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.'"
According to NYTimes, this is what they're planning to do:
The astronaut would first try to remove the cloth, which is glued in place, by pulling it out with his gloved hand, she said. If that failed, he would use a set of forceps to tug the filler out or to hold the cloth while he cut it off with scissors, she said.
Are they saying that this piece of cloth (which may be removed by (1)pulling it out with bare hand, (2)poking it out or (3)cutting it off with a pair of scissors) won't simply burn away during re-entry?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
... the proverbial klingon?
he type of repairs being planned have never been conducted by astronauts on a spacewalk before.'"
Did they bring the duct tape ? Wouldn't want to be the one that was supposed to but forgot.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
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.
No it won't burn away, the cloth is ceramic-coated with the same material as the thermal tiles on the orberter belly; they can withstand thousands of degrees farenheit. The protrusions will break away some, but in past landings, they have measured protrusions of at least one half inch AFTER the craft has landed and the protusion was manipulated by the landing. There was no way to know how big the protrusions were prior to landing because they couldn't examine the craft to the level of detail they can post-Columbia.
Spaceflight Now | STS-114 Shuttle Report | Shuttle mission extended to give bonus day at station
Spaceflight Now | STS-114 Shuttle Report | NASA gives go-ahead to spacewalk repair work
(and the headline says "Emegency" -- someone fix that, please)
i am a soviet space shuttle
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 is an emergency task because it was not planned ahead of time. It was not on the manifest and is being done in order to correct a fault that will either cause loss of mission or loss of vehicle.
The astronaut will be outside the orbiter standing in a foot restraint mounted to the end of the space station's robotic arm.
i am a soviet space shuttle
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
I don't know why anyone hasn't thought of this before, maybe it's just seredipity on my part. NASA should talk with the packaging industry, e.g., RIAA and how they package CD's (don't remember the last time I've opened a CD without it damaging the knife, jewel case, my hand, etc.), or the computer industry. I just purchased a logitech mouse and after what I went through to get the friggin' mouse out of its packaging, I'm pretty sure some of these materials and techniques could be useful in creating a more sound Shuttle. Certainly they're at least up to re-entry heat and forces.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
go someplace else for this kind of news.
/. for the news?! I come for the witty, sparkling conversation held amongst intelligent, mature technophiles.
Who comes to
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
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.
The 'new' foam is only used on acreage foam. The hand sprayed/sculpted foam (which killed Columbia and produced the big scary chunk after SRB sep on the current flight) is still the old freon blown foam. This is very plainly spelled out in the CAIB report and recent NASA press releases.
This story is completely contradicted by the CAIB report - furthermore this graph/image plainly shows that NASA *has* been making progress in reducing foam shedding/tile damage caused by the 1998 switch to 'enviromentally friendly foam'.I spoke with a guy from the Mission Management Team (MMT) tonight here in Cape Canaveral. He confirmed that such small pieces of gap filler are not expected to affect the creation of the barrier layer during re-entry, and so do not pose a threat to the orbiter.
The real reason for this 'repair' is because this whole mission is to "test orbiter repair techniques" - and these virtually irrelevant pieces of gap filler provide an unexpected, but very fortunate opportunity to try a real repair technique out in a relatively safe and controlled fashion.
NASA doesn't yet know if it's even possible to have an astronaut perform repair-type work on the underbelly of the orbiter - they think it would be possible, but they have no hard data to say it can be done.
But these small bits sticking out give them the perfect excuse to go test it and get some real-world experience on the issue.
If it looks like the astronaut might damage some of the Thermal Protection System tiles down there, they'll just terminate the repair attempt and fly home as-is. If not, they'll demonstrate that astronauts can go under an orbiter and perform repair tasks down there safely and without harming the TPS.
But I'll bet you'll hear the popular press making too much out of this as usual...
...they're just up there, 'wrenching'...
Everything's noteworthy on some level.
I hadn't heard about the stain... bummer...
Cheers
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
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)
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.
Reasons why Russians flew Buran just once? A successful unmanned flight? (something US shuttles aren't capable of!)
1) To prove they can (cold war thing)
2) To waste no more money on a failed conception.
In the US, the shuttles are a pet of the military, government and different agencies. NASA would gladly retire them a long time ago, but they aren't allowed to. Russians recognized that Buran, despite being way better than the US shuttles, is still a bad design - too much redundant mass to be lifted into the orbit, too many parts that may fail, costs saved on reuse of the shuttle totally obliterated by costs of extra fuel, preparation and rebuilding non-reusable parts. Shuttles as such are a failed design and should be abandonned.
What we need is:
- a dedicated human transport vehicle. Something like the shuttle, just WAY smaller. Less weight, less energy wasted, less parts. 4-6 people, to orbit and back. Maybe launched from a plane, maybe from the ground, like a shuttle.
- a versatile orbital transport vehicle. Never meant to reenter the atmosphere, possibly docked to the space station most of the time. Automatic repairs, repairs on spacewalks, readjusting orbits of satellites, etc. refuelled with supplies delivered from Earth, but not much fuel required really.
- a cargo transport rocket. No need to limit thrust to grant human survival like in case of shuttles. Just transport cargo to orbit. Parts reusable in "best effort" manner, that is, drop on a parachute, if it's damaged/destroyed - no biggie. Cheap transport into space.
- emergency landers. Like the Soyuz capsules. Say, the human transport got damaged on launch and is incapable of reentry. Leave it on the orbit as another orbital transport, send the crew back in capsules.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
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.
What are you talking about?
The US lost seven astronauts durring the Apollo program alone:
Elliott See
Charles Bassett
Theodore Freeman
Clifton Williams
Virgil I. Grissom
Ed White
Roger B. Chaffee
We also lost several other astronauts who were working on other projects, includeding Michael J. Adams and Robert Henry Lawrence, Jr.
The US also came very close to killing:
The Apollo 13 crew (Jim Lovell, John Swigert & Fred Haise) both durring the launch, and the famous explosion.
The Apollo Soyuz Test Project crew (Deke Slayton, Thomas Stafford & Vance Brand)
Of course, the fanatical believers
Ad hominem
in manned space flight would never even consider that this shows the monstrous demerits and grotesque waste
Our species is trying to figure out how to do this. It's hard. It takes time and costs lives and great treasure. Fifty years from now some nameless mech will be strapped to the side of a cracked hull trying to patch a hole with a Shuttle derived glue gun.
Take the long view. It's easier on the blood pressure.
of manned flight versus unmanned.
There is no versus. Cassini is filling basements full of storage devices with Saturn and its moons. Deep Impact's primary objective was fulfilled only one month ago. In 2003, WMAP (and COBE before it) nailed the age of the universe to within a couple hundred million years. CLOVER and the Planck Surveyor will improve on this. Gravity Probe B is concluding its mission in August. NOAA-N launched in May. Spitzer (2003) and Chandra (1999) are both functioning well. Here is a page full of on-going unmanned missions you probably can't even identify.
GOES-N launches in 3 days. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is launching in 6 days. CALIPSO goes up next month. STEREO, ST5, GOES-O, AIM, THEMIS, Pluto New Horizons and Dawn are all launching in 2006. Phoenix launches in 2007.
There is no verses. We do BOTH. We have the means and we're using it, regardless of what fools like you think you know.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
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