Space Shuttle One Step Closer To July Launch

Mictian writes "The risk to the space shuttle from launch debris, mainly ice falling off the external tank, has been reduced and is now low enough to be considered 'an acceptable risk,' NASA's shuttle engineers and managers concluded in the debris verification meeting held Saturday at Kennedy Space Center. The board recommended a green light for a July launch, which Shuttle Program Manager Bill Parsons accepted. The independent Return to Flight Task Group will hold its final meeting on June 27th to determine if the remaining 3 (out of 15) hurdles to launch are cleared, as mentioned in previous Slashdot coverage."

Comments

Interesting?

[ravenspear]

That article is far from "interesting."

I took particular offense to this passage: The gross glutted wealth of the federal government; the venality and stupidity of our representatives; the lobbying power of big rent-seeking corporations; the romantic enthusiasms of millions of citizens; these are the things that 14 astronauts died for. To abandon all euphemism and pretense, they died for pork, for votes, for share prices, and for thrills (immediate in their own case, vicarious in ours). I mean no insult to their memories, and I doubt they would take offense.

What a kook! This guy obviously has no background in anything scientific, has absolutely no clue about what the space shuttle or NASA are trying to accomplish and can not analyze anything outside of a patheticly narrow and egotistical political lens.

Not surprising to me though was seeing this kind of an article come from the National Review.

Don't rush it

[m50d]

I want to get back into space as much as anyone - heck, if there was a chance it would work I'd strap a booster to my back and be launching myself. But cutting corners for PR deadlines was what caused the disaster in the first place. Take as long as you need, NASA.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Council]

I think space missions are cool and all, but here's a pretty interesting article about why it may be wasteful and an inappropriate way to spend taxpayers' money.

I'll read the article. But:

The West Wing on Voyager crossing the termination shock:

"Voyager, in case it's ever encountered by extraterrestrials, is carrying photos of life on earth, greetings in fifty-five languages, and a collection of music from Gregorian chant to Chuck Berry, including "Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground" by 1920s bluesman Blind Willie Johnson, whose stepmother blinded him at seven by throwing lye in his eyes after his father beat her for being with another man. He died penniless of pneumonia after sleeping bundled in wet newspapers in the ruins of his house that burned down.

But his music just left the solar system."

Okay, maybe I'm dumb to feel inspired by that. I don't know why it's so touching. But every time I think of it I get goosebumps.

The Onion said it best. Holy shit, we walked on the fucking moon.

It may be true that there's no incentive to explore space, in terms of measurable returns. We get spinoff technology, but maybe it would have come anyway. That's debatable. But we walked on the fucking moon. That is one of the biggest moments in any chronicle of our race. Let's keep at it, if for no other reason than that we can. Let's be the one species that survives itself and spreads out into the universe.

Re:Is it worth it?

[jazzman251]

have you ever thought that WAR was a "wasteful and an inappropriate way to spend taxpayers' money"??

Re:Successor to the shuttle?

[AKAImBatman]

THe primary difference is that the CEV program is based on today's technology. The previous shuttle replacement plans (NASP, X-33, Delta Clipper, etc.) were all experimental craft that needed several unproven, expensive, and risky key technologies developed before they could be built. This was exasperated by the fact that those craft were being built on relatively low budgets. In the case of the X-33, nearly every component of the craft was one of those undeveloped technologies with no room for error or redesign.

In the case of the CEV, life is simple. Spiral One will only require that we build a technology similar to what was created in the 1960s. i.e. A capsule. Reusability isn't even specified, but most competitors have taken that route because they can. (The shuttle technologies are not completely going to waste here.)

Since the capsule will be designed for only carrying (relatively light) humans as opposed to the 28 tonnes of cargo + 104 tonnes of spacecraft the shuttle carried around, the engines will be nothing more than a commercial booster. In the case of the CEV, the booster will only need to manage a mere 20 tonnes to LEO. Which means that the CEV can pull a Delta IV or Atlas V off the shelf for launch operations. (The CEV program does have bugetting for a new rocket, but the point is that any rocket can be used.)

In short, the CEV is completely the correct idea. Use technology we have today to develop a targetted launch vehicle for humans, and worry about developing other vehicles through regular development programs. For cargo, just use a cargo specific vehicle. The very definition of KISS. :-)