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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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: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.

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: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: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: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?

[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.

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

[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.

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.