Slashdot Mirror
NASA Scrubs Launch Due to Faulty Fuel-Tank Sensor
VUSE g-EE-k writes "NASA has scrubbed Wednesday's launch of Discovery due to a faulty fuel-tank sensor in the external fuel tank. They are going to begin the troubleshooting process. They have not released details as to how long this delay will last. The crew have begun to get off the shuttle. For more information, see the NASA TV site. Drudge Report has some initial coverage of the scrub."
Reader adefa adds a link to NASA's Space Shuttle launch page with more info.
Just got back to my desk looking to count down the final hour and find it's been scrubbed. I feel sorry for all the astronauts who had to go through all the buckling up and such, it was fun to watch such an involved process. Oh well, better safe than sorry.
Why link to Drudge??? WHY!?!?
Just so you all know - here's the "initial coverage" he has which was just a link to an AP blurb on Yahoo:
"KENNEDY SPACE CENTER - Today's launch of the space shuttle "Discovery" has been scrubbed. The launch was called off because of a faulty fuel-tank sensor. Discovery was supposed to take off for the first shuttle flight since the "Columbia" disaster of two and a-half years ago."
I understand government cutbacks but shouldn't the cargo be sent with a boeing heavy lift rocket or even outsource to Arianne ?
This way we could use money to go with a new design with money saved from the expensive shuttle.
even if they hadnt for the sensor, they where likely going to scrub it for weather. They only had a 40% chance of launching today.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
If you scrutinize a vehicle that is several decades old, it's likely that you'll find a number of unforeseen defects. Even vehicles that are well-maintained suffer from the aging process.
;-)
Just to play devil's advocate, a conspiracy theorist might argue that this is one method by which to stop space exploration: Emphasize safety in a medium where safety cannot under any circumstance be guaranteed, scrutinize the aging shuttle until a defect is found, and finally decline the funding required to build a replacement. Repeat.
Do you like German cars?
I understand that this is a big deal, since the last time a shuttle flew it did not get to land, and no disrepoect meant for the friends and family of those imvolved...
But seriously, this kind of thing would barely be news if not for the previous flight. They end up reschduling a good deal of all shuttle flights due to weather or other circumstances. If they were this careful with every airplane flight that took off and landed in the world each day, we would never get where we need to be. It makes you wonder how many times they launched in the past with problems like these and were "lucky" nothing happened.
Honestly, this trip into space is more of a political statement (or publicity shoot if you prefer) than anything. They are just dropping off some supplies and doing a little work on testing repair methods from what I understand. This shoudn't be as big of a deal as it is, just let them fly the mission when the time is right and things look correct on the ground, then tell us about the success. That's good enough coverage.
Are we becoming so risk averse that we will significantly slow or stop the tide of exploration?
How the heck did NASA put men on the moon in a decade? They did not have a bunch of high tech crap that they have now, it was the ability to take risks.
Perhaps Nasa should take a lesson from Henry Ford. Forget multi-billion dollar boondoggles (with quadruple backups out the wazzoo) like the shuttle. build a freaking factory to mass produce a SIMPLE, STANDARDIZED rocket.
Either that or let free enterprise take over...
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
> What ever happened to the days when everything NASA was super high quality?
Two things... My roomate's old beater car is three years newer than the Space Shuttle. There's no way in hell you'd catch me trying to drive that thing at mach whatever (if it would even do it.)
Second, (and somewhat more seriously) this was one of four fuel sensors that have to work at -400 degrees (I don't recall if NASA TV said C or F... I would guess C) in liquid hydrogen. That's not a trivial task. Of course, that's why they design redundant systems. They really only need two of the four sensors to work... and they only need them in the case where another failure causes a low fuel situation (which should never happen.) This sensor was part of a backup system to a backup system. So, really, they probably could have gone ahead in full safety. It's just that on this launch, no one wants to screw up.
I'm sure the quality is fine... they're just being super cautious this time.
True, back in the 60's in the Apollo days, they tested the bejezus out of everything; that's because they were pushing stuff to almost beyond what technology of the time would do, and they had to have the best of the best to have a chance in hell of pulling off the mission.
They just don't have the budget for that now. I think they just ignored a lot of stuff and got lucky most of the time. They are going to be super-careful this time; they can NOT afford a failure on this launch.
Remember when the air force told NASA to expect something like 1 in 20 missions to blow up, because that was their record with SRBs? NASA has been doing WAY better than that.
These days they're scrubbing when they notice something outside of nominal. I'm happy they are. The Challenger was lost when they were operating outside of nominal and figured they could get away with it. After that event, investigations showed that they were ignoring a WHOLE LOT of stuff. I keep hoping they'll stop ignoring their own rules; we'll see.
I'll give you three reasons
1. Life expands to fill available niches-territory. (also harder to become extinct as a speices if we colonize space)
2. Untapped resources.
helium-3 mining on the moon for fusion, rare earth minerals from asteroids, etc.
3. New frontier.
With the ability to colonize the moon/mars, we have a new frontier which would allow the more independent and/or persecuted somewhere to go.
I am not saying Nasa is the answer, just that there are viable reasons to send people...
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
For some reason that really reminds me of the "If operating systems were airlines" jokes....
~Idarubicin
The problem is that the shuttle is a paragon of overdesign. It's a shining example of what happens when defense contractors say "Oh, but if we do it this way, we can bill twice as much for a part costing only a little more, but it will be better because [insert BS excuse here]."
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Better than cops saying that someone was "traveling at a high rate of speed". Huh? What is wrong with "speeding"?
People add extra words when they want things to sound more important than they really are.
Some complicated engineering stuff needs extra words to exactly describe stuff. I hope I haven't used any Weasel Words in that sentence.
What's really annoying/dangerous is when wannabees (usually management types and marketing flunkies) start flinging around terminology that they don't fully understand. It just sounds cool and complicated and impressive to them.