's no longer top-dog of dog-fighting, but it still dropped a shitload of bombs on Baghdad.

Re:Why?

[i41Overlord]

STS was originally conceived in the 60s, implemented in the 70s, and was launched in the 80s. I turned 24 today. The space shuttle first took off when I was six days old.

From a technology standpoint, I don't use the same computers that were out in 1981. I don't drive a car that was made or designed in 1981. I don't even talk on a phone whose carrier techology was around in 1981.

So why, WHY are we launching people into space with a program older than I am? And of all things, if we're really so keen on going to Mars, why should this of all things be our jumping off point?

We landed on the Moon in 1969. We had more launch capability back then than we do now. We couldn't land a man on the Moon now if we wanted to. We were closer to putting a man on Mars back then than we are now. Not all "progress" moves forward. Sometimes your efforts move you in the wrong direction.

Just because something is old doesn't mean its function or capability is outdated. If we had a rocket like the Saturn 5 or Energia, that would be a step forward compared to what we have now.

I wouldn't focus on age as much as capability.

Re:Why?

[Rei]

It's not that simple. LOX/LH boosters are arguably safer because you can throttle them down, and certainly more efficient, but there's a big problem: burnthrough. When operated in ground effect, if used to get enough thrust to lift the craft off the pad and accelerate at a great clip, you have to suffer incredible temperatures and corrosion. A more reasonable proposition, in my opinion, is LOX/Kerosene boosters; you can throttle, you get reasonable ISP, and there's no problems with getting sufficient thrust without burnthrough.

The shuttle has a lot more problems than its boosters, by the way. The most fundamental problem was the one that led to the boosters in the first place: having its budget almost halved during development. The SRBs already existed in almost their current form, so they just adopted them.

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

Ah, but an Israeli F15 can lose nearly 100% of a wing and still fly... :-)

http://www.f-16.net/varia_article8.html

Re:Why?

[happyfrogcow]

In neither the Challenger nor Columbia losses was the failure something that was completely unanticipated. Both of the fatal problems had been identified as a specific risk and were being worked on and analyzed when the accidents happened.

to me that sounds like, "We don't know yet if this bridge is strong enough to hold you, but drive your 2 ton car over it while we finish analyzing it."

worked on and analyzed when the accidents happened!? what kind of safety measure is that?

Re:Why?

[Rei]

1. Nasa's rates are too high? The Delta-IV Heavy is one of the cheapest launch systems in the world per kilogram, *despite* the fact that US labor costs are so much higher than Russia's and China's. The shuttle is expensive (although not as expensive as is often portrayed here, and has many capabilities that are widely used - for example, bulk cargo return, which has ferried back spacecraft on about 1 in 3 missions, and was what was keeping the ISS from being loaded up with trash), but the shuttle is hardly the only NASA spacecraft out there.

2. NASA didn't build the spacecraft. *Private* companies like Boeing, Lockheed, Orbital, etc did. In general, they did both the design and construction. Now, if cheaper spacecraft were possible without unreasonable risk, don't you think that these companies, with all of their experience, would just build their own? They've got the budget for it, after all. Some private space launch companies exist, but they mostly use modded versions of Soviet-era rockets, and charge about what the Russians and Chinese charge for space launch; they're not hugely profitable companies.

The only way to seriously get space launch costs down are the "high risk" designs and extensive basic research. Guess who's doing those? That's right: NASA.

By the way, lets just head off an obviously impending argument.

3. The shuttle *HAS* changed since its inception. For example, the bulk alloy of its tanks is now lithium-aluminum; its insulation type has changed; its thermal blankets have changed; its tiles have improved; the SSMEs have gone through a number of refinements; the seals on the O-rings have completely changed (and probably would have changed even without the challenger disaster, as the research was ongoing at the time into the separation problem, which was a well known problem, and not just in shuttle SRBs); etc. But yes, the basic design is old; only the details have changed. There are a number of basic design issues that should be dealt with that we didn't know at the time, and a number of issues that were forced on them due to budget constraints.

Re:Why?

[harrkev]

B-52 is probably the best known example.
the design will be 100 years old when it is put out of service

The funny thing is that this is true for the aircraft AND the musical group.

Re:Why?

[iminplaya]

Try to remember that the shuttle is a Rube Goldberg machine of the worst kind. We got stuck with it because the public was convinced(how could they know otherwise? Actually they had no idea what was going on during the design process. How much it would cost, etc. They were never asked. Probably for good reason) that the proper design made with the proper materials was too expensive, so like most gov't projects, it went to the lowest bidder that came up with a real mess. The thing was a dangerous contraption from the start. I don't have much hope for the next one under the present circumstances.

Re:Why?

[monkease]

*nodnod* My first thought was for the air filters.

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

By the time the B52 is retired, it is possible that there will not be a human alive who was alive when it first flew.

Not likely, but possible.

Re:Why?

[Rei]

Wow, you're *way* off. First off, the invasion of Iraq was in *2003*. It's been two years, or an average of two per day. Secondly, casualty rate roughly doubled last year from the first year; in the past year, it's been around three per day. Assume an average two year stay in Iraq during the entire length of time (read: years, even decades) that we're in Iraq, with an average number of US soldiers at 150k. That means that your average soldier has a 1 in 68 chance of being killed (far higher odds of being wounded; the wounded/KIA ratio is far higher in this war than usual, especially serious wounds, because of the superb medical care that they've been getting. As a result, however, amputations and severe head trauma are about twice as likely for the wounded). That's 1.46% (0.73% per year). I don't know why you brought race into this; soldiers in the US military cover all walks of life (in fact, African American men are a slightly lower proportion than in the general population), although are on average from poorer families and significantly more often male. I don't see an overall mortality rate on the page you provided, but another CDC page lists, for 1997, the mortality rates for these groups at 145.3 and 49.5 per 100,000 for males and females, respectively, so overall we're looking at something like 0.12%, just ignoring the fact that people in the military tend to be healthier than the general population. Ignoring this fact, the numbers work out to, over two years, having a 6 times higher rate of death in Iraq. As mentioned, however, there are about 8 times as many WIA as killed, and about half of these were WIA seriously. Even of those not WIA, PTSD sufferers are coming back at disturbing rates (need numbers?)

Re:Why?

[ultranova]

The programs you cited never attained orbit. They explored other planets/moons, and thus had different (lesser) thurst requirements.

It requires more energy to escape the gravity well of Earth (or any other mass) entirely than to achieve a stable orbit around said mass. After all, the speed of the spacecraft in any stable orbit is less than the escape velocity from said orbit (if it wasn't, the spacecraft wouldn't stay in orbit, but would escape the gravity well), and it takes more energy to accelerate to a higher speed than to a lower speed (assuming, of course, that both are higher than your current speed - if they aren't, then whichever differs more from your current speed takes more energy to achieve).

Re:Why?

[stonecypher]

From a technology standpoint, I don't use the same computers that were out in 1981. I don't drive a car that was made or designed in 1981. I don't even talk on a phone whose carrier techology was around in 1981.

You use a Von Neumann machine, which is from the 50s, and which has since been supplanted by many superior architectures. It's an implementation of the mechanical computation concept by Babbage in the 1880s using the electronic mechanisms from Colossus by Tiltman and Flowers in the 1940s using algorithms devised by Newman in the late 1930s and Turing in the early to mid 1940s.

Your car was invented in 1870 and your phone's carrier technology is from 1972.

Pre-emptive strike: "But I have slightly modified versions with moderately refined mechanisms, even though the core concepts haven't changed!"

Yeah, that's also true of the Space Shuttle. It's been revised constantly since its inception in the 1960s, when it basically looked like a DC-50. In fact, this story is about one such change. The shuttle has changed more in the last 40 years than your computer, your car and your phone put together.

Hell, DOS software from 1981 still works on modern Windows boxes without any special stuff. How, exactly, aren't these the same machines anymore? Because you switched OSes? DOS still runs on them, and they wouldn't have suddenly been different computers back in 1981 if you'd switched from DOS to, say, Q-Dos...

So why, WHY are we launching people into space with a program older than I am?

Because it's still the best thing we've got. If you want to go out-science a few thousand of the brightest minds on earth - all rocket scientists, mind you - then go right ahead. Until then, unless you've got a UFO in the basement, don't catcall; you can't replace a program if there's nothing with which to replace it.

Besides, the space shuttle has a better safety history than any car on the road. Besides that that's because of intense scrutiny by brilliant men and women, it's worth acknowledging that the astronauts are in significantly more danger driving to their job than doing their job.

And of all things, if we're really so keen on going to Mars, why should this of all things be our jumping off point?

Why shouldn't it? Because it's old? Hey, those highways better go, too, as well as the railroads, both wired and wireless telephones, light bulbs, ice cream machines, air conditioners, canned food, steel, knives, wheels, granaries, and all sorts of other technologies which have served us perfectly well for hundreds to thousands of years.

I suppose you'd like to replace hands, too. If it ain't broke, and you ain't got nothing better...

Re:Why?

[stonecypher]

B: UNIX is the only one unrecognizable in it's current state. (Mac OS X)

MacOS X is Unix in exactly the same way that Windows ME is DOS. You'd do better to compare to real unices, like BSD, which still look, feel, act and smell like unix, instead of plastic gumdrops with icons that, to quote that movie, "bounce up and down like a Jack Russell fucking terrier."

Re:Why?

[Kombat]

All right, all right, I was wrong, whatever. My (apparently incorrect) info came from a show I'd seen on the Discovery channel about space travel, and one of the things they looked at was "why is NASA still using solid rocket boosters when they're so dangerous?" They had explained that it was the only way to achieve orbit. Apparently, they were oversimplifying a bit, and I got taken in. You can all quit modding me as a "Troll" now, allright? I get it.

Re:Why?

[Single GNU Theory]

This is true only if we are talking about props powered by internal combustion engines--but the C-130 is powered by turbo-prop engines.

Turbo-props are, technically, internal combustion engines since fuel burning outside the confines of the engine in this case is a Really Bad Thing. :-)

A reciprocating internal combustion engine would differentiate between the turbo-props in the C-130 and the piston engines in Piper Cubs, etc.

Re:Why?

[rez_rat]

Damn! ...and me on a non-Mod day!!

Come on, Mods!! This is the funniest thing I've seen all day!

Re:Why?

[georgewilliamherbert]

In neither the Challenger nor Columbia losses was the failure something that was completely unanticipated. Both of the fatal problems had been identified as a specific risk and were being worked on and analyzed when the accidents happened.

to me that sounds like, "We don't know yet if this bridge is strong enough to hold you, but drive your 2 ton car over it while we finish analyzing it."

worked on and analyzed when the accidents happened!? what kind of safety measure is that?

An absolutely standard one in typical engineering practice.

The bridge was built, with some safety margins and to some standard. We now know that there's some flaw in construction or a crack or something. Usually there is sufficient safety margin left for "normal service", even with moderate flaws.

In civil construction, margins are typically 100%; the structure is twice as strong as it needs to be for expected loads. You can have some pretty serious cracks or defects and still put the design load into the structure without serious risk of collapse.

In civil airliners, the margins are typically 50%. Small cracks can happen between inspection/repair cycles and the structure is still safe.

NASA spacecraft typically use 10-25% margins. But reusable ones are inspected very carefully every flight. Only rarely do problems go unrepaired between flights. The failures that have happened were things that started bad and kept going to catastrophic failure all in one flight.

The things that started them... SRB joint blowthrough and foam shedding off the External tanks... were both known issues, and were being analyzed. But the key problem was in both cases that NASA had convinced itself falsely that the risk of those minor issues getting bad enough to cause a flight loss was very low.

Re:Why?

[WhiplashII]

One problem is that a lot of the overhead is per flight. Right now, the maximum number of launches that can be done per year is probably near 10 - that limit is based on manpower to perform turnaround checks. Increasing the number of flights per year beyond that would require a corresponding increase in personnel, and therefore funding.

The shuttle is WAY too complex. It was designed to do everything (it has a bombing mission requirement, for goodness sake!) and ended up with the required capabilities, but at a frightful cost.

I think it would be better to give NASA a simple goal (such as 7 people to LEO and back safely), and see what could happen.

But that won't happen - too much politics involved.

Re:Why?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Increasing the number of flights per year beyond that would require a corresponding increase in personnel, and therefore funding.

Surely would. Even so, the funding would increase less than linearly as the number of flights increase - because SOME of the overhead isn't per flight, it's per program. So you come ahead with more flights.

Note that I don't consider more funding for manned spaceflight a bad thing.

The shuttle is WAY too complex. It was designed to do everything

Possibly. A truck, by its nature, is pretty general purpose, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.

But, yes, a better set of vehicles could be designed. A better Shuttle would have been designed, if the Congress of the period hadn't gutted funding for the Shuttle over and over. A better Shuttle would exist now, if NASA had been budgeted for ongoing improvements in the basic design (I still think the SRB idea sucks - I'd prefer replacing each of them with an F-1 plus a fuel tank, in the same form-factor).

Real problem is that we were spent the wrong amount of money 0 it should have been enough more to make a serious effort, or none at all. Same for all the rest of the Space Program. Apollo wasn't worth doing without a follow-on (and I curse the Congress that ended Apollo on a regular basis to this date). A manned Mars mission won't be worth doing if we're going to go once or twice, then stop. Which is likely to be the way it works out, by the time the Congress 10-20 years along votes the funds.

Enough bitching about shortsighted pols. The weekend is almost here....

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure, but I think your sample size may be a little small.

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

Are you kidding, look at how much money was spent upgrading the B52, the F14, the F15 (now on it's 5th iteration), and the Apache.

The difference is that A) every other program has volume to account for fixing and improving systems and B) the operating regime is significantly less hazardous than spaceflight.

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

The problem with a maglev, especially in an atmosphere, is that you must EXCEED orbital velocity in a short distance (due to atmospheric friction). Say you've got 50 miles of track: you have to accelerate your spacecraft to over 18,000 miles per hour to ensure leaving orbit. Then, once the track stops propelling you, you immediately start losing speed.

Now a combined approach maybe? maglev acceleration up the side of the Andes (near the equator for maximum imparted rotational velocity) and kick in some rockets once you leave the track. Huge expense/energy cost in lifting. Better alternatives must be out there?

Re:Why?

[fredrik70]

hmmm, from what I know the guidance computers have NOT been upgraded, they're still old hardened 8086 running the shuttle, it worked well enough then and it still work well enough now, if it aint broke don't fix it. yeah, they got more modern comuters onboard now, but that for science, not to run the shuttle.

Re:Why?

[Tassach]

The programs you cited never attained orbit. They explored other planets/moons, and thus had different (lesser) thurst requirements.

WTF are you smoking?

The Mercury program started with suborbital flights (John Glenn) and proceded to full orbital flights (Allan Sheppard)

The Gemini program was a stepping-stone for Apollo, designed to refine the technology and techniques (Orbital docking, etc). All of the Gemini missions were conducted in Earth orbit.

Apollo orbited the Earth before orbiting the Moon (which is itself orbiting the Earth).

FYI, it takes MORE energy to leave orbit than it does to get to orbit. An object in orbit is below escape velocity and is still captive in the gravity field it is orbiting. An interplanetary mission needs to EXCEED escape velocity and is not captive in it's parent gravity field.

Re:Why?

[N3WBI3]

ummm no, SS1 while an awesome step forward does not have tha capacity or power to haul things into space. It did not even accomplish orbital velocity with one person on board..

Re:Why?

[Tassach]

We CANT come up with a replacement that is as safe, effective and DEADLY to tanks as [the A-10].

Sure we CAN. We WON'T. Big difference. We have the technology to build a better A-10; what we lack is the political will to do it.

The A-10 is ugly, unsophisticated, cheap, and subsonic. Never mind that these are exactly the qualities you want in a close-air support aircraft, it isn't "sexy" enough for the Air Force brass (and the Congresscritters who write the checks). They want sleek, supersonic birds with ultra-high-tech glass cockpits and $80M price tags, regardless of how effective they're actually going to be over the battlefield.

Of course the brass is out of touch with reality. The pilots know better: more pilots apply to fly the A-10 than any other aircraft in the inventory except for the F-15.

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

Which is why an armored crew compartment isn't exactly a bad idea. A windowless sphere of solid ceramic and steel that in the event of a catastrophic failure will simply break away from the airframe around it, fall to a certain altitude, deploy numerous drogue chutes, slow down, and pop a dozen ballutes to bounce around like Pathfinder.

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

you forgot the DC-X and the X38 CRV.

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

As to canadarm1 not being in the shuttle in it's first iterations: I call foul. There is no other way to launch a satellite from the payload bay other than to maybe get out and push. If there was a payload that needed deployment, I guarantee that Canadarm was installed. Since flights 1 and 2 (in 1981) were test flights, and many spacehab flights don't require the arm, there are times it is not installed to save on launch weight. Canadarm was always part of the package.

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

It had nothing to do with the lowest bidder and everything to do with this:

Congress: Well, that $8billion you need to design the perfect 100% reusable booster? we can only get you $6, what can you make happen with that?
NASA (after months of number crunching and redesign): okay, we make some design tradeoffs, cut the up-front loaded cost, defer some costs (liquid flyback boosters) for a decade, and reduce the number of development machines, we can do it for $6billion.
Congress: Well, we can only give you $4billion, and you still have to achieve all the original goals we set forth at the beginning, or you get no money at all.
NASA (in a heartbeat): No problem.
NASA (back at the office): Wait'll they find out this plan will cost $10billion a year in maintenance fees.

Blame Congress, not NASA. Many of the original NASA proposals had "potential" to actually be cheaper than the boondoggle we have now, but Congress made those impossible to achieve by killing upfront funding.

Re:Why?

[smimi10]

Outstanding answer...thank you for that. I was not aware that was the case.

Re:Why?

[R.Caley]

They had explained that it was the only way to achieve orbit.

We're lucky NASA didn't use protomatter.

Re:Why?

[afidel]

No,the guidance computers were upgraded as part of the glass cockpit update. This not only made it easier to obtain information in the cockpit but provided more telemetry information to ground controll.

Re:Why?

[storm916]

Don't forget the challanger disaster; I was in second grade and saw it live. Ninety seconds into launch it blew up. It took them weeks to figure out that one of the booster rockets had likely ruptured due to a faulty "O" Ring. If any of the feul gets into the exaust, anything in the immediate environment is blown up with the craft. So after the previous disasters you would thing that the people that build these things would be more careful. That's my take.

Re:Why?

[iminplaya]

Blame Congress?? And then re-elect them?? Now I'm confused. What are you saying here? This doesn't make sense. Even the TV weatherman can't get away with being wrong that often and expect to keep their job. Sorry, I can't blame Congress. No siree, bob. We elected them. You know where that puts the ball.

Re:Why?

[randallpowell]

Called R&D stupid. Once the idea is proven, it can be expanded to fullfil NASA's needs.

No wonder they're sending IT jobs to India if this is the best we can get.

Re:Why?

[rah1420]

Disclaimer: I work for NASA, but any opinions are my own and haven't been approved by anybody. I'm just trying to inject a little sanity into this discussion...

So at the next meeting could you pls ask "When are we gonna stop beating these dead horses? No more bandaids. Lets sell the last of the shuttle fleet to musuems

Er, he might work *for* NASA as an employee of the United Space Alliance, who handles Shuttle operations for NASA at the Cape. Doubt he has much say over the ultimate disposition of the Shuttle fleet if that's the case.

CIA conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

They heard space was black, so of course they're trying to get crack there.

Re:CIA conspiracy

[Paladin144]

They heard space was black, so of course they're trying to get crack there.

I predict an epidemic of cracks like this one.

::points at ass::

Re:CIA conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

lame, my joke was gonna be 'I always knew those shuttle developers were on crack, and now the proof we find it in the shuttle!

Re:CIA conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Close!

I guess that's where the /. moderators have been hanging out.

Re:CIA conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, you lose. His joke made a subtle reference to a 20 year old conspiracy theory, and managed to be funny whether you believe in the conspiracy or not. Your joke said "those guys are on crack!" If you're gonna aim low, you should have just came out and said "Your MOM's on crack!", which would have the added comedic bonus of being apropos of nothing.

Move over spelling and grammar nazis, the comedy nazi's in town.

Re:CIA conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said! *golf clap*

Sour Grapes Anyone.

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

I think the summary needs more pessimism...

Re:Sour Grapes Anyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're DOOMED I TElls YA DOOMED!!!

We Don't have a payer people we're all DOOMED!

Re:Sour Grapes Anyone.

[Cruithne]

Quite honestly, this article should be modded -1, Flamebait. It's completely and utterly pointless, except to rile us up and get us talking. I realize thats the point of slashdot, but come on editors, can we get some CONTENT here?

Re:Sour Grapes Anyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

come on editors, can we get some CONTENT here?

I see you're new here.

Risk vs Reward

[fembots]

Pardon me for being insensitive here, but I always wonder what the problem is with a potentially problematic space shuttle? Is it the cost, bad PR or safety of the crews?

It always puzzles me that a country which recruits hundreds of thousands of soldiers and spends hundreds of billions of dollars to go to wars with guaranteed casualties (and not all die in action) are so timid in losing a relatively small percentage of lives/dollars to go to space.

Everything has a risk, if you send those astronauts to do sky diving (or just drive to the supermarket) often enough, some of them will get killed too.

Why can't we allow those who are more than willing to sacrify their lives to go to space to do just that?

I understand that we have the responsibility to maintain certain level of reliability and to minimize risk, but all the safety concerns are slowing things way down. Other countries are catching up fast, maybe their lives are cheap? Or maybe they knew and anticipated the risk of losing lives to achieve something great?

I guess we can't go to the moon now because of the deadly moon dust, imagine what would have happened if we discovered it before landing on the moon?

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Adam Richards]

Because Mr. Bush got tired of playing astronauts, and decided to start playing soldiers.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[elgatozorbas]

It always puzzles me that a country which recruits hundreds of thousands of soldiers and spends hundreds of billions of dollars to go to wars with guaranteed casualties (and not all die in action) are so timid in losing a relatively small percentage of lives/dollars to go to space.

Because war is about killing people and spacetravel is not. (although I agree with your point, which has been raised on /. more than once)

Re:Risk vs Reward

[NanoGator]

"Why can't we allow those who are more than willing to sacrify their lives to go to space to do just that?"

Lots of people out there are wondering why we're flinging people into space in the first place when there are streets that need repairing.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Omniscientist]

Going into space is extremely expensive, and although the $ cost is not as much as how much the armed forces spends, it still is a lot of money.

NASA is timid in losing those few lives because we are talking about astronauts here. There are not very many people who have the physical prowess, intelligence, and overall ability to handle extreme situations in space in this world as they do. I'm not saying their lives are worth more than soldiers, or that anyone can become a soldier, but it's vastly more likely someone can be a soldier than an astronaut.

Also, you cannot compare the space program to the military. You are suppose to defend, kill, or be killed in war. You are supposed to study and research things in the space. Every time a mission blows up, NASA will recieve less and less funding, thus it is in their best interest to have as successful a mission as possible.

Sacrificing your life in war is honorable and deserves recognition because of your service to your country; Sacrificing your life in space because of some stupid engineering/manufacturing mistake is a waste.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[grant murray]

Like you say, I used to think it was about the safety of the crews, and that they were being treated with disproportionate concern. But I have since changed my view and believe that it is much more about the fear of failure, and that what is being risked are the "hopes of a nation".

Re:Risk vs Reward

[C10H14N2]

Sacrificing your life in war is honorable and deserves recognition because of your service to your country; Sacrificing your life in space because of some stupid engineering/manufacturing mistake is a waste.

So, being an astronaut is not an honorable service to your country? Those are some brass ones you've got there...

Is this country so arrogant that we actually believe there won't be fatal engineering and manufacturing mistakes when we lob people into space? We haven't been doing it very long, folks. We WILL be making rather huge mistakes for quite some time. Hell, we still can't manufacture a perfect pair of rollerskates, what makes you think we can manufacture a perfect orbiter?

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Anubis350]

because the technology to repair the streets come from NASA? Well, maybe not the streets, but how about communication technology, flight, car design (you know the things that drive on those streets), insulation technology, rocketry and propulsion technology (engines too), even a lot of computing designs. The return we've gotten out of space travel is enourmous in terms of the technological innovations created. Just because the reward isnt immediatly visible doesnt mean it isnt there.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[ErikZ]

Because risk is manageable. Because the less we spend on building and designing space ships, the more risky it gets. Because spending more doesn't mean it will be less risky.

You seem qualified to comment on the US's space program. How does your country handle problems in it's manned rockets/shuttles?

Re:Risk vs Reward

[shadowbearer]

Soldiers are many, but Astronauts are few.

Public perception is a funny thing... now if we routinely sent thousands or tens of thousands of people to space, the media hype over accidents would subside considerably (on a national level anyway).

A good example there might be the airline industry?

SB

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Anonymous Coward]

Fling the people who complain about streets that need repairing. Problem solved.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Class Act Dynamo]

What exactly is a perfect pair of rollerskates?

Re:Risk vs Reward

[shadowbearer]

Sacrificing your life in war is honorable and deserves recognition because of your service to your country; Sacrificing your life in space because of some stupid engineering/manufacturing mistake is a waste.

So if a soldier sacrifices himself in a war zone to save his buddies from a situation caused by a "stupid engineering/manufacturing mistake" - and it happens somewhat often - what do you consider that?

Do you not consider training for decades and risking your life to further our national goals in space "service to your country"? I'm afraid I can't see your point.

SB (no disrespect to soldiers of any stripe meant)

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Mac Degger]

But remember that the first astronauts where rats, chimps and dogs...

Hmmm...I actually meant that as a remark on what it is an astonaut actually does in space (ie be an odd-jobs-man), not to comment on the worth of lives. Still, I do agree with the poster who said that to achieve great things, risk is an acceptable by-product. To continue the airline analogy: just remember how many lives where lost in the infancy of terrestial flight.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[mrhandstand]

Thank you for realizing the sacrifices of both the soldier and the astronaut. I know both and am damn proud of them both.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[NanoGator]

"because the technology to repair the streets come from NASA? Well, maybe not the streets, but how about communication technology, flight, car design (you know the things that drive on those streets), insulation technology, rocketry and propulsion technology (engines too), even a lot of computing designs. The return we've gotten out of space travel is enourmous in terms of the technological innovations created. Just because the reward isnt immediatly visible doesnt mean it isnt there."

Err. Sorry I wasn't terribly clear about this, but it wasn't my intention to imply that I have that opinion. You don't need to sell me on it. I'm saying that people feel that way. When something like the Columbia disaster happens, they become stronger in that belief. Sad, but true.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Anonymous Coward]

A soldier serves his country, an astronaut serves the whole of humanity.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[shadowbearer]

To me, risking one's life for a goal that can benefit others makes one a hero.

The sad thing to me is we have many more soldier heros we have than explorer/adventurer heros. It's a helluva comment on ourselves as human beings. But such is the way things are. Changing, but still the way things are.

SB

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Goonie]

NASA is timid in losing those few lives because we are talking about astronauts here. There are not very many people who have the physical prowess, intelligence, and overall ability to handle extreme situations in space in this world as they do.

They're very talented people, but the fact is there's no shortage of people who would be suitable to become astronauts. I quote from a NASA page on the matter:

After that, the crucial thing to remember is that the demand for such jobs vastly exceeds the supply. NASA's problem is not finding qualified people, but thinning the lineup down to manageable length. It is not enough to be qualified; you must avoid being *dis*qualified for any reason, many of them in principle quite irrelevant to the job.

And as for the nobility of the sacrifice, what's more noble - dying in the pursuit of knowledge for all humanity, or dying in the process of attempting to kill other people, sadly necessary as that may be on occasion?

Re:Risk vs Reward

[tsotha]

NASA is timid in losing those few lives because we are talking about astronauts here. There are not very many people who have the physical prowess, intelligence, and overall ability to handle extreme situations in space in this world as they do. I'm not saying their lives are worth more than soldiers, or that anyone can become a soldier, but it's vastly more likely someone can be a soldier than an astronaut.

This is just plain wrong. Astronauts aren't really much more than passengers in the same way you and I are when we ride a 747. The initial designs for the shuttle didn't even have windows - the windows were added later because they didn't want the public to realize the astronauts aren't "flying" it. The computers fly the shuttle. They need to have people on board to land it, but that's because it was deliberately designed that way. Once on a landing they allowed the pilot to take control to see if he could do it if a computer failed, and computer control was immediately reestablished when it was clear he couldn't.

The reason NASA can afford to be so picky is a simple manifestation of supply and demand - lots of people want to be astronauts and there aren't many positions, so NASA can require perfect health and multiple doctoral degrees. But those "extreme environments" are pretty much immediately deadly if something goes wrong - look at both shuttle disasters (where they didn't have time to do anything), and consider there has never been a life-threatening shuttle problem the crew could deal with. The reality is they could get by with a couple of reasonably competant blue-collar types, but NASA doesn't have to. The funny thing is everything an astronaut does in space is preplanned, pre-rehearsed, and tripple-checked with ground controllers, so it's not like he's gonna get to use his brain much anyway.

As far as physical conditioning goes, remember these guys (they are mostly men) are in their mid-to-late middle ages, so while they aren't fat or anything they wouldn't be able to keep up with with a squad of marines. The reason US spacesuits are so unreliable is they use a high O2-low pressure mix which allows our older astronauts to accomplish about as much work as the younger Russians working with stiffer 1 atmosphere suits.

So now we arrive at the real reason NASA went crazy when the Russians took money to shuttle up a geriatric rich guy so he could play astronaut. They were afraid the public would realize you don't have to be Buck Rogers to go into space. NASA's funding is dependent on the voter's romantic idea of manned space flight, and anything that lets air out of that balloon might affect next years budget.

Look, those guys don't have much to do up there - they aren't working toward any concrete goal or anything, and they aren't doing any research that couldn't be done far more cheaply with machines. You could argue the effects of LEO on human physiology are worth studying, but the Russians did far more in-depth research on that subject than NASA will ever do.

Do some research on today's military (this is a good place to start). These are people who have demanding jobs, both physically and mentally. They're dealing with a human adversary, which is much trickier than any natural phenomenon, and they have to balance military and political pressures in every decision they make.

You're probably right in that it's easier to become a soldier than an astronaut. But I think it's far easier to be an astronaut, and I think experienced soldiers are far harder to replace.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[shadowbearer]

Not quite right, many soldiers serve humanity. It's all too often their political masters don't :-(

SB

Re:Risk vs Reward

[drsmithy]

There are not very many people who have the physical prowess, intelligence, and overall ability to handle extreme situations in space in this world as they do.

Bollocks. There are not very many people who are *trained* to fly the space shuttle, I'll grant, but that has nothing to do with how many people are *capable*.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Anonymous Coward]

in reference to your signature, perhaps 83% of people gave up on iCLOD city on the first day because it's boring as shit?

maybe try "iCLOD city -- can you withstand the tedium?"

Re:Risk vs Reward

[timeOday]

Because war is about killing people

Killing people in war is OK because war is about killing people? Try again, that's not a reason.

Each of the 1500 Americans who died in Iraq had just as much right to live as the World Trade Center victims. The fact that we expect people to die in war simply makes it all the more absurd that we should choose to start one.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[grozzie2]

Sacrificing your life in war is honorable and deserves recognition

Sacrificing your life defending your country is honorable. There is no honor doing so invading another country. the honor belongs to those who die defending against the invader.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[C10H14N2]

...that's rather my point.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[doorbot.com]

Public perception is a funny thing... now if we routinely sent thousands or tens of thousands of people to space, the media hype over accidents would subside considerably (on a national level anyway).

A good example there might be the airline industry?

You're right, the media isn't whipped into a frenzy when an airliner crashes.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Threni]

> Each of the 1500 Americans who died in Iraq had just as much right to live as
> the World Trade Center victims.

Well, yes, and they enjoyed their right to life. They also enjoyed their right to join the army and put themself at risk. No-one forced them to go.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[flyboy974]

Take the private aircraft industry. There are more deadly accidents on the local Interstates than their are plane crashes (private aircraft). But, guess what takes the front page every time.

I really hate the fact that the government is stalling. I wonder if it's the human risk or the replacement cost of a shuttle which they are afraid off. Frankly, the crews will accept the risk. The public funds more costly exercises in modern weapons every day than a single shuttle costs. If it's the shuttle cost, they probably spent that redesigning the fuel tanks and wing sensors. We could have got another 100+ missions with our current shuttles and replaced them before the next major event at that rate.

But, I'll pull out my Agent Mulder hat. <Queue scary music...>

The reason that they are delaying replacing the shuttle is that they expect next-gen ramdrive type aircraft to be able to push a conventional aircraft into orbit, eliminating the need for more costly booster systems. With it on the verge of public display (5-10 years), lets patch the current system and spend the money where we can use it in the future.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[delibes]

If 1 man dies it's an accident. If a million die it's a tragedy. Or something like that...

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Illserve]

Oh my god how did this drivel get modded up?

The amount of things an astronaut has to do in a mission would blow your mind. their minds are crammed so full of data, theory and procedures, that it takes many months of drilling to get it packed in their.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Chanc_Gorkon]

How many lives were lost in Iraq because the units did not bring enough LSA to lube thier grenade launchers? How many lives were lost because a unit made a wrong turn in a hostile country??

Do the astronauts NOT deserve honor and recognition when they die trying to advance thier science? I say yes and depending on the science involved, I can very much see someone wanting to die for the sake of science. How many scientists died testing a device or theory on themselves??

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Anonymous Coward]

He's playing with soldiers.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[codewritinfool]

"Once on a landing they allowed the pilot to take control to see if he could do it if a computer failed, and computer control was immediately reestablished when it was clear he couldn't." Hogwash. The Space Shuttle is PURELY a fly-by-wire system where ALL manual inputs are washed through the computers. It can be hand-flown, but only if the computers are running. In fact, John Young hand-flew it from the first S-turn all the way to landing. Also, ALL shuttle landings are hand-flown. AFAIK, there is no autoland capability, and there is no computer control of the landing gear. It would be pointless to train for losing the computers, since if they're all lost the vehicle cannot fly. I will also remind you that one or more computers have failed before with little ill-effect. That's why there are 5, one of which is coded by a different contractor to help guard against implementation errors.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[BobRooney]

Part of the reason is likely the investment in astronauts by both the government and society as a whole. Most of them are veteran conventional or experimental aircraft pilots or seasoned scientists. Their public face and minor celebrity guarantee that we care about them.

In comparison, there is minimal investment in the cannon fodder being shipped from the inner-cities of the US overseas. The national emotional attachment to, say, the first Teacher in space is far greater and far more personal than one of a thousand minority youths joining the Army to one day be able to pay for college.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[hey!]

Yeah. Safety is way overrated as a design goal.

Instead, we should have beaureaucrats from agencies with competing interests bicker over vehicle design until they come up with a "compromise" design for a dangerous and expensive Wile E. Coyote contraption that ...

Oh, wait.

Never mind.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[wibald]

So, who would win in a fight, soldiers or astronauts?

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Wyrd01]

That's not a fair question. By definition a soldier is trained to be a fighter.

Now if they fought in space... that would be fair contest.

Wyrd-One

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Mark Programmer]

I guess we can't go to the moon now because of the deadly moon dust, imagine what would have happened if we discovered it before landing on the moon?

Fun fact: NASA researchers knew that the moon was covered in a fine layer of dust before the Apollo missions began. This was determined by an analysis of the albedo of the surface, as well as the behavior of impact craters generated by the Ranger missions and their Soviet counterparts.

What they didn't know was how thick the dust layer was, or the details of its composition. But since there are no erosion processes on the moon, a hypothesis existed that the dust could be a uniformly-distributed, miles-deep ocean of light, loosely-compressed particulate matter. This is why the lunar landers had large, dish-shaped landing pads--to distribute their weight and prevent them from sinking. Humans, unfortunately, don't have large landing pads, and many scientists feared that the first human crew to set foot on the lunar surface would simply be swallowed up by the dust. There were small sighs of relief in multiple places in the country when Armstrong stepped out of the lander and the lunar surface held his weight.

When doing something truly great, you have to plan well. You have to take time for forethought, consider possible contingencies, run through the "what-if" scenarios, and push as best you can to the outer limits of knowledge. But we are mortal, and our knowledge is finite. After all the planning is done, you still have to step out of the bloody capsule and plant your boot on the moon before you truly know that it will work.

On a somewhat related note: If you're ever in Washington, DC and have occasion to go to the National Archives building, you can read a speech that was never given by President Nixon. This was the speech he planned to give in the event that the Apollo astronauts loaded back into the lander, pushed the launch button, and had nothing happen: no rocket ignition, no takeoff, no trip home. How do you tell America that three of its sons are stranded on the moon with no hope of rescue? We never had to find out. But I don't doubt that a question like that went through the minds of every astronaut, engineer, and administrator working on the Apollo program at some point, and they went anyway.

Having two shuttles blow up in over a hundred missions hasn't changed the risk that was present, is present, and will probably always be present in exploration. There has been a decent and respectful time of mourning for the astronauts who died and reflection on the causes of the tragedy. I, for one, am glad to see America getting up off its bruised butt and reaching for the stars again.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[groomed]

The people who are willing to take chances with their lives are not the people you want flying a billion dollar spacecraft.

Also, it's unclear exactly what tangible benefits space travels really offers. It's not like the moon is made of gold.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[poot_rootbeer]

A good example there might be the airline industry?

Would it? There still seems to be a media frenzy every time an airliner crashes.

There have been 113 shuttle missions over the past 25 years -- a larger airport might see that many flights in a single day. If two airplanes fell from the sky at every airport, each and every day, due to equipment failure, everyone would see that something was terribly wrong.

Granted, space travel requires a more robust degree of engineering than atmospheric flight, but it doesn't mean we should be any more willing to accept catastrophic failures.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[timeOday]

People enlist under the assumption that their lives won't be spent cheaply. If we take the attitude that soldiers are expendable because they chose to sign on, we're going to have a very hard time maintaining a volunteer military of sufficient strength to defend ourselves should the need arise.

Look at how enlistments swelled right after 911, but now, in the context of Iraq, have tanked.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[nbert]

I'm sorry, but this is just pathetic BS to me.

Do you think Gagarin or Armstrong left earth in order to serve humanity?

IMO the space race is just one aspect of the 'mine is longer than yours' games played during the cold war. After the cold war was over there wasn't really a need for new ambitious projects. After Hubble was put into space in 1990 Nasa was basically set back to maintenance and the russian RKA is struggling to survive. New projects are launched rarely and they mostly serve the purpose of showing presence in the field of space exploration. It's just not a priority anymore. Just like a heritage you want to keep cherished.

Don't get me wrong - there is a good reason to send people into space. But to assume that it's done for humanity is just a romantic transfiguration.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Anubis350]

all too true, the problem is, as I said, people don't see tangible benefits of space travel anymore. Its part of the instant-gratification culture of the US, unfortunate but true.

Re:Risk vs Reward

[Anonymous Coward]

all too true, the problem is, as I said, people don't see tangible benefits of space travel anymore. Its part of the instant-gratification culture of the US, unfortunate but true.

Quoted for emphasis. If we could get rid of the overwhelming need for instant-gratification in our culture, it would help a lot of things in the USA.

Crazy headline!

[Overly Critical Guy]

I thought what most people will think on seeing this headline. NASA's secret stash? Astronauts really are getting high these days.

Re:Crazy headline!

[kristopher]

Exactly what I was thinking. I was like, dude I wonder how much space crack goes for.

Re:Crazy headline!

[panic_paranoia]

I'm thinking interplanetary drug trade. This must be investigated immediately!

Re:Crazy headline!

[Hobadee]

See, the problem with this theory is that the fuel tank drops off the shuttle after about 10 minutes and burns up on re-entry. (For you crack heads out there, that means the crack would burn up as well, with none there to enjoy it.)

Re:Crazy headline!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only crack? No marijuana?

Re:Crazy headline!

[Skevin]

Crazy Headline indeed! Forget the Crack. Shuttle has a tank? Complete with turret and armor? Is it a small form factor? Will they call it the "XPC-1 Abrams"?

Solomon Chang

Re:Crazy headline!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now when Darls secret stash is found,SCO might get some headlines again.

Two words

[fiori]

Duct tape...

Re:Two words

[inKubus]

Chewing gum

Re:Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

Duck Tape can only withstand upto 200mph Don't you ever watch NASCAR?
So if shuttle is going faster than 200mpg it's doomed.

Re:Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA's new initiative: lean, mean and taped up

Re:Two words

[teslatug]

Two other ones: smoke it

Re:Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

actually it's duck tape, that's a common misconception, the term duck is used since the tape is waterproof, as in "water off a ducks back"

Re:Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, it's gray tape. A friend of mine works on one of the ground crews responsible for general arbitrary repairs in space (ie. "this thing is acting up, what do we need to do to make it work again"). NASA gray tape is similar to duct/duck tape, but it is not electrically conductive. According to him, there is a shitload of it on the ISS, and it is an acceptable repair method as far as NASA is concerned.

This is what happens when you build your Space Center in Texas.

Re:Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

So we are condition Red Green to launch?

Re:Two words

[AndroidCat]

I imagine that duct tape would have many uses in space, but not this one in zero-G. (At least not as much.)

Re:Two words

[AndroidCat]

Not according to Wikipedia. (Which doesn't make it true, but it sounds good.)

Re:Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

200 mpg? Even my moped doesn't get that gas mileage!

Re:Two words

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

This is what happens when you build your Space Center in Texas.

Heh. That reminds me of the movie Armageddon, except substitute the Cosmonaut's wrench for Texas duct tape.
"This is how we fix the International Space Station, y'all!"

Re:Two words

[timeOday]

NASA gray tape is similar to duct/duck tape, but it is not electrically conductive.

Duct tape is a good conductor? I think not.

Re:Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't say it's a good conductor, but it does conduct, and NASA does not mess around with things like that.

Re:Two words

[AndroidCat]

I imagine that NASA grey tape has also been rated for a wider temp range and maybe tested in vacuum and unfiltered sunlight.

Re:Two words

[rsadelle]

I can just see Jeff Foxworthy now: "If you use duct tape to repair your space shuttle, you just might be a redneck."

Re:Two words

[wiredlogic]

The plastic coating on the back of duct tape can carry a static charge. The simple act of pulling the tape off of a roll of cellophane tape (especially when done quickly) can build up a significant charge easily capable of damaging electronics. I imagine that duct tape is less problematic in this respect but it can still build up a dangerous level of charge from other means.

Re:Two words

[timeOday]

I imagine that duct tape is less problematic in this respect but it can still build up a dangerous level of charge from other means.

Well, this is interesting. How is duct tape more susceptible than ordinary electrical tape?

Re:Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

As a matter of fact, a lot of duct tape IS a good conductor. A lot of it is partially or even fully metalic! At least the good stuff is.

Some of the cheaper stuff is all plastic, but you can't just make a statement like "Duct tape is not a good conductor" because in many cases it is.

Re:Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything conducts if you pump enough juice through it.

I like CRACK

[Anonymous Coward]

COCAINE.

Sweet Sweet Oblivion.

HA HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

sucks to be them!

Crack?

[Sperryfreak01]

So wait they found crack in the external tank, have buget cuts become so bad that NASA now has to smuggle drugs through space.

Re:Crack?

[mark-t]

Not just you.

I'd bet at least half the people that read slashdot thought the same thing (present company included).

Re:Crack?

[Cymoro]

It's pure Columbian crack.

Re:Crack?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I thought my early reply was funny, but you kicked the shit out of all the "crack" jokes so far... I'm still laughing....

Re:Crack?

[Cytlid]

Hey man, maybe the astronauts were just trying to...

...oh no...

... get high.

ugh. moan.

Re:Crack?

[NanoGator]

"Okay, did anyone else read that article description as someone trying to smuggle drugs inside the space shuttle or is it is just me?"

No. But I did think that there'd be jokes to that tune. Heck, I stopped by just in case there weren't!

I knew they were smoking something up there....

[Anonymous Coward]

hiding in the tank was ingenious!

Too hard, give up.

[Kris_J]

We should obviously give up on space then, it's just too hard. It costs too much and has some level of risk. If something's too hard it's not worth doing. The money should be spent on privitising social security or pumping oil out of Iraq.

Re:Too hard, give up.

[NanoGator]

"The money should be spent on privitising social security or pumping oil out of Iraq."

Some would say that would be money better spent. Though I don't belong in that camp, they wouldn't necessarily be wrong. Afterall, Nasa is spending billions sending a machine with thousands of moving parts into space for goals that don't necessarily have an immediate pay-off. Meanwhile, there are problems that money could 'fix' today.

Again, I do not belong in that camp, but I cannot totally poo-poo somebody for thinking that.

Re:Too hard, give up.

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA's budget is peanuts compared to the US defense budget.

Re:Too hard, give up.

[cheekyboy]

160billion was stolen from the SS, that could have paid for 10 new titanium 2x as large 50% lighter shuttles, and a new Xplane to boot.

The world is spending 1.4trillion a year on oil, im sure most of that is profits so the oil companies can afford to pay for any oil pumping.

Re:Too hard, give up.

[ptbarnett]

The world is spending 1.4trillion a year on oil, im sure most of that is profits so the oil companies can afford to pay for any oil pumping.

I presume you have never taken even a basic course in economics. If so, you must have flunked.

Take a look at Exxon-Mobil's latest annual report (2003), which includes data for 2002 and 2001:

http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporat e/ExxonMobilAR2003.pdf

Skip down to the Summary Statement of Income on page 36. You'll find that for 2003, net income on revenues of $237 billion was $31 billion, or a gross profit margin of 13%. A third of that subsequently went to income taxes, leaving $21 billion, or about $3.15 per outstanding share of common stock.

So, for every dollar of revenue, ExxonMobil kept about 9 cents (after taxes). About a third of that was paid as dividends to shareholders, leaving 6 cents per dollar.

I suspect that few people would consider 6 cents to be "most" of a dollar.

Re:Too hard, give up.

[grozzie2]

it turns out, pumping oil out of Iraq is more expensive than a space program, and far more dangerous....

Re:Too hard, give up.

[timeOday]

Yeah! A cheaper, safer space craft would totally kill the excitement. The great thing about the Shuttle is it makes space exploration tough, and that means we're tough too! Bring it on, space, we're #1!!!

Re:Too hard, give up.

[maxpublic]

We should obviously give up on space then

I agree, if you're talking about tax dollars. Manned space flight is the purview of private industry, not of a government agency. I don't have any problem whatsoever sending probes to comets, planets, jovian moons, the sun, etc. for purely scientific purposes (what private industry won't do, which is why you support such programs with your taxes), but manned space flight? Right now there's nothing a man in space can do that a robot or probe cannot, except measure dick-size against all the nations that can't themselves put a man into space. A complete fucking boondoggle from start to finish.

Another reason I oppose government programs for manned space flight is that it might give the governments on Earth the idea that they can impose their laws and rules on future off-Earth colonies. If a private consortium were to build a lunar base for mining purposes (a la the old O'Neill plan) asswipes in, say, the U.S. government might come to the conclusion that they rule the moon as well as the United States. Governments on Earth have no business trying to extend their domain off-Earth. The last goddamn thing I want to see is some nation or group of nations on Earth trying to impose their rule across the entire solar system.

Max

Re:Too hard, give up.

[Anonymous Coward]

We should obviously give up on space then, it's just too hard. It costs too much and has some level of risk. If something's too hard it's not worth doing. The money should be spent on privitising social security or pumping oil out of Iraq.

Yeah, I wish Columbus had given up on trying to find an alternative route to India 500 years ago as well. It cost so much and the risks were really high too. And the risks were realised as the discovery of the new continent later known as America, even though he wisely tried to deny the whole thing. Imagine the world without America! The world could be a better place if his funding had been discontinued. So I really couldn't agree more with you.

Re:Too hard, give up.

[hyfe]

privitising social security or pumping oil out of Iraq.

This is a subtle troll right? Why are people replying seriously to you?

The supposed goal of privatising social security is to save money, not spend it.

The oil in Iraq is not yours to pump, and it's the government of Iraq who are responsible to awarding contracts for oil-drilling to private corporations (if they choose so). No matter how much of a us-led puppet the government is, the country of Iraw still belongs to the Iraw..atleast in theory.

Re:Too hard, give up.

[stupid_is]

If a private consortium were to build a lunar base for mining purposes (a la the old O'Neill plan) asswipes in, say, the U.S. government might come to the conclusion that they rule the moon as well as the United States. Governments on Earth have no business trying to extend their domain off-Earth. The last goddamn thing I want to see is some nation or group of nations on Earth trying to impose their rule across the entire solar system.

Luckily, there's a treaty about that - namely Article VI of the 1967 U.N. Outer Space Treaty. Although that doesn't mean that all sorts of people have tried to claim ownership:
This link shows that (other than themselves) Dennis Hope (The Head Cheese); the town of Geneva, Ohio; a lawyer in Chile; and Robert R Coles are the other, more public "owners".

Text of relevant treaty: "States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization."

Re:Too hard, give up.

[maxpublic]

The treaties of Earth governments are irrelevent. Earth governments rule Earth; they don't have any business imposing their rule on colonies off-Earth.

Max

Re:Too hard, give up.

[stupid_is]

I agree with you, whoever get's there first has that priviledge, not some 'crat. Makes me wonder what will happen when someone finally does get round to it and sticks two fingers up at them - bet if there's oil around Dubya will be straight in there with the marines to "eliminate the evil regime", although he may have trouble invading the "axis of the heavens" :-)

Ah, that explains it.

[badmicrophone]

I was wondering why all the nasa employees were so jittery and why they were always scratching, washing my car windows and asking me to spare a quarter.

Crack found in the tank?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bummer. And now that the Shuttle has been seized by the DEA, the program will be held up indefinitely. On the up side however, I look forward to bidding on it at public auction.

Cracks

[inKubus]

I bet the stuff cracks all the time, no one ever looked at it before. I think the foam has been redesigned out of softer material so that even frozen to sub-zero temperatures, it won't be heavy or hard enough to dislodge the tiles. And they actually inspect it closely now, whereas before tons of foam flew off at every launch and it just happened to mess up the tiles that one time... I don't think it's anything to worry about. And if so, we've been needing a new transporter for a good 10 years anyway.

Re:Cracks

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe not everyone knows this...every car you ever ridden in has cracks.

I don't see the relevance of your comment to the space shuttle, you're comparing two hugely different pieces of equipment for two vastly different purposes, which are exposed to enormously different amounts of stress.

Re:Cracks

[abb3w]

I don't see the relevance of your comment to the space shuttle, you're comparing two hugely different pieces of equipment for two vastly different purposes

The difference between the purposes of an airplane and shuttle isn't that vast. They're both intended to fly, and undergo similar sorts of stress and strain; the shuttle just gets bigger loads.

Leaving aside ultra-pure crystals, pretty much everything has cracks, whether nanoscale or macroscale. If you put the material under strain, the cracks grow. The bigger the crack, the faster it grows; linear for small cracks, but exponential (=rapid failure) past a threshold.... but the threshold can be suprisingly large. And, as the grandparent noted, there's been a lot of work put into studying how cracks grow and propogate for this reason. Google quickly turns up some moderately technical material that's still understandable if you've an elementary engineering background.

The short of it is, a crack isn't necessarily a, er, fatal flaw, if well below the critical size, and the engineering calculations needed to try and predict that critical size are expert level. Assuming that the engineers considered the erosive effects of re-entry along with the usual mechanical strain sources of propogation, I wouldn't worry.

Whoa

[Daxster]

Wow, after careful re-reading, I realized that there wasn't drugs found in the shuttle tank. Space shuttle tanks, now 100% crack and opium free!

Re:Whoa

[wpiman]

That is what I thought- fill the tanks with drugs- eject them over the Atlantic near Cuba- poison the minds of Castro's followers.

Although it is probably a hell of alot more profitable to have the merchandise go the other way.

Re:Whoa

[Anonymous Coward]

The really scary part is that my mind went to drugs found in the tank too.

Crack found?!?

[elgatozorbas]

Those foul cocain-junkie astronauts!

Re:Crack found?!?

[Tablizer]

Those foul cocain-junkie astronauts!

Well, an astronaut's goal *is* to get as high as possible.

Re:Crack found?!?

[mrseigen]

NASA Engineer: "Oh shit, it's the cops. Hide the blow!"
NASA Engineer 2: "WHERE?!"
NASA Engineer: "In the tank, goddammit! We'll get it back in a couple minutes"

Re:Crack found?!?

[metlin]

Oh come on, I'm sure our President won't appreciate being hidden in the tank of a space shuttle.

I misread the hed

[ThePlague]

I read the headline as meaning that the drug crack was found in the shuttle tank.

It certainly would have explained alot, given NASA's misteps for last, oh, 30 years or so.

Crack Found in Shuttle Tank?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I first saw the headline, I thought we'd have to remind the editors that April Fool's Day was five days ago. Then I suddenly wanted to be an astronaut. They get high in more than one way obviously.

Crack?

[Calmiche]

Okay, did anyone else read that article description as someone trying to smuggle drugs inside the space shuttle or is it is just me?

Conspiracy

[Muhammar]

It was the DEA agents who planted the crack in the tank firstplace.

No doubt

[soloport]

Agreed. But why smuggle crack in the tank?

Objective reporting

[darkitecture]

If the first shuttle has a design flaw, what's to say the second one isn't afflicted by the same problem? Won't there be a good chance of them stranding the rescue crew in addition to the original crew? If an aircraft crashes and the redesign to fix it crashes, would you send another of the same type to rescue it? Of course not!

Whatever the fuck happened to objective reporting? What is this, Fox News? :P Here's an idea: Give us a brief description of the facts and a nice informative link and keep your speculative comments to yourself.

Re:Objective reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

me too

Re:Objective reporting

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Preach on - the /. post is nothing but FUD. PARANOID FUD.

It isn't a design flaw. And I'm saying the second one isn't afflicted by the same problem since it isn't a design flaw.

And /.? If a 747 crashed because of a de-icer flaw, and the fix got crashed over what seemed to be a de-icer flaw? If I was stuck on a glacier that could support the only jet that could reach me (being a 747 with the same de-icer fix) then I swear to god that i would kill any paranoid motherfucker that refused to send that 747 because they thought "If an aircraft crashes and the redesign to fix it crashes, would you send another of the same type to rescue it? Of course not!"

The write up here is just paranoid bullshit.

Re:Objective reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your post. The wild assertions made by the "reporter" are so ludicrous it makes me want to puke just seeing it on slashdot.

samzenpus is a joke for letting this garbage through.

it's called "managing risk". it's what gets you back on another horse, even if one threw you, and it's why you keep a spare hard drive, switch, pc, etc. around in case the one in use fails.

Re:Objective reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see:
p = probability of fatal problem
q = probability of rescuable problem
c = crew size

For one shuttle the expected number of death is E1 = (p+q)*c.

With the standby shuttle strategy it become: E2 = p*c+q*E1*2.

The standby shuttle is clearly a good idea, as long as p+q < 1/2.

Re:Objective reporting

[NanoGator]

"Whatever the fuck happened to objective reporting?"

This is not something Slashdot prides itself on. Slashdot posts stories in order to stir up public opinion, more ads are served that way.

Re:Objective reporting

[node 3]

What is this, Fox News?

Transcript from tonight's O'Reilly Factor (not really)...

The Big O: We're back tonight with Chuck Meyers, the head of space research at the non-partisan "Conservative Christian Political Activist Consortium". Chuck, is this crack in the shuttle's fuel tank due to NASA's liberalism or their anti-Americanism?

CM: Well, Bill, it's really tough to say, it could be either one, but I think if you take into account the atheism rampant in the scientific community, this crack makes more sense.

O: I hadn't thought of that. Here on the Factor, we're not afraid to admit we didn't think of something, unlike the liberal media. So what you're saying is that the atheist ACLU-aligned scientists at NASA (and remember, the ACLU is the most dangerous organization in the world, more dangerous than al Qaida), are afraid of letting the shuttle getting to close to the firmament, and have sabotaged the shuttle in order to keep the wool over the people's eyes.

CM: Exactly right Bill. The crack in the shuttle tank is a sure sign that we haven't learned from the rampant activism of our judiciary, who murdered Terri Schiavo, and are now-

O: Just a second, Mr. Meyers. This is the "no spin zone".

CM: Oh, I thought we were supposed to blame the liberal-

O: No, I meant you need to stop spinning in your chair, it doesn't look good on camera.

CM: Ah, sorry. Where was I? Yes, the atheist liberal scientists, who are thumbing their noses at the Pope's passing by continuing to work on the so-called "space" shuttle...

Re:Objective reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

Good Call!

This is probably one of the worst /. articles i've seen. What's the running tally of question marks in the article? 5? 10?

nasty.

Re:Objective reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off. Fox News is way better than CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC. You fucktard.

Re:Objective reporting

[Apparently someone]

I don't know whether this was supposed to be funny or not... Either way...

Don't quit your day job.

Not too much thought went into that title ...

[nacs]

Here comes a deluge of +5 funnys. ...

"I thought NASA had their funding cut not increased?" ...

"Does Bush know there's crack on the space shuttle? He would probably want to join in on the action". ...

"If I would knew there was crack available there, I would have paid more attention on the Cape Canaveral tour"

Re:Not too much thought went into that title ...

[aicrules]

Bush knows. He had them put it there. He plans to trade it for oil with the people of Mars.

Re:Not too much thought went into that title ...

[j-turkey]

The crack in the shuttle...NASA took a page from John DeLorean's book for funding their program. (Not too soon, I hope)

Re:Not too much thought went into that title ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, half of these posts will be modded funny, just to add to that list...

"Somewhere out there is someone's secret stash, thinking a space shuttle is where it won't be found."

"Maybe NASA could sell that to increase its funding"

"Suddenly crackheads everywhere will aspire to be astronauts."

"Record number of crackhheads try to stow away on space shuttles"

"Well, as a NASA exec, I'm just releived that didn't find the pot- I mean, pod. Yeah, pod!"

Re:Not too much thought went into that title ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Not too soon. Well played.

Re:Not too much thought went into that title ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hal, open the pot bay doors...
Sorry Dave, I'm afraid I'm too stoned.

Why are you so scared?

[Keith Mickunas]

The shuttle has flown over 100 times with only two serious failures. There have been minor issues from time to time, but most of the time it's flown just fine. Why do you think that this one will be so different? Do you believe that some of the modifications may actually make it more dangerous? Sure something could happen, but the notion that the standby shuttle would also have a problem is just a bit paranoid, don't you think?

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Anonymous Coward]

This attitude is exactly what CAUSED both shuttle failures. "Well, it may not technically pass the safety standards, but its flown that way a lot of times already with this flaw and nothing happened, so it should be fine."

Re:Why are you so scared?

[ShnowDoggie]

It does not appear to be a problem. But it should be cause for one to pause, stop and think. The new motto for NASA is now safety first. Right? Well if that is the case, then why are they sending the shuttle up with a full crew? I think the back-up plan is crazy. Doable? Yes. Safety first? No. Why not send a crew of four? Then if there was a problem, 3 could bale out from the space station. That would leave three left on the space station. There would be no artificial one month deadline. The Station is getting new supplies from the shuttle. It is designed for three. And could support three until we, or the Russian's, are good and ready to send up another space craft. (Within reason of course)

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Sebby]

"The shuttle has flown over 100 times with only two serious failures"

What you call failures, I call fuck-ups.

Both times the tragedy was avoidable:

Both times the flaw was known, and had been observed on prior launches.

Both times the engineers asked management more time to evaluate the situtation.

Both times upper management overruled the engineers.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[startled]

Do you believe that some of the modifications may actually make it more dangerous?

Well, shit, that's what happens every time I change my code.... :)

Re:Why are you so scared?

[node 3]

What you call failures, I call fuck-ups.

Actually, he called them, "serious failures". Are you saying they weren't?

Both times upper management overruled the engineers.

Which resulted in... serious failures, duh.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Lehk228]

that puts the odds of catastrophic failure between 1 and 2 percent each mission

Re:Why are you so scared?

[johnny_sas]

Duh! youself troll. I agree with the original poster's assessment that these are fuckups more than anything else.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

minor issues ... like the half dozen or so flights before the first shuttle blew up where the O ring problem had been observed but not dealt with. ... like the many flights before the second shuttle blew up where foam was observed to have flown off, but no one bothered to test whether it really posed a danger or not.

What other problems have they just ignored?

I dont really care about the safety of the crew or anything like that, it just pisses me off that some fool hides a problem and jeopardizes the whole system. We gotta get off this rock so that some people will survive idiots like bush.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[node 3]

Duh! youself troll. I agree with the original poster's assessment that these are fuckups more than anything else.

Troll? WTF? The poster made a distinction that didn't exist.

He implied that these weren't "serious failures". Only a moron could claim they weren't.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Sebby]

Obviously you haven't read both reports.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[SPY_jmr1]

I think if they knew that the O ring was going to fail and puncture the main fuel tank, they would have done something...

foam, on the other hand is evil; ever tried to get static-y foam off of a package UPS/FEDEX/USPS/ETC sent you? IN-FRICKING-POSSIBLE. Hence, foam = E-VIL.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[SPY_jmr1]

/me quickly does math on previous programs...

Mercury... didn't one of them sink on splashdown? I call that a bad day, if i'm riding it... 1 out of 7 error, there.

Gemini had a GATV go nuts and spin one like a tilt-a-whirl... also not good... that's one out of... /me looks up... 10 gemini's

Apollo; More interesting... Far higher capibilty/risk vehicle then anything before or since. Apollos 1,7-17,SkylabCSM 1-3, and the ASTP were all manned, for a total of 16 missions, with two failures out of those. (Add several more launches for unmanned saturn boosters, which is (if i am correct) the only booster to never have a disabling failure.)

I found the numbers.. someone else can do the math, it's late ;-)

Re:Why are you so scared?

[node 3]

Obviously you haven't read both reports.

Wow, that was non sequitur.

Clearly you haven't attended the fourth hearing. (I just made that up, isn't that what we're doing now?)

If you read both of these non-identified reports, do they combine to somehow conclude that Challenger and Columbia weren't "serious failures"?

Re:Why are you so scared?

[gl4ss]

if they had built a fresh shuttle... then it could be expected it to do the average it has done so far. now it's the same old shuttle with a bunch of new parts. two others have exploded so it would not be that far of a stretch to assume that eventually this too will blow up as something gives up.

if buying lifts with soyuz is cheaper.. more reliable.. what's the point of using the shuttle?

Re:Why are you so scared?

[taskforce]

"The shuttle has flown over 100 times with only two serious failures." Replace "The shuttle" with any other mode of transport and "serious failures" with "explosions killing all the passengers" and you'll probably understand why.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[DroopyStonx]

Hm, you just answered your own question ;)

With a 1/50 chance of dying, would YOU feel safe riding on that thing? Hah.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Sebby]

"If you read both of these non-identified reports,"

Wow, you ARE a troll, aren't you? But I'll bite. As trolls like you don't bother looking things up, I'll give you the names of these (what you clueslessly call 'non-identified') reports:

"Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident" aka 'Rogers Commission Report' and

"The CAIB Report"

Clearly you haven't attended the fourth hearing

I didn't have to, *I* have read the report. Duh!!

do they combine to somehow conclude that Challenger and Columbia weren't "serious failures"?

I never said that, troll; but you trollishly try to imply that I did. Trolls are like that; they put words into people's mouth.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Sebby]

He implied that these weren't "serious failures".

No I didn't. I said that I called these "failures" (oh, sorry, "serious failure") as "Fuckups". Then I proceeded to state facts (yes, *facts*) common to both events.

Then, you trollishly came along and tried to put words in my mouth.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[billoday]

No. But with 0/50 chance in dying, I still wouldn't feel safe riding on that thing. I would still do it. Hell, with 3/5 chance in dying, I would still ride that ride. Chance of a lifetime. I would think every astronaut feels the same way. They ae picked partly because of their passion for the idea of manned space travel. Ask them how they feel about it and stop giving them your value system.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one's giving anyone their "value system", jackass.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron? WTF? You made a distinction that didn't exist.

You implied that you weren't a "troll". Only a troll could claim he wasn't.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[node 3]

Then, you trollishly came along and tried to put words in my mouth.

Blow this 'troll' tripe out your ass. I'm not trolling.

You were trying to 'correct' someone, ("What you call failures, I call fuckups"), then proceeded to state facts that didn't make any distinction between a "serious failure" and a "fuckup".

said that I called these "failures" (oh, sorry, "serious failure") as "Fuckups".

The difference between "failures" and "serious failures" is significant--you're the one who sauntered into the realm of semantics!

So, point out why you think we should call the accidents "fuckups" and not serious (I generally use catastrophic) failures. And don't play the innocent victim here. You clearly meant this as a correction to the original poster, otherwise what use are all your facts?

Re:Why are you so scared?

[node 3]

Wow, you ARE a troll, aren't you? But I'll bite. As trolls like you don't bother looking things up, I'll give you the names of these (what you clueslessly call 'non-identified') reports:

What exactly am I supposed to look up? Saying, "Obviously you haven't read both reports," isn't a rational argument--you have to point out both what two reports you're referring to, and why I need to read them. You did neither.

If I 'obviously' didn't read the reports, please point out exactly where in the reports they call the accidents "fuckups", and I'll stand corrected.

"do they combine to somehow conclude that Challenger and Columbia weren't "serious failures"?"

I never said that, troll; but you trollishly try to imply that I did. Trolls are like that; they put words into people's mouth.

If I'm wrong, point it out. Calling me a troll is not a refutation. Look up "ad hominem fallacy".

You claimed that they weren't "serious failures", but that they were "fuckups". You were trying (but failed) to make a distinction between the two. If, instead, you didn't mean to make such a distinction, say so. That's all you had to do. Hell, that's still all you have to do!

Don't blame me for reading a post as one which comes across as one that's trying to make a "correction", but was really meant to be one of agreement--because it certainly came off as one of "correction". Do you agree with the original poster that the accidents were serious failures? Do you? If so, and more specifically, *if* you weren't trying to deny that the failures were, indeed, failures, then this thread and all the contention ends.

Either that, or continue the thread by pointing out why they accidents *weren't* "serious failures", but were instead a "fuckups".

Re:Why are you so scared?

[node 3]

You implied that you weren't a "troll". Only a troll could claim he wasn't.

Yeah, that's logical, lol!

Wait a moment, aren't you implying that you aren't a troll? Why, then that must mean...

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Anonymous Coward]

"What exactly am I supposed to look up? Saying, "Obviously you haven't read both reports," isn't a rational argument--you have to point out both what two reports you're referring to, and why I need to read them"

Geez, if you can't take the 5-10 seconds to do a google search for "Challenger report" or "Columbia Report" , then you are pretty fucking clueless.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Sebby]

"You were trying to 'correct' someone,"

WTF? So now I'm "correcting" someone? BS. I never did that. Read the post again.

Did I state "No, these were fuckups"?
Did I state "Correction: these were fuckups"?
Did the parent reply with "I stand corrected."?

NO. I was clearly stating an opinion. You are trying to imply otherwise (ie. trying to put words in my mouth, yet again ).

And since this was not a correcton or anything of the kind, I don't have to prove or justify anything, especially not to a troll like you that obviously has nothing better to do with its time than to try to pick fights for no reason.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[node 3]

Geez, if you can't take the 5-10 seconds to do a google search for "Challenger report" or "Columbia Report" , then you are pretty fucking clueless.

Again, assertion without logic or reason. The adjective "fuck" doesn't make you correct, just forceful, as thought that makes your point for you.

Good day.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[node 3]

NO. I was clearly stating an opinion.

Yes, in the form of a correction. When you say, "you call them failures, I call them fuckups", you are correcting someone.

"What you call business as usual, I call raping our natural resources."

"What you call letting off steam, I call assault and battery."

That's correcting someone--you are asserting that your opinion is more valid than someone else's. So all I asked was for you to point out what makes your opinion more valid that someone his?

I don't have to prove or justify anything

You're right, you don't. I'm allowed to ask you to, though. You can do so or not, but you're just playing this game of ambiguity. You are making the motions of trying to "prove or justify" yourself, but doing so without reason, just insults and vague statemnts ("You clearly haven't read both reports", lol. How, exactly, does that prove or justify your point?).

especially not to a troll like you

The troll here is obvious--I've been rational and reasonable throughout the thread. You've been acerbic and confrontational.

Read my initial post again if you can't see that. I clearly ask if you are saying they aren't "serious failures".

I'm done with your games. Good day.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[johnny_sas]

Boy, I bet you have such a warm, fuzzy feeling inside of being such an accomplished troll.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Sebby]

Read my initial post again

I have, here's what you said (well, asked): "Actually, he called them, "serious failures". Are you saying they weren't?"

Then you state: "He implied that these weren't "serious failures".

So you went from asking something to implying I said something. I never, ever, said these weren't "serious failures" (or disasters, or tragedies, or whatver one might choose to call them) or that the original poster was incorrect in any way, or trivialize his statement. You are the one that implied that I did. As I clearly stated in reply, 'fukcups' is what I chose to describe them as IMO, given the facts I stated that are common to both. I'm not to blame if you read more into it than what I actually wrote!

....and then you say: "Yes, in the form of a correction"

There's that word-stuffing again! You speak of people playing games, but you sure seem to be the master of putting words in someone's mouth.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[node 3]

You are the one that implied that I did.

No, I clearly questioned whether you did. Am I wrong? You continue to avoid answering that question.

Then you state: "He implied that these weren't "serious failures".

So you went from asking something to implying I said something.

Since I was talking to someone who wasn't you, what am I supposed to do, ask him what you meant? It's rational to state what I think you were doing. I've also stated why I believe you are implying what I've stated--which you continue to refuse to refute.

If I'm wrong, all you have to do is say that that wasn't your point. But you continue to refuse to do so.

You speak of people playing games, but you sure seem to be the master of putting words in someone's mouth.

I'm not playing games. I'm trying to determine what you're saying, why don't you just come out and say it? Was the original poster wrong, were the shuttle explosions not serious failures?

All you have to do is give a yes or no. Why don't you? Yes, or no. It's really quite simple. Playing games is making a big deal out of something instead of addressing it directly.

Yes? No? Choose one.

If I'm trying to troll you and trying to play games, why would I ask you a yes/no question in my first post to you? Was I betting that you'd go so long without answering it?

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Sebby]

No, I clearly questioned whether you did.

Oh, I see, if someone doesn't answer quite the way you like or to your satisfaction, you simply imply they said something they didn't. I can only imagine what you imply politicians say.

"If I'm wrong, all you have to do is say that that wasn't your point"

What, "No, I didn't" wasn't clear enough for you??! Fine, here's the answer you wanted to hear: "Yes, you were wrong". And in case you try to spin this in another way, that one is specifically for you, not the original poster.

"All you have to do is give a yes or no. Why don't you?"

I have, many times, including in my last response! R-E-A-D it!

Re:Why are you so scared?

[node 3]

What, "No, I didn't" wasn't clear enough for you??! Fine, here's the answer you wanted to hear: "Yes, you were wrong". And in case you try to spin this in another way, that one is specifically for you, not the original poster.

My question is: Are you saying these aren't "serious failures"?

YES or NO.

My question isn't, "Am I wrong?"

I have, many times, including in my last response! R-E-A-D it!

No, you haven't.

"Yes, you were wrong" is not an answer to my question. "No I didn't" is not an answer to my question (although it's sly--I never said you explicitly said that, so "no I didn't" can be correct, even if the answer to my question is that, you don't believe the explosions were, in fact, "serious failures")

I've never said you explicitly claimed that the accidents weren't "serious failures", but you made a claim with a list of reasons supporting it. A rational person would see that as a refutation of the original statement, but since you didn't state it explicitly, a rational person would ask you to elaborate on that, which you still haven't done. All you've really done is say, "I haven't directly said one way or the other" (well, actually just half of that, that you haven't directly said one way, and really haven't addressed the other). My first question to you was to clarify and actually say one way or the other.

Do you ever plan to get around to doing that?

No games, just answer the question. Something like, "yes, I'm saying that the accidents weren't 'serious failures'" or "no, of course not, they were serious failures, I was just giving it my own take on just what sort of serious failure it was."

You've got three ways to end this thread:

1. don't reply at all (I assure you, my feelings won't be hurt)
2. reply, but fail (yet again) to answer the question (I won't waste my time responding to that)
3. answer the question (I don't really care anymore about any of this--but at least you'll have shown that your posts weren't totally devoid of civil purpose--not that I care much about that either, do it or not, it's obviously your choice to make)

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Anonymous Coward]

"No games, just answer the question. "

are you blind? the poster already has; look, i'll even quote the relevant portion of the reply:
"I never, ever, said these weren't "serious failures" (or disasters, or tragedies, or whatver one might choose to call them) or that the original poster was incorrect in any way, or trivialize his statement."

how the heck could your eyes, your brain, and cognitive faculties so completely miss that?

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Anonymous Coward]

"you are correcting someone."

pleeeaaaase! noone else here has twisted the poster's words quite like your mind has.

it's obvious you're simply claiming/choosing to read it as such to drag this on for your own twisted pleasure, all the while claiming you're "done with [...] games".

you are trolling.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Anonymous Coward]

sebby,

this obvious troll is clearly feeding off of you. he claims not to play games while continually demanding answers you have already provided.

it's apparent he has a sad, sad need to always have the last word. may i respectfully suggest that you quit feeding him, and just let him have it.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[node 3]

are you blind? the poster already has; look, i'll even quote the relevant portion of the reply:
"I never, ever, said these weren't "serious failures" (or disasters, or tragedies, or whatver one might choose to call them) or that the original poster was incorrect in any way, or trivialize his statement."

My question wasn't, "did you say?" it was, "are you saying?" (and in case my first query was too vague, I've asked it quite a few times now, with no direct response). The difference is not merely superficial. You can "say" something without literally saying it ("Remind me not to ask you to sing at my wedding!" "Are you saying I can't sing?" "I didn't say that!"--you get the idea). That's what I believe the poster is doing[*], and it's quite telling that he won't actually come right out and answer such a simple question.

how the heck could your eyes, your brain, and cognitive faculties so completely miss that?

They haven't. In fact, they are more keen than yours, because I can actually see he's not answered my question (the question that has made him so mad up to this point--odd that he'd not just answer it, unless alleviating his 'anger' isn't what he's after).

[*] Actually, I believe he and his friends (are you one of the players in this little mess? Or really just some AC bystander?) are just trolls, but what the hell. It doesn't really make me mad, although there doesn't seem to be any substance to the other half of this thread. I've made my case, and no one really seems to be interested in an actual honest conversation. Oh well, I tried.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, he did clearly answer (as in, exactly the way you want, though perhaps not the same question you wanted an answer to) "Yes, you were wrong" to your own comment (in the context of ""If I'm wrong, all you have to do is say that that wasn't your point""). that's pretty clear to me(*).

(*) yes, you can simply consider me 'just some AC bystander'

Re:Why are you so scared?

[node 3]

well, he did clearly answer (as in, exactly the way you want, though perhaps not the same question you wanted an answer to) "Yes, you were wrong" to your own comment

The problem is that it's not clear that that's what he meant. Given the continuing ambiguity, I don't think it's unreasonable to request a definitive answer. You know, like when a kid answers "yes" to, "did you take out the trash?" and he really means he did it last week, not today, you want him to state explicitly whether or not he did it today. Maybe he really wasn't being purposefully evasive all that time, maybe he really did mean, "yes, you were wrong, I do think they were 'serious failures'", but there's enough doubt that it doesn't really seem such an awful thing to ask him to make a clear and unambiguous statement on the matter.

My initial entry into this thread was because he seemed to be coming down hard on a guy for calling the explosions "serious failures" (having what appeared to me to be a tone of: "Oh no, not 'serious failures'. What are you thinking!"). With his evasiveness and cry of 'foul!', it's completely reasonable to want a clear answer, which is all I really wanted in the first place. Now I don't really care so much--it wasn't that big a deal then, and it's far less so now.

Regardless, I don't really see the point in this anymore. Either he'll answer me unambiguously, or not, either he thinks he already did, or not, either he's a troll, or not (for that matter, either you're him or not, for all I know). That sound you hear is this thread dying, dying, dying (with a few more fits and convulsions than usual)...

Believe me, I know this thread well, it didn't want to be kept alive by artificial means. I've got a string of doctors who all agree: it's in a persistent vegetative state.

With that, the thread died with a 'poof!'...

or did it?

Re:Why are you so scared?

[johnny_sas]

"that your posts weren't totally devoid of civil purpose"

They weren't devoid of anything; they just fell on deaf ears.

Re:Why are you so scared?

[Sebby]

Yes, that's become quite obvious at this point; he's obviously has nothing better to do all weekend long...

It's clearly pointless to answer him again (not that I haven't already), since he'll just twist the meaning of my words again like he's done all along, just to keep this going.

I won't give him the satisfaction of letting him do that again.....

must be tired...

[minshrine]

I though some Astonaut was caught with crack. guess I need to go to bed.

Sensationalist headline

[mkmccarty]

If the poster read the suggested articles he would know the crack is in the tank's insulation and not the tank.

Re:Sensationalist headline

[WillerZ]

Indeed he would. And he might also have realised the reason it's a story: the Columbia disaster was caused by fragments of the foam insulation on the fuel tank knocking insulator tiles off the wings as the shuttle launched.

Phil

fault tolerance

[rifftide]

Didn't John von Neumann say that redundancy made it possible to engineer a highly reliable system using thousands of unreliable parts? Parts that were extremely unreliable by today's standards.

Maybe this is kind of design mentality that is needed in the space program. Not one standby for each part, but a massively redundant system.

Re:fault tolerance

[Anonymous Coward]

There is redundancy... They prepared a second shuttle.....

Re:fault tolerance

[Anonymous Coward]

Its already massively redundant - there's a second shuttle on standby!

**shakes head**

[clawDATA]

While the crack is a bad thing, remember back when astronauts had balls?

There's always going to be risks associated with space travel. America doesn't want to pay the price -- but I bet China and India will.

China and India will reap the benefits too, leaving America behind.

But thank baby Jesus at least American astronauts will be safe! (on the ground)

Re:**shakes head**

[Anonymous Coward]

not that i know any astronauts personally, but what will you bet they're eager to go up even if the vehicle is held together with duct tape? Balls, yeah, they got those. brains...

Perhaps your question would be better phrased as "remember when the astronaut's superiors had balls?"

Finally!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering where I left it!

Probably Ok

[GizmoToy]

If the manufacturers determined that the crack is unlikely to cause a problem, I wouldn't be surprised if it was pretty minor. NASA knows, at this point, that the launch is going to be under intense scrutiny. I seriously doubt they'd put the mission in dager if they were anything less than 100% certain it wouldn't be a problem.

Besides that, I still disagree with the official explaination of the Challenger disaster. I don't know if anyone else watched the very interesting piece on the Discovery channel about a new form of lightning they're just beggining to fully understand that actually appears to travel from the ground up to the sky... Anyway, there was a picture taken by someone in San Fransisco that clearly showed the Challenger being hit by this lightning during its descent. The lightning trail was dismissed as a camera artifact. The owner has be unable to reproduce any such "artifacts". Anyway, I'm sure someone here knows a bit more about it than I.

Re:Probably Ok

[sfcat]

If the manufacturers determined that the crack is unlikely to cause a problem, I wouldn't be surprised if it was pretty minor. NASA knows, at this point, that the launch is going to be under intense scrutiny. I seriously doubt they'd put the mission in dager if they were anything less than 100% certain it wouldn't be a problem.

An Apollo 12 was struck by lighting and still survived to complete its mission successfully (it went to the moon)! The most famous call in NASA history was made by the electronics engineer when he told them to reset the system using 'SCE to aux' which the astronauts found after some searching. And the electronics still worked. Now that is reliable engineering. Now the space shuttle can't withstand foam. But NASA was better funded then, you get what you pay for. Maybe if Bush wants to go to Mars, he should cut the budget. Just a thought...

Re:Probably Ok

[Jonny_eh]

Their electronics were also much less susceptible to damage. Look how many transistors we have in a square cm! One rogue piece of radiation can ruin a whole chip. Back in the golden age of NASA they had transistors the size of rodents, I bet you could dunk a space capsule in water and it would still work, maybe I should ask Gus about that...

Plus, where can I see a picture of this 'ground' lightning?

Re:Probably Ok

[GizmoToy]

This page has some information about them, and their proper names. The pictures are pretty poor, though. I'll see if I can track down some better ones.

Sprite and Jets

Re:Probably Ok

[grommit]

After you were finished watching the Discovery show about lightning, did you happen to watch the video of the Challenger where it shows the burning gases venting from the side of the SRB just before the explosion? It's a kinda popular video. It was visible in rebroadcasts of the failed launch played on tv less than an hour after the explosion so you'll have to come up with a black helicopter theory about how "they" planned it all and made the "doctored" video available immediately after the explosion.

Re:Probably Ok

[GizmoToy]

Oh no, I accidentally typed "Challenger" instead of "Columbia"! You better go off on a diatribe about how stupid I am!

Parts weigh something...

[NotQuiteReal]

That's why spaceships need to be right with the set of parts they have - otherwise you have a spiral of diminishing returns on adding redundancy and trying to lift it, making it a harder job, etc...

I am not that kind of engineer. You may safely ignore me.

Yeah... I know other people are saying this...

[eno2001]

...but, I swear when I read the headline that they meant that crack (as in crack cocaine) was found in the shuttle tank. I was trying to figure out how someone who would have crack would even gain access to where the shuttle tanks are kept. I also got this mental image of a seedy character dropping a few rocks into this very large, very smooth metal container. Considering how much bad luck we've had with the shuttle projects, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a good deal of drug use happening there though. Probably not crack.

wow, glad hpulley came up with all these q's...

[deft]

I bet the people at NASA who are smarter in their sleep than I will ever be could never come up with that.

Hell, I bet this guy knows what the tolerances for the tanks are intricately... way more than the GUYS WHO DESIGNED IT AND MADE IT FLY FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS.

This whole article reminds me of a little dog jumping up and down saying "hey boss, what if, hey boss what if" and you just want to kick it.

Re:wow, glad hpulley came up with all these q's...

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm sure they'll never crash a spacecraft because somebody forgot to convert from kilometers to miles.

Oh, whoops.

I'm also sure that NASA will (because it has so little red tape) manage to make rational decisions to protect their manned spaceflight.

Whoops again.

I have no doubt that the engineers who are patched the Shuttle back together again mean well. But that doesn't automatically guarantee that the correct call is the outcome from all the internal politics.

Re:wow, glad hpulley came up with all these q's...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I dunno, even the people that should know better have made mistakes. The contractor that made the solid rocket boosters, perhaps?

Don't you think that something that has developed a crack while sitting on the ground might potentially develop into something catastrophic when being rigorously shaken, with a full tank of explosive fuel, under several g's of acceleration?

Re:wow, glad hpulley came up with all these q's...

[deft]

awesome, great two examples.

too bad I wouldnt be able to find them if you had listed the hundreds os successes inbeteen them like, say, a balanced person.

yawn....

Re:wow, glad hpulley came up with all these q's...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I bet this guy knows what the tolerances for the tanks are intricately... way more than the GUYS WHO DESIGNED IT AND MADE IT FLY FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS.

Nobody is infallible. You seem to be worshipping anybody who works at NASA as some kind of super-genius that can't possibly make mistakes and always spots every conceivable problem. That's a fucking moronic attitude.

This whole article reminds me of a little dog jumping up and down saying "hey boss, what if, hey boss what if" and you just want to kick it.

What's wrong with asking about potential problems? I'd rather have a single employee that asks questions than a dozen that don't.

Title is totally misleading

[rminsk]

and the first line "The shuttle's new fuel tank, supposedly redesigned to be safer, has a crack in it." The tank does NOT have a crack in it, the foam insulation around the tank has a crack. There is a huge difference.

Hey, wasn't one of the first famous astronauts...

[NotQuiteReal]

One of the first astronauts was named "Buzz", right?

come on...

[mikeeeeeee]

Crack...in shuttle tank. am i the only one who laughed at the thought of drugs in a space shuttle?

Cracks and Foam

[Rostin]

Hmm, what caused the Columbia disaster, pieces of foam?

By this, I think the submitter is insinuating that on another occasion a potential problem which appeared minor turned into a disaster, so certainly the manufacturer is underestimating the risks now. But when I put it like that, it's pretty obvious that the submitter is an idiot.

I hate the shuttle too, but...

[crymeph0]

This kind of pessimism isn't going to help the situation. The fact is, outdated as it is, the shuttle is the only means we have for getting massive equipment to the ISS, which we're obligated to do.

Space flight is risky, and the shuttle is even riskier than it has to be, but we have to finish the job. In this case, that means putting people's lives at risk, even though we know the shuttle is basically a huge mistake. Giving up on the ISS now will leave us out in the cold when the next space race heats up, and this time, it's not going to be us vs. one other country, it's going to be a whole lot of countries, probably forming alliances. If we don't do our part now, we'll be left out of all those alliances, and it will be us against the world.

Re:I hate the shuttle too, but...

[blackicye]

There is a difference between necessary and unnecessary risks.

I would classify a shuttle launch with a known faulty part (no matter how minor) to be an unnecessary risk.

When you're spending the kind of money that NASA is on their equipment, there is really no excuse to accept anything with more than cosmetic flaws.

Like I pointed out in an earlier post, whomever this manufacturer is, they sure got themselves a cushy gig, if NASA will accept a cracked fuel tank from them, no matter how minor the crack.

And what if...?

[tverbeek]

And what if the brother-in-law of the pilot of the rescue shuttle gets hit by a truck the night before, so he (the pilot) gets teary and misty-eyed at the wrong moment? And what if a loose screw from Skylab or one of the Apollo missions happens to intersect the orbit of the ISS a breaks a window? And what if just everything that could possibly go wrong goes wrong, all at once? What will the original poster find to worry about when it's all come true just the way he imagined it?

Re: Crack found in Shuttle tank

[po8]

I don't get it. Who would the astronauts be smuggling it to? The ISS? At any rate, hiding it in a fuel tank isn't very original---no wonder they got caught. There was no mention of the size of the bust in the /. summary. I guess I could read the article, but why bother? I'll bet you can fit a lot of crack into a Shuttle tank, though!

Kudos to the DEA

[PornMaster]

I wouldn't have even thought to look in the tanks.

Re:Kudos to the DEA

[carlmenezes]

Yeah I hear they have stuff in there that will blow you away.

Re:Kudos to the DEA

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of the apocryphal story about the pepsi executive who was fired after testing positive for coke...

Obligatory Walken

[Grayden]

I've got a fever... and the only cure... is MORE PESSIMISM.

Poster Little

[doublem]

Oh good grief. What a "The Sky is Falling" post. How many missions have these shuttles flown? How many times has one taken off and landed? How many disasters have there been?

How in the world did such a random, flaky, paranoid article get listed anyway???

Feh, I wonder which /. editor hpulley is sleeping with.

Three words

[e-duderino]

Inanimate Carbon Rod

Second Shuttle for what?

[SeaFox]

Meanwhile, there will be a second shuttle on standby, just in case the first one has problems after being hit by foam, etc.

And what will that second shuttle be used for? Wasn't the result of the first shuttle being damaged by foam that it blew up? The second shuttle obviously wont be needed for any rescue operation. Are they going to keep a second crew as well, on standby to take over the mission?

If so, I don't think I'll be the first to call NASA a bunch of insensitive clods for going ahead with their plans instead of waiting and mourning for our lost astronauts, dying in the name of science.

Re:Second Shuttle for what?

[Rolan]

And what will that second shuttle be used for? Wasn't the result of the first shuttle being damaged by foam that it blew up? The second shuttle obviously wont be needed for any rescue operation. Are they going to keep a second crew as well, on standby to take over the mission?

Must have missed the part where they CHECK for damage.... They KNEW it was damaged before last time, they just didn't CHECK how bad... So, they CHECK and determine it's too damaged to return and abandon it using the second to return....duh?

Re:Second Shuttle for what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yepp... no standby shuttle or Russian Soyuz capsule could have made a difference at that time.

Anyone remembers this good old Leonard Cohen song?
"There is a crack... there is a crack in everything... that's where the light gets in."

Re:Second Shuttle for what?

[gnuman99]

Wasn't the result of the first shuttle being damaged by foam that it blew up?

No. The shuttle that blew up was Challenger in 1986. It was due to a faulty O-ring.

Are they going to keep a second crew as well, on standby to take over the mission? If so,..

No. RTFA.

Re:Second Shuttle for what?

[/dev/trash]

No. It disintrgrated because the heat shield was gone and very hot gases got into the precious inside. If the problem is detetcted whil ethe ship is still in orbit a second Shuttle is dispatched to repair it or whatever.

Some perspective

[Ars-Fartsica]

Everyone knows the shuttle is hopelessly outdated, but its all we have. No X-Prize type projects have a produced a true viable alternative to date.

We know we need a replacement but our dumbass President has chosen instead to focus on fantastic (as in unreal) and implausible goals for the moon and Mars...which NASA is tacitly obliged to pursue.

Re:Some perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, like blowing all the money on pointless telescopes like we were doing before was really helping things.

damn

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was my first instinct upon reading the headline that this was a story about a drug bust?

Re:Someone who has mod points...

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD REDUNDANT EVERYTHING ABOUT COCAINE! Oh, except for the first post about it, that was relevant and important.

As you wish.

shuttle external tank crack problem solved...

[murray2005]

samzenpus will stand next to the tank with his finger plugging the crack when the shuttle blasts off.

Space Station is a No Go

[wwahammy]

My understanding is that unless the shuttle is going to the space station, its in an orbit too different to be able to get to the station. I may be wrong on that. Any confirmation one way or another?

Statistics

[rbanffy]

Even if the odds are of about one stranded crew over one hundred launches, the odds of it happening to any two specific crews is one in 10 thousand.

This is about the same odds of being born with a spare chromosome.

And remember, if something goes wrong with the main tank, there will be nobody to be rescued.

Re:Statistics

[snuf23]

Thank you. That is exactly what I thought when I read the stupid wording in the story.
You've got 113 missions. One blew up in flight, one blew up on landing. So 111 successes and 2 failures.
Please won't someone ask the astronauts if they consider those odds a fair risk to take for a flight into space?
Gee, do you think that astronauts might actually be AWARE that you know, blasting into space on a large rocket, might just be dangerous? Do you think they might have figured that little risk into their choice of career?
I really hate people like the submitter who think that they know how to better measure the risk than those actually involved in space operations.

Re:Statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about others but given the chance to fly a mission, I would do it in a min.

I would much rather fly on the shuttle then any of the early Apollo or Mercury missions when the stuff was being made up as it was going along.

Re:Statistics

[the-build-chicken]

hey, for a chance to go into space, I'd probably be happy with 1 in 3

Re:Statistics

[sneakers563]

The point is that in both failures NASA knew there was a problem beforehand, and determined that the problem wasn't worth worrying about. Guess what? They were wrong and have now lost half of the fleet. Guess what happens to the U.S. manned space program if they lose another before the shuttle's replacement is ready? And here we are again - a problem is discovered, and NASA decides that yeah, it shouldn't be happening, we don't really know why it's happened, but don't worry about it: nothing to see here.

Whether the astronauts consider a 2% failure rate to be acceptable is immaterial. Nasa shouldn't have the attitude that they don't need to fix problems they don't understand, and Nasa needs to realize that by having that attitude they're endangering the viability of the manned space program over the next decade.

Re:Statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

How much does two shuttles built and prepped cost? How much was lost in revenue and wasted effort by rescheduling to another flight (ignore the grounding of the fleet - if they'd gone ahead at the next possible window what would the cost be)?

Them's pretty expensive mistakes.

Re:Statistics

[MBGMorden]

They might very well understand the problem much more than you or I - and have determined that it isn't really a problem.

Seriously, are you qualified to walk into a nuclear reactor, and tell one of the scientists that "Hey, it looks like that doo-hicky is broken there."? Then when he tells you that the reactor will work fine, you say "He doesn't know what he's talking about.". He's the expert here, and in the case of the article NASA's the expert. They know way more about the shuttle than virtually anyone on Slashdot. I trust their judgement far more than I trust yours.

All in all, I think we need to sit back and watch. So far the Shuttle has a less than 2% failure rate. I don't consider that bad for a space program, and we should continue our efforts. Eventually, more shuttles (or whatever replaces them) WILL be lost. That's the nature of things. A certain number of planes are lost every year. A certain number of boats are lost every year. We've had FAR longer to perfect those particular means of travel, and they still can be fatal. With space, just like anything else, we will never be able to prevent any future accidents, we just need to be sure NASA keeps the percentages down. If they don't then we (as a nation) can start looking at replacing authority figures. For now though I suggest we all let them do their thing.

Re:Statistics

[Log from Blammo]

The 2/113 statistic does not account for missions that were scrubbed or could not even be scheduled due to technical problems with the launch vehicle. The shuttle has a supposed design lifetime of 100 missions over 10 years.

There are six shuttles: Enterprise, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour. (Enterprise was the non-spacefaring glide test type, but could be refitted, as Challenger was refitted from the structural test type, to become fully functional.) As Endeavor was a replacement, and Enterprise was only a test type, one might have expected 400 missions by 2001.

Additionally, each flight costs 25 times as much as projected. So, running these new numbers, I get...

27% of promised functionality, at 700% of promised operating cost. There was a total loss of 50% of the original fleet--2 failures in 113 missions, a catastrophic failure rate of 1.8% . At that rate, the likelihood of blowing up your ride before completing 100 missions in it is a whopping 83.7% .

On top of that, no failure was attributable to crew error, or was recoverable by any crew action. Space must be some trip if NASA can get people with multiple PhDs to go up multiple times in their orbiting pork barrels, knowing that they are just one order of magnitude from playing Russian Roulette.

Ooops. Think again

[helioquake]

Allow me to re-submit my journal here. Just because. Remember, the federal government invests a large amount of sum to do basic research and development. The knowledge trickles down eventually to private sectors, which could not have had done the R&D in the first place because of its prohibitive cost.

****

Exploration and investment are the reasons for a [space] mission like this.

The former -- exploration -- is what NASA and scientists will advertise in front. Why? Because we know so little about comets. Imagine, if the judgement day comes and we have to "shoot down" one of these in order to save the humanity, wouldn't you be rather comfortable to know what and how comets are really made of? We really do not know what happens to a comet when we toss a stick of dynamite into it, as its structural integrity is not well known.

The latter -- investment -- is the second and the foremost important reason. In order for a super-power nation to sustain its technological supremacy in this world, its government must invest its money for the advancement of engineering and science [*]. The investment to a NASA's mission like this may not seem as important as an investment toward curing cancer, etc., but such assessment is near-sighted. For example, building of a scientific instrument requires a miniaturization of electronic component (in order to reduce its size and weight). Each component is also certified to withstand harsh cosmic environment (sudden changes in temperature and severe bombardment by cosmic radiation). The skills learned through these R&D may eventually trickle down to the industry, and hence possibly leading to development of affordable high-tech components (e.g., IC chips in a decade ago). Basically the high cost of R&D may be paid by the government and the industry would benefit from such learned knowledge. It is not too surprising that a medical breakthrough on cancer may come from the spread of affordable technology obtained through space research.

[*] There was no time in history that a single nation had dominated the world without its technological advantage.

But at the bottom line, the choice is up to you and other constituents in the nation. You ask your representatives to choose either to feed the hungry right now or to invest on the future. I'm inclined to choose the latter.

Re:Ooops. Think again

[Zak3056]

In order for a super-power nation to sustain its technological supremacy in this world, its government must invest its money for the advancement of engineering and science

This is probably going to come across as a troll or flambait, but it's really an honest question... even if the idea that shapes it is somewhat pessimistic:

In the earlier part of this century, what you suggest made perfect sense--the US government did lots of research, and US companies did lots of engineering and manufacturing based on the results. These days, however, things are different--what reason do US taxpayers have to fund raw science and engineering that will eventually trickle down to the private sector, when the private sector will do its own engineering in India, and build the final product in China?

Understand, I support NASA, DARPA, the national laboratories, etc, because I believe it's money well spent... but it's still a valid question.

Re:Ooops. Think again

[Anonymous Coward]

If India does the engineering and China does the building, then what the hell do WE americans do?

Neither India nor China are going to outsource "Management" to the US. We can't even be BUYers (customers) of this great new technology if we don't have money coming from somewhere in the first place. In short, we will be completely out of the "loop".

US tax payers have a duty to fund research in the US.

Otherwise the US will just be a large, poor, underdeveloped residential community.

Re:Ooops. Think again

[Zak3056]

If India does the engineering and China does the building, then what the hell do WE americans do?

Neither India nor China are going to outsource "Management" to the US. We can't even be BUYers (customers) of this great new technology if we don't have money coming from somewhere in the first place.

This was exactly my question.

US tax payers have a duty to fund research in the US.

Here's my issue: American tax dollars go to support research in $DISCIPLINE, which eventually leads to $APPLICATION. The results of this research trickle down into the private sector, which results in $MULTINATIONAL turning it into $PRODUCT.

However, if $MULTINATIONAL does its own engineering in India, and builds $PRODUCT in China, exactly where is the benefit to the US taxpayer, who paid the biggest part of the bill and sees none of the return?

Re:Ooops. Think again

[helioquake]

While my computer's network card went crapper on me, I thought about what you said.

Well the current business model may be a failure in a long run because of that. Or not. I don't really know, since I'm not an economist.

I'm a scientist, instead. So I'm gonna tabulate the reasons why you want to keep up with federal R&D funding:

(1) once you lose its technological advantage, it'll cost you more to regain later.

When you cut off federal funding, these funded scientists and engineers don't just stop doing what they did; they move to a greener pasture. Here that means moving out to other countries. Attracting these people back are going to be very hard.

(2) Most of the valuable R&D are hard to utilize by the developping nation.

Imagine something like nano-technology, e.g., nano-scale catalyst converter or turbine. These exist today, thanks to the grants and contracts given to Universities and federal agencies, etc. But can you think of an immediate use of these devices by Chinese or Mexican? Not much. But some U.S. companies may be able to utilize the technology on nano-scale computer or machines. With that said, some high-tech R&Ds are only good to those who have a higher technological advancement. So some R&D are definitely worth supporting by federal funding (and that's what peer reviews to select who to fund are generally for).

I'm sure someone else can think more...

he he he

[lbmouse]

he said crack

Can we...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent down; Troll
oh... wait, that's the article. My bad.

I heard the moon landing was faked

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

Yeahhhaaa...

[bad_outlook]

I'll just wait here for the next shuttle, ya'll go ahead, and have a safe flight! M'k?

bo

Family Guy Reference

[chriswaclawik]

Lois: Peter, did you get a new buttocks/fuel tank? Peter: I had to, my old one had a crack in it. He he he he he he...

Oh my...

[Mac Degger]

I guess it says something about me that the first thing I thought was 'how the fsck did a druggie make it past the physicals?'...

Is anyone here familiar with LEFM?

[joekerrthejoker]

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics. Basically, it's the study of cracks. And, there can exist cracks that won't propagate if the stress intensity is within parameters (usually determined with a safety factor). So the manufacturer probably is confident that the crack is fine. Obviously, no crack is good, but ALL materials crack with life because of fatiguing. There, now you have a mechanical engineer's viewpoint.

Re:Is anyone here familiar with LEFM?

[MoreDruid]

Basically, it's the study of cracks.

Whew... I know wpecialists use jargon, but I didn't think gynaecologists talked like that.

There, now you have a mechanical engineer's viewpoint.

OK... that put it in a different perspective.

Scary

[SilverJets]

"This is great. This is our job," said Stephen Robinson, an STS-114 mission specialist. "And people are discovering things."

Yeah, but nobody is repairing what you find!!

I found...

[vought]

a baggie of pot in the SSME bell once.

No balls on this one

[helioquake]

remember back when astronauts had balls?

Yeah, but this commander doesn't have one:

Go Cmdr. Collins!

Re:No balls on this one

[Anonymous Coward]

Go Colonel Collins. Air Farce.

Cdr is Navel rank one lower in pay grade.

Commander is title for mission.

I like: 'You go, girl!'

Don't forget...

[SamMichaels]

I think people are becoming forgetful that we barely cracked the surface of the space frontier. It's still dangerous, we still have very little idea of what we're doing, and every time someone goes up there's a good chance they're not coming back...whether it's to repair a satellite or to stay on the ISS.

These kind of impossible-to-solve problems are to be expected.

Re:Don't forget...

[Hobadee]

Well said!

All the people crying and mourning after Columbia pissed me off. Yes, my heart goes out to the families of those who were lost, but at the same time, get over it. Those astronauts knew what they were getting themselves into. Just like a soldier who goes to war knows he may not come back, so do the astronauts. Sure it's sad when they die, but it is to be expected.

+5 Funny

[Dancin_Santa]

Because, you know, racist jokes are so funny.

Next up on Slashdot, some pundit bemoaning the dearth of women and minorities in the computer field. Wonder why that is...

Re:+5 Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the GP meant something more like "put crack out there." Poor wording, not racist. (Some people believe that crack was invented by the CIA.)

Re:+5 Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

It's mostly black leaders and their followers who believe that. By making the joke, he mocks those people, not the CIA.

As I said in another AC post in this thread, mocking black people is racist.

Re:+5 Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be implying that we can not take black leaders and their followers seriously and at their words. You are the racist.

Re:+5 Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I am saying that if you want to take them (black leaders) to task for some outrageous belief, that is fine. However, by impugning the entire ethnic group because of the actions of a few, the joke shows itself to be racist. And then this cavalcade of "it's not racist because it is against the CIA" tripe is hardly worth arguing against because they can't see the forest for the trees, so to speak.

Unless there is some proof that the CIA (you know, the ones that aren't actually allowed to conduct operations within the borders of the U.S.) did this, which would justify Farrakhan's position. However, there is no evidence to support it. So we are talking about making a joke about a discredited 10-year old theory. The only way to take it is as mocking the person who made the suggestion. However, since that person is not named specifically, the OP (possibly unconsciously) marks the whole group of African Americans as rubes and conspiracy weirdos. In addition, he makes it clear that he believes that black people are more prone to drug abuse (crack abuse, namely), otherwise he would not have singled out that group specifically.

The original joke is racist on all levels. It is the height of racism to try to turn this around into some sort of "brilliant flashlight in the dark" shining the light of truth on black leaders.

Re:+5 Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you are officially the greatest troll of all time.

Re:+5 Funny

[0x20]

He's not mocking black people, he's mocking people who believe the CIA/crack rumor. You're the one who's making the leap from "gullible" to "black". Therefore, you're the one showing evidence of racism, if anyone is.

Re:+5 Funny

[cloudmaster]

I took a shower this morning. First in 3 weeks, but none the less... :)

Re:+5 Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because, you know, racist jokes are so funny.

Next up on Slashdot, some pundit bemoaning the dearth of women and minorities in the computer field.."

It would be funnier is you said "some pundit bemoaning the dearth of nigger-women, slopes and dot-heads in the computer field"

Huh? See? I told ya so.

Re:+5 Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the leftdot mods didn't like your 'alternative' opinion.

Re:+5 Funny

[ZorbaTHut]

No surprise here. I think that's my first -1 :)

Re:Why? It's symbolic

[vettemph]

>>So why, WHY are we launching people into space with a program older than I am?

Because it is all that we have and it's better than what "they" have. As long as week keep sending this piece of crap into space we maintain the Superpower status state of mind. It's all part of the mindfuc.... psychology of dominance. Notice how rockets are shaped like penises? It's all about wagging your shaft around and beating on your chest. We can't let the third world countries realize that we are slipping.

It's not a racist joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Many in the African-American community have charged that the CIA tried to get low-income African-Americans hooked on crack in the 1980's by making it easily available in their neighborhoods. If anything, it's a CIA joke.

Re:It's not a racist joke

[cloudmaster]

Man, I had mod points yesterday...

What type of crack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody else read the title and think that "crack" cocaine had been found in the shuttle's tank?

I guess it could happen.

Crack?

[njfuzzy]

It's so hard to see astronauts moving on to hard drugs.

-1 Whiny Liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

Nation of Islam investigates possible CIA crack connection

Re:-1 Whiny Liberal

[kevcol]

Actually, you'd do better to find and link Gary Webb's original 1996 story from the San Jose Mercury News, Dark Alliance.

Once the boat started rocking uncontrollably after the SJMN published it, they backpedalled furiously and effectively destroyed Webb's career. Webb interviewed after Mercury pulls series from web site.

The book Dark Alliance was pretty powerful stuff. Webb committed suicide in December.

And of course none of this has anything to do with the space shuttle.

Re:-1 Whiny Liberal

[first.last]

You believe he actually commited suicide?

Re:-1 Whiny Liberal

[kevcol]

Unfortunatlely, not being present, I can't make a definitive judgement call on it. People's whose lives are destroyed after smear campaigns have been known to do it. I could have put suicide in "quotes" to imply the sinister, but I figured linking to a blurb which gives a passing implication to the possibility rather than an actual obituary would suffice for the reader.

Re:Space Station is a No Go

[Rolan]

Well, lets see.... Perhaps when you finally RTFA you'll see the part about the launch window is determined by the space station's orbit. Or, perhaps you'll read a bit of the past stories and find out that all future shuttle missions must be in range of the space station. OR, maybe you'll read one of the dozen Hubble articles that says it will be scrapped because no shuttle mission can repair it AND be able to get to the space station.

You know, with so little coverage I can see why you missed that fact...

crack, eh?

[templest]

Crack Found in Shuttle Tank

Maybe they should switch to more less-expensive fuel.
You never know though, this might actually turn the ghetto into a legitimate buisness. God bless those entrepreneurs. ;-)

Cracks

[florescent_beige]

Maybe not everyone knows this...every airplane you ever flew on has cracks

There is a whole branch of structural engineering called damage tolerance which deals with cracks. The certification process for new airplanes deals with it extensively. For example, we must assume that any airplane can have a .050" crack at any location. Such a crack is assumed to grow, and it might get quite long before it must be found. I'm talking inches in length, sometimes.

Crack?

[inertia187]

I wonder what they were going to smoke it in.

NASA the madia

[nxtr]

You could swear they're running some illegal cartel. First it's drugs. Next thing you know, it'll be illegal immigrants.

Re:NASA the madia

[MarcQuadra]

Next thing you know, it'll be illegal immigrants.

That's a winning party platform right there:

"We let them take our jobs, we pay for their education and healthcare, and they don't even speak our language! I say we round them up and use them as SHUTTLE FUEL!"

Definitely brings new meaning

[TigerTime]

Definitely brings new meaning to the phrase "high on crack" or "high as a kite" or "hopped up on crack"

Future headlines:
"Crack will remain to get shuttle as high as a kite."
"Astronauts take crack-laden shuttle to space"

Yelling racist when something isn't = Liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't racist. Blacks are the ones that claim the CIA was bringing the crack in. It's a CIA joke, get over it.

I see. Mocking black people != racist

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'm getting the hang of this now.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Ender's in use2]

...but isn't there always a Soyuz docked at the space station for emergency escapes?

"There's always at least one Soyuz docked at the station in case its service is needed as an escape vehicle." www.spacetoday.org

Shuttle is fine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you know, the crack is safe, and the shuttle will not be delayed because of it: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/04/06/shuttle.r ollout/

You're apparently blind

[Anonymous Coward]

Who mocked black people? Mocking CIA != racist.

(I guess I just mocked blind people. Guess it's a good thing I am!)

Re:Space Station is a No Go

[wwahammy]

Well since I have other things that are a whole lot more important than reading the fucking article I'll leave it up to you.

STS-114

[AvatarofVirgo]

http://216.234.165.87/sts-114.htm

Was that bird shot down. . ?

[Fantastic Lad]

Ah, the Columbia disaster. . .

Foam tiling, or shot down? I've visited this question before, and I did a very half-assed job of presenting the 'Shot down' argument at the time. Since then, I've put various ducks in a row and rather than working from faulty memory, did the proper research. So here we go again. . .

1. NASA public relations and the media presented a very tight argument for falling insulation damage being the culprit in the Columbia disaster. --Historical evidence was presented from the NASA archives purporting that previous missions of both the Columbia and other shuttles had shown some limited damage to heat tiles resulting from foam insulation falling from the fuel tanks. The speculation and arguments were that a larger piece of foam striking in a certain way could cause a critical failure of the heat shielding.

2. Despite the recommendation by NASA engineers during the mission that the foam insulation strike in question did not pose a problem and that the mission was in no danger, the conclusion was reversed after the disaster and subsequent investigation.

3. In doing follow-up on this whole story, I ran across this curious item about a photographer who was shooting the Columbia as it first started to break up. He captured an image of an energy bolt striking the Columbia followed by a series of pictures showing a flash and the break-up.

This is a follow up on that story.

The photographer was an electrical engineer who works for Sparks defense contractor Sierra Nevada Corp. He was at the time also a volunteer at the Fleischmann Planetarium at the University of Nevada, Reno. He captured his images of the shuttle from the Fleischmann facility.

This is a brief description of his video according to an article in the RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL;

Peering up at the southern sky, he caught what appears to be some sort of explosion as Columbia re-entered the Earth's atmosphere. He did not realize that he might have caught the first visual evidence of trouble aboard the space shuttle until he went back inside and watched the tape on his big-screen television. Moments later, he watched the National Aeronautics and Space Administration television channel and realized the shuttle was gone.

There is no mention of the energy strike in this article; the reason I included it here was in part to show the value of his film. If you read the article, you can see that NASA sent a letter thanking him for what were considered to be valuable images which indeed showed the earliest stages of the break-up. --This article also seems important to me because these were apparently the images which came directly after the first frame which showed an energy bolt striking the shuttle. Why the energy bolt was not mentioned at all in the article seems very curious to me.

Here is the first photo showing the energy bolt.

So anyway. . . What we have right now are two stories. The first is the big media story which broadcast the NASA claims regarding the incident; a piece of foam caused damage to heat tiles, which in turn resulted in a critical failure.

The second story is one which comes from two sources; a channeled source claiming an energy weapon was used to shoot down the Columbia, and a photograph of an energy bolt actually striking the shuttle just before it broke up.

So which is more likely. . ?

One:The U.S. Government can be counted on to not fabricate stories, and that NASA's own engineers who originally said the foam strike did

Re:Was that bird shot down. . ?

[fname]

Wow, I've just spent the past hour re-reading your old posts (here & at Kuro5hin) for some strange reason. Please just answer one question for me:

Do you really believe in all these alternative theories (who shot JFK, who killed 3,000 people in the World Trade Center, did aliens crash in Roswell, did an energy beam knock down the shuttle- y'know, b/c foam at 22-23 mph couldn't do it-, etc.), or do you just post them for fun to see the reaction of the community?

Either way, I think it's brilliant.

Re:Was that bird shot down. . ?

[Legion303]

Occam's razor says the government is too fucking incompetent to cover up proof of alien visitation.

I was just having this conversation the other day on another forum.

Two of the news stories you cite are at odds with each other. The first says the photographer gave NASA the photos and would not release a public version until NASA scientists had time to go over the data. The second claims that NASA "siezed" the photos and banned the first news source from publishing them. Finally, even the rense article didn't start wildly speculating about ET.

I'm sad that I just wasted 5 minutes of my life on this stupidity.

The PR Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

The shuttle's been a great step in space travel, undoubtedly. But at the same time, it's been a great PR machine. It's one of the things that makes Americans beat their collective chests and believe from head to toe that they're the most advanced nation in the world. It even makes some people in other countries think so as well.

But PR is a double-edged sword. While the first few flights were broadcast all over the world as positive things, every accident gets the same treatment, in a very negative way. US can't afford much more negative news these days.

This has little to do with risks or lives. It has everything to do with USA's image internationally, and the people-in-power's image in an election year.

I know what's "Too Small" ...

[vandan]

The cost of human life is too small to worry about.
The companies in the aerospace industry ( Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc al ) are primarily in the business of war. The amount of money they get from military budgets astronomically dwarfs the amount of money they get from civilian aircraft. So is it any surprise that in this particular case they have put money ahead of people's lives?

Obligatory Futurama reference

[ari_j]

(Season 3, episode 7 - The Day the Earth Stood Stupid)

Everyone on Earth, except Fry and Nibbler, suffers from acute and utter stupidity caused by an invasion of enormous brains.

Linda (newscaster): Hi! Today, some bad things happened. One bad thing was, a train go crashed in New Jersey. Wanna see? People won't be late for work, though, because the Governor lady said, "I'm sending in more trains."

Picture of the Crack

[Anonymous Coward]

picture of the crack

Blast them all of

[Patrick Mannion]

Easy way to get rid of the shuttle fleet!

Re:Ooops. Think again (I'm the AC)

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent really is my comment, please give me the points.

I feel that currently, US companies are selling OUR FUTURE for a quick profit today.

Does anyone remember the time when we were worried about Japan overtaking us technologically? Remember the rush to make American electronic products better? American innovation?

What happened? Yes, we got better, adopted their working conditions, and now we're starting to oursource everything back to their neighborhood.

Manufacturing in other countries is justifiable (at least in our own interest), if the laborers are treated justly (I realize many aren't), and we in america continue to drive technological innovation.

If we do neither manufacturing nor innovating, then we are utterly useless. Although service industries cannot be outsourced, they also cannot be EXPORTed! (Well, at least most of them -- and I don't want to see America becoming the data-entry leader in the world).

These will be interesting times... A bit too *interesting* in my humble opinion.

From another angle..

[Anonymous Coward]

from another angle

Submitter is an alarmist

[fname]

I think the submitter needs to study the Columbia report and understand the Aerospace industry a lot more before trying to (and apparently succeeding at) alarming the /. crowd (which, quite frankly, isn't that hard to do).

First, while it was "pieces of foam" that caused the problem, it was decided that it was most likely a single suitcase-sized piece of foam hitting the leading-edge carbon/carbon that led to the eventual destruction of Columbia. The SOFI (spray-on foam insulation) process has been improved to reduce the number & size of voids in the SOFI. The maximum size of foam expected to fall off now is on the order of 1% of the size of the piece that doomed Columbia. Further, the bipod ramp foam has been eliminated in the redesign. Further, they've developed new techniques to inspect the SOFI so they can detect any anomalies. If they found something, which apparently they have, engineers can assess it and determine its severity. I'm not familiar with the specific issue, but depending on its sign & location, it was apparently deemed to not be a problem. Essentially, NASA is probably inspecting better now, so they are seeing more lumps. It doesn't mean that this isn't the best external tank ever built (it doesn't mean it is, either).

And in general, the whole SOFI system has extremely high visibility at NASA (I don't work there) and beyond (I do work there), and if any engineer thought it could be a safety issue, the launch would be delayed.

Not to mention, the tank wasn't "supposedly" redesigned; it was redesigned. Unless the submitter is suggesting that there was a massive conspiracy to deceive the public into pretending the shuttle tank was redesigned when it wasn't (but apparently not large enough to squelch any whistle-blowers), he should refrain from making those sorts of allegations.

The rest of his comment barely qualifies as idle speculation; the rescue crew is a last-resort, and NASA is not anticipating any problems. The idea of preparing a "rescue" craft was in direct response to Columbia when it was asked what NASA could do if they knew shuttle was doomed. If they detect a problem, NASA will assess and decide to either a) land at Kennedy/ Edwards as planned if there's nominal risk (I'd rate that at 95%), b) land in White Sands with a full crew if there's low to (I'm guessing) medium risk (let's call that 4.9%); c) launch a rescue mission and either ditch shuttle if they're sure it's doomed, or land at White Sands with a minimal crew if the think it might be doomed (I'd say 0.1%).

No, I'm not a rocket scientist. I'm a rocket engineer. And I find it sad that Slashdot chose to post this story when I bet there were other, fact-based submissions written by people more knowledgeable about the subject at hand.

Re:Submitter is an alarmist

[fname]

OK, I've now RTFA.

The crack is the width of a human hair, and it is on the side of the tank opposite the orbiter. The article doesn't specify how high up the crack is, but if it's low enough, it poses zero threat to the orbiter.

The shuttle is now being processed for flight. Rolling it onto the pad is not the same thing as launching it. NASA would hold up processing if they believed the defect was so serious they would likely have to replace the tank. NASA has decided to continue processing, but if the engineers later analyze the problem and decide it does pose a threat, NASA still has plenty of oppurtunites to change their course.

The article makes very clear the scope of the problem, and NASA's response to it. Someone probably noticed a discrepancy report identifying the crack in the SOFI. The responsible engineer likely responded by halting processing to get an assessment from engineering. Someone took a quick look at it (or the report already written about it), decided it would be low risk, and made the decision to continue processing. I bet they also asked the engineers to take a closer look at the issue in the very short term future.

What would you do differently? The more I study the real problem, the more hysterical the submission seems.

Re:Submitter is an alarmist

[jafac]

They didn't like my idea of covering the wing leading-edge with foam to cushion against debris strikes. (not insulating foam, cushioning foam)

The wing doesn't need to generate lift on takeoff.
On reentry, the foam would burn off long before the wing needed to generate lift. In fact, the foam could have heat-ablation properties for the early stages of reentry.

It would probably look kind of dorky though.

Oh, in the FUEL TANK ...

[Durandal64]

... I was gonna say, those drug smugglers sure are getting ambitious.

All cars now unusable

[Quixadhal]

From now on, no motor vehicles will be allowed on United States roads because some tiny percentage of them will crash and kill people.

Why are we a nation of wimps these days? Has anyone ever taken a look at the lunar lander that we actually landed on the moon and somehow got back? I mean, actually looked? It's held together by giant rubber bands!!!

We've gone from doing the impossible with bailing wire and duct tape, and damn the odds... to being afraid to do anything because someone might get a paper cut reviewing the design documents.

I say that we should step down and let other countries who have some balls take over dominance of space. I really don't care who gets up there... as long as the human race has a chance to leave this dirt ball.

Re:All cars now unusable

[Anonymous Coward]

From now on, no motor vehicles will be allowed on United States roads because some tiny percentage of them will crash and kill people. Why are we a nation of wimps these days?

Would you drive a car that exploded and killed all occupants 1.77% of the time? That's 2/113 if you're following along.

Let's say you drive your car twice a day. In as little as 4 weeks your car would fail and kill everyone inside. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to drive that car or be anywhere near it. If you wouldn't mind, well you're either very brave, or a fool.

We've gone from doing the impossible with bailing wire and duct tape, and damn the odds... to being afraid to do anything because someone might get a paper cut reviewing the design documents.

But we're not talking about small glitches and hiccups, or even injuries. The risk of those is even higher than death, yet people still fly into space. But to call a total catastrophic error rate of 1.77% acceptable is just foolish, or plain scary. Don't ever design something I would use... better yet, put your nickname on it so I can avoid it.

These days, even the U.S. military is safer than 1.77% chance of death during combat. I figure *at least* 1,000,000 people and if the death toll from Afghanistan and Iraq combined for 10,000 (what is it now? around 2,000?), it would still only be 1%.

Let's get some perspective here. We're talking about lives, not paper cuts, bruises, or even broken bones.

Re:All cars now unusable

[The_Spud]

Your example of the car failing within 4 weeks is wrong. The car may fail within 1 day or never, you are not guarenteed that it will fail within 4 weeks because the failure rate is 1.77%

To illustrate a scratch card has a 1 in 5 chance of you winning. Do you definately win if you buy 5 ?

This is the misunderstanding of probability which allows casinos to prosper.

Re:All cars now unusable

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you've completely missed the point. Unless you're saying you would ride in a car that kills 1.77% of the time.

FACT: The space shuttle has catastrophically failed 1.77% of the time. So we're not talking about probabilities anymore, are we?

Please define "crack" ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

How many read the title and thought that NASA had been caught red-handed in a drug smuggling sting?

Re:Please define "crack" ;-)

[polyp2000]

How else are they supposed to raise enough capitol for the next mission?

Re:Please define "crack" ;-)

[fakedupe]

They should just say NO! No wait...

Politics

[X.25]

At this point of time, I bet they'll risk safety of the crews, because they have nothing to lose.

They have to prove they can fly to outer space again, and since they already look bad, they can't lose much (disaster here, disaster there).

If they make it alright, it will be a morale boost (and political points for certain politicians).

There must be some Floridians in the audience...

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:
"The crack is about the size as a hair on the lens of a camera," NASA spokeswoman Eileen Hawley told reporters at NASA's Johnson Space Center.

...So can someone please inform us of the size of the average lens hair down in Jeb's state? How do they compare to regular hairs, which might be not on the lens of a camera?

Crack?!

[Anonymous Coward]

When i first read the headline I thought they were going to say some astronaut has been smoking crack...

Logic

[0x20]

If the first shuttle has a design flaw, what's to say the second one isn't afflicted by the same problem?

er... This may get you started.

Illegal Drugs?

[blueadept1]

DAMNIT! The first thing I thought was that astronauts were smuggling drugs. Who cares about cracked tanks. We need more drug smuggling to mars!

Pipe Found Under Pilot's Seat

[istartedi]

Crack Found in Shuttle Tank

...Pipe Found Under Pilot's Seat

...20 Mexicans found in orbiter wheel wells.

...explains english to metric problem

...and certainly many others. Come on, Slashdotters, where are the +5 funnies for this one?

Re:Pipe Found Under Pilot's Seat

[istartedi]

...evidently there was some misunderstanding about how the astronauts were supposed to get high.

...Heh-heh, it's got a crack in it. Like your mothers ass.

Come on. You're not even trying.

Re:Pipe Found Under Pilot's Seat

[Legion303]

"Come on, Slashdotters, where are the +5 funnies for this one?"

Sorry, you'll have to stand in line behind the other 50 people who thought it was funny first.

Re:Pointless troll...

[HarryZink]

Why is it invariably the unemployed that have nothing better to do than rave about alien conspiracies... Geez, man, get a job, get some education, and grow your brain.

OK, who lost their crack in the tank?

[Sean Clifford]

Somewhere there's an unhappy contractor who finally realizes where he lost his stash of crack. ;)

typical slashdot hysteria

[untaken_name]

What's to say there isn't a flaw in everything? Is this how we get stories accepted now? Include hypothetical situations? What if the Earth blows up tomorrow? Guess my mod points won't matter then....

If the astronauts are going to go up in the shuttle, who are we to second-guess them? After all, it isn't our lives which are on the line. But then, I suppose facts haven't stood in the way of slashdot before, no reason to suppose they'd do so now.

Crack is not in the gas tank itself

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

'The rollout was delayed for a little more than two hours when a crack in the fuel tank's insulation was found. NASA concluded the crack, near a non-cryogenic (low temperature) area, was a minor imperfection and did not need repair.'

Crack eh?

[DemENtoR]

I guess i'm the only one who kind of just skimmed the topics and read: "Crack Found in Shuttle" instead of "Crack Found in Shuttle Tank". Well so much for useful experiments in space.

Can't make everything redundant

[Goonie]

It's pretty hard to make a redundant fuel tank...

More generally, there are many components which it's very difficult to make redundant (the really heavy ones, or the ones that contain and control volatile substances). For these, you just have to ensure you've built them right.

For other things, there *is* multiple redundancy, such as the life support systems and the computers.

busted!

[soop]

You'd think they'd learn to put thier stash some place less obvious ...

"Crack found in shuttle tank"

Third of Three

[airider]

Looking at the design of the shuttle we have three major components. The tank, the SRB's and the orbiter itself. We've had catastrophic failures of the orbiter due to the failures of the SRB's and the tank. Are we biding our time until the orbiter is the primary cause? When are we going to finally get to a simpler design? All the major unmanned missions we launch are upgrading their systems to more robust and newer designs that use simpler configurations (which are usually more reliable). The shuttle has provided a great service, but it's time to leverage it's lessons learned and more forward.

Better way?

[AdityaG]

The ISS is going to be a smelly, scary place with the regular complement and two shuttle crews onboard and no way home but a Russian Soyuz capsule that isn't slated to launch again until September and has seats for just three...

Maybe a friendly battle to the death can decide who gets into those 3 seats? :P

Re:Better way?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Cosmonauts: Welcome aboard, comrades. We are glad to be havink you.
STS Crew: Thanks, sorry to drop in, but the shuttle's broke. Hey, where's the can? We gotta piss like racehorses.
CNs: Is through that door there.
STS: The one labelled 'airlock?'
CNs: Da, is joke. Ivan here makes us wish that bathroom has airlock, yes?
STS: Oh, ok, well, we'll be back in a minute...*clang clang* what the!? *woosh*
CNs: (belly laughs)

Chappelle's Show

[AndrossUT]

... Tyrone Biggs said to start astronaut training soon...

Crack?

[AFairlyNormalPerson]

I can't even imagine how much crack they could smuggle in that thing. I didn't RTFA, how much crack did they find?

What a load of BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Has to the shittiest Slashdot post I've seen in a long time. Introduces the article in the first sentence and the rest is sensationlist pessimistic bullshit.

What the hell?

The crack the size of 'a hair on a camera lens' according to what I read.

These guys are busting their asses to get the bird out to the pad, SAFE, and fly it. Held the rollout for several hours to get everything checked out.

Show a little respect.

Druggie Astronauts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I first read this and thought... Why? What do they have to gain by smuggling drugs into space?

Good lord it's past by bedtime.

Real Engineering

[Braf]

I know it's too late and no one will read this, but...

I would like to point out that the level of engineering involved in the design of the shuttle is in a completely different class than any technology you have in your computer or in your car or that you've likely ever have had physical contact with. Cars and computers advance quickly because they are cheap and if they occasionally don't work no one really cares.

Everyone bringing up the age of the space shuttle sounds like morons. Whatever our next orbiter is going to be, the technology will be outdated. It has to be outdated by the time the thing is ready for flight because it has to be proven. You don't use the latest composite materials or computers in building something of this cost (dollar, life, and national pride) because you don't know how they respond to the excessive accelerations, vibrations, and high energy radiation involved.

This is assuming you're building a real vehicle and not a toy to win a prize. And actually, we probably will not see another feat of engineering like the current orbiter because the government doesn't give money to people who know what they're are doing like they use to and the private sector is too lazy and opportunistic to engineer it right.

Re:Real Engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

"Whatever our next orbiter is going to be, the technology will be outdated. It has to be outdated by the time the thing is ready for flight because it has to be proven."

Because the culture dictates that astronaut lives are valuable and that accidents are unacceptable.

But what forces that to be the case?

Re:Real Engineering

[Narchie Troll]

I don't have mod points, but I'd like to commend you on writing one of the best posts I have ever read on Slashdot.

People seem to treat the space shuttle like it's their overclocked P4 1-million with water cooling. You can't just slap 'the latest' into the shuttle and send a crew out into one of the most hostile environments known to man.

Excellent post.

Re:Real Engineering

[gerardrj]

The Apollo missions were all carried out with cutting edge technology for their time and they were just as safe or failure prone (depending on your point of view) as the much more expensive space shuttle program.

The Apollo program achieved all of its goals in allowing for frequent human missions to space and the moon. The Space Shuttle has failed in most of its design goals; if you don't recall, the program was designed to put a shuttle in to orbit 10 times a year for 10 years each ferrying inhabitants and materials to a space station. Each shuttle was supposed to last for 100 flights and there were 5 shuttles, the math show then that there should have been 500 shuttle flights between 1981 and today. To date I think there have been 103; that's pathetic.

The space station the shuttle was to shuttle to and from a space station, itself a joke. Over budget, less than half the designed volume, less than 1/5 the designed occupancy, the science it produces is negligible and could (for the most part) be performed via robotics.

NASA screwed the pooch on these programs. Am I playing monday morning quarterback? Sure, but these were NASA's top priority missions. They had the greatest visibility, funding and brain-trust. Why have a partially re-usable space shuttle that has to be dismantled, inspected and refurbished after each flight. How is this any better than mostly expendable vehicles? The space shuttle is not a product of engineers, it's a product of politicians and special interests.

Who do I blame? The politicians. The elected ones and the middle and upper management in NASA. If NASA was properly/well funded and the managers just let the engineers do what they do, things would likely be very much better off.

Re:Real Engineering

[khallow]

This is assuming you're building a real vehicle and not a toy to win a prize. And actually, we probably will not see another feat of engineering like the current orbiter because the government doesn't give money to people who know what they're are doing like they use to and the private sector is too lazy and opportunistic to engineer it right.

Why is it that if NASA or one of its heavily subsidized contractors builds such a vehicle it's a "prototype", but when a purely private company does so it's a "toy"? The truth is that NASA has been building a lot of "toys" for the past few decades. This is a good part of the reason that no replacement exists for the "toy" that is commonly known as the Space Shuttle.

Re:Real Engineering

[mrsev]

Well said..let me expand on your analogy fot the /. crowd:

For your mission critical server do you run Debian Stable or Testing?

Re:Real Engineering

[JonathanBoyd]

The Apollo program achieved all of its goals in allowing for frequent human missions to space and the moon. The Space Shuttle has failed in most of its design goals; if you don't recall, the program was designed to put a shuttle in to orbit 10 times a year for 10 years each ferrying inhabitants and materials to a space station. Each shuttle was supposed to last for 100 flights and there were 5 shuttles, the math show then that there should have been 500 shuttle flights between 1981 and today. To date I think there have been 103; that's pathetic.

Minor correction to yours maths. If the goal was 10 flights a year, then we'd expect 220 flights between 1981 and 2003, with each shuttle having made 44 flights and being able to last for another 56, which would take 28 years. In other words, the shuttle has achieved roughly half of this particular goal. Wouldn't go so far as to call it pathetic, but it is certainly disappointing.

Re:Real Engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither. When I want it to work, I run Slackware.

Let the war begin. :)

Re:Real Engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

I just love how the media says "crack found in tank" and suddenly everyone who doesn't know CRAP about it, or even have firsthand information on exactly what was found, is all over it.

Real Engineering's post is pretty accurate; you're comparing feats of small hardware and software development with a huge, complex engineering effort that is probably the most complex out there today. Can you say human-rated hardware?

The Shuttle is required to finish the Station. What other space stations are up there that I don't know about? None. Whether you like where we are or not, the fact is this is where we are today. Sure, the Shuttle isn't the newest thing out there, but do you really think it hasn't been upgraded over the past two decades? The latest upgrades that were in development were cancelled after the decision to stop flying the Shuttle when the Station is complete, including the Cockpit Avionics Upgrade (CAU) for example.

As for the Apollo missions using the latest technology at the time, and even advancing it, I don't doubt that. But all you whiners need to get over it; until we have someone to COMPETE against, to motivate people to accept a single vision, the will and the ability to get around the red tape, and the ability to get real funding, this is probably the best that can be done. Try comparing NASA's budget to DoD; starting comparing the waste you think is in NASA with the waste that's in DoD.

So, instead of flapping your useless, negative gums, come out from behind your safe, secure monitors and keyboards, and get the hell out there and DO something about it. Until then, just shut the hell up and let NASA get on with it. Armchair warriors...sheesh; I'm not even going to read this thread anymore, so flame away.

Re:Real Engineering

[jafac]

Apollo vehicle was designed for SINGLE USE.

Shuttle Orbiter was designed for multiple re-use. Get it? The whole point was to re-use the vehicle many times, over a period of years, or decades. You can upgrade computers and avionics, even engines (was done on the Shuttles). But you can't upgrade a major component like the friggin airframe, without building what's essentially a new vehicle, which defeats the purpose of reusability.

Your points on the space station, I totally agree with. The Shuttle? We probably would have been better off with an evolutionary, staged approach (build a few smaller orbiters in successive generations, apply lessons learned from previous generations at each stage). This was actually the original plan (modeled on the successful Gemini->Apollo approach taken beforehand). But there was a fear that funding continuity would be at risk - which is a common problem in all government contracting, which leads to inflating projects to get the biggest contract, which you know will be cut back or cut short later.

Re:Real Engineering

[gerardrj]

Yes, I do "get it". The shuttle was supposed to be a re-usable vehicle. It failed at that goal.

Every launch requires a new liquid fuel tank. Every launch the SRB units must be retrieved and re-built before another use. After each flight the STA must essentially be rebuilt. Insulating tiles fall off, thrusters are rebuilt, etc.

The question becomes "would it have been faster, safer and/or cheaper to have built the STS system to be disposable and just build lots more of them". I think there are several strong indications for that course, not the least of which is the relative success of NASA's "faster, better, cheaper" mantra.

Drug smuggling to the ISS ??

[Anonymous Coward]

What ?! They tried to smuggle crack in the shuttle fuel tank ?!! Hmm soon well need customs people checking the shuttle...

Cops found Crack under my seat

[badford]

but it wasn't mine, I swear!

Crack Found in Shuttle Tank

[pzarecta]

I thought they gave astronauts mandatory drug tests. This certainly casts some doubt on the shuttle disasters of years past... maybe the pilots were high on crack? Or maybe it was the mechanics' stash.

A Crack found.

[mrselfdestrukt]

Fictional Article #1:
A computer program to disable the CD-copy protection on one of the software applications onboard the shuttle has been found hidden in one of the external fuel tanks. Mr.Astrau Naut, Spokesperson for NASA said "We are not sure how it got there, but it's only a CD-crack for Office XP, so it's nothing to worry about. It's not like we violated the SCO license or anything.That could have had serious implications." It is thought that the crack was hidden in the tank to be implemented at a later stage on one of the laptops onboard.NASA shuttle crew delayed the launch to search for other cracks and key-generators in the shuttle.
A small inscription stating that "All your base are belong to us" have been found on the belly of the shuttle."We don't think it is a terrorist act" Pres. G.W Bush was quoted as saying when asked about it on the golf course.

They Were Smoking Crack!

[good2pets]

Crack Found in Shuttle Tank, No wonder it gets so high and spaced out :p Also explains the exploding shuttles.

First thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

"NASA finds new way for shuttles to get high."

Nice troll!

[Peter Cooper]

UNIX is the only one unrecognizable in it's current state. (Mac OS X)

How you snuck that one through and still got a +5 is beyond me.. bravo!

Re:Nice troll!

[vought]

A'int nothin' but a thang.

Re:Nice troll!

[Billly Gates]

I bet if you could take Ritchie and Thompson from the early 70's and put them in front of a macosx box they would be dumbfounded.

Even with a terminal session opened things are different besides the "ls" and "cd" commands.

Unrecognizable indeed compared to the ancient versions.

Also object oriented programing and languages like objective-c are newer concepts even though smalltalk has been in R&D from close to that time but in secret.

The source code for most user apps is radically different even if the only the kernel is written in C.

Re:Nice troll!

[ynohoo]

object oriented programing and languages like objective-c are newer concepts

Object orientation did not add any functionality to existing programming, it formalised what had been some existing "best practice" programming styles, and "outlawed" some sloppy programming styles. While clarifying some processes, it also made others more complex. Most competent programmers didn't have too much trouble making the transition.

Re:Nice troll!

[Kombat]

Object orientation did not add any functionality to existing programming, it formalised what had been some existing "best practice" programming styles, and "outlawed" some sloppy programming styles.

You're way off. OOP is fundamentally about one thing: polymorphism. A concept that is impossible in a procedural language, and unique too OOPLs. Don't try to pretend that OOP is just about organizing code, or a programming "style." It is about a fundamental shift in paradigms. Nothing less.

Re:Nice troll!

[ynohoo]

But did it suddenly allow you to do anything that could not be done before? I think not.

And you know where you can stick your "paradigm shift". In your marketing literature, where it belongs.

Re:Nice troll!

[Kombat]

But did it suddenly allow you to do anything that could not be done before? I think not.

Well then, following that brilliant assertion to its logical conclusion, then every programming language is unnecessary, because none of them "allow you to do anything that could not be done" in assembler.

C allowed programmers to write programs an order of magnitude more sophisticated than assembler, and in less time. OOP did the same thing over C.

Re:Nice troll!

[ynohoo]

I am of the opinion that all CS degrees should start with a thorough grounding in assembler, which hopefully would deter a lot of the "logically-challenged" programmers ;P

I am not convinced that OOP made development any quicker, since taken to it's logical extreme it made some simple things more complex, or even illegal. For instance global variables - useful in professional hands, dangerous in amateur ones. Similar to the "GO TO considered evil" over-reation of a earlier period.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not opposed to OOP where appropriate, just the "one size fits all" approach of it's evangelists.

Re:Nice troll!

[lgw]

Polymophism is indeed the interesting part of OOP, but it's a very old idea, and not at all restricted to OOPLs - they just make it easier. Polymophism is just a function call vector table in front of an object. I've done it in asssembly language.

Then there's the camp who claims that C++ isn't OOP at all, and that OOP is all about dynamic message processing. I've done dynamic message processing in non OOP languages as well.

I can't think of a real programming language in which you couldn't implement either function call vector tables or dynamic message processing pretty easily. OOPLs merely shift the work to the compiler, so errors are impossible to debug, err, so human error is avoided, yeah, that. ;)

Re:Nice troll!

[lgw]

C allowed programmers to write programs an order of magnitude more sophisticated than assembler, and in less time. OOP did the same thing over C.

Nah, it's just easier to learn, and it forces you to learn the concept to learn the language. I've worked on maintaining multi-million-line systems written entirely in assembly, and they were as sophisticated as anything else in commercial use.

A programming language just formalizes the system of macros you'd have in an assembly programming environment, and helps people to do things the same way. And even the macros are just ways to formalize idioms to simplify maintenance. A programming language can make it quicker to type the solution, and easier to maintain, but it doesn't change the scope of problems that can be solved.

Re:Nice troll!

[RLW]

Polymorphism is not unique to OOP's. Using window functions and version 5.2 of the IBM C compiler I created a system in which window messages were passed through a multi-level multi-branch hierarchy of windows. If a window function didn't have code to deal with a particular message then that message was passed down it's default procedure. I created whole families of window functions to handle messages in this structured way. Some were five or six message functions deep. Most layers of the code didn't know exactly which type of window a particular handle belonged to much less where it was instantiated. A message sent to different parts of the 'class' tree would generate different results based on inheritance: polymorphic behavior. Granted there was no safe type checking or compiler help; the parameters were always cast from a UINT to what ever based on the message id (this would have made anyone with a Worthian complex scream). If I mistakenly placed a handle derived from the wrong part of the tree so that a particular message may not process the compiler had no clue and I would know that a message (method) made no sense in that context. So I had to put in code in the base window function from which everything was derived which put up a WinMessageBox stating that message id xxx was not processed. In this case it was an insurance program and most of the layers represented actual display windows. Some forms were built on top of other forms so that only the changes to the behavior of form x was coded in its window function and its default procedure was the window function for form y from which it was derived'.

The point is since OS/2 supported old school COBOL it is possible to have a polymorphic and object like structure in any language. It's up the developer to make it happen. Eventually everything is machine code so if one wanted to one could do this in assembler. Granted C++ makes it *much* easier and considerably safer but it does not *make* it possible but rather provides a lot of help to make it easier. OOD is a state of mind not a compiler choice; you are correct when you state that it is a paradigm shift.

______________________________________
There are 10 kinds of people,
Those who know binary and those who don't.

Not the same thing

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the materials used in both the space shuttle and an airliner are same but the stresses are very different. Each flight puts many years of stress on a shuttle. Even with airliners stress fractures are largely guess work. It's impractical to do inspections thorough enough to find every stress fracture in an airliner. It's why most are grounded after a certain number of hours in the air. Remember when a large number of 747s were brought out of mothballs? Several of them had stress failures. The space shuttles are inspected far better than an airliner but under the massive stress of a single flight it's very difficult to be sure that a minor stress fracture won't cause a failure. A small crack in the wing that wouldn't cause a failure in of itself could allow in superheated gasses in much as happened in the last shuttle flight and cause a major failure. The best you can do is reduce it to an acceptable risk. The real eye openner related to the last disaster was the fact that NASA had no contingency plan for surface damage. Imagine they had been able to inspect the shuttle and found the damage, what then? You can't land and there's no rescue on the way. The entire world gets to watch the crew slowly die or they watch them die quickly in a hopeless attempt to land. It was a scary revelation that in truth NASA was crossing it's fingers and praying nothing happened because there was no fallback plan. The ugly truth of why there were no inspections was that it wouldn't make any difference. Ignorance is bliss is a scary safety policy.

Crack found in shuttle tank...

[AngryDill]

Major Tom could not be reached for comment.

because of politics

[eean]

A program as large the space shuttle has inertia. Certainly the ISS has plenty of inertia, what with international agreements being involved. Really, I wish they just let the thing burn and we'll forget it ever happened. Its just a money drain - though I suppose I should be happy they're supporting our dear military-industrial complex in a peaceful manner.

While I do think the ISS and the space shuttle probably have brought us engineering know-how, the only actual science I've ever heard of it bringing us is from the Hubble Space Telescope, and that is set to burn in 2008. Lets leave the Earths orbit to private companies.

Hmm

[blackicye]

From TFA: "The arrival of the external fuel tank from a manufacturing plant in Louisiana moved the space program closer to its goal of a late spring liftoff for Discovery"

I couldn't find out who this mentioned manufacturer was, but damn, that sounds like a sweet deal, being able to send whatever to NASA and just have them ok it to fly. Wonder how much the tank cost.

define "irony"

[Anonymous Coward]

reading "B: UNIX is the only one unrecognizable in it's current state." on a green-screen serial terminal via lynx, attached to a UNIX machine. :)

Re:define "irony"

[Eric S. Smith]

[irony:] reading "B: UNIX is the only one unrecognizable in its current state." on a green-screen serial terminal via lynx, attached to a UNIX machine.

You are me, and the terminal is a dusty VT220 in your university's library.

How did you get here from 1997?

Re:define "irony"

[ZorinLynx]

Standards... Gotta love'em.

Don't tell me I'm the only one....

[merreborn]

Who initially thought "Crack found in Shuttle Tank" was refering to the discovery of cocaine in a reusable orbital vehicle.

I'll admit, I've got a few beers in me, but when I see "Crack found in..." the first thing that comes to mind is a drug bust.

In a related story...

[Anonymous Coward]

10 Kilos of heroin was found in the shuttle's glove compartment.

Re:Space Station is a No Go

[adavidw]

Well since I have other things that are a whole lot more important than reading the fucking article I'll leave it up to you.

Here's another good idea: Since you're too busy to read the article, you could probably save time by leaving the commenting to other people as well, right?

The problem is not the risk.

[jd]

The problem is the stupidity. In this case, they found the cracks, made no detailed analysis on their own and took the word of a contractor who apparently based their conclusions on the fact that the crack isn't located near anything horribly cold.

Now, there are going to be risks operating something like the Space Shuttle. The engines are cooled with a hydrogen spray and having talked personally with the engineers who built the system, they're amazed the thing doesn't blow up every time it is used.

(It turns out that one of my uncles is the top engineer of one of the contractors used to build that system. Makes it easy to get detailed interviews with the people actually involved.)

From the reports published, I see no evidence of any kind of ultrasound testing to see how deep the crack is, or how stressed the surrounding metal is. We have no idea what effect the daytime and nighttime temperatures will have, via thermal expansion. Let's say moisture gets in, the night before they fill the tank. That point may not be supercooled, but all you'd need is for the water to freeze in a confined space to cause damage.

None of the tests I've outlined in the above paragraph would take more than a few extra minutes. If that. Plugging the crack, to prevent freeze damage at fuelling or metal fatugue in flight, would maybe take a little longer as you'd need to let the soldering iron heat up.

Everything about space is risky. Hitting a fleck of paint in space is about the same as being hit by a 0.45 calibre bullet in a street car. Those sorts of risks aren't avoidable but are worth taking.

This problem, though, seems extremely easy to eliminate, with negligable time, effort or money, and has absolutely zero benefit for anyone, even if nothing happens. Sensible risks are good, stupid risks that nobody bothered to eliminate are what doomed the two shuttles lost so far.

This isn't about not taking risks, this is about bean counters and marketroids who don't give a shit. If they did, NASA would have 14 more astronauts and a good few years more work accomplished.

If the effort to check was greater than the worst-case scenario for risks, then maybe it would be worth taking the chance. Here, you get a guy up there with maybe a whole hundred dollars worth of ultrasound gear, and you can get the data needed to be damn certain about what'll happen.

I find it interesting that this happens on the day that NASA rules their computer simulations of risk assessment worthless, because the computers have decided the shuttle is a piece of crap that shouldn't fly. If the data is right and the models are right, there's a really really good chance the conclusions are right. But NASA doesn't want to hear that, so decides the machines are lying to them.

There is a saying that you should choose your enemies wisely. NASA's enemy is it's own ego. I wouldn't call that a wise choice.

What does that say about communism?

[solios]

Boeing built the 7x7s with service contracts and years and years of supplying spare parts in mind as part of the design. Commercialism at its finest - the units are a source of revenue even after they're out of production.

Russian aerospace, conversely, was designed to Work And Work Well, not to Work And Turn A Profit. So they were Built To Last, not built to be replaced in 10-15 years max.

Re:What does that say about communism?

[DerekLyons]

Russian aerospace, conversely, was designed to Work And Work Well, not to Work And Turn A Profit. So they were Built To Last, not built to be replaced in 10-15 years max.

Which is why Russian satellites have an average lifespan only around 1/3 that of the rest of the world. Which is why Soyuz was recently redesigned because Russia could no longer obtain some of the parts. Which is why MIR was a floating junkheap for the last half of it's life. (And it survived much of that last half because the Shuttle could carry supplies and payloads to it when they couldn't themselves.) Which is why the Russians are developing new boosters - when their old ones can no longer compete in the marketplace.

Or, to put it shortly, the facts don't support your supposition.

Re:What does that say about communism?

[solios]

Yeah, but everything you're talkin' has happened with Russia, not the Soviet Union. Excepting the possiblity of the satellite thing. :P

Good idea, hamsters are more expendible

[Anonymous Coward]

and have a lot of experience with reentry.

Troll.

[Tokerat]

The shuttle's new fuel tank, supposedly redesigned to be safer, has a crack in it.

Nope, the foam insulation has a crack in it. RTFA.

Hmm, what caused the Columbia disaster, pieces of foam?

Oh you knew that, but failed to mention it resulting in a more urgent tone for more attention?

Meanwhile, there will be a second shuttle on standby, just in case the first one has problems after being hit by foam, etc. If the first shuttle has a design flaw, what's to say the second one isn't afflicted by the same problem?

Most likely, the same guys who found the first problem, using the newly created safety procedures, to ensure the same flaw didn't happen twice?

The hairline crack is on the side of the tank opposite the shuttle. No one is sending astronauts to their death, this article is looking for a flame war.

what do the astronauts think?

[tofu2go]

there's a crack in the fuel tank... and it's the astronauts that gotta ride in this thing...

So that's where the punk hid my stash!

[Fadeproof69]

Crack found in the shuttle tank? dammit! I thought I told that punk LeRoy to hide my crack well!

Dont do drugs!

[tuite]

Hey kids dont do drugs! I know they found crack on the space shuttle but they need it to get high enough to leave the athmosphere! Just say no!

Re:Dont do drugs!

[Leoric]

Astronauts on drugs! As if those ppl weren't high enough already!

no way home???

[lordholm]

The ISS has a lifeboat in the form of a Russian Soyuz TMA vehicle. Although, it only has place for three...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Four words

[MadMoses]

Pimp my space shuttle!

Even if one fails, the second is likely to be fine

[Eric Smith]

If the first shuttle has a design flaw, what's to say the second one isn't afflicted by the same problem?

The shuttle has historically had a catastrophic failure rate of less than 2%. It is unlikely that the recent changes have made the shuttle any less reliable. Thus if there is a problem with one, it is still reasonable to send a second one after it.

However, if they're willing to have a second shuttle on standby, their excuse for not doing a Hubble servicing mission (too dangerous, can't go to ISS) is complete bullshit. But everyone has known that ever since it was revealed that they made that decision without bothering to actually do a risk analysis.

drugs?!

[Anonymous Coward]

how did crack cocaine get into the tank? :)

wait a second

[chalkoutline]

..crack? Columbia? Those filthy astronauts. I heard there's heroin on Mars.

crack?

[wisdom_brewing]

and there i thought someone decided to use the shuttle to smuggle drugs...

Re:I see. Mocking black people != racist

[kaens]

If you had decent reading comprehension, you would have noticed that he didn't say anything derogatory towards "black people" at all. It's more like he called the CIA racist, which the government as a whole most certainly is.

Freaking out when someone mentions anything that could possibly be related to someone whose skin color is dark due to their ancestors living closer to the equator than someone else's ancestors does more to propogate racism, and the idea that there is any real difference between humans of any race other than history, and cultures that were held in certain, static areas of the globs due to lack of instantaneous global communication, and differing natural resources.

Christ.

Crack / Code

[anonymous lion]

Why would they put http://www.virtualcrack.com/">crack in the shuttle's tank? Quite frankly, old code doesn't matter when you've got the http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.ht ml">write stuff.

Re:Crack / Code

[anonymous lion]

Apologies!!! The firefox got in the hrefhouse.

crack

write stuff

Can we mark this story as "-1 Troll"?

[ahecht]

I mean, seriously, use some common sense. More 747s have crashed than space shuttles (yes, even after redesigns), but I bet you wouldn't think twice about flying on one. It's this kind of reactionist irrational thinking that has prevented real progress in the space program.

Oh no, what if someone breaks a nail?

Re:Can we mark this story as "-1 Troll"?

[Moderator]

747s fly hundreds of times a year, and out of the thousands of planes in the fleet, there are only a handfull of crashes.

The space shuttle, OTOH, is roughly averaging a crash every 50 flights.

There's some common sense for ya.

Re:Can we mark this story as "-1 Troll"?

[PigleT]

> More 747s have crashed than space shuttles (yes, even after redesigns)

This may be, but

a) 747s are more common than shuttles

b) the loss of life is 100% in shuttle disasters so far.

And now for something completely different

[Moraelin]

You know, there's something I always wanted to ask a real rocket engineer: what's the big advantage of the space shuttle? Not as a flame or anything, I'm just trying to understand.

I mean, sure, the original plan and concept of a reusable vehicle is way cool. On the other hand, the original plans also grossly under-estimated the cost and complexity to do so.

Originally it sounded like we'll have a cheap airplane-like-thing that will do even daily sorties if needed, and even satellites will be brought up and down by shuttle. Needless to say, we still put them up _without_ a shuttle, because it's just not worth lifting a bloody huge airplane-like-thing when you could just lift a small capsule instead.

And that's just the thing. For just about _anything_ I can think of, I just can't see what's the point of lifting a bloody huge shuttle instead of a much smaller capsule. Even for humans. See how even the article does mention the russian Soyuz capsule as an alternative to come down.

So other than national pride, exactly what _is_ the point that justifies using a space shuttle instead? What detail am I missing?

This isn't supposed to be a flame or anything. I'm just trying to understand.

Re:And now for something completely different

[khallow]

So other than national pride, exactly what _is_ the point that justifies using a space shuttle instead? What detail am I missing?

Expendable vehicles are used once. Hence, there's a limit to how well you can test such a system before you use it. But in the case of the Shuttle, after the first launch, since most of it is reused, you have tested those parts in actual flight. Further, with a vehicle which is intended for human flight, it'll be pretty expensive anyway. Meaning that you can in theory get significant cost savings with a reusable that recycles most of the vehicle as compared to an expendable. The key problem with the Space Shuttle has been it's launch rate. It simply doesn't get used often enough to justify its infrastructure and support costs (IMHO).

Sure?

[Billly Gates]

I remember reading about this on slashdot a few years ago. THe guidance computer is the same since the late 70's built on once popular cpu that I can not remember the name from. The 40k of ram works fine.

They wont fix it because the old one works and is safe. Why fix something that is broken?

Re:Sure?

[Taladar]

I believe you meant 'Why fix something that is not broken?'

Re:Sure?

[LWATCDR]

They did finally upgrade the Shuttles computer systems when the installed the glass cockpit. The computers where based on the IBM 360 series CPU. It is still popular to this day. IBMs ZSeries is a descendant of the original 360 line.
And yes they do have Linux for it.

Re:Sure?

[Billly Gates]

I thought the ZSeries were based on the Xeon's and Pseries based on the power cpu's? Or are we talking about chipsets and other onboard features?

Re:Sure?

[LWATCDR]

The X are intel based. The P are Power based Unix boxes I think the I Series is the Power pased AS400 replacements and the Z the IBM 390 Mainframe replacements.

crack

[Anonymous Coward]

"Crack Found in Shuttle Tank" - why don't they smoke it?

Good Grief !

[TractorBarry]

Good grief.

Aren't astronauts high enough without having to smuggle crack into space.

What is the world coming to.

Time is the issue behind redesign

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have time to redesign a shuttle.

Have a look what's going on in the world. Japan just announced their 20 year plan for space....

personally, I have more faith in the Japanese than the USA when it comes to space programs.

heehee.. crack found in shuttle

[sl4shd0rk]

At first glance I thought they were talking about drug traffiking.

Tripping in space..

[Anonymous Coward]

Always wondered if any of the astronauts have tripped in space. I mean.. somebody must have thought of it. Imagine an acid or mushroom trip in zero-g.. wow.

Liberal == stupid, - anything stupid == liberal?

[nietsch]

"Yelling racist when something isn't = Liberal"
No it is not. It is a bit stupid, but I very much doubt that there is any political movement founded on false accusations of racism. Of course since you hate liberals so much (why, it's slimy polititcs ffs!) you qualify anything you think is stupid as 'Liberal'

And I too think the joke was racist. replace 'black' with 'jew' or 'arian people' to see for yourself.

Brass eye..

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a modern drugs party. Here's a man shooting heroin. And over there is someone smoking a crack.

Another Reason Not to Trust Slashdot Staff

[reallocate]

The crack is not in the external tank. The crack is in the foam insulation surrounding the external tank. The lede in the Space.com story is wrong. Guess Slashdot readers and Slashdot staff can't be bothered to read more than one paragraph.

Do people at /. get paid to be this bad?

Re:Another Reason Not to Trust Slashdot Staff

[Anonymous Coward]

well actually they thought it was crack the drug so they just got all excited and posted the story anyways.

OT: Re:Why?

[FauxPasIII]

I just want to point out that those wikipedia dudes have already updated the Chewbacca Defense article to refer to
"the late Johnnie Cochran". If that's not evidence that they're doing something right, I don't know what is.

Am I the only one???

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that thought, "Whoa! Who would put Crack in the shuttle tank? It must have been really good." When I read the headline.

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the whole tank was full of it?
That should get them sky-high!

Not exactly...

[jpellino]

Really? You can sleep thru a 747 flight. You will not sleep thru a shuttle mission, even with the slimmest of task lists.

The shuttle is landed fly-by-wire, a couple of computer controlled landings have been done but always with a hand on the stick - the landing programs have never been certified, initially because of a lack of funding - it would have been about a million dollar job back in 1980 to certify the landing program, and you can imagine what it would cost now, and we nickel and dime NASA programs literally to death.

The multi-piece o-ring design for the solid rocket motors was used because the single-casing design would cost 10-15% more, and the money wasn't there. True, the launch decisions and magical thinking gave it the opportunity to fail, but the preferred design would not have had that problem to begin with.

Remember, in the year before the first shuttle launched, Americans spent more money in quarters to run Space Invaders arcade machines than we did to get the shuttle ready.

I've got many years of "Spinoff" on the shelf above my desk - something NASA has never pushed as much as they should - to let people know that their NASA dollars do more than send people 200 miles for photo ops.

Science: Crack Found in Shuttle Tank

[StikyPad]

Oh Christ, that explains a lot.

I guess everyone who was wondering if the engineers were high when they had that little metric/imperial measuring mixup now has one less thing to ponder.

"Aliens! I see aliens!"

Crack found in shuttle tank

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

DEA agents have told Nasa that the shuttle is grounded until the investigation is over.

* sigh *

[hey!]

The space shuttle first took off when I was six days old.

I remember playing hookey with my other geek friends to watch the lanuch. April 12, 1981. This was back when vehicle launches warranted network TV coverage, and some people cared enough to watch.

Happy birthday, by the way.

but...

[fastfinge]

I spend all this time looking for crack, and nasa just *finds* it in their tanks? Where do they get their contractors, man?

Soyuz pod

[seadd]

Don't worry, Soyuz craft is a bullet proof design... Current version is I believe Soyuz TMA, which was based on Soyuz TM introduced in late 1980's, which was based on Soyuz T introduced around early 1980's, which was based on Soyuz introduced in mid-1970'.
All that is launched with Soyuz 2.5-step rocket, which is based on Vastok rocket, designed in 1960's, on the basis of Sputnik rocket, designed in late 1950's, which was created by the Werner von Braun's engineers which russians picked up in 1940's when they overrun the Third Reich.
So, we are talking about the design which has been essentially the same for the past 50 years, has been tested hundreds of times. If it had any design flaws, they were corrected around late 1960's:) I bet russians have bunch of Soyuz rockets, produced in the time of Breznyev at some hangar in Baykonur, ready to deploy them within a week time. Americans just have to make russians know how badly they want these Soyuz crafts up in the orbit - which is of course counted in mil$.
Therefore, I believe that shuttle crews are perfectly safe up there:)

Scuttle the entire NASA program

[OSXexpert]

For the most part, aside from some small and IMHO meaningless success lately, NASA is as you all know a great example of bloatware. Overpromised and underdelivered. We need to spend more time figuring out how to live harmoneously with Mother Earth, and stop spending ourselves into oblivion to find out that some remote block of rock has ice on it, or life some 3-4 billion years ago.

Now This!!!!

[colin8651]

First the shuttle blows up on national Television, now they are finding Drugs in the fuel tanks. What's next strippers in space; these NASA boys are acting like a bunch of AOL Execs.

smuggling

[Anonymous Coward]

crack in the fuel tank? Don't they usually smuggle the coke in the raw form and then mix it with the baking soda as part of the delivery phase?

The price of evacuation from MKS on Sojuz

[WetCat]

... is about 43 mln $
according to
http://www.lenta.ru/news/2005/04/07/mks/
for 3 people.

Re:Even if one fails, the second is likely to be f

[Sircus]

However, if they're willing to have a second shuttle on standby, their excuse for not doing a Hubble servicing mission (too dangerous, can't go to ISS) is complete bullshit.

They're willing to have a shuttle ready to fly in 45 to 90 days. The astronauts have to get cosy in the ISS and use pretty much all of its rations while they wait for the shuttle to come rescue them. If they were in a Hubble orbit, they couldn't do this and by the time the rescue shuttle turned up 45 days later, the astronauts would all be dead.

I also think they made a dumb decision with not servicing Hubble. NASA's budget has a direct relationship to PR. Hubble (and having real people up there servicing Hubble) has always been great PR and a great justification for why we need manned spaceflight (robotic servicing mission, my foot). But their justification is internally consistent.

Smuggling crack into space?

[Anonymous Coward]

Smuggling crack in the fuel tanks is a bit expensive isn't it?

Re:Liberal == stupid, - anything stupid == liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the liberals in the United States have a tendency to scream "RACIST" even when something is not. You're doing it right now. Jewish and Asian leaders haven't claimed the CIA was trying to get crack into their neighborhoods, so the joke doesn't work. Now, if the joke were "Nazi conspiracy" - "They heard space was Jewish, so of course they were trying to invade" is that a joke against Jews? I don't think so. A joke making fun of Nazis? Yes.

Think before you post.

[stlhawkeye]

"The shuttle's new fuel tank, supposedly redesigned to be safer, has a crack in it. Pictures were sent to the manufacturer who decided that it is too small to be worrisome. Hmm, what caused the Columbia disaster, pieces of foam?"

What a typical inaccurate Slashdot write-up, and a typically ignorant response. First of all, the crack is foam insulation on the external fuel tank, not in the shuttle itself, like your title suggests. Second, the foam is on the external fuel tank, which does not re-enter orbit, it's discarded once the shuttle is in orbit. It won't impact the shuttle's re-entry in to the atmosphere.

Re:Think before you post.

[The Cisco Kid]

For the record, the cause of the previous shuttle explosion was foam insulation which fell off during *take-off*, causing damage elsewhere that led to the problem on their way back. Just becuase the problem with the foam is on the jettison tank doesnt mean it couldnt shed foam on take off. That said, if the engineers responsible for the system, having seen the damage and (obviously) being fully aware of what happened 'last time', are willing to sign off on it being ok, I suspect they arent doing so lightly.

Crack Found in Shuttle Tank???

[hesiod]

OMG, Crack was found in the shuttle tank??? No wonder Columbia exploded... All the engineers were so high they even left their drugs onboard.

Drugs...

[Anonymous Coward]

God damn drug trafficers. Is nothing sacred! They'll jam them in anywhere. There couldn't be much of a clientel though. As far as I know there are only a couple guys on the space station but then again they are in international space so they can't be arrested.

B-52H fleet

[green pizza]

Russian commercial aircraft are flying older for the same reason that Boeing B-52(G)s designed in 1947 and updated throughout the 1950s are.

Just to pick nits: the active B-52 fleet is made up of B-52(H) models, which were built in 1960, making them a few years newer than the B-52(G). The "newer" H models have more efficient and more powerful engines than the G, and had numerous other improvements. The difference between the B-52(H) and B-52(G) is significant. The difference between the B-52(H) and B-52(A) from 1952 is HUGE!

AFAIK, the B-52(G), which were actively used in Gulf War I, are currently sitting in the desert to be chopped up. The B-52(H) are currently flying out of Barksdale, Louisiana, and Minot, North Dakota.

But back to your point, yeah, the B-52 dates back to the 1940s and aside from some modern computers and sensors, is still flying today with mostly 1950s technology.

Another old bird is the KC-135, the military version of the Boeing 707 4 engine jet (very similar to the Douglas DC-8). There are still a huge number of these birds flying in the US military for cargo, in-flight refueling, and intel/AWACS. The KC-135 is almost as old as the B-52 and was designed by the same group of engineers.

Re:B-52H fleet

[ckaminski]

And I'd bet that at least one H or G airframe is an older A or B airframe, since upgrades were given pretty much to the whole fleet. I could be wrong, many of the A airframes could have been sent to the boneyards as part of the START drawdowns in the 80's.

glass pipes?!

[decompiler]

d00d, the way this headline read in my FF RSS feed i thought they found CRACK in the space shuttle!

i was like, 'i know those astronauts are under some pressure, but d@mn! '

FUD

[DoubleWhopper]

Didn't take time to read the article because I can't get past the submission author's use of FUD. FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD. Come on. Everything that we've ever sent into space has been a bucket and on the verge of falling to pieces on every mission. Calm down and think of the shuttles this way: they're just big SUVs. Sure, that SUV can get you down the highway safely... most of the time. Sometimes it will bite you on the buttocks though, and rollover, crash, and burn. Harping on the worst-case (and most unlikely) scenario is not reporting. It's FUD on the degree of Sun's.

Obligatory link

[real gumby]

Clearly a story entitled "Crack Found in Shuttle Tank" needs a reference to this news story from last week:

A Slidell family experiencing car trouble was surprised last Wednesday after finding thousands of dollars worth of cocaine wrapped around the vehicle's gas tank, authorities said.

what I don't understand is ...

[Lazy Jones]

... why bother with such a huge 1st stage rocket at vertical takeoff, which has proven to be extremely dangerous, expensive and difficult to handle? Why not just use the much safer (and probably cheaper) assisted takeoff procedure?

A flame war?

[cpghost]

No one is sending astronauts to their death, this article is looking for a flame war.

A flame war? With all this H2 in the tank, that would be catastrophic!

whoa dude

[Anonymous Coward]

that's a bitchin place to stash it

Time to Give Up

[kmhebert]

This sounds like the end of the drug war to me. First they bring in the coke in a submarine, now they got crack in the space shuttle?

Unanswered questions

[Shotgun]

Why would somebody store their crack in the tank of the space shuttle?
Wouldn't the managers pick up on the smell if they were smoking it in there?
Don't they give astronauts blood test?
How do the drug runners recover the crack from the tank?
Is this really an efficient way to run a smuggling operation?

moon program was a "hack"

[peter303]

A hack means something fairly clever, but you could only do a few times because it wasn't designed for flexibility and re-usuability.

In Other News...

[nocaster]

In addition to the crack found in the fuel tank, 40 oz. of marijuana were found inside one of the shuttles SRB's...

Aliens...

[Luthair]

They're smuggling crack again.

Uuhh....

[cdrguru]

The original computers were "hardended" Series/1 machines from IBM. There were five of them which were configured to provide redundancy. Three of them "voted" on every answer and the majority won if there was a difference.

The technology was considerably beyond 360-type hardware. I believe 360's were very low scale integration if not discrete transistors. Series/1 machines were minicomputers designed for rackmount applications.

Only real "hardened 360" I know of is the original F15 avionics, which I believe was a repackaged 360/40.

crack? damn new yorker's mind of mine...

[lems1]

Man, i saw the word "crack" and I thought immediately that they actually found crack (aka drug) in a shuttle's tank! But after reading the first sentence I realize that it was just my brain compensating with things that I know and see everyday in my New York's life...

Still, you guys should've used a better word for it, like "2 : to break, split, or snap apart" (from M-W.com). Or simple add "A" in front of it: A Crack was found...

So the subject should've read: Science: A Break Found in Shuttle Tank. Or even: A Crack Found in Shuttle Tank.

In a related story...

[squatex]

Shuttle technicians quickly called in Tyrone Biggums
to fix the problem.

Just launch two at a time

[Anonymous Coward]

That way if one blows, you still get somebody up.

Sometimes I feel....

[NAACPsupporter]

...like Americans can't build anything of quality any more. Why is that?

Anyone else read the title wrong?

[lazlo]

Anyone else read the title and think that maybe the DEA had busted NASA? And that this could just be one of the cleverest smuggling ideas yet?

"Yes, Binky, we'll smuggle our crack ballistically!"

Or is that just me?

Call the DEA

[n0tWorthy]

There's crack in the tank. We're exporting the drug epedemic into space!

Crack in the Gas Tank?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you think they smuggled it onboard? How much did they have?

Crack found in Shuttle Tank

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting high in more ways than one.

Different type of crack...

[JofCoRe]

Am I the only one that thought of this type of crack when they read that headline? :)

smugglers...

[Fahrvergnuugen]

they're getting awful crafty these days....

Crack Found in Shuttle Tank?

[osjedi]

"Crack Found in Shuttle Tank" .....Well, that's going to be an interesting police investigation. Intoxicated airline pilots will be releaved to have some of the heat taken off them by these drug-trafficing astronauts.

Want to have a good book...

[mahju]

If you're wondering the back-up shuttle is sitting there with the engine running, waiting to lead into action. From the atricle;

The rescue shuttle will not necessarily be on the launch pad, but will be ready to fly to the space station within 45 to 90 days

"Honey I'll be back monday, oh but if there's a problem with the ride, I'll be about 3 months late".

Duh. Re:Can we mark this story as "-1 Troll"?

[hacksoncode]

As a percentage, shuttle flights are *vastly* more dangerous than 747 flights.

As in hugely, enormously, ~7 orders of magnitude more dangerous than 747s.

Crack?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think any government agency would make sure it's employees, or contracted company's employees would go through rigorous drug screening..Guess Washington D.C.'s mayor wasn't the only one who snuck in.

Russian technology

[LucBorg]

It seems that russian technology is far better. The 50 year old Soyuz is much much more reliable and safe than the high-tech NASA shuttles. I think the new crew delivery system from NASA has to go back to basics and be created from the ground up.

No, but I am familiar with Brittle Fracture

[Avardan]

As we learned in the Navy, brittle fracture requires all three of these to happen:
1. Pre-existing flaw
2. Susceptible material
3. Tensile stress

If I were in charge, and I had an opportunity to knock out one of the causes of BF, I'd do it. Check this out:
http://www.fiu.edu/~thompsop/liberty/photos/schene ctady.jpg

Re:Even if one fails, the second is likely to be f

[Eric Smith]

But their justification is internally consistent.

Not really. Post-Challenger (19 years ago) when it was found that they'd invented their claimed numbers for shuttle probability of failure out of thin air, they said that they wouldn't do that sort of thing any more, and would rely on engineering analysis. No engineering analysis of the risks of servicing the Hubble has been done; they simply declared a priori that it was "too dangerous".

I suspect that they could get enough astronauts to volunteer for a Hubble servicing mission even knowing that the couldn't get to ISS if the shuttle was damaged. So obviously the real reason isn't that they aren't willing to risk lives, it's that they're not willing to risk expensive hardware. Seems completely bass-ackwards to me.

Re:Liberal == stupid, - anything stupid == liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

it's aryan, btw.

fucking mutts. :)

Mod points...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have mod points, but I really would really rather mod this stupid article itself down. Moron poster must work for one of the major news organizations with a title and a rambling subtext. The crack was in the foam cover, not the tank itself.

Saturn V? Try the N1..

[Luminary Crush]

The Saturn V was not the most powerful booster ever produced. This honor goes to the Russian N1 - A Google will net you:

"The N1 stood 105 meters (344 ft) tall and weighed 2788 metric tons (6.1 million lb) fully fueled. This compares with 110.7 meters (363 ft) and 2913 metric tons (6.4 million lb) for the American Saturn V. The first three stages of the N1, blocks A, B, and V, each took the form of a truncated cone containing a spherical kerosene tank above a larger liquid oxygen (LOX) tank. The first stage, Block A, was powered by 30 NK-33 engines, together producing 4620 metric tons (10 million lb) of thrust. This far exceeded the 3469 metric ton (7.65 million lb) thrust of the American Saturn V Moon rocket. The N1's "KORD" (Russian acronym for control of the work of the engines) system steered the rocket in pitch and yaw by throttling the 24 fixed outer engines. Roll control was maintained by routing engine turbine exhaust through six swivelled nozzles. Arrayed around the base of the N1's first stage were four grating stabilizers, each consisting of a cross hatched array of metal strips (acting as fins) held in a horizontal frame. After a first stage burn of 110 seconds, the second stage was to ignite its eight NK-43 engines for a 130-second burn. Finally, the third stage would insert the L-3 complex into orbit with a 400-second burn of its four NK-31 engines."

Learning is a process.

[Fantastic Lad]

Do you really believe in all these alternative theories (who shot JFK, who killed 3,000 people in the World Trade Center, did aliens crash in Roswell, did an energy beam knock down the shuttle- y'know, b/c foam at 22-23 mph couldn't do it-, etc.), or do you just post them for fun to see the reaction of the community?

That question cannot be answered without a fair bit of qualification.

There are a LOT of false and mis-leading theories out there. So No, I do not believe in all of them. However, I DO believe that in virtually every instance where this kind of material comes up, that the 'official positions' presented by the big media, government, etc., are chief among the false and mis-leading stories.

It takes very little research to realize this. The next question is, "So then what really IS going on?"

That is not an easy question to answer, and I've made many mistakes along the way. Most of the links you posted to my past efforts no longer reflect my current thinking. --I have found that one of the most difficult tasks is having the strength to recognize when I have made a mistake and to re-direct inquiries and continue building the most accurate picture of reality possible. The ego must be left behind if one is to become clear, which is why the ego is attacked so mercilessly in forums like Slashdot.

In the end, though, I am not worried about myself. I know that I have the ability to look and think and adapt. The ones who would do well to be concerned are those who use ridicule to fortify their perspectives. Those who use ridicule as a weapon, must also fear it. This leads to entrapment.

-FL

Re:Even if one fails, the second is likely to be f

[Sircus]

Their justification is that going to Hubble would imply not being able to run a rescue mission and that the Columbia report says they should be able to run such a rescue mission. (Presumably, they could think about running such a rescue mission if they actually got a second shuttle standing by on 2 or 3 day notice but, for example, they only have one vehicle assembly building. Costs would probably also be prohibitive.)

Their justification might suck, hard, but it's still internally consistent - the risks (or lack thereof) of going to Hubble are irrelevant if you're determined to follow the recommendation that post-Columbia missions be rescueable and are unable to provide a second shuttle on 2 or 3 day notice.

They didn't consider the possibility of sending up a servicing shuttle, checking it while it's in an orbit where they could still reach the ISS, then continuing to Hubble only once they'd checked it, aborting to the ISS instead if a problem was found. Maybe there are reasons this is plain Not Possible (I can certainly imagine it'd be a complex mission - EVA before a large orbital manoeveur and so forth), but I think this is about the only way they could stay within the Columbia report guidelines and still service Hubble.

You could doubtless find astronauts willing to service Hubble whatever the risks, but by doing so, you'd be stepping outside the guidelines set down by the Columbia report. Then some problem happens on the service mission and you have "NASA risking lives of astronauts, ignoring things it's been told to do". I personally think it'd be worth risking seeing those reports in the press, but the people at NASA evidently think otherwise.

Re:Saturn V? Try the N1..

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but the Saturn V, unlike the N1, actually worked.

Every single launch of the N1 crashed and burned, one even fell back moments after liftoff and virtually destroyed the launchpad and surrounding area. All the N1 amounted to was a bunch of very loud explosions in remote parts of Russia.

Not to completely knock my comrades over the sea, I'm sure once the US moon program reached fruition the political nogoodniks backstabbed like crazy, which made it very difficult to get bugs out of the system. They decided to test fire engines prior to installation following the first launch failure, but that order was nixed from above - so they kept installing untested engines. Big bada boom.

Then they killed the N1 off in favor of the Buran, another Soviet program that never reached fruition. And the Buran, unlike the N1, was massively based off of leaked Shuttle documentation.

But hey, at least the Soyuz, Mir, and similarly small programs got their groove back.

Work v.s. Employment

[Fantastic Lad]

Why is it invariably the unemployed that have nothing better to do than rave about alien conspiracies... Geez, man, get a job, get some education, and grow your brain.

Interesting perspective. . . (Though I would hardly call myself unemployed and uneducated.)

You could also say it this way:

"Why is it invariably those who are caught up within the exhausting distractions of life have so little ability to observe and question the true nature of their world?"

Pounding away at a ridiculous 50-hour a week job, then slumping down in front of the TV in the evenings doesn't leave much time or energy, (if any), for the real Work of understanding oneself and the world.

Grow my brain? That's the whole point. (Well, my mind, anyway.) --I would strongly recommend you do the same.

-FL

5 minutes. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Occam's razor says the government is too fucking incompetent to cover up proof of alien visitation.

Unfortunately, the public is so eager to accept a 'safe' version of reality that they will bend over backwards to look the other way when the government drops the ball, as they do on a very regular basis.

Two of the news stories you cite are at odds with each other. The first says the photographer gave NASA the photos and would not release a public version until NASA scientists had time to go over the data. The second claims that NASA "siezed" the photos and banned the first news source from publishing them. Finally, even the rense article didn't start wildly speculating about ET.

One of the best ways to obfuscate the path of research is to release many conflicting stories of varying degrees of foolishness.

You will notice that in most of these types of story, confusing and conflicting details are nearly always present, and they are very effective, as you have shown, in shutting down personal inquiry.

I'm sad that I just wasted 5 minutes of my life on this stupidity.

Perhaps it would be wise to spend somewhat more than five minutes of your life questioning things rather than looking for the easy way out.

-FL

Re:5 minutes. . .

[Legion303]

Perhaps you should find a hobby other than trolling.

Re:5 minutes. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Perhaps you should find a hobby other than trolling.

Define 'Trolling'.

I am discussing ideas and asking questions which are of genuine interest to me in a forum which has users well-versed in some of the language necessary to explore those ideas in a useful way.

The problem with much of Western culture is that if an idea or question happens to make people feel uncomfortable, they call it a 'Troll' (or something similar); they refuse to think about it. Exploring reality is fun! Pushing the envelope of what we perceive is fun!

We are living under the strictures of a real-time, false reality made of fake fronts and foolish lies which most of the population idly believe and structure their lives around from birth to death, never realizing just how astonishing and beautiful/terrifying the world really is. Anybody who bothers to do even the most minimal amount of honest research will recognize that not everything is as it appears. --Think of it as being in one of those Twilight Zone or Star Trek episodes where, "Something Isn't Right". Everybody thinks that they'd be the one with enough integrity and grit to be able to pick up on the signs and do the right and courageous thing.

What kind of person are you?

-FL

Crack in the tank

[Anonymous Coward]

At first, I thought John Delorean had come back from the grave and was working for NASA :-)

Re:Saturn V? Try the N1..

[Luminary Crush]

I agree that the N1 wasn't particularly successful, but as you point out, mostly due to quality control issues and not an inheirent design flaw.

The original poster stated that the Sat V was the "most powerful booster ever built, period". That's not correct. It's not even correct that it was the most powerful booster ever flown. It was the most powerful ever to fly completely successfully through all stages.

I suspect the N1 would have had it's bugs worked out had the political environment been different.

Re:Liberal == stupid, - anything stupid == liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

They heard space was Jewish, so of course they're trying to get crack there.

I don't get it.

Re:Even if one fails, the second is likely to be f

[Eric Smith]

Their justification might suck, hard, but it's still internally consistent - the risks (or lack thereof) of going to Hubble are irrelevant if you're determined to follow the recommendation that post-Columbia missions be rescueable and are unable to provide a second shuttle on 2 or 3 day notice.

Nope, NASA's statements and justifications are definitely NOT "internally consistent". NASA administration is on record with statements that:

1. A Hubble servicing mission is too risky [despite having done no formal risk analysis]
2. They aren't necessarily going to follow all recommendations of the committee report

They didn't consider the possibility of sending up a servicing shuttle, checking it while it's in an orbit where they could still reach the ISS, then continuing to Hubble only once they'd checked it,

It is my (possibly mistaken) understanding that the shuttle is not capable of such a mission profile. It has to be launched into an orbit that can reach the Hubble if that is the destination; it can't be launched into a lower orbit and then ascend that far.

In case the first shuttle can't land...

[Omega]

The reason they're having a 2nd shuttle standby is in case the first one suffers damage that makes it unsafe to land (ala the Columbia shuttle).

What I want to know is, why not just pack a capsule into the shuttle's cargo bay? The cargo bay can hold a school bus, so they've got plenty of room to stick a Gemini capsule in there as backup, and still have room for satellites or whatever else they're hauling.

Re:Why? It's symbolic

[ckaminski]

Even if the world was run by women, and women scientists, they'd STILL build rockets to look like giant penises, because let's face it, a penis is the best shape to plunge into the thick and friction-loaded environments demanded of it.

JB Weld It!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't discard it: JB Weld It!

crack heads

[Matt_Joyce]

why do these threads always disolve into "the shuttle is shit". /me shugs

if there is a crack and therte is not meant to be a crack, don't launch.

Whoever makes the call to launch is going to be villified if anything goes wrong, nay, crucified.

Crack found in shuttle tank...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

DEA impounds shuttle, charges crew.

Re:Even if one fails, the second is likely to be f

[Sircus]

Nope, NASA's statements and justifications are definitely NOT "internally consistent". NASA administration is on record with statements that:

I disagree, but I doubt we're going to agree.

1. A Hubble servicing mission is too risky [despite having done no formal risk analysis]

Too risky in the sense that there'd be no chance of a rescue. You don't need to do a formal risk analysis to say that. There are risks which are the same on every launch. One of those risks is the risk of what happened to Columbia. Dealing with that risk involves being able to run a rescue mission. Going to Hubble prevents you doing that.

2. They aren't necessarily going to follow all recommendations of the committee report

I've not seen them say that, but assuming it's true, they've nonetheless decided that they *are* going to follow the rescue recommendation. Which means they can only do missions to the ISS.

Re:Saturn V? Try the N1..

[Anonymous Coward]

The original poster stated that the Sat V was the "most powerful booster ever built, period". That's not correct. It's not even correct that it was the most powerful booster ever flown. It was the most powerful ever to fly completely successfully through all stages.

Would you be happier if the statement was ammended to read; "the most powerful booster ever built,that always delievered its payload to orbit, period,"?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you use duct tape to repair your space shuttle, you just might be a canadian."

Reference:http://www.cbc.ca/redgreen/

"Remember, if women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy."

First thought ....

[ggvaidya]

Now that's HIGH! XD

NASA's working on it...

[abb3w]

It is impossible to obtain orbit without the use of solid fuel. Solid fuel is the only fuel with sufficient energy-to-mass ratio to accelerate both itself and a payload to the required altitude and velocity to attain orbit.

Remember: Rockets Are Wrong.

(Wikipedia Link on the gizmos....)

As if NASA didn't have enough problems.

[Cow007]

Now they are trying to smuggle drugs into outer space? Crack smoking aliens don't sound to friendly. Its official, the end is near.

Score -20

[johnny_sas]

Score: -20, clueless troll beating a dead horse

Concept versus date stamp

[tod_miller]

"the whole concept of the shuttle is incredibly outdated."

"I don't drive a car that was made or designed in 1981"

And yet conceptually the car hasn't changed for over 100 years (as an automobile).

hmmmm. What a weak argument, concepts of shuttles means they are old, yet the wheel isn't old.. because... erm.. because the carrier of my phone wasn't around in 1981...

Concept doesn't get old. The shuttle they are using wasn't built in the 60's, they are making new ones, new designs, based on the concept of a craft that can be launched and returned.

Now, if you thinkthat concept has somehow aged, and we no longer need them, please go on...