Space Shuttles almost Ready to Re-Launch

stagmeister writes "CNN and Space.com are reporting that the Return to Flight Task Group, the overseeing committee that determines when the Space Shuttles can go back into space, has reported that the only items blocking the Shuttles are issues 'related to tank debris, orbiter hardening and tile repair.' They plan to re-meet in later this month to finalize their decision. However, 'NASA has made clear it intends to resume shuttle flights with the repair capabilities it has in hand without knowing for sure whether they would work in an emergency.' Would you want your children flying a space shuttle that hasn't been properly beta-tested?"

Comments

Definition of a non-story:

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFS:

...the Return to Flight Task Group, the overseeing committee that determines when the Space Shuttles can go back into space, has reported that the only items blocking the Shuttles are issues 'related to tank debris, orbiter hardening and tile repair.'

Um....aren't those problems the reason the Shuttles were grounded in the first place???

Also from TFS:

However, NASA has made clear it intends to resume shuttle flights with the repair capabilities it has in hand without knowing for sure whether they would work in an emergency.

Well...does this 'Return to Flight Task Group' have the authority to ground the flights?

From TFA:

It is unclear how much weight the panelists' opinion carries. NASA administrator Michael Griffin has said that he does not consider it mandatory to get the task group's go-ahead to fly the shuttle.

Apparently, they don't.
Remind me exactly why we had a 'Return to Flight Task Group' again...

Re:Definition of a non-story:

[LooseChanj]

Issues related to. The bipod foam, which caused the Columbia accident, has been eliminated. You're never going to be able to eliminate all tank debris. The OBSS is a done deal, but I think they're having some problems with work stabilization, that is, having an astronaut actually work on tiles and not send himself flying all over the place. They've installed sensors in the wing leading edges that will be able to sense an impact. So it's not like they've just been sitting on their thumbs this whole time.

Re:Definition of a non-story:

[Rei]

If you'd been following the shuttle progress thusfar, you'd be familiar with what they had accomplished and what they hadn't. What they have accomplished is a modification to insulation application techniques (which helps not only them, but every cryogenic-fuelled rocket in the world) which looks like it will produce almost no insulation shedding, and no shedding of sizable pieces. What they haven't accomplished very effectively is RCC and tile repair. This is no shock at all; these things are tough enough to make and secure in the first place here on Earth. They can patch small RCC holes effectively, but not large ones. The tile patching material works well on Earth, but last I heard, it still looked like in a vaccuum, microspheres in it could rupture during application.

One of the biggest problems is testing. It's not like we have an extra shuttle to launch, punch a couple holes in, and have reenter. They do the best that they can on Earth, and will be doing more in-space tests on the first launch.

As for "what authority" the task force has, NASA safety boards generally have a lot more independence and authority than the equivalents in Russia, even before the accident. Without the board signing off, Congress won't be happy at all. There have been a lot of problems on ISS involving the Russians doing things like bring unapproved batteries onboard, or firing Progress rocket engines for an attitude-changing maneuver before the gyroscopes had been confirmed to be off, etc, that have led to a lot of major safety concerns.

Honestly, I feel sorry for the people who signed off on the safety of the Columbia launch: every other safety board in the shuttle's history, including those during the ones early in the Shuttle program. Furthermore, most, if not all, other hydrogen-fuelled rockets (for example, Arianne) have used similar insulation systems, and while most haven't had side-mounted payloads, they have had components that foam could have damaged. It's a good thing that this research is being done.

They've had a lot of blame heaped on them, when the shuttle has overall had a pretty darn impressive safety record - about equivalent to Soyuz (same % of craft losses, greater total casualties but far greater human launches). Its cost record, of course, is something different all together, and that is what justifies replacing this first-generation reusable with a second-generation craft that can take advantage of everything learned.

Re:Definition of a non-story:

[poor_boi]

Maybe because atmospheric re-entry is somehow subtly different than holding a blowtorch up to a log for minute or two? : P

Re:Definition of a non-story:

[Rei]

some kind of foam/coating which disapated heat like a madman

It did not. It was an insulator, not a dissipator (and there are much better insulators out there). There is a huge difference. On the skin of your craft, you must radiate the heat away; there is no concievable way that you could simply insulate from the orbital energy that you build up.

Shuttle tiles are still the best thermal radiators in existence. The reason is that they use a ceramic which is a good radiator on its own, and have it be made of fine threads in a very porous style so that it has a huge surface area.

this sentence is missing something

Yeah, I noticed that after I posted. It should have continued "signed off as well".

still only on the first gen of a partially re-usable orbital launcher

Well, it has changed a lot since its original form, but yes. However, look at the development cost of the shuttle in modern dollars. Few military projects have that sort of budget (although a few do...). Then look at how much money the US military gets in comparison to NASA (a very sad fact, in my opinion). It's no real surprise :P

Re:Definition of a non-story:

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Shuttle tiles are still the best thermal radiators in existence. The reason is that they use a ceramic which is a good radiator on its own, and have it be made of fine threads in a very porous style so that it has a huge surface area.

That's not how they work.

You can't lose significant heat by radiation during reentry- you're surrounded by plasma at ridiculous temperatures, to lose heat you would have to be as hot or hotter than that. Bad, bad idea, you're trying not to get hot!

No. Here's tiles 1.0.1. The ceramic shuttle tiles have high temperature resistance, but very low heat capacity. When they are at red heat because of the low heat capacity you can pick them with your bare fingers (provided you hold it by the corners!) because there's little energy there and so your fingers can conduct the heat away without burning; your fingers cool the ceramic down rather than it heating your fingers up. They also have reasonably low thermal conductivity which helps. The idea is that the tiles get hot, but not as hot as the plasma, and the vehicle conducts the small amount of heat away. So they don't radiate, they just don't absorb much.

All very clever, but it's been a disaster, the tiles are too flipping fragile (they would be destroyed flying through rain), they get damaged on every flight, and they are outrageously expensive to replace. Some tiles can take a week to replace because you have to work from the back of the wing forwards, removing all the tiles, fix the tile and then put them all back again.

The Only Things?

[geomon]

Tank debris, orbiter hardening and tile repair have been the "only things" that have stalled a return to flight since the disintegration of Columbia. The Discovery Channel (or The Learning Channel, I can't remember which) spent the entire hour of its program on the return to flight discussing exactly these problems. So what has changed?

NASA needs to recognize that, despite its technical sophistication, the shuttle is too dangerous to operate. It would be better to ship smaller components into space and assemble the equipment in low earth orbit with robots rather than continue to force this orbiter to operate in a manner that risks humans.

The idea that if NASA abandons the shuttle that human spaceflight will stop is crap, despite what the television special claims. I'm sure that the NASA shuttle managers would like everyone to believe this propaganda, but the Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, and others are unlikely to give up on space flight just because NASA dumps the shuttle.

Re:The Only Things?

[RhettLivingston]

"the shuttle is too dangerous to operate"

Considering that we've only lost about 1 in 50 shuttles, I'd say its an extremely safe machine for what it does. The losses of ships in the early settling of the new world were far greater than 1 in 50. If our ancestors had felt 1 in 50 was too dangerous, the new world would never have been found.

If the shuttle were designed to provide a one way trip to orbit, I'd bet you could find plenty of takers.

Re:The Only Things?

[geomon]

...I'd say its an extremely safe machine for what it does.

Which is what? Put payloads into low Earth orbit?

Can you tell me that the shuttle is safer than other payload delivery systems?

Re:The Only Things?

[Wyatt Earp]

Yep. People need to look at early exploration like Magellan

On August 10, 1519, the fleet of five ships under Magellan's command left Seville and traveled south from the Guadalquivir River to San Lucar de Barrameda at the mouth of the rivers, where they remained more than five weeks. Spanish authorities were wary of the Portuguese admiral and almost prevented Magellan from sailing, but on September 20, Magellan set sail from Sanlúcar de Barrameda with 270 men.

18 men returned to Seville with the Victoria in 1522

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Magellan#Th e_circumnavigation

Re:The Only Things?

[toddbu]

NASA needs to recognize that, despite its technical sophistication, the shuttle is too dangerous to operate.

Actually, it's the "technical sophistication" that's the problem here. We make this stuff too hard to fly. If you look at this history of the program, the shuttle got it's initial funding because it was thought that it could fly every conceivable mission. That's like saying that you need a car that can carry people, haul dirt, and move cargo. Sorry, but we build different land-based vehicles for different tasks, so why not for space?

Personally, I find it interesting that most of the new designs on the board look like Max Faget's old Mercury design. KISS rocked in those days. If we could fly to the moon on barely more computing power than is in the watch on my wrist, do we really need all this sophistication to get to LEO?

Re:The Only Things?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hate when people compare the obvious benefits of imperial conquest with the uselessness of the Space Shuttle.

Re:The Only Things?

[TheKidWho]

The fact that it doesn't require a human passenger makes it inherently safe.

How so? Vehicles that carry humans aboard have to be human rated. Ie they have to be designed with much stricter tolerances, much more paperwork, higher quality, and so on. Not to mention the Russian Kliper is most likely going to be launched on top of a Zenit rocket anyways. The fact that it doesn't require a human passenger just means that no one is going to die unless the rocket explodes on the pad or crashes into someone's house.


You don't like the one I gave you, then tell me why it isn't acceptable (other than the fact that it hasn't flown as long).
I didn't say it wasn't acceptable, but like I did say, the Zenit 3S-L has only flown about 12 times, the Zenit-2 less then two dozens flights where it HAS blown up at least once. Not to mention, the Zenit only carries about 10tons into orbit, while the Space Shuttle Stack carries well over 130tons into orbit!(30 or so tons of payload)

You should also not forget that Columbia didn't blow up during launch, it failed during re-entry. Only Challenger was lost during launch and that could have easily been avioded if they decided to wait until it had gotten warmer(Although they did make the shuttle stack more reliable after that event)

Re:The Only Things?

[cowscows]

The original comment said that the Shuttle has a very good safety record for what it does. It carries people into orbit. Your Zenit doesn't do that. So your comparison doesn't exactly work.

The Saturn V did well. How many times did it fly? A dozen? Maybe a few more? Fire off a hundred of them, we'll see if the record stays consistent.

It's sort of silly to make comparisons of that sort to the shuttle, because there's not really anything else like it. I think the parent comment's main point was that, while not 100%, the shuttle is pretty damn good in the safety department, and seems to be within the realm of acceptable risk. And if you're not down with acceptable risk, then space flight is not the business for you to be in.

There are plenty of reasons to replace the space shuttle, but safety is not at the top of the list.

Re:The Only Things?

[cowscows]

Yeah, and don't forget one of the biggest contradictions in the space shuttle. It has to not only be controllable in space, it also has to be maneuverable in the atmosphere. Two entirely different situations, each causing problems for the other. I don't know why they didn't just go all out and make it work underwater as well.

Really, if you want a kickass spacecraft, make something that only has to function in space. Then wrap it up inside a big rocket, and have that put your ship up into space.

Re:The Only Things?

[Rei]

Neither is the shuttle, yet that is precisely how it is being used

Quite true. On the other hand, when even the budget of one craft design was cut dramatically partway through, how could they have afforded multiple craft designs?

The big problem is that reusable was seen as a big win. Sure, you'd have higher initial costs, but the incremental costs would be small - or so they thought. It was pictured that we could reduce maintenance costs down to very low levels that never materialized. With these "ultra-low cost" launches predicted, but with limited development funds, a "do it all" craft was seen as needed.

The next craft (CEV) won't be a "do-it-all" craft. But there are things that the shuttle does that nothing else does. For example, it is by far the largest dockable craft out there (the DART program will hopefully make automatic docking more of a reality). It also has by far the largest cargo return. Cargo return isn't just for "repair and relaunch", although that has been done, very economically, several times. It's not even about experiment return. It's also about things like junk and trash removal. Again, ongoing research may really help with this - inflatable reentry chutes, cables passing through earth's magnetic field, etc. But for now, the shuttle is the only/only realistic option for these tasks.

There Anything Left?

[Keystroker]

Since Mars really isn't that interesting anymore, what is NASA going to do in Space that the public will actually care about? Sure for us geeks there are a plethora of things to be discovered but it is is the red-blodded American that is keeping NASA in the limelight. Unless we find ET on the moon, or we can figure out how to get to a planet, we're toast.

Re:There Anything Left?

[cdelta]

Why exactly isn't Mars that interesting anymore? In the past year, we have discovered that the planet was once covered in liquid water and could have supported life. We have two rovers there now, a few orbiters, and the ESA's Mars Express is about to start their radar mapping of the subsurface to see if there are any large aquifers present. If there is an abundance of water, human exploration and settlement will be that much easier. And as for getting to a planet, we've been going to them for the past thirty years. Cassini is in the Saturn system right now. The only difference between that and sending humans is a larger spacecraft, life support systems, and more fuel.

Spirit of exploration wins out over safety a lot.

[barc0001]

I certainly wouldn't want my children to do it, as a parent. But I also realize that there are quite literally tons of people who if you presented them with the option of a shuttle flight and told them up front there was a 5% chance they wouldn't be coming back, they'd do it.
Let's face it, if the human race was as careful about other dangerous endeavors as it has been about space flight, we'd still be debating about whether it's a good idea to put those dang horseless carriages on the road, seeing as they don't think for themselves and all..

Cue Helen Lovejoy!

[Karl Cocknozzle]

Would you want your children flying a space shuttle that hasn't been properly beta-tested?

Won't someone PLEASE think of the childen!

Heck Yeah

[OS24Ever]

Would you want your children flying a space shuttle that hasn't been properly beta-tested?"

Screw the kids, I myself would climb aboard in a heart beat.

Did you see Contact? Remember the scene where Jody Foster sees something outside for the first time and they morph the childs face & voice onto her's as she describes what she is seeing?

I'd risk my life to see that, because I know we won't be living on the moon like I thought we would be in the 80s when I was in Jr. High.

Re:Heck Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw the kids

Uh... I think that's illegal.

Re:Heck Yeah

[adrianmonk]

I'd risk my life to see that, because I know we won't be living on the moon like I thought we would be in the 80s when I was in Jr. High.

OK, like it or not, you've triggered a story:

When my sister was in Jr. High (which would've been 1979-1982 if I've done the math right), she had this woefully out of date science textbook. It had all kinds of crazy and laughable things in it, but the pinnacle was a little sidebar on space travel, which talked about the challenges man faced and what we had accomplished. The last sentence was intended to inspire students to dream about ever greater achievement and exploration. It read, "Who knows, someday man may even reach the moon."

Hey, well, good to know that education is such a priority that the powers that be are willing to spring for a new set of books every now and then.

Hello, welcome to reality

[gerf]

NASA, by its very essence, isn't able to test things in completely realistic environments. They spend huge amounts of time and energy doing what testing they can, but how in the world (or outside the world) can you test fixing a wing on a space shuttle? There are so many variables that it's insane to attempt

Sure, this makes NASA dangerous, but that's been known for decades. Space travel isn't as easy as driving to the supermarket just yet. Get over it.

Beta-testing

[FleaPlus]

Would you want your children flying a space shuttle that hasn't been properly beta-tested?

Screw that. If the chance of coming back alive is at least as good as it was on the 100+ other shuttle launches, I'd give almost anything to go myself. I guess some additional beta-testing might be nice, but how much will it cost?

There will always be risks

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi - this whole safety mania regarding the space shuttle is silly. Yes, it is tragic that two crews have died so far, but lets face it - when traveling in those atmospheric conditions at those speeds and temperature extremes there will always be a risk, even if NASA managers are under pressure to be able to claim it is now entirely safe.

I mean, there are terrible airplane crashes every year, but do we shut down all commercial airflight until we can make it certain that flying has no risk?

On the flip side, we should do more to acknowledge the risks those space shuttle crews take every time they go up for even a "routine" mission.

TWR

Obligatory Steve Buscemi Quote ...

[SuperDuG]

Rockhound - "You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?"

It seemed fitting ...

Re:Spirit of exploration wins out over safety a lo

[fdisk3hs]

..."told them up front there was a 5% chance they wouldn't be coming back"...
It's probably more like a 5% chance that they WILL be coming back. Who cares? I'll go.
"Gentlemen, we need to know where we stand from a position of status. What do we got left on the ship that is good?" Gene Krantz

want your children flying a space shuttle that ...

[WindBourne]

that hasn't been properly beta-tested?

Quite Honestly, I would go up in a heart beat. Those shuttles have been tested through and through. Now what is happening is the nit picking over every little detail. I would guess that my 3 year old nissan quest is no where near as safe as that ship is.

forget manned missions

[DualG5GUNZ]

Manned missions in space don't make sense from scientific or economic perspectives. For the past two years we've been spending mega bucks on making a lost cause (the space shuttle) safer, but for what? The fact is that metal things are much cheaper (if one blows up, nobody dies). Instead of appealling to peoples hearts and dreams (we went to the moon back in 1969 - when it meant something) we should focus on aquiring knowledge about the cosmos and the like. To do that we don't need people.

Re:forget manned missions

[DualG5GUNZ]

A. In fact, you don't need people in space to get tax payers interested, take the Mars Rovers for example. The Mars Rovers have been HUGE successes for NASA from both Scientific and PR standpoints. In fact, though this is subjective speculation, I don't remember shuttle missions EVER getting as much press as the Rovers (minus the shuttle mission where everyone died) and certainly no shuttle missions have gotten such consistently positive press. Actually, when you take into consideration the Rovers' journey (from tense deployment to achievements, extended uptime, and other feats) their coverage really amounts to an epic tale. No, I'm pretty sure you don't need manned space flights.

B. The ISS (International Space Station) is a DISASTER. The astronauts in it currently aren't so much living in the station as they are trapped in it. As I recall, something went wrong with their AIR SUPPLY and they are on reserves. Further, unless by "worked on" you mean "every once in a while the Russians bring food" you are, unfortunately, mistaken. The program has hit a huge obstacle in that no nations (certainly not the USA) are on course with any of the modules (and they may never be).

C. Pure Science should be the aim, and NASA should then try to get us (the public) excited about it. Beautiful pictures of the stars, stories about searching for gravitational fields, and talk of "ion propulsion" should get someone psyched.

each flight costs $500 million!

[distantbody]

The space shuttle program was ruined in its early days by too many government/military/nasa requirements, in short they wanted it to be a "jack of all trades", but because most of the shuttles functionality and specifications are rarely used, it turned out to be "a master of none" because of all the bloat. each flight costs in the order of $500 million rather than initial projections of $10 to $20 million!

The Crew Exploration Vehicle appears to be on the right track, just as the shuttle concept was, lets just hope they dont make the same mistakes again! oh well, if they mess this one up too we can always look forward to the future European EADS Phoenix reusable launch vehicle!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle How a good concept turns into bad reality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_Phoenix What the shuttle should have been. Leave it up to the Europeans to get it right! ;)

Re:each flight costs $500 million!

[LooseChanj]

Except it's done a damn good, if expensive, job at being such an all around vehicle. What it's not so good at is measuring up to impossible hype and overselling. The shuttle flew more times before its first accident than Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo combined. It could be improved upon, what with 20 years of flying experience, but nah. Let's just throw it away because of a freak accident that destroyed our false faith in its utter perfection.

Re:each flight costs $500 million!

[Waffle Iron]

It could be improved upon

Exacly. And it will be improved by removing the heavy, useless wings; by eliminating the unneeded large payload capacity; by greatly reducing the heat shield size and complexity; by adding a viable escape system; by getting rid of uncontrollable solid boosters; and by dropping the high-strung engines that need a total rebuild after every flight that costs more than new engines.

In other words, it will be replaced by a much more reasonable capsule-like spacecraft on a simple single-use booster.

Oh, is that all?

[Fritzed]

". . .the only items blocking the Shuttles are issues 'related to tank debris, orbiter hardening and tile repair."

Oh, so all that remain are the exact same issues that grounded the program in the first place.

So what have the actually done in the past couple years again?

-> Fritz

Come on...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Would you want your children flying a space shuttle that hasn't been properly beta-tested?"

Oh fuck off. The astronauts know damned well what they are getting into... certainly better than you with your irrelevant software analogy.

Worst Spaceship Evar

[ArmorFiend]

I hate the god-damned Space Shuttle. Its been around now for 25 years. It was a bad idea 25 years ago. Its an even worse idea today.

Most orginizations at some point realize when they've built a white elephant and move forward. NASA just can't grasp that SS was a crap idea as concieved.

I think it has undue mindshare because it looks kind of like what a spaceship should look like. Not like those ghay capsules, that, oh, managed to get us to the moon and never killed anyone in flight.

We should throw the SS away. If that means ISS crashes into the ocean, well, that's fine. Its back to basics time for manned spaceflight. And by that I mean - less press releases, more actual *flight*.

Re:Worst Spaceship Evar

[cowscows]

No, I think NASA knows what the shuttle's problems are. They've been trying to get a replacement for a while. The thing is, it's not as easy as just saying, hey, let's make something new, and getting it done.

Ignoring all the technical and engineering compromises that went on in the design, just getting approval to design and build the thing sounds like it was quite the hassle to me. Everyone wanted to build a part of it in their state, because there's lots of money and nice jobs involved. There were engineers, politicians, military planners, administrators, all fighting over what features the shuttle would have, how much it should cost, and what companies would get paid to produce it. The fact that it happened at all is pretty amazing.

And all of those difficulties repeat themselves anytime NASA talks about a shuttle replacement, which is why it's been so hard to get one made. Unfortunately it took a second major accident to force non-engineers to consider alternatives. Hopefully some of the current initiatives will produce actual spacecraft.

Meanwhile, it's important politically for NASA to keep manned spaceflight going, partially for the space station, partially for national pride, and partially because they have to justify their budget to congress.

The story of NASA since Apollo has basically been a bunch of engineers, a bunch of bureaucrats, and a huge disconnect in between. The bureaucrats control the money, so the engineers can't get much done without them. Sucks, but that's one of the prices you pay to live in a democratic country.

But yeah, I'll bet NASA is chock full of people who'd like nothing better to have the STS stop taking all the funding. It's just not a simple matter to retire it.

Task Group CYA

[Urusai]

It's a blue-ribbon panel harrumphing and nodding as NASA does whatever it wants to. Did you expect something different from our government? I'm just surprised they don't have to consult the Flat Earth Society or put a disclaimer sticker on the Shuttle like:
" This spacecraft was designed using science. Science is an unproven theory, nor is it mentioned in the Bible, so weigh these facts carefully and with skepticism as you decide if you are in with Jesus enough to ride the Shuttle without blowing up. "

Bahh, put it up and stop being pussies

[aCapitalist]

Guess what...more people are going to die going to, coming from, and in space...surprise surprise.

I'm sick of this nancy boy, nurse ratchet mentality where there can be no risks in anything and when an accident does happen we have to spread the blame as much as possible. And I'm talking about society in general, not space flight.

Misleading article

[MikeSty]

"Space Shuttles almost Ready to Re-Launch" Great ... but ... are they ready to land?

The real reason the space program is doomed

[Mike Markley]

Manned missions in space don't make sense from scientific or economic perspectives.

Manned space missions make plenty of sense from a scientific perspective, if your eventual goal is to put a significant number of people into space (and onto other bodies). But more on that later.

The reason that our space program is doomed is the second half of that statement. Manned space missions never made sense from an ecomonic perspective. That wasn't the point then, and it still isn't now. We're just not in a pissing match with the Soviets anymore, so the whole thing has become substantially less popular.

The point is discovery, knowledge, exploration, figuring out how to hedge our species' bets by getting all of our eggs out of this one fucking handbasket that we're already halfway to hell in.

You may not think that's worth the money, and you're well within your rights to do so. My worry is how many others in America seem to agree with you. Sure, that's democracy, but I can still decry the opinion.

What you might call pragmatism, I call a crying shame. All this civilization and advancement and the best we can do is worry about the fucking coffers.

Re:Spirit of exploration wins out over safety a lo

[zippthorne]

two flights in a hundred. there is a 2% chance that you won't be coming back.. incidentally, it's probably lower.. the last one was round #50 ish. (STS-51, but probably fewer flights had actually been flown, they seem to go slightly out of order) Seems they get complacent around every 50 flights or so, so it's probably been reset. (We're gonna need a lot more data to prove my assertion though.. are YOU willing to volunteer when the count gets back up to 35-40?)

Re:Spirit of exploration wins out over safety a lo

[Rei]

2%. And that's darned good for orbital spaceflight.

You're strapping yourself to a gigantic tank of highly combustible fuel in containers made minimally thin (often so weak and with a taper that if you turn them upside down when full, they'd burst), pumped at ridiculous speeds into combustion chambers running hotter than the boiling point of iron, with the entire combustion chamber being gimballed at high speed to keep the craft stable, and hope that the vibration doesn't damage anything important.

In space, you're exposed to extreme temperature variations (and thus thermal expansion/contraction, brittleness, freezing fuel/hydraulic lines, etc), high radiation levels, parts and liquids shifting in zero-G, etc. On reentry, most of that energy that you burned off getting into space must be burned off by your craft, creating temperatures of thousands of degrees that would easily melt most materials, and give even many superalloys the texture of rubber.

Hundreds of thousands to millions of parts, each one with failure potential. Escape velocity requiring enough energy that even the highest ISP exhausts only leave the craft at a fraction of the velocity you need to end up going. A dense lower atmosphere. It's amazing that we can get people off this rock at all, as opposed to simple suborbital hops. :)

You win, but not by much.

[WindBourne]

Quick and Easy calculation:
Foale returned to Earth after spending 145 days in space, 134 of them aboard Mir. His estimated mileage logged was 58 million miles (93 million kilometers), can be used for an estimate of miles / days, which is in one day the shuttle does 400K miles (or .4 MILLION miles /day.). A typical mission is between 10 to 16 days. Lets use 10 days. That is then 4 millions miles on one mission. Assuming that 50 missions before the mishap, then it becomes 200 Million miles before 7 deaths.

Checking the data down below here, you will find that cars have one half the rate of the shuttle. IOW, the shuttle is more dangerous, but not by that much. And that does not consider the speed or the usefullness of the shuttle.

I would trust NASA and the shuttle.

Beta test

[Elf-friend]

...hasn't been properly beta-tested?

This is the beta. It's been going on for 25 years. The current space shuttles, as designed, were never meant to be a long-term solution, but lack of funding meant they began to be treated as one well before the Challenger disaster. Rather than realize this fact at that time, Congress has continued to refuse the funding NASA would need to move on to the next generation of shuttle (and really "go gold" with the program). The result was the Columbia disaster. If the program had moved forward as intended, Columbia (and the rest of these beta-shuttles) would have been long since retired.

As to the overall stupidity of that comment, believe it or not, someone has to do the beta testing here. Yeah, it's a tragedy when lives are lost, but that's the nature of the space program: risks have to be taken, because some things just can't be done without real-world testing. Even when the space program is no longer experimental, lives will still be lost, because space, in and of itself, is a high-risk venture.

How about going back to the OLD FOAM?

[Banner]

You know, the stuff that WORKS? The stuff that was pulled out of service for some ridiculous and unproven green PC Bullshirt?

NASA became a worthless joke when they started practicing junk science and let the middle managers rule the roost. Time to shut it down and just fire everyone.

Human Spaceflight, History and Future

[Lucractius]

Firstly the reason spaceflight is dangerous is purely because we have no ability to gauge the dangers out there. Space (yes im aware that LEO is quite tame compared to say Lunar apogee during the new moon)is THE most hostile place for a human to go. zero gravity causes phsyiological stresses and potential damages from long term life under microgravity are very unclear despite decades of research. the removal of friction means that high speed debris are ALWAYS a risk, no matter where you are or what orbit, there is very strong chance your rocket will get hit with something, its an absolute certainty. The Shuttle is pounded by micrometeorites and other debri while in orbit. everything from pain flecks from saturn V's to frozen urine from appolo 13, along with the regular space dirt dust and tiny tiny chunks of rock.

I have always been interested in spacefligh and at one point considered Aeronautics to be my eventual feild of work. I do know what im talking about. IANAPRS (i Am not a PROFESSIONAL Rocket Scientist) So i wont claim i know Everything i should or need But im no average bystander with a casual interest in it.

The shuttle is Dying. Clear case point. IT WAS BUILT DEAD. The shuttle was a masterpeice of design and some of the inital work for it was pehonomenal. BUT as all publicly accountable institutions with large goverment funding in any country, they had to deal with political decisions that impacted on the end result of the Space Shuttle.

Personal I want to see the shuttle Fly Purely because its better than the alternative. No i dont mean the russian soyuz modules or even Buran (the soviet space shuttle, which is arguably better given it flew a full orbit test and reentry under auto pilot, Which are by themselves very excelent machines. Abeit more "ruggedized" than the NASA engineers would want. Soyuz is still derived from the Balistic Missile school of rocket science. And there is proof that in fact the Russians are better able to deal with an emergency than the US are presently. A soyuz can be "locked and loaded" ready on the launch pad to take off in 6 hours. This comes from the entire launch fabrication and facilities still being heavily derived from balistic missile technology, which was built to be used quite quickly in the event of a nuclear war.

The american space program tried to leave this behind to "look towards the future" Wernher Von Braun, the German behind the V2 rocket and a significant member of his staff surrendered to the US at the end of WW2 and were essentialy the brains behind the US space program and most of the Balistic missile technology developed leading up to it. He, before even the launch of the saturn V had begun to think about the desin of a "reusable" space vehicle. Taking off like a rocket landing like a plane.

All of this is looking towards the kind of mass market future for spaceflight most here would hope to see someday. But the risks remain great. and currently It appears that the US have taken a step back. Deciding to shift to disposable launches with single use crew modules. While safer due to the elimination of long term mechanical wear and tear it is still going to be throwing precious resources away every time. and adding to the amount of junk in space.

Where it should have gone and NEEDS to go is where some of the prototypes that have come from aerospace research reside and go. There is no reason besides lack of interest stoping us from building a Single Stage to Orbit Space Plane that could take off AND land like a plane at an airport. Dont cite technicalities. Theyre fudged by people that either havent looked at the full picture of available technology, or have a vested interest in not looking at it. Current Aerospace technology if rounded up and applied directly to the problem with the kind of $$$ the us goverment gave back when the Appolo program began or even with the amound of money put into the space shuttles development. Perhaps even with the meager budget given to the creation of the "new" Spacecraft for nasa, th

Re:Spirit of exploration wins out over safety a lo

[Seumas]

Exactly. Imagine all of the amazing discoveries and accomplishments that would never have happened if we insisted on waiting until we could nearly gaurantee that not a single person would be killed or even hurt and that no property would be lost or destroyed or damaged.

Anyway, I'd rather die attempting to explore the universe outside of our little planet than die from cigerettes, cocaine or bigmacs.

What about fiberglass shell?

[bergeron76]

Didn't SpaceShipOne re-enter the Earth's Atmosphere using a composite resin body? How was SpaceShipOne able to do this without ceramic tiles? Was it Altitude?

Logically, I'd think Ceramic tiles are required considering that "rocks" / meteors are all that are found intact on Earth (from Space). However, the Earthling in me doesn't see a "rock space shuttle" as a practical alternative.

Re:What about fiberglass shell?

[Free_Meson]

Didn't SpaceShipOne re-enter the Earth's Atmosphere using a composite resin body? How was SpaceShipOne able to do this without ceramic tiles? Was it Altitude?

SpaceShip One (orwhatever it was called) was going MUCH slower. It never reached orbital velocity, ~22,500 knots iirc. The heat experienced during reentry is from the atmosphere slowing the craft down. You wouldn't have to shield a craft at all if you were only traveling a few hundred mph. You'd have other problems, of course, but reentry heat wouldn't be one of them.

Beta Tested

[airider]

It has been beta tested and gone gold and so far it's track record has been much better than MS Windows, and every other OS or software App I'm aware of. It's only crashed twice over 25 years of service in THE most demanding environment imaginable. Show me another system (software or otherwise) that's had this track record over the Shuttle's current and projected longevity?

Re:I did, and it's still a waste.

[NanoGator]

"The fact remains that it's a big dead rock. There's a big dead rock a lot closer and we stopped visiting that one because we realized there really wasn't any point in it."

Unlike our moon, the big red dead rock could potentially be a new colony for us. You may not care about that, but I personally enjoy the idea that man kind would no longer risk being completely obliterated by one nuclear war.

Get your facts right. Re:The Only Things?

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Check out the wikipedia article for more info: Space Disasters.

You've messed up the difference between safety and reliability. The shuttle reliability is 2%- 1 in 50, but the safety is actually only 95.5% (4.5% deathrate) because they put different numbers of astronauts on some of the shuttles (the first launch only had 2 crew for example, and some of the defense-related launches had reduced crew also), but both times they blew up, they had a full crew onboard. If you do the maths, it's about a 4.5% fatality rate.

Shuttle is actually more than twice as dangerous than Soyuz (overall), furthermore Soyuz hasn't had any deaths at all in about 30 years, and none with the current version that seats 3. The reason Soyuz is safer is because they had all the really deadly problems early on when they only risked small crews, whereas the Shuttle is more brittle, and kills at random (hence more likely to kill a large crew).

author is a dumbass

[XO]

Space flight will, for a very very long time, be in beta test. Until we can achieve the shuttle's original mission of going up many, many times in a short time frame... it's going to be in test. Space missions are dangerous, get used to it. It's amazing that we have a track record as good as we do.

Idiotic question

[RWerp]

Would you want your children flying a space shuttle that hasn't been properly beta-tested?

No, I wouldn't. That's why we don't send children into space, only consenting adults.

Re:Idiotic question

[oneishy]

Would you want your children flying a space shuttle that hasn't been properly beta-tested?

Honestly, I agree. In any other post on this site that article should be moderated as flaimbait.

It's a nice case of emotional misdirection which gets you emotionally against children flying spaceships into space, when that isn't the issue at all.

Besides; don't we expect any beta test of space flight to involve flight? So why claim that it isn't beta-tested so we can't/shouldn't fly. As another poster mentioned - space flight will be in beta for a long while to come.

And... suprisingly this post is on-topic =)

Re:Spirit of exploration wins out over safety a lo

[Rei]

That's unfair. You're must be counting unmanned Soyuz launches toward the total to get the 2% number; the shuttle only does manned work (we launch our unmanned payloads on other craft). All of the unmanned Soyuz failures don't contribute to your count - and there have been a lot on this "less brittle" craft, as you call it (as recently as 2002, where it ended in a firey explosion right after launch). You only mention the manned failures because it makes your side look better; the failures being on unmanned craft, however, was just a coincidence. By the way, that 2002 launch? It killed a soldier on the ground, who undoubtedly wasn't included in your count, in addition to wounding 8 (a mile away from the explosion, at that).

Even if you're counting unmanned launches, though, your numbers still don't make sense. Please elaborate. There have been far more than 4.5 astronauts killed per launch (and what's up with the "%"?), because 2% of shuttle launches have ended in casualties, and each carried 7 astronauts. There have been ~1600 Soyuz launches, but little over a hundred manned launches, of which two involved fatalities, one with one death and one with three deaths. Your numbers, quite simply, make no sense. By the way - if you want to count total casualties of the Soyuz program, you need to add in the 50 technicians killed by an explosion of a Soyuz booster on the pad on March 18th, 1980. It's kind of ironic to think of it, but when you factor in ground crew deaths, even a mostly unmanned (and when manned, minimally manned) rocket like Soyuz could even have a higher death toll than the Shuttle on a per-flight basis, even with 1600 flights (it's hard to say for sure, with Soviet secrecy)

And if you want to talk about Soyuz's abort modes, you better talk about miracles. Remember Soyuz 18a? The crew went through a bloody 21.3g, and stopped just short of falling off a cliff. One person's internal injuries were so bad he never flew again. And even its normal operation can be disastrous - the much maligned "land via wings" approach of the shuttle prevented things happening to it like Soyuz 23, which broke through the surface of a frozen lake and nearly drowned its cosmonauts.

Re:Taking me with them

[O2H2]

Less than 10 billion in non-recurring will get you a state of the art earth to orbit and in-space propulsion architecture that could support long term exploration of the moon and Mars. You still have to pay for the flights of course- but they are much cheaper than SHuttle. Roughly $1000/lb to LEO at moderate launch rate.

The cost of going to space is NOT about the metal in the rocket- it is about the humans that support the activity- essentially overheads. Want to get to space cheap? Increase RATE. Overhead growth is small vs launch rate growth. If there was a "there" there in LEO for example then the demand might rise to the point where critical mass production thresholds would be crossed and even the cost of the hardware would collapse. Really rockets are MUCH MUCH simpler than aircraft- mostly they are big tanks with very simple turbomachines driving quite simple engines. Far simpler than a PW4000 engine on a modern jet. Avionics are laughably simple compared to a palm pilot- due to the quest for absolute reliability.

So the POTENTIAL for low cost flight to LEO and beyond is definitely there. We are just a wee bit away from the reality.

Let's examine the oh so terrible atrocity...

[ShoobieRat]

It's surprising how many people are just appalled by the "loss of life", not to mention money, in the two shuttle disasters.

Let's review:
1. Out of over 107 missions, into a region of existance we know little about, with a machine more complex than most other aircraft, with a crew riding thousands of tons of explosives, we've lost "only" 14 people, in 2 disasters. (That's a less than 2-percent failure ratio.)
2. There have been over 14-thousand fatalities in the airline industry since its start. (Over a thousand deaths in the past 3 years alone.)
3. In comparison to the two known non-US space-flight programs in operation on this planet, the Russian space-flight program with its current Soyuz ship (older than the space shuttle) has been plagued with more problems than death, and the Chinese, although modestly successful, are still back in the days of the Mercury and Gemini missions, flinging people into orbit in capsules with nothing else to do.
4. Despite widespread lack of knowledge on the public's part, the US space program has had wide-spanning benifits to the human race.
5. The number of countries capable of supporting a continual human space-flight program, are few. The number that can do so, and then afford to advance further to make it a process that is safe and as common as airline flights, comes to single digits.
6. The space shuttle remains the only solution available for providing support and maintenance to satellites. It is also the only platform able to move between orbits and locations, and actively interact with other space-based systems.
7. The money spent advancing space technologies, not only benifits us, but goes into our economy.
8. The government spends far more than the entire NASA budget that, without sounding like a hippie, have done little to advance our standing in the world and which have a deadly outcome. If NASA wants to spend millions and billions developing technology that makes our lives better and expands our knowledge, what's the problem? Money burned is bad, but money burned towards a good intention is better than money burned for naught.
9. Do I need to continue?