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I know that the tank itself was redesigned, but the whole concept of the shuttle is incredibly outdated.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

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[ThJ]

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

Re:Why?

[smittyoneeach]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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....

CIA conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Sour Grapes Anyone.

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

I think the summary needs more pessimism...

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?

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

[shadowbearer]

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

SB

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

[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.

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.

Two words

[fiori]

Duct tape...

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

[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.

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.

Conspiracy

[Muhammar]

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

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

[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...

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 ...

[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!"

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?

[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?

[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 ;-)

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.

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.

Re:Crack?

[Cymoro]

It's pure Columbian 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.

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.

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.

Kudos to the DEA

[PornMaster]

I wouldn't have even thought to look in the tanks.

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: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: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.

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: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"

No balls on this one

[helioquake]

remember back when astronauts had balls?

Yeah, but this commander doesn't have one:

Go Cmdr. Collins!

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

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.

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: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.

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?

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.