Slashdot Mirror
Falling Window Cover Damages Discovery
Mz6 writes "At 5:30PM EDT, one of the space shuttle's protective window covers fell and
struck the left Orbital Maneuvering System engine pod on Discovery today. The window cover hit the carrier panel around the OMS pod. NASA is taking a new panel to the launch pad to replace the one hit by the falling cover. NASA is expected to know by 7 PM EDT if the replacement panel will work and whether launch can proceed tomorrow as planned. The window cover in question is from one of the overhead windows. It fell on its own, not when workers were handling it. The cover was found after it had fallen and hit the orbiter. In addition to the carrier panel that workers plan to replace tonight, engineers are looking for any other damage." Update: 07/13 02:03 GMT by T : RmanB17499 points out a CNN story according to which "the launch of the space shuttle Discovery will go ahead as scheduled Wednesday after technicians replaced two protective tiles damaged near the spacecraft's tail Tuesday, a NASA spokeswoman said."
CNN is reporting that NASA has already given the go ahead for Discovery to launch. The damaged tiles on the tailfin have already been repaired.
It was just a temporary plastic protective panel that they place over the actual window while it just sits ready to launch. It's not really "attached" to shuttle like most pieces would be.
It's a plastic cover that comes off before launch. It would never have even gone up in orbit anyways.
Wrong. Both stages of the lunar lander used liquid fuel -- hypergolic (self-igniting) propellants. More on that here.
Best on the planet? Yes.
Best dual-purpsose heavy-lifter and crew transport? Well, yeah.
But it's not a good enough heavy lifter that it replaced rockets. And it's not a good enough crew transport that everyone else is trying to build one.
I've heard that some of the shuttle engineers even balked when told of their budget cuts. They argued--quite rightly--that doing it right the first time would save money over the long run.
If only, if only, if only.
When the they designed the lunar lander, they had to have something that would work 100% to get off the moon, and they used... a solid fuel rocket.
No, the lunar lander used liquid-fueled engines, powered by nitrogen tetroxide and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, for both the ascent and descent stages.
More information on the lunar module and the fuels it used is widely available, as is information on thier development.
...weather gods permitting. It's in TFA, link supplied in parent post.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
The Saturn V was also used to place the Skylab Space Station in orbit. The Saturn V was also intended to be used to do the "heavy lifting" for future space station work, with the Space Shuttle handling logistics and assembly of components. Funding was cut for the Saturn V program leaving the U.S. without a launch vehicle capable of the Saturn V's tremendous capacity.
In comparison the Saturn V had a lift capacity of 118,000 kg to low Earth orbit vs. 28,800 kg for the Space Shuttle.
I agree the shuttle and Saturn V were made for different purposes, but I do believe if you are strictly dealing with putting stuff in orbit the Saturn had lower cost per kilogram. That comparison isn't really worth much because it ignores the flexibility of the Space Shuttle and its uses beyond just shuttling cargo.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
They are commonly used on vehicles with expensive windows to protect them from accidental damage and foreign materials. It keeps them from getting scratched and covered with bird shit or other atmospheric contaminants. The Air Force has similar problems with their aircraft. A window or canopy can be polished or refinished to remove scratches, but it is time-consuming and expensive.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Look here for a cutaway diagram where you can see both the fuel and oxidizer tanks on the LEM.
More about both fuel and oxidizer here
The need to use o-rings in the SRBs was because of pork-barrelling the contract. The winning contractor (Morton Thiokol) had to fabricate the boosters in sections so they could be shipped by barge, rather than fabricating them in one piece, which would have eliminated the o-ring that failed.My dad, now retired, always talks about when they developed the space shuttle. They were trying to get NASA to go with a solid fuel rocket.
NASA did go with a solid fuel rocket. 2 of them, actually. That's what the booster rockets are. SRBs. Solid Rocket Boosters. Once they're lit, there's no way to turn them off.
I saw a program on rocket science, and they indicated that the use of solid fuel is virtually mandatory in order to achieve the fuel energy density required to lift the fuel itself plus a payload into space. Almost every launch program out there relies on solid fuel for at least part of the launch. Those that don't either don't need to reach the higher altitudes, don't weigh much, or are experiments in how to shake the dependence on solid fuel (mainly due to its rather significant drawback of not being able to be turned "off" once lit).
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.