Slashdot Mirror
Debris Seen Falling Off Shuttle During Launch
kushboy writes "According to an article on CNN.com, there is video of debris falling off Discovery during its launch earlier today. While the debris does not appear to hit the shuttle, extra precaution and more video will be analyzed due to the Columbia mission of 2003. 'NASA has taken steps to minimize the amount and size of debris falling off the shuttle's exterior tank during its ascent. But the space agency has said it's impossible to eliminate falling launch debris.'"
From the Story summary:
From TFA:
Honestly, guys....do you even read submissions anymore?
Anyway, given the current technology, it's pretty much impossible to eliminate falling launch debris. We should know more about any possible damage by tomorrow, after the Discovery crew finish their VSE via boom-mounted camera.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Article title:
.
Debris Seen Hitting Shuttle During Launch
Article summary:
While the debris does not appear to hit the shuttle . .
Seriously. I feel stupid complaining about the editors; I don't often. But this is ridiculous.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
If it is impossible to stop debris from hitting the shuttle, should everyone be so worried? Yes, there was the Columbia disaster, but doesn't the fact with all the new precautions in place debris still strike the shuttle suggest debris probably hit the shuttle on every previous launch, and with with no major problems.
The shuttle was designed to haul and return huge cargo loads. There is NOTHING else ever designed or built than can safely return an object from space the size of a school bus. This is a remarkable feat.
Now you can certainly argue the merits of the shuttle goals. But the shuttle is still a marvel of engineering.
How often does it actual return cargo? I can't think of too many times when it has. The problem is that it's a horrible compromise. The factors that make for a good cargo craft are quite dissemalar from what makes a good manned craft.
TODO: Something witty here...
This sort of thing is fairly common for shuttle launches in general, in a process which requires many component parts falling debris is inevitable. Of course, the close scrutiny of this launch will have made this coverage equally as inevitable. It appears to be some of the black undercovering of the shuttle just peeled away and fell to Earth. But NASA, ever cautious, says its might be the orbiters tiles themselves that are damage...needless to say its wise to take NASA's comments with a pinch of salt.
For those interested, heres the BBC article;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4719847.stm/
Ever since the Apolloe disaster, I have been convinced that you cannot walk up to a 30 or so story stack, hear the moaning and groaning of the equipment loaded with cryogenical propellants, and look up and say to yourself "Sure this is safe!". This fixation on "this fell off", etc. is a problem that will degrade what is left of the shuttle program. It doesn't matter what the safety is... Does anyone think there is a lack of folks applying to fly?
My wife doesn't listen to me either...
But don't let silly things like, oh, facts get in the way of all your flag-waving.
Oh, but don't let silly things like, oh, understanding the facts you presented from getting in the way of all your sophomoric insights.
The best thing that NASA could have done at the time to replace their shuttle fleet would have been to fund or buy Buran from the Russians when they ran out of money. the Russians built an amazing robot spaceplane in the 80's, something that NASA still has not achieved.
There was no neeed for a "robot spaceplane", and the the Buran was never intended to be used as a "robot spaceplane". Look, the shuttle could be remotely piloted, like any other aircraft. It's not because there's no point in remotely piloting a manned aircraft. The idea of remotely piloted manned aircraft was never popular in the US, even though the initial Soviet launch vehicles, specifically the Vostok. You can read all about it in Tom Wolfe's book The Right Stuff.
A simple example:
If the shuttle's re-entry angle is wrong, EVEN WITH NO DAMAGE, airframe stress becomes critical, it breaks up and everybody dies.
If a Russian space capsule's re-entry angle is wrong, they experience slightly higher G-forces and the pickup helicopter takes a couple of minutes longer to reach them after parachuting to earth.
Let me point out the obvious. A capsule isn't an airplane; The shape of the object helps to determine what stresses it can take. The Russian capsules are compact gumdrops. The shuttle is long and wide. Of course it has a different stress pattern. I'm not even an aerospace engineer, and I know that.
NASA's shuttle is a bastard design created from political compromise: the military wanted it, the scientists wanted it, the politicians wanted it. As a result it works for almost nobody
No argument here.
and is a 30-year old deathtrap. I'm suprised the loss rate has been so low - I have no idea what drugs NASA is ingesting, I'll be very suprised if this one isn't lost as well.
Your sleep at the local Holiday Inn not withstanding, you don't know what you're talking about. You have some individual facts, but you don't have any understanding of them. Come back when you're actually a rocket scientist, and not simply just playing one.
The shuttle should be killed and replaced ASAP, preferably taking some serious clues from bulletproof no-compromise brute simplicity Russian space engineering -
I'm dissing the Russian space program, they managed to keep Mir flying well beyond its intended lifespan, but they have no funding, not equipment, nothing. They're plenty smart, but don't have the ability to actually implement anything they design.
which is currently the best in the history of the world (until the Chinese or commercial sector catches up and passes them).
Yeah. That's why "Russian" is synonymous with well built dependable products, and not rusting, broken, semi-dependable, and kind of sad given their former greatness.
The world has seen that fabulous Russian engineering during the Cold War. Like the Chinese, they copied. The TU-144? The Concorde. The Buran? The space shuttle. The A-Bomb? Given to them by the Rosenbergs. Then there's the whole fiasco with the soviet engineers touring the American factory with special soles on their shoes to pick up metal filings for future analysis.
Coming back to the space program, my favorite quote from the movie version of The Right Stuff comes from an American general learning about Sputnik. He asks the scientist, "Are you telling me their Germans are smarter than our Germans?" Who got space first? The Germans.
I grew up during the 80s, and was told by the
Perhaps this is naive, but I really can't help but think that it's about time to replace the shuttle. (I'll list my reasons below)
1. Each shuttle was designed to have an operational life of 10 years, all have surpassed this age.
2. The shuttle has not had an admirable safety record - It was expected that 1 in each 100 flights would be unsuccessful and end in total failure (like Columbia) however 2 in 113 have ended in failure. I'm not sure what statistical distribution this was modelled on, but surely the number of failures are significantly larger than initially postulated.
3. The shuttle has intrinsic design flaws due to the politics of the cold war - it was hoped that the shuttle could be used for launching reconnaissance satellites and consequently the shuttle had to be fitted with a much larger cargo bay and develop vastly more thrust to deliver the large (approx. 18 tonnes) payloads to polar orbits. It was also hoped by the airforce (who demanded these changes) that after a single orbit the shuttle could land (should the mission be aborted), (against the wishes of NASA who preferred a "splash down") and so the shuttle was fitted with delta shaped wings that are prone to being stuck by debris due to their large size. As a result of all of this additional weight the shuttle had to be fitted with high thrust SRB's which are completely uncontrollable (unlike cryogenic propellants used by Apollo et al).
4. The shuttle sits on the side of its fuel tanks making a detachment impractical should an abort be called at lift off.
If safety concerns were paramount, the shuttle really should have been much smaller, with little wings sitting on top of a rocket propelled by cryogenic fuels.
Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4