Slashdot Mirror
Space Shuttle to Receive Emegency Repairs
Tycow writes "The BBC are reporting that
Discovery needs emergency repairs - dangling material has been spotted on the belly of the shuttle, and NASA are worried they could cause overheating on re-entry. 'Nasa is concerned the dangling material - called gap fillers - could cause part of the shuttle to overheat as it re-enters the atmosphere.The type of repairs being planned have never been conducted by astronauts on a spacewalk before.'"
The type of repairs being planned have never been conducted by astronauts on a spacewalk before.
How is this noteworthy at all? There are infinitely more repairs that haven't been done by astronauts on a spacewalk than have. It's not all that unusual; hell, cleaning off a mysterious stain on the outside of the craft would apply.
It's only an insult if it's not true.
It's a minor problem, which ordinarily would have gone unnoticed. It's probably happened many times before. NASA is just being paranoid because they can't afford another accident. Alternative theory, NASA wanted to find something wrong that isn't really a danger and prove they can fix it, and that there is no danger anymore in space travel.
It also seems like they have spent a large fraction of their space-time on this mission simply making sure the shuttle is fit to return to Earth, rather than doing useful space work. The shuttle was sold on the promise of routine, cheap, quick flights to space, and we have something that flies so irregularly that it's hard to even say how often it flies (once a year or less?). It's such a bucket of bolts that astronauts then have to spend half their time just inspecting it for damage while they're in orbit. NASA should not be putting astronauts at risk in a ship like this. NASA should be spending its budget on programs that have a future, rather than programs which have been a dead end for a long time.
------------
mobile search - coming soon
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If only the US Government spent a tenth of the amount that they spend on Weapons of Mass Destruction (tm) on their space program, maybe in-flight repairs wouldn't be necessary.
... and they've been there for years now. Maybe 1/100th is all that would be needed.
Actually, a tenth would be way too much. The Iraq adventure is costing American citizens $US 1 billion per day
It's already bound to happen. We're killing innovation in the US with a suffocating tidal wave of patents and litigation, and completely de-emphasizing mathematics and sciences in the educational curriculums... putting up an appearance of being ahead in space flight can only last for a few more years. The foundation is rotting away.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Personally, I think you're nuts if you advocate "the safest approach."
The space program was popular in America during the 60s in no small part to the sense of adventure it gave not just the astronauts, but to the people following the news. People knew the program was dangerous, and they understood that it was for an important purpose: Beating the Russians.
NASA did such a good job protecting our astronauts, we lost only three men prior to Challenger, and those three were on the ground when they died. Space didn't seem so scary any more. Once we beat the Russians to the moon, the us-vs-them side of the equation died down, too. We were left with a space program driven by commercial, military and scientific interests, but none of those carried with them the same social interest that danger and the fear of a Red moon provided.
Here, we're shown again that space is dangerous. All you have to do is flip through the TV news channels or a newspaper, and you'll find a story about the current Shuttle mission. Space exploration has a lot of attention, and we need to capitalize on that by showing the American populace we're capable of facing the danger and beating it.
Bring our boys home safely on this space craft, and you'll bring back popular confidence and support. Pussyfoot through it, and you'll only convince the populace that space is something we're not ready for. And, this being a republic, if people don't think we're ready for space, they'll be persuaded that there are more beneficial things for that money to go to, like tax refund checks.
Until it supports itself financially, manned space exploration is going to have to thrive on the public's sense of adventure.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
From the latest post at Hoagland's Blog:
... Maybe ... NEVER!?
... again.
... while Discovery is still in orbit!
... and the immense impact of these problems on the larger Shuttle Program.
....
....
... why the sudden, almost embarrassing "openess?" Why the committment, so early in the Mission, to literally "let it ALL hang out?"
... why begin such a"new policy" ... before the current crew was back safely on the ground ... when such a policy could literally cost lives (see below) -- if not the entire Shuttle Program?!
... and while the astronauts are still in flight! -- that NASA was suddenly, indefinitely--
... at (to me) precisely the wrong time--
...?
... to the lowliest guy who sweeps the floor in the VAB, who's now specifically tasked with the critical job of looking for debris which could damage even one of those extremely fragile tiles ....
...? Why tell them so precipitously, that the entire Shuttle Program has once
Return to Flight -- NOT Yet
So, the Shuttle Fleet is grounded because of foam coming off the Tank
Is this truly a surprise?
What is surprising is that the Space Agency told us
In striking contrast to the actions of the JPL management and scientific team controlling the increasingly mysterious Deep Impact Mission these past few weeks, NASA Shuttle managers overseeing the on-going STS-114 Discovery Mission have displayed a remarkable candor concerning both the potential problems with Discovery
Like -- telling us IMMEDIATELY they were "grounding" the entire Shuttle Fleet (!) -- as soon as the television images and digital stills were downlinked from the Mission, even before they were analyzed competely
John Shannon -- Space Shuttle Operations Manager -- foreshadowed this truly remarkable development when he stated at the first technical press briefing, the afternoon of Discovery's spectacularly successful launch:
"... I didn't come in with a lot of answers today. I came in trying to send a message that this is a test flight. And, we're very early in a six-day process. We're gonna share that with you as we go through it.
"We're not gonna keep data behind closed doors and try to understand it fully before we bring it out, we're gonna have you walk the trail with us. And we're gonna bring the information in as we know it, and let you share in it [emphasis added]...."
The Deep Impact Team should take a MAJOR hint
* * *
This "new" NASA does however raise some fascinating questions for an "old" NASA watcher like me:
Like
And
I'm referring, of course, to NASA's (inexplicable, to me) amazing rush "to tell the whole world" -- and thus, all the literally thousands of NASA personnel working for the crew around the clock, trying to keep them safe in orbit, and to get them home alive
Grounding the entire Shuttle Program!
Why not simply wait?
Why did NASA make its shocking announcement (certainly, to many of its NASA personnel, if not the Discovery crew itself)
In the middle of a Mission??!!
Why, indeed
Morale is critical in any successful organization, certainly in a large-scale, complex operation such as a "manned" space mission. Literally thousands of people are involved in the Discovery Mission, from the managers at the top
Why deliberately put all those people in a psychological tailspin -- by "blurting out," within literally hours after lifetoff -- at the very Beginnings of this long-anticipated Mission -- in effect, that "countless NASA personnel and NASA contractors' efforts had been wasted over these preceeding two and half years
Discovery is in orbit right now, it was the first launch after Nasa spent a billion dollars and a couple years 'fixing' a problem. The problem is not fixed. I dont think congress (or the public) is willing to risk another billion dollars on the hope the folks at nasa can get it right with another go at it. There is a very high likelihood that the shuttle will not fly again after this flight.
The current agreement with Russia for soyuz equipment expires next spring. It cannot be renewed for silly political agenda reasons. In another year, nasa will not have access to soyuz vehicles to use taking crew to/from space.
The 'appearance' of being ahead in the space game wont last another year, never mind a few years. The full reality will hit home for joe american public when nasa no longer has a means to send astronauts to/from the iss. Note the 'i' in iss, it is an 'international' station, with many other countries participating in various roles. The usa will not have the option to unilaterally de-orbit the station.
The station will continue to operate, but, staffing will change. It's going to be the domain of those countries that have a means to put folks up there, and that's going to be limited to those doing business with Russia to purchase launch capacity.
When the last american astronaut comes home from the station, and is replace by a european, the illusion of being ahead in the space flight will be over. That's about a year down the road on the current path.
There is no verses. We do BOTH.
It is that there is both which creates the versus. Whereas I agree with you in principle - manned spaceflight is critical to the sort of growth, development and refined understanding which will lead to automation handling these tasks, that does not justify turning a blind eye to the legitimate comparison between manned and unmanned approaches to tasks.
regardless of what fools like you think you know.
Tsk, tsk, this is the same sort of personal attack you pointed out in the parent post.
To wit, neither this nor the parent is Argumentum ad Hominem; something is not a fallacy simply because it superficially mimics the structure of a fallacy. In order to be ad Hominem, there need not only be an insult, but rather an insult must be used as the basis either of an argument or an attempt to destroy an argument. You'll pardon my response, I hope, as I don't really get to say this outside of slashdot stories about NASA, but come on: fallacy isn't rocket science.
StoneCypher is Full of BS