Discovery Set to Launch July 13

whaa? by maotx · 2005-06-30 11:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

What about the fact that NASA failed to meet three vital safety recomendations Tuesday?

I mean granted, I'm sure they know what they are doing but what happens if we lose Discovery too? We haven't launched in over two years due to Columbia blowing up and I can't even imagine what would happen to the space program if we lost Discovery. Even more so if it is because of one of the failed safety checks.

From my link:
The panel said that NASA had failed to satisfactorily eliminate losses of foam and ice from the shuttle's external fuel tank. Additionally, the agency could not adequately strengthen areas of the spacecraft that are at risk of being damaged by the impact of stray debris. The astronauts who are a part of the return to flight mission did not have reliable repair kits, the panel pointed out.

--
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.

Re:whaa? by ndansmith · 2005-06-30 11:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, we did not meet the security recomendations, but I don't think that should be a big deterrent for NASA. Compared to the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs, the Shuttle program is very safe. Add to that all the improvements they've made since the Shuttle came on-line, and space flight is much safer than it used to be.
The space business is a dangerous game and everyone used to accepted that. This was when astronauts were larger than life Supermen rather than scientists. I just want to know when the threat of death became an unacceptable risk for exploration.
Re:whaa? by Bryansix · 2005-06-30 11:29 · Score: 1

Nasa Officials said yesterday, "Our goal in the return-to-flight recommendations was to break the causal chain between debris shedding and killing astronauts," said John M. Logsdon, the director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, who was a member of the investigative board. NASA's actions, he went on, "have broken the chain in enough places that the spirit of the recommendations has been accomplished." I sure hope so.
Re:whaa? by lorelorn · 2005-06-30 11:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Exploration? What exploration? The shuttle has so far contributed precisely ZERO to human exploration of space.
One aspect of the recent tragedy was that those astronauts died on nothing more than a glorified taxi run. Their mission contributed nothing to science, it had no scientific reason to take place

The sooner we re-focus on real exploration in space the better, and we can do it without the shuttle or the money pit that is the ISS.

NASA needs to stop wasting money and get on with unmanned exploration of Mars, Europa and elsewhere, replace Hubble, and launch the terrestrial planet finder. All these projects are being pushed back to make way for this current fad of unscientific garbage that explores NOTHING.
Re: whaa? by Black+Parrot · 2005-06-30 11:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

> I mean granted, I'm sure they know what they are doing but what happens if we lose Discovery too?

It would surely mean the end of our manned space program.

It might well mean the end of our entire space program, since it looks like the unfunded Mars mission serves no purpose other than to kill our unmanned space program.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:whaa? by ndansmith · 2005-06-30 11:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

I agree that there has not been much space exploration done by the shuttle per se, but it did facilitate the Hubble telescope, which has been one of the best tools for space exploration.
Re:whaa? by Alien+Being · 2005-06-30 11:51 · Score: 0, Troll

G.I. Joe has a bigger chance of dying in a Humvee in Iraq than Buck Rogers has of dying in the shuttle.

Maybe the public would be more accepting of the risk if we let George Bush land the thing on an aircraft carrier.
Re:whaa? by Robotron23 · 2005-06-30 12:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Considering the advances made within the ISS during its years in space already, the astronauts on board don't just sit up there for months twiddling their thumbs, they do a lot of research on a huge variety of fields, such as theeffects of zero gravity on biological organisms. Also, the fact that Shuttles have consistantly maintained projects such as Hubble contradicts your views on its potential replacement! I think you need some trolling practice dude.
Re:whaa? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 12:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not quite true, but closer than a lot of people might think.

The chance of dying on the space shuttle is basically 2 out of 113 based on past history. The percentage of US troops in Iraq that have died is around 1% (1700 out of 170,000 or something like that).

Of course no one has ever died on any of the unmanned interplanetary missions. Maybe the lesson is that we should be doing more of those. What Iraq and the Shuttle have in common is they are BOTH horribly expensive, deadly, wastes of money. At least there's no draft for Shuttle astronauts.
Re:whaa? by Mr.+Maestro · 2005-06-30 12:57 · Score: 1

I agree. I mean if you were making a chart with number of deaths per millions (or billions) of miles travelled, is there anything safer than NASA?
Ask the NHSTA what the automobile death rate is.
The astronauts still realize the risk. I believe it is an off-shoot of our 'everyone-has-to-blame-everyone' society.
Re:whaa? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 13:11 · Score: 0

What about the fact that NASA failed to meet three vital safety recomendations Tuesday?

It's a trap!
Re:whaa? by cbcanb · 2005-06-30 13:20 · Score: 1

I suppose you complain that people were doing "nothing more than a glorified taxi run" when they die on the roads, too?

Face it, most of life is boringly routine, including spaceflight. Not everything has to be about doing bold exploration in to the unknown.
Re:whaa? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2005-06-30 13:52 · Score: 1

There is no draft for Iraq because that would be POLITICAL SUICIDE for the party in power if it happened.

The Democrats made noise about a draft to hurt the Republicans.

NO ONE WANTS A DRAFT, EXCEPT THOSE WHO ARE DAFT.

Also is the 170,000 the number of troops currently there or who had ever served in Iraq. You should use the second, higher number to calculate the risk.

I'd feel safer in Iraq myself. Heck, Baghdad is safer than many parts of some U.S. cities. :|

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:whaa? by Waffle+Iron · 2005-06-30 13:55 · Score: 1

Face it, most of life is boringly routine, including spaceflight. Not everything has to be about doing bold exploration in to the unknown.
If somebody's going to perform a useless boring routine, I'd prefer that the government not waste half a billion dollars of the taxpayers' money subsidizing it.
Re:whaa? by UniverseIsADoughnut · 2005-06-30 14:25 · Score: 1

how much do you think we spend on roads each year, bulk of travel on them cold be eliminated. Half billion dollars? (well, for one a orbiter is a few billion, a launch is 600-900 million bucks).

But going with your half billion, well, the rather mundane intersection between a 4 lane street and a I-880 by me is costing 96 million, so for your half billion you can have a space shuttle that does some interesting stuff, or about 5 intersection that are very boring, used by lots of people doing pointless trips, and will probably see more people killed in each one in the life of the intersection then is killed by a shuttle experiencing a "unscheduled decommissioning"
Re:whaa? by Waffle+Iron · 2005-06-30 14:36 · Score: 1

At least each intersection will probably host several hundred million vehicles over a couple of decades of service. Statistically speaking, at least some of that traffic will be of very high importance.
That compares favorably on a value-per-dollar basis to a two-week ant farming expedition for 7 overachieving geeks.
Re:whaa? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 14:40 · Score: 0

It's a trap!
-admiral Ackbar
Re:whaa? by DerekLyons · 2005-06-30 15:39 · Score: 1

Compared to the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs, the Shuttle program is very safe.
Thats a nonsensical statement - since all manned flights *combined* (including the Russian ones) don't constitute a large enough statistical universe to make valid judgement about their safety or lack thereof.
Re:whaa? by DerekLyons · 2005-06-30 15:45 · Score: 1

One aspect of the recent tragedy was that those astronauts died on nothing more than a glorified taxi run.
Guess what 99% of the voyages of oceanographic ships or geological expeditions are? Glorified taxi runs. These runs are the reality of workaday science and exploration.
NASA and Star Trek have badly mislead generations into believing that unless it isn't Boldly Going - it isn't exploration.
Re:whaa? by waimate · 2005-06-30 15:47 · Score: 1

Not really. Mercury, Gemini and Apollo all had escape methods available at all times during launch. The Shuttle does not. If anything goes wrong while the solids are lit, you have to just sit tight until they finish their burn. No plan B. The Gemini escape system was pretty hairy in comparison to Mercury and Apollo, but at least it had one. With Shuttle, you just cross your fingers.
Re:whaa? by UniverseIsADoughnut · 2005-06-30 16:45 · Score: 1

the ants don't farm, they sort bolts. And the ants too may be over achievers.
Re:whaa? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 16:47 · Score: 0

Noooooooooo!
Re:whaa? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 18:08 · Score: 0

"One aspect of the recent tragedy was that those astronauts died on nothing more than a glorified taxi run."

If you think that they died on a mission to the space station, you are mistaken. Columbia's last mission was a pure science mission. One of the very few that NASA ever did after they started building the ISS.
Re:whaa? by Z-Knight · 2005-06-30 18:41 · Score: 1

One aspect of the recent tragedy was that those astronauts died on nothing more than a glorified taxi run. Their mission contributed nothing to science, it had no scientific reason to take place

You better get your facts straight. STS-107 was not a taxi run, it did not even go to the International Space Station (I'm assuming that's what you mean by Taxi Run). It was primarily a scientific mission...hence the SpaceHab onboard and the countless experiments that were done and that have been recovered and saved.... So just because you are bitter, don't make up stuff when you try to bring NASA down.
Re:whaa? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 19:00 · Score: 0

There is no greater ignorance than this when it comes to human spaceflight. People actually believe that exploration of space is something we know how to do, but we aren't doing it. This "thing" called ISS is taking all of our time and money.

Well, being part of NASA and working on the ISS program, I can assure you that the greatest contribution of the ISS and the space shuttle is one that the public will never appreciate, and that is it is teaching us how to fly in space. To fly in space for long durations, you need more than most people can probably imagine including resources, planning, infrastructure, integration, effective management, and above all... past experience. Also, these things are not only for space vehicles... they are required at ground installations as well.

After seeing what it takes to have safe, long-duration, manned spaceflight, I can assure you that above any science the ISS gives us... it is the stepping stone to exploration because we are learning how to fly and deal with all of the issues that come with it.

Replace the ISS with a trial and error method for manned spaceflight and we will wind up with many tragic losses, and ultimately the end of manned space exploration.
Re:whaa? by NeoThermic · 2005-06-30 23:14 · Score: 1

Not quite. There's an option they have if something goes wrong when the solids are lit, its just never been done before. You seperate them from the external tank while they are still lit.

Unfortunatly the rest would be unkown. Some say that the stress on the airframe would break it up, some say that you might get away with it.

If they do, they then have three options. Limp into space and return on a planned re-entry, do a total abort (i.e also jettson the main external tank), and try land, or do a total abort, and abandon the space shuttle.

Getting into space doesn't take long. Its about 2 mins worth of trying, so its only those 2 mins in which something can go wrong (Challenger showed that it can happen though).

So its not all 'cross your fingers', there are other options, its just that no one has ever attempted a in-launch seperation of the solids. Everything else though has been tested (including the high altitude abandon).

NeoThermic

--
Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
Re:whaa? by ckaminski · 2005-07-01 02:54 · Score: 1

So what's safer, jettisoning the ET while on top of it, or while under it? Because something of my physics knowledge tells me trying to drop it while under it will result in bad things happening to the orbiter.

When your launch costs $200 million in hardware costs alone, nevermind another $300+ million in refurbishment costs, you don't deliberately "test" abort methods...

But I can only imagine why booster separation would be a bad thing, and that's that the boosters would scream right by the orbiter, baking it in fiery rocket exhaust. In theory I guess you could do it, but when 40-70 percent of your thrust comes from two Roman candles... eep.
Re:whaa? by lorelorn · 2005-07-06 21:54 · Score: 1

Hardly.
No astronuat on the ISS has stayed up as long as the cosmonauts did on Mir. The effects of zero gravity are well known. The data are there and have been available for years.

Spending 2 or 3 months "looking at stars, pissing in jars" does not add to this existing body of knowledge.

Now, if we were at the stage of having a design for a manned mars mission, with an idea of what the journey would take, then you would have a case for using the ISS.

You would use it like this:

send prospective astronaughts there for the time the trip would take

have them come back down to earth and perform the kinds of tasks they would have to perform on Mars, suited up

observe. report. consider. THAT kind of thing would be scientifically useful. You know, goal-oriented activites? But it ain't being done. ISS is doing nothing to aid human exploration of space. I can do nothing by itself. Without these other activites going on, it's a waste.

Point taken on Hubble. That was good shuttle time.

The shuttle by jon855 · 2005-06-30 11:19 · Score: 0, Interesting

is just fine, I mean look at the number of the trip that it has made in the past without a problem and since one stray debris caused so much trouble. I think they should work on how to deflect debris rather than improve the shuttle itself.

--
May /. rule the /.ing realm

Re:The shuttle by LiquidCoooled · 2005-06-30 11:29 · Score: 1

What should we do?

Raise the deflector shields, or cover the shuttle with inanimate carbon rods?

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:The shuttle by jon855 · 2005-06-30 12:07 · Score: 0

That may be true and a tough task to tackle. How we could improve the safety of it could be harder than we could think. But I am sure it does not have to include the redesign the shuttle itself. Nonetheless, such changes would be very costly and tedious task to do. Nothing will stop debris from hitting the shuttle and more importantly what will stop the outer space debris to hit the shuttle?

--
May /. rule the /.ing realm

Please tell me they at least have the ability by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-06-30 11:21 · Score: 1

To do a pre-return check of the bottom of the shuttle- especially given that this would be very easy to do with a small disposable wireless camera bot in zero gravity, or even with longer tethers on space suits in the cargo area. Seems like less than an $800 investment could mean so much....

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Please tell me they at least have the ability by Guspaz · 2005-06-30 11:23 · Score: 1

No, they outfitted the canadarm with supersensative 3D mapping devices.
Re:Please tell me they at least have the ability by Capt.+Caneyebus · 2005-06-30 11:25 · Score: 1, Troll

This is a government entity. An $800 piece of equipment cost $10,000 for them.

--
-- Yes, I work for the government, and yes I am watching you.
Re:Please tell me they at least have the ability by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-06-30 11:28 · Score: 1

Ok- that's at least the ability to look at the bottom- I think. Can the canadarm reach that far?

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Please tell me they at least have the ability by Hao+Wu · 2005-06-30 11:28 · Score: 1

A fail-safe vehicle needs to be developed. The shuttle can't be made that way, only a new design will do.

--
I suggest you read Slashdot
Re:Please tell me they at least have the ability by FatAlb3rt · 2005-06-30 11:33 · Score: 1

That was 1 of the issues - how much of the underside can be scanned. The bigger issue was fixing a hole once it was found. I think they still haven't found a way to fix big holes.
Re:Please tell me they at least have the ability by wiredlogic · 2005-06-30 11:42 · Score: 2, Informative

They did run an experiment with the AERcam sprint on Columbia in '97. I believe the RF link only worked within the cargo bay so a belly insection would be out of the question.

It appears that they have a new model AERcam in development for use on ISS and shuttle inspections though.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Re:Please tell me they at least have the ability by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-06-30 11:43 · Score: 1

If you know the hole is there- then alternatives can be found for getting back. If you don't know the hole is even there- then you have no chance at all. There are other countries with spacecraft available that would be plenty happy to rescue our people if neccessary- plus emergency Apolo and Soyuz command modules in orbit if the shuttle can get to the International Space Station- but all of that is useless if the crew has no way to inspect the outside of the shuttle.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Please tell me they at least have the ability by LiquidCoooled · 2005-06-30 11:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Canadarm on its own cannot reach to the places required, however, the Canadarm creators (MD Robotics have come up with an extension boom for the shuttle.

In orbit, this attaches to the end of the Canadarm and is able to inspect the entire surface.

They have a rather cool animated walkthrough and some images here.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:Please tell me they at least have the ability by AAeyers · 2005-06-30 13:09 · Score: 1

A fail-safe vehicle needs to be developed.

Haha. I almost thought you were serious for a moment.

Oh wait...

--
"For Great Justice."
Re:Please tell me they at least have the ability by nlinecomputers · 2005-06-30 14:13 · Score: 1

Apollo? Uh we haven't had anything from Apollo in space in 30 years. Soyuz is up but no Apollo. Part of the problem is that not all shuttle missions can put them in the correct orbit with ISS. This mission will be in the correct orbit and most of the planned shuttle missions are but not the last mission of Columbia for example.

--
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
Re:Please tell me they at least have the ability by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 15:11 · Score: 0

Ah, but would off the shelf hardware work? There are many reasons why it would not.
Re:Please tell me they at least have the ability by patio11 · 2005-06-30 16:51 · Score: 1

You mean something like the Bandit, a remotely-operated camera with a thruster attached which is under NASA funded development at my alma mater. I was actually in the class with the folks working on it -- fascinating stuff. Unfortunately, if you discover that there is a hole in your wing, what do you do? There is no rescue ship available, and if there was we couldn't get it to you in time. You can't repair the damage, heck, you can't even be realistically expected to figure out the true extent of the damage from a visual inspection (bear in mind: a scratch more than one tenth of an inch swwp anywhere on the the downward facing bits means everyone onboard dies).
Anyhow, the Bandit was pretty cheap. I recall them saying it was $5,000 for all the electronics and $40,000 for the booster -- "It would be the cheapest thing on the shuttle at those prices", quoting the professor.

--
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.

oh no! by mindwar · 2005-06-30 11:22 · Score: 2, Funny

july 13? this cant be good.

Re:oh no! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 11:37 · Score: 0

Even if I was a superstitious person, I wouldn't really be worried about Wednesday the 13th.
Re:oh no! by Leroy_Brown242 · 2005-06-30 11:38 · Score: 1

The number didn't have any impact on the Apollo 13 mission. . . . .

--
Pretty Pictures!
Re:oh no! by richdun · 2005-06-30 11:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Nothing to worry about July 13th. All three major disasters for NASA have happened within the same calendar week (last week of January, first couple days of February), albeit 40 years apart (Apollo 1 - January 27, 1963; Challenger - January 28, 1986; Columbia - February 1, 2003).
Re:oh no! by vivian · 2005-06-30 12:01 · Score: 1

Well NASA of course would normally be concerned about the 13th being an unluck day, but they figured there was a 30 fold damping factor due to the other 30 days of the "lucky month" cancelling the effect.

Either that, or the guys and girls at NASA just don't believe in all that superstitious stuff.
Being full of astronomers and mathematicians instead of astrologists and numerologists, I would guess that the latter is the case.
Re:oh no! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 12:11 · Score: 0

F*k it, man!
Launch that sonbich @ 13:13.1313, Schedule the mission for 13 days 13 hours 13.13 seconds.

Bah!
Re:oh no! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 14:08 · Score: 0

Wanting to put a good light on a July 13th Launch, here is an item I came across:

First lighter-than-air transatlantic flight. The British dirigible R-34, commanded by Maj. George H. Scott, left Firth of Forth, Scotland (July 2, 1919), and touched down at Mineola, L.I., 108 hr. later. The eastbound trip was made in 75 hr. (completed July 13, 1919)

There is an image of the dirigible in the link, and they have a large version of the image, clearly showing that it has 4 engines and other interesting features. The link refers to the R-34 as a Navy dirigible, the year of 1919 is correct, so I guess it is the same one that made the trip ending on July 13th.
Of course the STS-114 flight will not end on the 13th, but I wanted to show that aviation pioneers are not at all afraid of the 13th. They just do it.
Re:oh no! by cashman73 · 2005-06-30 14:43 · Score: 1

Never mind the fact that Apollo 13 launched at 13:13 in the afternoon and all the major problems with the craft started on April 13,. . .

It's a darn good thing that this shuttle flight is STS-114, and not STS-113,. . .

My memories by Himring · 2005-06-30 11:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

We vacationed every summer in FL. It was always part of the trip to visit Cape Canaveral (Cape Kennedy). I have fond memories of it. Hot faced from too much sun, beach clothes and sandals, and seeing those incredible rockets towering into the sky as my dad drove us onto the compound. Little did I know of the history, for I was born in 1968 and at the time was a child. My dad was really into it and took all the time to explain the details of the thing. To me, he was everything, and so was my country. He bought me a Space Shuttle model, and I remember clearly the towering building wherein it all was assembled -- labeled with our nation's flag. I remember the juggernaut machine that traveled at one or two miles an hour which moved the rockets into place. I remember the launch pad, the museum displaying the Apollo crafts and astronaut suits. My dad took lots of pictures. He taught me to believe in our country and in its projects. There was so much pride in me then. I was proud of my dad, our country, our achievements.

My dad is gone now, and I'm not sure what he would think about things now. I think he would be sad. We have angered countries, lost landmarks and shuttles have fallen. I would not want him to know these things, and I bear them now in his memory, but maybe, just maybe, we can regain our standing as a nation and in space....

--
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill

Re:My memories by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 11:41 · Score: 0

hurry up and swallow that bottle of aspirin.
Re:My memories by dcstimm · 2005-06-30 12:55 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Give me a break, why cant you be proud of our nation? we fight in things we believe in, and we are doing the right thing, even if you dont think we are.

--
keanmarine.com
Re:My memories by Jeremi · 2005-06-30 13:02 · Score: 0, Offtopic

why cant you be proud of our nation?

Because our nation's actions since 2001 have been shameful. An invasion and occupation based on lies, detentions without due process, torture, kidnapping, fiscal irresponsibility, the subjugation of science for political ends, etc. I was proud of my nation before, and with luck I'll be proud of it again someday. But I'm not proud of it now.

and we are doing the right thing, even if you dont think we are

It may be comforting to tell yourself that, but saying it doesn't make it so.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:My memories by ThreeE · 2005-06-30 13:40 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Never has there been more reason to be proud. Our country has done the right thing despite it being unpopular.

Being right and popular rarely go together.

The invasion has eliminated a tyrant and there is no occupation...

Terrorists are confined and treated better than they deserve...

How do you put a price on freedom and our children's security...

Our country still has the power to explore the heavens with what once was a mortal enemy... ...and the vision to explore cislunar space and beyond.

If you can't be proud today, you must live in someplace called paris.
Re:My memories by demachina · 2005-06-30 14:29 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Gotta say this first, enough with the weekly Slashdot stories about some sorry ass committee saying the shuttle might fly, though there is another committe meeting next week at which point maybe it wont. Can we wait until:

A. It launches
B. it land safely

and stop the week by week coverage of the pathetic bureaucracy that is today's Shuttle program.

If you want to salvage your faith in American ingenuity and space farering try to catch the Discovery documentary Black Sky: The Race for Space and its sequel, Black Sky: Winning the X Prize. Discover Science ran it a few times in the last few weeks and never tired of watching it over and over. Not sure how it would play with young people but I sure would like to see schools showing it in science classes. Kids with a science and math aptitude and dreams of space travel would probably dig it. Its an interesting and real picture of what its like to work on an engineering team doing something hard and solving hard problems.

I particuarly like the Scaled Composites aero engineer, he had a great sense of humor. He caught a trim problem, in real-time, in the middle of one of the flights that prevented a disaster. He sure looked like he knew his stuff and he designed big parts of SpaceShipOne solo.

He had a line I wish I could quote exactly about how we have all been trained to think we can't do anything amazing any more unless we are part of big government or big business. A key thing The Scaled Composites team wanted to prove is that 20 people working as a close knit team could still do something hard and amazing.

Contrast this with NASA's manned space program, and army of like 10,000 which is squandering billions every year and can't do anything amazing any more, they can't even do things they did 10, 20 and 40 years ago. This is what happens when you take the amazing Apollo team and turn it in to an entrenched bureaucracy, a jobs program, and corprate welfare for Boeing and Lockheed. Its an institution just trying to preserve itself and its tax payer funding and not do anything amazing any more.

GO SCALED COMPOSITES!!!

--
@de_machina
Re:My memories by ThreeE · 2005-06-30 14:29 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Never has there been more reason to be proud. Our country has done the right thing despite it being unpopular.

Being right and popular rarely go together.

The invasion has eliminated a tyrant and there is no occupation...

Terrorists are confined and treated better than they deserve...

How do you put a price on freedom and our children's security...

Our country still has the power to explore the heavens with what once was a mortal enemy... ...and the vision to explore cislunar space and beyond.

If you can't be proud today, you must live in someplace called paris.
Re:My memories by ThreeE · 2005-06-30 14:35 · Score: 1

Yes, let's compare. SS1, while cool in a hobby-kind-of-way, gets to space (suborbital) for something like 10 seconds.

Compare that to a continual human presence in space for almost 5 years.
Re:My memories by demachina · 2005-06-30 15:04 · Score: 1

Lets look at the record for flights putting men in to what is strictly defined as space in the last 2 and half years:

Scaled Composites = 3 if I remember correctly
NASA = 0 of this I am sure

Record for fatal accidents in the last 3 years:

Scaled composites = 0
NASA = 1

How much did NASA spend on manned space flight over this period? Not sure anyone knows but its probably like $10-20 billion, Scaled composites spent like $20-30 million.

Who broke the 40 year old altitude record for an aero launched vehicle, Scaled Composites, not NASA.

How many new manned rate vehicles capable of reaching space has NASA designed in the last 30 years, zero. Scaled composites has 1 new design and at least 1 more in the pipe. There is an oribital vehicle on Rutan's drawing board.

"Compare that to a continual human presence in space for almost 5 years."

Yo, dumb ass, the Russians are the ones that have maintained that presence for the last 2 1/2 years. Without them the crew that was in the ISS when Columbia crashed would be dead because the U.S. has had no capability to launch men in to space or get them back for the last 2 1/2 years. It will be 10 years, and billions of dollars, before there is even a remote chance of a new manned rated spacecraft from NASA, the CEV, if it ever gets built. The Shuttle is going to be retired long before then most probably around 2010, so NASA will most probably be unable to launch a man in to space or to the ISS for like 5 years from 2010 to 2015, assuming CEV doesn't slip which it WILL. So if your sacred manned presence is to be maintained then the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Europeans or Japanese will have to service it.

--
@de_machina
Re:My memories by mph · 2005-06-30 15:20 · Score: 1

The invasion has eliminated a tyrant and there is no occupation...
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
We have always been at war with Iraq.
There is no occupation.
Re:My memories by TummyX · 2005-06-30 15:52 · Score: 1

We have angered countries

Hang on just one minute... why is that wrong? Perhaps its those very countries that are the problem and not America. If you do the right thing and make people angry, is that wrong?
Re:My memories by ThreeE · 2005-06-30 16:18 · Score: 1

Scaled = 3 if you count suborbital and a "technical" boundary.

Yes, we lost seven dear friends.

Comparing scaled $ to NASA $ is like comparing tonka trucks to semis.

Yes, 40 years after the X-15, burt and crew are catching up.

I'm sure scaled has lots of things "on the drawing board" -- and guess what -- they are now begging for NASA funds....

Yes, the Russians are part of the ISS, but if you think they are solely responsible for the last 5 years, you haven't a clue. The Russians would still be flying in itsy-bitsy Salyuts without the miracle that is the Shuttle.

Just remember, it's my sacred 5 year manned presence and your 10 second joy ride with burt.

Oh, and NASA thanks you for kicking them when they are down.
Re:My memories by ThreeE · 2005-06-30 16:22 · Score: 1

1) Afganistan
2) Iraq
3) Iran
4) Saudi Arabia
5) Next tin pot tyrant
6) ?
7) Profit!
Re:My memories by demachina · 2005-06-30 16:43 · Score: 1

"Comparing scaled $ to NASA $ is like comparing tonka trucks to semis."

Such arrogance, you must work for NASA? Those are my god damn tax dollars your wasting buddy, feeding your ego and not doing much else worthwhile with 'em.

"they are now begging for NASA funds...."

Really how so Thats OK with me though, NASA sure can't do anything useful with my tax dollars I would rather they gave it to Burt than waste it on their welfare program in Florida and Texas.

I know Scaled was going to bid CEV with T/Space before they saw what a bureaucratic cluster fuck it was and that it was rigged so Boeing and Lockheed would win, they always do, its planned that way, so they just said forget it, waste o' time.

"Yes, the Russians are part of the ISS, but if you think they are solely responsible for the last 5 years, you haven't a clue. The Russians would still be flying in itsy-bitsy Salyuts without the miracle that is the Shuttle."

In case you haven't looked at a picture of the ISS and who built what, the core of the station is Russian built(I'm talking built, not who had the money to burn to pay for them). They could undock all the America built parts and the Russians would still have a viable Mir like space station and the Americans would have a pile of space debris. The Russians have had a manned presence in space for like 15 years now versus your puny 5.

Are you just arrogant or dumb. The Russians are still flying in Salyuts and getting in to space because its affordable, relatively safe and reliable, especially compared to the Shuttle. Again dumbass those Salyuts and Progress are the only thing that kept your precious ISS going because the Shuttle is an unreliable deathtrap, not a miracle.

The only miracle about the Shuttle is its a miracle someone thought it was a good idea in the first place, well the idea was good, cheap access to space on a regular basis but the Shuttle met NONE of its promises. Its such a miracle even NASA wants to get rid of them so they stop bleeding the manned space program white and keep it stuck in LEO, along with ISS.

In case you didn't figure it out NASA is probably going back to those itty bitty capsules for CEV, its only going to take them 10 years and billions of dollars to get back to something sane, assuming they dont cancel it or fail like they have every other attempt to replace the shuttle.

"Just remember, it's my sacred 5 year manned presence and your 10 second joy ride with burt."

I'll take Burt hands down. I'm never gonna make it to the ISS, Burt maybe I have a chance to at least get in to space for a reasonable price. NASA has had their chance, they've failed, we are never going to get ordinary people in to space or get out of LEO again if its left to NASA.

Not to mention the ISS is a 100+ billion dollar hole in space with no obvious purpose. I assure you it wont last another 10 years, it will be lucky if its even finished and lasts 5 because even NASA has figured out what a mistake it was and they are going to cut their losses in a vain attempt to pay for CEV, the Moon and Mars which they will never reach.

--
@de_machina
Re:My memories by demachina · 2005-06-30 16:51 · Score: 1

"Oh, and NASA thanks you for kicking them when they are down."

Oops, forgot this one, NASA's manned space program has been "down" since the early 70's, if we have to wait until the are "up" to kick them then by definiton we will never be able to kick them.

Please note I am carefuly applying all this venom only to NASA's MANNED SPACE PROGRAM. Other parts of the agency do some great work, especially JPL, the great observatory teams, earth monitoring, aeronautics sometimes, etc.

Its just the manned space program that needs to be axed and someone need to start over with a Kelly Johnson style skunkworks, a lean, mean space flight machine. I vote for Burt Rutan as the 21st centry Kelly Johnson, he is sure to be better than any of the bureaucrats in the soviet ministry that is NASA's manned space flight bureau.

Give him NASA's manned space flight budget, and none of the bureaucratic BS and some amazing stuff would happen.

--
@de_machina
Re:My memories by ThreeE · 2005-06-30 16:53 · Score: 1

Scaled bailed on CEV because they don't have a chance in hell of building an orbital vehicle. Burt took one look at a set of real requirements (yes, we use r e q u i r e m e n t s) and pissed his pants.

Actually, I view Burt with great respect. I think he will be the first to build a profitable tourist business like those sherpas that take people to the top of Mt. Everest. But that's about all. And like the sherpas, he'll kill some too -- and if you don't agree you are kidding yourself. Even Burt agrees with that.

Finally, I also have great respect for the Soviet space program. But Russia is now nothing more than a cleptocracy that pimps out its women. They'll never have anything beyond the Soyuz and Progress -- if for no other reason than cold hard cash.. And don't point at the "Clipper" -- like Burt's orbital vehicle, it'll never go beyond a nice CAD drawing... Meanwhile, the good old USA will be hanging out on Mars -- hopefully with lots of private enterprises along for the ride.
Re:My memories by ThreeE · 2005-06-30 17:01 · Score: 1

Again, burt is, well, burt -- a great guy. The minute burt has to work with more than, say, 2 people, he's toast. And if those 2 people aren't like the absolute best in the world, well, he's toast.

You see, building something really meaningful means you have to deal with people -- all kinds of people. Some of them might not (gasp) be the best in the world -- after all, if there are, say, 10 major disciplines, that's only 10 people.
Re:My memories by ThreeE · 2005-06-30 17:09 · Score: 1

There are actually two "cores" to the ISS - the Russian Operating Segment and the US Operating Segment. Both can operate alone, and both were paid for using US$.

If you undocked all the US parts (delivered by the Shuttle) the Russian part would be a pretty cold place as it wouldn't have any power. It also would lose attitude control eventually because the Russians use propulsive control. We have neat things called CMGs that do the job with only an occasional burp for desaturation. Yes, some have failed, but there are still enough to do the job.
Re:My memories by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 17:10 · Score: 0

Mod parent double good.
Re:My memories by Captain+Nitpick · 2005-06-30 17:22 · Score: 1

Little did I know of the history, for I was born in 1968 and at the time was a child.

I was born in 1979. I don't have any memories of the space program being a big grandiose symbol of just how great the United States is.

My first reasonably clear memory of the space program is the day Challenger exploded.

I think that the only memorable (to non-sciency-types) thing NASA's manned spaceflight program has accomplished in the last 20 years is the loss of two shuttle crews probably says something.

--
But then again, I could be wrong.
Re:My memories by demachina · 2005-06-30 17:56 · Score: 1

I read the CEV RFP. It was a bureaucratic nightmare. The space daily editorial is loopy in spots but it does convey a flavor of how goofy the CEV is going to be. Its more focused on producing mountains of paper and killing trees than on getting people in to space in a reasonable time at a reasonable cost. The paper generation requirements alone are beyond the grasp of any company smaller and less bureaucratic than Lockheed and Boeing. If Burt pissed his pants it was due to the devestation of seeing hopeless bureaucracy in action and especially one in the process of squandering manned space exploration for another decade. Burt isn't exactly young, I doubt he can wait another decade for another manned space vehicle competition to come along when CEV fails.

Maybe I agree with you in one respect, Burt is a realist and it will cost some serious money to build his vehicles to get to LEO and beyond. Since CEV is a writeoff, they have to raise the money on their own and that will be HARD to IMPOSSIBLE. Contrast with NASA who is handed billions of our tax dollars on a platter, year afer year, their track record is one of complete failure since the early seventies, yet the money keeps getting showered on them, decade after decade. That is enough to make any space enthusiast cry.

Lockheed's CEV proposal regurgitation of the their Orbital Space Plane.

As I recall Boeings proposal is an unoriginal attempt to replicate Apollo without the Saturn V. I think it was mostly empty headed artists conceptions as was Lockheeds. Not sure that replicating Apollo wouldn't be a bad idea if we actually want to get back to the moon. Dust off the blue prints, bend the same metal and maybe put in some new computers. More likely to succeed than Lockheed and Boeing's empty headed proposals.

"Actually, I view Burt with great respect"

Geez, now I know you work for NASA, "I view Burt with great respect" though you've been belittling and bashing him every other sentance, because he isn't part of MIGHTY NASA. Whats the matter? Looking in your NASA rear view mirror and seeing a little domestic competition for a change. He has a long way to go but he has one big plus, he is almost universally admired and respected after Voyager and SpaceShipOne. Ordinary people actually know his name. You would be hard pressed to find anyone that knows the name of or will say a kind word about anyone in NASA's manned space ministry.

You just have to hope some Congressman or a President doesn't wake up one day and say to themselves, we've been throwing all this money at NASA and getting nothing for it, maybe we should throw some of it Burt's way just to see what he can do with it. That is the day the Soviet Ministries in Florida and Texas are doomed. We desperately need some like Kelly Johnson to restart the space program and Burt is a LOT like Kelly Johnson. Kelly hate overgrown bureaucracy with a passion too, NASA people seem to love it and that is the sad.

--
@de_machina
Re:My memories by demachina · 2005-06-30 18:22 · Score: 1

Dude you completely don't get it, that is really what you need to fix America's manned space program. Kelly Johnson was exactly like that in fact its Rule #3 of his famous 14 rules:

Rule No. 3

The number of people having any connection with the project must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people (10 percent to 25 percent compared to the so-called normal systems).

Adding an army of mediocre warm bodies leads to spiraling costs, and makes schedule slips happen instead of speeding up the schedule. If you dont follow this rule you end up with the bloated bureaucratic pile that is NASA. Kelly built the U-2 and the SR-71 in an amazingly short period of time and on small budgets precisely because he had small teams of very good people and those planes were big leaps forward.

Having said that I really doubt that Burt is quite the primadonna you are painting him as. Melville sure isn't the "best" test pilot in the world. He is a high school drop out with no engineering expertise, and a seat of the pants flier. He was a machinist in Ohio and Burt hired him because he built one of Rutan's kits, flew out to Mojave to show it off and Rutan liked him and his wife. All the people in the Black Sky documentary seemed to be completely fond of and devoted to the Rutan and would go to the end of the earth for him. Melville genuinely gushed about the closeness of their friendship and that he would do ANYTHING for RUtan. There are at least 20 core people on the X Prize team and they all seemed to love Burt, so much for "cant work with 2 people".

The engineer that lead building SpaceShipOne was very young, not exactly a pillar of respectability, and not very experienced when he started. He said a big company wouldn't have given him a chance to do anything like what he was doing there. Rutan seems to have an eye for young talent and willingness to gamble on them.

To put it another way I'm almost postive you wont find any project leader at NASA's politburo that commands the respect and devotion from his team that Rutan does.

Have you worked with him or is this just a new phase of your mud slingling and belittlement campaign against Rutan while you pretend to "respect" him. Its getting old.

--
@de_machina
Re:My memories by FleaPlus · 2005-06-30 19:49 · Score: 1

I'll take Burt hands down. I'm never gonna make it to the ISS, Burt maybe I have a chance to at least get in to space for a reasonable price.

Burt Rutan is cool and all, but as far as inexpensive commercial orbital spaceflight goes, I suspect Elon Musk's SpaceX is going to be first. They've already announced their intent to compete for America's Space Prize.
Re:My memories by FleaPlus · 2005-06-30 19:54 · Score: 1

You just have to hope some Congressman or a President doesn't wake up one day and say to themselves, we've been throwing all this money at NASA and getting nothing for it, maybe we should throw some of it Burt's way just to see what he can do with it.

You have to be careful there. A big part of the reason Burt Rutan did so well with so little is because he was operating in a competitive atmosphere with a funding source that he was directly accountable to. If you just give him billion dollar cost-plus government contracts and all the paperwork which goes along with it, I guarantee that in a matter of years his organization will be just as inefficient and bloated as that of the traditional aerospace companies.
Re:My memories by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 21:13 · Score: 0

You're an idiot confusing space travel with war. Two different things moron.
Re:My memories by rsynnott · 2005-07-01 02:14 · Score: 1

Well, a lot of those early rockets weren't your country's achievements, as such. They were largely Wernher von Braun's achievements; the US just picked up the bill, as Germany had before it.

--
Me (Blog)
Re:My memories by demachina · 2005-07-01 04:16 · Score: 1

As I said elswhere it would have to be no strings attached grants, NASA no where in sight, maybe with some incentive clauses and milestones like Ansari X prize.

"I guarantee that in a matter of years his organization will be just as inefficient and bloated as that of the traditional aerospace companies."

I doubt it, its contrary to his nature to go down that path. He likes building air and space craft for the sheer love of it and not because its a welfare check. He hates bureaucracy to the root of his being.

First day you start this project you post Kelly Johnson's rules on the wall and live by them. Kelly did, for the most part, for decades.

Before you start the first rule is the to make the site and the project a bureaucrat and politician free zone other than maybe an inspector general to insure basic fiscal oversight.

--
@de_machina
Re:My memories by demachina · 2005-07-01 04:29 · Score: 1

"Both can operate alone, and both were paid for using US$."

Bullshit. Zarya and Zvezda are the core of the station. The ISS was habitable when they were there along with Unity. America's module Destiny is a lab module, I dont think it is self sufficient.

The key point is the station was operational when Zarya and Zvezda were there and could be again. I don't remember how essential Unity is though I'm sure its handy. Its a simple docking module its not a major achievement.

"If you undocked all the US parts (delivered by the Shuttle) the Russian part would be a pretty cold place as it wouldn't have any power."

Bullshit again. You dont seme to know what you are talking about. Zarya and Zvezda have solar panels. They provided enough to power for those modules to be habitable and operational before any American panels were added. They wouldn't have an abundance of power without the American solar monstrosity, but they would have enough. I wager there will never be enough people or equipment on the ISS to use all the power form those overgrown American panels. There is a Russian power module, NEP, too though I think its sitting on the ground or maybe cancelled.

"It also would lose attitude control eventually because the Russians use propulsive control."

Bullshit again. As long as they refuel it, once in a while, propulsive control will work indefinitely. They worked OK before the inertial system was installed, it work OK on MIR for years. The inertial system is nice since it can use electricty instead of propellent, but both Hubble and ISS have shown this approach still has serious reliability problems. I'd say its a toss up between the two approaches. Its nice to have both if you can afford it.

--
@de_machina
Re:My memories by Cally · 2005-07-01 07:54 · Score: 1

Little did I know of the history, for I was born in 1968 and at the time was a child.

I'm no biologist, but believe that this is frequently the case.

To me, he was everything, and so was my country.

An admirably holistic approach to life... if enough things impressed you enough to become everything to you, pretty soon *everything* will be everything for you. I recommend reading something about Buddhism. Seriously.

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Re:My memories by ThreeE · 2005-07-01 13:25 · Score: 1

The Russian arrays have long since died and the ISS is power limited today -- so those "monstrosities" are very much needed.

The systems on Z&Z are only good enough to control those modules -- add ANYTHING worthwhile to accomplish something and you are screwed (not so on the USOS).

NEP is a maybe sometime a long time from now. Unlikely that Russian women can turn enough tricks between now and then to pay for it though.

Yeah -- mir had SO much control... Every other day it drifted out of pointing accuracy and caused the arrays to stop producing power. You think the shuttle was a deathtrap... Mir couldn't even orbit safe...

Bottom line is both the ROS and USOS are better off with each other, but the USOS has much greater capabilities and capacity.

Bullshit back to you I guess...
Re:My memories by ThreeE · 2005-07-01 13:32 · Score: 1

I read the CEV RFP. It was a bureaucratic nightmare.
I didn't get past this. Look -- you are going to spend taxpayer money, so you've got to follow Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs). It isn't pleasant, but that's just the way it is. I know you think you and burt are special and all, but our government has certain rules about spending money.

Every contractor could do more for less if they didn't have to follow FAR. But are we going to drop FAR? Unlikely.

What would be really impressive is if burt would get off his pulpit and build a real orbital vehicle without any government funds. Unlikely as well. Until then, deal with the competition. Or, as burt seems to be good at, quit.
Re:My memories by ThreeE · 2005-07-01 13:35 · Score: 1

Yawn... a kelly johnson fanboi.

Look, kelly was a hero. But U-2s and SR-71s, while difficult, are a totally different kind of problem. We are talking about a system here -- not a single vehicle.

Comparing the entire space exploration program to the U-2/SR-71 program is like comparing stitches to open heart surgery.

Go kelli....
Re:My memories by demachina · 2005-07-03 13:14 · Score: 1

"Unlikely that Russian women can turn enough tricks between now and then to pay for it though."

Nice ... racist, sexist, petty and immature all in one sentance. Good work. I really hope you don't work for NASA otherwise you are a leading indicate of exactly how far its fallen.

--
@de_machina

13th by Nick+Driver · 2005-06-30 11:23 · Score: 1

Couldn't they have picked a date other than the 13th? At least it ain't a Friday. No, I'm not superstitious or nothing like that.... honest.

Re:13th by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 12:06 · Score: 0

So what's the big deal with this 13? Apollo 13 went fine.
Re:13th by restlesscheese · 2005-06-30 14:30 · Score: 1

No, they couldn't have. This way, it's the day after my birthday. That's the most important thing, of course.

--
I am Whovian. Hear me *vworp!*
Re:13th by Captain+DaFt · 2005-06-30 14:58 · Score: 2, Funny

" No, I'm not superstitious or nothing like that.... honest."

Thank goodness for that. Everyone knows it's bad luck to be superstitious!

--
The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.

SWEET by ToasterofDOOM · 2005-06-30 11:24 · Score: 1

I'm going to be on vacation within sight range then ... this just made my vacation! (and it's even *gasp* worth ripping myself away from a computer for a week!)

--
I am Spartacus

Re:SWEET by MurphyZero · 2005-06-30 14:35 · Score: 1

To be honest, you may even be able to see it in New York. But the best place to watch is Cape Canaveral and Kennedy. I've been watching them live since 98 and it would be nice to see them again.

--
Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.

dang! why that date?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 11:25 · Score: 0

well, I guess it just comes after the number 12. It seems with all the work, technical and political (it is all politics, read the history), I would think they at least stay with the July 22 date.

Now I gotta get our amateur TV re-transmission of NASA TV operational sooner!

Mike K6MFW

When is it set to "land" ? by ARRRLovin · 2005-06-30 11:27 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Didn't RTFA.

--
-Randy

Re:When is it set to "land" ? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 13:25 · Score: 0

2010
read the article, asswipe

minor nitpick by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 11:31 · Score: 0

it is a US space shuttle, not the US space shuttle.

Wednesday the 13th by WillAffleck · 2005-06-30 11:31 · Score: 5, Funny

They were going to leave on July 4th, but someone pointed out the space highways would be crowded then, and liquid NOX prices would be higher.

So they decided to go surfing for a week before, to beat the crowds.

--
Will in Seattle

Meanwhile... by Black+Parrot · 2005-06-30 11:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

...more immediately and IMO more interestingly, Deep Impact is going to do its stuff in about 4 days.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 14:58 · Score: 0

...Deep Impact is going to do its stuff in about 4 days.

Hrm, smashing a space craft into a comet to do science? What a testosterone-laden concept. I can imagine the mission being proposed to the NASA brass: the scientist closes his presentation on the flight trajectory by smashing of a bear can against his forehead.

Not to seem sexist, but somehow I doubt it was a woman who came up with this mission...
Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 22:26 · Score: 0

You obviously haven't looked at all of the useful science that is involved with this mission.

Missions at NASA are mostly about conducting science. I don't think anyone is up there saying, "Oh no, we can't do that, it's far too masculine/feminine." That would be ridiculous.

BTW, a "bear can" is an extremely solid cannister used to protect food from roving bears. So, if someone smashed one against their head, all I can say is "holy shit!" It would be rather impressive/amusing to watch.

The second round into the same hole... by mi · 2005-06-30 11:36 · Score: 1

Whatever (if anything) ruins the next shuttle, it will likely be not be the same thing, that caused any of the earlier disasters.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

Re:The second round into the same hole... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-06-30 11:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

True enough- but there are broad lessons that can be learned. The lesson from Challenger was that they needed better inspection on the ground before launch, not just of the O rings, but of everything- as well as a way to escape an aborted launch. The lesson from Columbia was that they needed in-orbit inspection *before* returning to Earth- especially of any air-control surface (which is basically the whole shuttle- it does become an huge glider on re-entry). Each broad lesson learned doesn't just eliminate the specific problem- it elminates a whole slew of possible problems.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:The second round into the same hole... by coopex · 2005-06-30 16:00 · Score: 1

The lesson that *should* have been learned from Challenger and Columbia is that NASA knows jack shit about safely managing risks (here's a hint, hiding your head in the sand doesn't make problems go away). They ignored the O ring blowback, bad enough on its own as a sign of that some engineering spec isn't being met, then they launched when they were advised against it by bullying the naysayers into giving in. As for Columbia, you point out that they needed to inspect, but instead ignored it.

When did the NASA's motto change from "Failure is not an option" to "If we ignore the problem it'll go away". I wish I'd been alive to experience the young brash agency that didn't know exactly how they were gonna reach the moon, but they damn sure were going to.

--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Re:The second round into the same hole... by rufty_tufty · 2005-06-30 21:35 · Score: 1

There's an old saying that generals are always perfectly prepared to wage the last war. But that's what we do, we fix all the problems we can and move on to the next surprise.
e.g. look at the tactics used in WWII ground warfare using the lessons learned from WWI. Except that didn't apply as the airplane had come along and brought blitzkreig.
GWI & GWII similar...
Or Terry Pratchett where the Pseudopoleans each had an army of Trojan Horses?
Back to the point isn't the idea that we make mistakes, fix them and move on. I always tried to say that "yes I make mistakes, but I never make the same one twice" as long as NASA learns from their failures and people are willing to be part of this test program then where is the issue?
--
I just upgraded my computer, it now has an infinite ammount of write only memory

--
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Re:The second round into the same hole... by Noose+For+A+Neck · 2005-07-01 04:51 · Score: 1

Those are not lessons. They're not solutions to problems. They're solutions to symptoms of deeper problems.
To say that the only useful thing we learned from Challenger is that everything should be inspected more thoroughly on the ground before launch is missing the point. Perhaps the most illuminating writing on that particular incident came from Richard Feynman in his appendix to the Rogers Commission report, where he noted that NASA already knew about the problem of ring erosion from inspections performed on hardware from earlier flights. What NASA screwed up was fixing problems that they had already found. According to Feynman, it was the blind, irrational confidence that NASA management had in its hardware combined with a poor understanding of statistics and developing models from experimental data on the engineering side that led to disaster.

I have not read the report and analyses of the Columbia accident, but I imagine it also has deeper, more useful lessons in it than that which you are listing.

--
Software piracy is victimless theft.

Quite odd by Robotron23 · 2005-06-30 11:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Its quite strange. Most of the major news agencys reported recently that NASA had confirmed that the Shuttle could be launched in July, as it was within an "acceptable" bracket of safety.

Yet less than a week later, the same news networks were saying that a major commission had concluded that NASA infact hadn't met their targets, lumped with a whole lot of criticism of the space agency as a whole, too.

But as this topic confirms the launch will go ahead apparantly regardless of what this commission found? I wondered if anyone could clarify the situation at large? (I'm not trolling or anything here, just geniunely puzzled about the table of events leading up to Discovery's launch.)

Re:Quite odd by Boilermaker84 · 2005-06-30 15:10 · Score: 2, Informative

One of the three "unmet" requirements is a usable repair kit. This has been the most technically challenging requirements to meet. NASA has done everything they can to come up with a method/materials to repair on orbit. You can't validate a zero-g repair option in a gravity environment, though. There's a kit in the payload bay which will support repair tests on orbit. The other two deal with ice/foam falling off the tank and hardening the orbiter from impacts. The tank bipod area has been redesigned entirely (this is where the foam came from on the Columbia mission). During the first tanking test, ice was noted to be forming on the O2 return line. Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building, de-stacked and put on a tank/booster stack where the tank had a heater installed to prevent icing on the line (all future tanks will have this modification). The foam application process has been altered and the chances of a large piece of foam falling off are significantly reduced from where they were 2.5 years ago. NASA has maintained all along that foam debris could not be 100% eliminated. Hardeining of the Reinforced Carbon Carbon wing leading edge tiles was the last item. Since Bush has mandated the shuttle be retired by 2010, NASA doesn't have a long term plan in place for addressing this. What they do have is 66 accelerometers lining the inside of each wing to detect if something does hit the wing. High resolution imaging on orbit is in place. High resolution cameras will be watching everything during launch. Each orbiter is outfitted with a boom that is essentially an extension to the Canada arm and allows for inspection of the wing leading edges. NASA and its contractors have done just about everything they can to meet the last requirements without actually meeting them. There are a LOT of improvements over where things were in 2003. Those that make the decisions feel that the risk is minimal enough and that the plans to address anything that happens are sufficient to justify returning to flight.
Re:Quite odd by rufty_tufty · 2005-06-30 22:06 · Score: 1

You know this does make me wonder, how much would it cost, and how many flights would it take to lift a shuttle repair facility to the ISS.
I wonder how useful an in orbit garage where you could fix the shuttle from a lot of damage would be. Add in a tug so you could rescue the shuttle from a none ISS orbit and bring it in and who cares how much ice hits the tiles?
I wonder if this would cost less than all this burocracy?
Also there are what, 4 shuttles left? Could we have one sent to live at the ISS perminantly like the soyuz capsule that lives there? Then if something went really wrong there's a backup plan. Or is this down to the problem of different orbits again? Or is there a problem with things degrading when left in space for a long time?

--
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Re:Quite odd by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-01 01:56 · Score: 0

Regarding the repair kit, I've heard that the astronauts don't want one. They figure that if something were to go wrong, the folks on the ground would ask them to repair it, and they'd just screw it up even worse.

No Guts, No Glory? by cloudofstrife · 2005-06-30 11:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why doesn't anyone ever seem to realize that all of the scientific advancements that have come through manned spaceflight have come at a risk? Astronauts are strapped into a rocket capable of accelerating the space shuttle (no small object) to 10.7 km/s, many miles in the air (above the atmosphere) and then have to re-enter the atmosphere and land safely after slowing down from many times the speed of sound. With manned space flight, sh-I mean bad stuff has got to happen, and it's a wonder that more hasn't gone wrong.

Re:No Guts, No Glory? by Pyromage · 2005-06-30 12:01 · Score: 1

I agree with you quite strongly, however I still don't think that argument really quite works.

It's one thing entirely to know that something unknown might go wrong and you may die. It's quite another to know that what went wrong last time wasn't fixed.

I count the former to be an acceptable risk, given the care NASA usually takes and their track record. The latter, I really must concede. They should fix the problems better.
Re:No Guts, No Glory? by dancpsu · 2005-06-30 12:57 · Score: 1

But this is not some failed part, this is a random chunk of ice that hit the shuttle wing on liftoff. What if it was spacejunk instead. A meteor?

Unless we have some futuristic sheilding technology, things hitting the shuttle hard and damaging it are going to happen. By your logic, because we don't have the sheilding technology (or the capability to repair the shuttle in space) then we should just wait around until someone invents these things before returning to space.

--
"Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
Re:No Guts, No Glory? by cloudofstrife · 2005-06-30 13:49 · Score: 1

Actually, to the best of my knowledge it was a piece of foam off of one of the boosters that gouged a hole in part of the orbiter wing. If that hole had not been there, there would not have been extra friction and the shuttle would not have burned up.
Re:No Guts, No Glory? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-01 01:56 · Score: 0

We could wait until every possible problem that could happen has been addressed and planned for, redundant systems, backup plans, etc. However, if we want to be able to launch a space shuttle instead of something along the lines of the Death Star, there's going to be some risk involved.

Every single person who gets a ride on the shuttle knows what the risks are. I think it says quite a bit that they get on and ride anyway.

$800!?!??! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 11:46 · Score: 0

$800 was way too little, lets think of what you need in terms of big budget items.

1) Some way of moving the camera around. This is space so you need trusters.
2) You need some way of stabilizing the bot so it points at the orbiter.
3) You need a camera and optics.
4) You need some way of talking to the bot remotely.
5) Everything above must work in low earth orbit conditions.

Re:$800!?!??! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-06-30 12:16 · Score: 1

1. For a throwaway, relatively cheap silver shavings and hydrogen peroxide will do enough to push it away from the shuttle- and manuver it in the right direction. Remember, you don't neccessarily need to get it back to get the pictures.

2. The thrusters can do this job relatively well, IF you have a high enough resolution camera so that when it's far enough away you can still get a good enough digital picture back to get the whole bottom of the orbiter.

3. Camera and optics is the cheap part- an 8 megapixel digital camera will do the job nicely.

4. Also well proven off-the-shelf technology at this point- so well proven that you've got that much in $200 worth of equipment from Fry's.

5. That's not so hard at all- we've been building small sattelites that work in LEO for nearly 50 years now, also off-the-shelf parts.

Here's two you failed to mention- not completely insurmountable, but enough that the extension boom on the canadarm is a better choice:

6. Getting a radio signal through the faraday cage that is the underside of the shuttle (hint- need to find and choose the correct set of frequencies for the 8 channels that you'd need- 6 for manuvering, 1 for camera control, 1 return to get the picture back). The arm is wired control, less flakey than RF.

7. It's possible that a bot will miss a slight flaw less than 1 pixel in size when taking a picture of the entire bottom of the shuttle- where the arm can do an up-close inspection.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:$800!?!??! by ckaminski · 2005-07-01 03:01 · Score: 1

8. Design to ensure that the damn camera-bot doesn't impact the orbiter and cause it's own damage.

Has someone already made the obvious July 4th... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 11:48 · Score: 0

Joke?

BOOM! Ooooooooo... AHHHHHHH! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 11:55 · Score: 0

Has someone already made the obvious July 4th joke?

No.

Re:Has someone already made the obvious July 4th.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 11:57 · Score: 0

why, yes, yes i already did. it's under the 13th thread ...

Not Friday The 13th... by __aaclcg7560 · 2005-06-30 12:12 · Score: 1

Why are they launching on Friday The 13th? (Yes, it's Wednesday but the Bloom County kid freaked on the 13th of every month.) Anyway, it wasn't so bad for Apollo 13. :P

How can you say it is safer Safer? by MushMouth · 2005-06-30 12:25 · Score: 0, Troll

More people died in the shuttle program than the others combined.

Re:How can you say it is safer Safer? by ginotech · 2005-06-30 12:39 · Score: 1

most shuttle missions have seven crewmembers. that's a lot more than mercury/gemini/apollo.
Re:How can you say it is safer Safer? by jlarocco · 2005-06-30 12:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

sigh. Is it really necessary to point it out?

More people have died, but the shuttle program has lasted much, much longer than any of the previous programs and has flown many more times than all the other manned missions combined.

So (# deaths)/(length of program) is lower, and (# deaths)/(# flights) is lower, thus making it safer on average than any of the previous projects.

--
Maybe not
Re:How can you say it is safer Safer? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-01 05:03 · Score: 0

(# deaths)/(# flights) is lower

Wrong!

Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo had 0 flight deaths, so the (# deaths)/(# flights) is higher for the STS program (since 0/(small number) is less than 14/(any positive number)). (It is true that Apollo had three deaths, but those were during a test on the ground, not in flight.)

Similarly:

(# deaths)/(length of program) is lower

Wrong!

Mercury and Gemini had 0 deaths, so they are lower. For Apollo, 3/(1972-1967)=0.6 deaths/year. For STS, 14/(2003(when the shuttle last flew)-1981)=0.63 deaths/year, still higher than Apollo.

Possible Problem by doomtiki · 2005-06-30 12:27 · Score: 1

Space Shuttle Discovery has become too much like the Discovery Channel- too much Monster Garage and not enough Physics. Look at picture number 4. http://www.msnbc.com/modules/interactive.aspx?type =ss&launch=7587438,6955261

Re:Possible Problem by rctay · 2005-06-30 12:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

People wouldn't watch a channel devoted to science. They wanted crap. These same people are doing the voting for people making the decisions about space flight. Sometimes the limitations of a representative democracy is all to apparent.
Re:Possible Problem by Waffle+Iron · 2005-06-30 14:23 · Score: 2, Funny

People wouldn't watch a channel devoted to science. They wanted crap. These same people are doing the voting for people making the decisions about space flight.
That gives me an idea for a sure-fire space program that will enjoy the full support of the American public:

Create two teams each comprised of a combination of rocket scientists and washed-up hollywood celebrities. Pit them against each other in a battle to create the next manned space launch system. Each team is given a workshop, a silo full of old ICBM parts, a '71 Dodge Challenger and 3 Harley-Davidson motorcycles. The first team into orbit wins $50,000 and a chance to try for a major defense contract. The contest starts at T-minus 21 days.
Re:Possible Problem by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 14:46 · Score: 0

that's some serious duct tape..

Don't want any risk? by ctetc007 · 2005-06-30 12:39 · Score: 1

Then don't get off the ground. End of story. This industry will always have risk, and the question is are they brought down to an acceptable level. We've done numerous tests on the ET foam, we've redesigned the bipod area, we've replaced the stuff with heaters. We've developed a boon for detection of cracks, we've developed a tile repair kit and goo to do an EVA tile patch up. We've also developed a rescue plan in the event none of these things have helped. We've gone a long way, and we've done a hell of a lot of stuff to make this program safer. The risk level is acceptable. Otherwise, none of those 7 astronauts would be willing to fly on that thing. We're ready to fly.

Yell Help by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 12:44 · Score: 0

I wish tonight wasn't Wednesday night
I wish it wasn't the thirteenth of July, yell help
And you're looking at the guy whose eyes can't deny
That he wishes he were somewhere else tonight

(Elton John/Bernie Taupin)

Greeeeaaaat by Reality+Master+101 · 2005-06-30 13:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

$600 MILLION dollars to launch a shuttle, down the drain. I wonder how many probes that would buy? I wonder how many probes a year we could launch if all those resources were put toward them?

A hundred probes a year? A thousand, if we mass produced them?

I hate NASA and the culture of "we must put people in space no matter how wasteful and useless it is."

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.

Re:Greeeeaaaat by aussersterne · 2005-06-30 13:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Mass produced them? A thousand identical probes? Just how advanced, intelligent, multi-functional do you think our "probes" can be right now? I don't know that we could come up with a really workable *dual* use design (say, one design that could go to both the moon and mars and do useful things), much less a design that would be useful for a *thousand* different exploration/testing tasks using an identical probe in each case.

What features that are currently technically feasable (at any cost) would you put into a "probe" such than 1,000 of them would actually be useful to us? Where would you send them?

It's not like we can currently build a machine (at any cost) that we can just send straight up into space with a single instruction to "explore everything, follow your whims, and tell us stuff" in anything more than a completely random, unintelligent (and thus not very scientifically useful) way.

Methinks you've been watching too much Star Trek.

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Re:Greeeeaaaat by Reality+Master+101 · 2005-06-30 13:37 · Score: 1

What features that are currently technically feasable (at any cost) would you put into a "probe" such than 1,000 of them would actually be useful to us?
Only one feature is needed: Modularity.

You design a general probe with all the things that wouldn't generally change (e.g., communication, power, etc), and you make the sensors "modules" that can be plugged into it.

Where would you send them?

If you can't think of anything to see, get out of the way of people who can. There are ENDLESS experiments you can do if you have cheap probes. Have a high risk experiment? Send five or ten of them.

...with a single instruction to "explore everything, follow your whims, and tell us stuff"

Um, I didn't say "intelligent", I said "mass produced".

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:Greeeeaaaat by rtaylor · 2005-06-30 16:20 · Score: 1

$600 MILLION dollars to launch a shuttle, down the drain. I wonder how many probes that would buy? I wonder how many probes a year we could launch if all those resources were put toward them?

You've forgotten the law of government spending. If you don't spend the big bucks on what the public or congressmen wants to see (even if it's wasteful and has low benefit), you lose all funding for all projects.

If you don't spend X Million with contractor Y for project Z, you also don't spend X thousand on project A.

--
Rod Taylor
Re:Greeeeaaaat by uberdave · 2005-06-30 17:42 · Score: 1

Well, you could give the US military a day off and have both.

--
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Re:Greeeeaaaat by cbcanb · 2005-06-30 21:02 · Score: 1

$600 MILLION dollars to launch a shuttle, down the drain. I wonder how many probes that would buy?
Between two and four, tops, depending on what you're doing. Unmanned probes are cheaper than manned missions, but not by as much as you seem to think.
Re:Greeeeaaaat by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-01 02:09 · Score: 0

And for each probe you send out you have to hire ten people on the ground to keep track of it. And those 10 people might want a permanent job and will call their congressional representative.

Moreover, the new NASA vision wants probes *and* humans. So, as far as NASA is concerned that argument is settled. They are going to have both. Robots get stuck in sand dunes.

It would be nice if we sent a probe to look at the moons poles to check for ice. I bet that ice might be the remains of comet collisions. Sounds like a better use than deep impact?

Though, I think the shuttle should be replaced with a mass cargo system on those solid rockets. I think its more like 660 mil per flight. Think of how many capsules it could put up in conjunction with a unmanned system to get the cargo up in space ... that is get a cev in space. Getting to the moon does not sound like a budget breaker.

Taking Bets by MSTCrow5429 · 2005-06-30 13:03 · Score: 1

If I was a bookie, I'd be taking bets on these guys coming back alive. The Space Shuttle is still a flying death trap.

--
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997

Doesn't NASA believe in bad luck number? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 13:03 · Score: 0

Anyone still remember Apollo 13....

Schedule of the heavens: July by TrippTDF · 2005-06-30 13:18 · Score: 1

July 4: Deep Impact hits comet Temple1BRBR July 13: Shuttle Launches

July 15: Temple 1 hits shuttle

Yea! My Birthday! by ender_wiggins · 2005-06-30 14:06 · Score: 1

Some good things are associated with 13!!!

Re:Apollo 13 wasn't so bad by 77Punker · 2005-06-30 14:48 · Score: 2, Informative

Nobody died in Apollo 13.

1-800-KSC-INFO by G27+Radio · 2005-06-30 15:24 · Score: 3, Informative

When I moved to Florida one of my friends gave me the number. It's great for knowing when to watch for a launch here--not just shuttles, but any launch from Kennedy Space Center.

If you call you'll hear in the first 10 seconds of the recorded message that the launch is currently targeted for July 13th. The message said the same as last time I checked a week or two ago.

Definately a handy number to have :)

1-800-KSC-INFO for anyone that didn't see the subject.

Famous Last Words by corngrower · 2005-06-30 15:32 · Score: 1

From TFA:
"We honestly believe this is the cleanest flight we have ever done. The only other flight that will be cleaner is the next flight," he added.

Reality TV In Outer Space by antispam_ben · 2005-06-30 16:24 · Score: 1

That gives me an idea for a sure-fire space program that will enjoy the full support of the American public:

Create two teams each comprised of a combination of rocket scientists and washed-up hollywood celebrities. Pit them against each other in a battle to create the next manned space launch system. . .

Not quite what I was expecting, which is: "Who will be voted out the airlock THIS week?!?!?!"

--
Tag lost or not installed.

100% by 602 · 2005-06-30 16:50 · Score: 1

Suppose you were invited to be on Earth's first manned mission to Mars. Assume that the chance of returning to Earth alive is less than 100%. How low of a chance of return would you be willing to take: 90%, 50%, 10%, maybe even 0%? If I were given odds of 80% to get there, and 1% to get back, I wouldn't hesitate to go. Heck, I might even go at 0% to get back.

Re:100% by multi+io · 2005-06-30 19:44 · Score: 1

If I were given odds of 80% to get there, and 1% to get back, I wouldn't hesitate to go. Heck, I might even go at 0% to get back.
Bad luck for you, I guess. I would think the "I would go no matter what the risks are" lunatics are among the first to be kicked out during recruitment tests :-).
Re:100% by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 20:06 · Score: 0

I'd do it at 20%. I'd like to come back, if only to brag about it.
Re:100% by ckaminski · 2005-07-01 04:34 · Score: 1

If the odds of me landing on Mars were 50/50, but getting back to earth would be 0%, I'd go in a heartbeat.

NASA and Commercial Space Transportation by FleaPlus · 2005-06-30 19:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

(The following is from a slashdot story I've tried submitting variations on a few times over the past few days, which has gotten rejected repeatedly for whatever reason. Since it's relevant to the topic of what NASA's planning on doing once the shuttle is retired, I'm posting it here)

At a recent talk, Michael Griffin outlined NASA's plans for helping to generate a robust and competitive commercial market in orbital spaceflight. The speech and Q&A transcripts from the talk are available. In a move reminiscent of the US government kickstarting the early airline industry by purchasing airmail services, NASA plans on purchasing cargo delivery services to the International Space Station from commercial providers, followed by crew transportation after the systems have proven themselves. Unlike traditional government contracts, sellers wouldn't see a profit before the services are delivered and the emphasis will be on actual performance instead of process and specifications. Non-traditional space companies such as SpaceX and t/Space have found Griffin's remarks encouraging, and Aviation Week has some commentary.

feel lucky, punk? by TitsMcgee · 2005-06-30 20:13 · Score: 1

Some of you guys might be missing the point. The launch is on July 13. July, which just so happens to be the lucky number 7th month of the year, and day 13, good old chief unlucky. NASA sure is crafty these days. Take it from someone who was born on that goofy ass day, it's both a blessing and a curse.

Re:1-800-KSC-INFO or 1-800-KFC-INFO by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 20:20 · Score: 0

>1-800-KSC-INFO number is great for
>knowing when to watch a launch

And if the lauch goes bad you can call
1-800-KFC-INFO

Now this was in bad taste, I should have put it:
To be or not to be that is the question...

About fucking time... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-30 21:13 · Score: 0

How could it take 2 and a half years!

A wire fence as a foam barrier by UnapprovedThought · 2005-06-30 21:23 · Score: 1

If the worry is about foam banging into the shuttle, then a concentric system of interconnected collapsible steel wire fences could help. Not that it will keep foam from hitting the shuttle, it could be travelling way too fast -- the idea is to slow it down and reduce the spin rate so the worst of the damage is avoided.

(Then again, why bother adding more systems to the shuttle at all, since it is going to be replaced by something that will be placed at the top of a rocket -- out of reach of projectiles. The idea of launching cargo on cheap if risky launch platforms and people separately on safety-optimized vehicles is a far saner approach.)

God speed by amightywind · 2005-07-01 00:21 · Score: 0, Flamebait

God speed to those bright eyed, idealistic, diverse over-acheivers who will ride that great ticking bomb into space. And if the worst happens, I will enjoy the spectacle!

--
an ill wind that blows no good

Superstitions by onetruedabe · 2005-07-01 02:16 · Score: 1

No, I'm not superstitious or nothing like that.... honest.

Don't you know it's Bad Luck to be superstitious?

(I'm only sub-stitious, myself, but I know some people who are HYPER-stitious...)

-- :- D

Re:Apollo 13 wasn't so bad by spammeister · 2005-07-01 04:35 · Score: 1

But someone was supposed to get a real bad case of Measles, right?

--
I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.

Slashdot Mirror

Discovery Set to Launch July 13

161 comments