Slashdot Mirror
NASA Debates Second Discovery Repair
An anonymous reader writes "NASA is debating today whether or not they should attempt a second repair attempt of the Space Shuttle Discovery to repair a possible problem with the thermal blanket. On Wednesday, an astronaut removed two protruding cloth fillers from between the ceramic tiles on the space shuttle's heat shield. "I think in the old days we would not have worried about this so much," said shuttle programme deputy manager Wayne Hale The astronaut extended his gloved hand and quickly removed the first fiber strip, which was sticking up from Discovery's smooth, tiled underside. "It's coming out very easily," the astronaut said. Arm operator Jim Kelly then maneuvered the arm about three meters to the second protruding strip, known as a gap filler, and Robinson gently pulled that piece out as well. The concern now is whether or not a damaged thermal blanket under one of the cockpit windows would tear apart during re-entry and strike the orbiter."
What's the worst that could happen?
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
> BREAKING NEWS NASA determines droopy shuttle insulation blanket not a danger to Discovery, no fourth spacewalk required. Details soon.
... better safe than sorry.
Plus its not like its costing us any extra money or anything. Safety first and all that.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Out of all places to link a news story like this we choose an overclocking webpage? Irregardless, they have decided not to repair the blanket per MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8826983/
NASA says they will NOT do this ...
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Is this truly the best source to quote for this type of story? I can think of several much better ones off the top of my head....
space.com
spaceflightnow.com
nasa.gov
flatoday.com
chron.com
L.L. Bean filed suit against NASA for using the term "Thermal Blanket" when discussing the potential repairs.
Joe Smith, lead counsel for L.L. Bean is quoted as saying "It's clear that NASA is attempting to make our consumers believe that L.L. Bean's thermal blankets are hazerdous. The fact is, there is no evidence to suggest that Thermal Blankets have ever caused damage, much less damage to a space shuttle."
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
"I think in the old days we would not have worried about this so much,"
should be immediately followed by,
"but of course in the old days we lost two shuttles because we didn't worry so much, and I'm not the one who has to ride the inside of a flaming torch across a couple thousand miles of sky, so who am I to say?"
"extended his gloved hand and quickly removed the first fiber strip, which was sticking up from Discovery's smooth, tiled underside."
Is it me or am I the only person who when first glancing at that thought it was segment from erotic literature?
Hell yes, probably doesn't need fixing - but the astronauts need to have fun.
Das computermachinen ist nicht fur der fingerpoken und mittengraben. Keep das hans in poketz und vatch das blinken leitz
I'll leave it to the space buffs to argue about whether that's a good or a bad thing -- I just pay my taxes and enjoy the pretty pictures.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
It's still not too late to bring This Ol' Bird out of retirement...
New hotness : I ain't gonna touch that one...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
"The astronaut extended his gloved hand and quickly removed the first fiber strip, which was sticking up from Discovery's smooth, tiled underside."
Man, I didn't know spaceship repair could be so HOT... I need a moment alone...
In the current climate of "safety at all costs", it's a wonder any of us leave the house. How many product commercials and local newscasts contain that dreaded solemnly intoned phrase "How you can keep your fmily safe". My god, the last presidential election was all about safety at all costs, and little else. We've lost fewer men in Iraq than an average day during World War II. Cars are marketed about safety, efficiency be damned. Does anybody remember when being blasted into space on the tip of a rocket was a brave and noble thing to do because it was fucking dangerous? Remember Gordo Cooper? Chuck Yeager? Anybody rember White, Grissom and Chaffee? How about the Russians who died? Can we please stop obsessing about Crista damn McAuliffe and go back to exploring space? Jesus Christ, America TAKE A CHANCE!
</RANT>
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
mmmm.... space shuttle slashfiction. I do believe that you've actually come up with a niche of sexual depravity that the interweb hasn't filled yet. Fascinating...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Man's in the vacuum of space. Isn't it sort of implied that he's got gloves on? I always wanted the story to go, "He reached out his hand and thought, 'Oh shit I've forgotten my gloves.'"
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
Keep your eyes to the sky.
All these little repairs don't leave any time for science. Remember science, the reason that we go to space?
... or at least that's what they think. It's not like Japan and China are in a race to build a moon station while we fiddle around - oh, wait they are.
...
You mean like fixing the Hubble Space Telescope that most of the public is overwhelmingly behind, instead of the Big Boondoggle Space Station that only the DC beltway insiders care about?
But that would be logical - and useful.
Weaponizing space is more important than science
Where's the darn [sarcasm] key when you need it
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The View from Here: Lily-Livered Pansies
Elliot G. Pulham
President & Chief Executive Officer
No country ever built an airplane by running for the hills and abandoning the program the first time a bolt sheared or a rivet popped during test flight. Our effort to conquer the seas was not cast on the trash heap of history the first time some ship sprung a leak.
These points seem to be lost on our current generation of lily-livered commentators and pundits, and even a few faint-hearted friends in Congress. In the wake of the successful launch of Discovery, a chorus of these "timid souls" seem willing to abandon human space flight at the first sign of evidence confirming that which we all know - putting humans in space is a tricky, difficult, unforgiving and risky business that is nonetheless worth it all.
I shudder to think where our country would be if this "do nothing, risk nothing" attitude had prevailed throughout our history. Our territories west of the Mississippi would likely fly the French and Mexican flags, railways would never have crossed the continent, and heaven knows the defense department never would have been allowed to fund the Wright Brothers and that risky, dangerous, flying machine contraption.
A test flight is a test flight. It is designed to ferret out problems and flaws. If you understand this, then you understand that, thus far, mission STS-114 has been a fabulous success that has generated a treasure trove of knowledge that will make future human space flights - not only of the space shuttle but of any spacecraft - better.
I normally balk at over reacting to anything that happens at NASA. In speeches around the country, I usually start by debunking the notion that NASA "is" space - pointing out that the largest space agency in the world is the U.S. Air Force, that NASA accounts for less than 10 percent of space activity world wide, and that, since 1996, commercial space activities have comprised the largest sector of the market.
But it matters what NASA does. The fact that hundreds of millions of people watched the launch of Discovery on television, a half-million showed up in person in Florida for the launch, and another half-million more had it streamed to their desktops should tell us all we need to know. Human space flight and space exploration is what captivates the minds and hearts of our people, especially our youth, and propels us forward.
Warts and all, foam shedding and all, the fact that virtually every newspaper in America (and most around the globe) has had space exploration on its front page for nearly every day of the past week should tell us something. We know it is dangerous. We know it will probably always be dangerous. And still we want to go, for in going lies all our hopes, dreams and aspirations.
For all those cranks, sots, killjoys and ignoramuses who think the launch of Discovery was a failure - sit down, shut up, and listen:
Spectacular Success No. 1 - Discovery is safely on orbit, docked to the International Space Station, and all indications are that she has suffered far less launch damage than any shuttle launched before. Human space exploration is proceeding. It is only the schedule of this exploration that will vary.
Spectacular Success No. 2 - Thanks to the efforts of thousands of NASA, contractor, and Dept. of Defense personnel (let's not forget that the Air Force plays numerous critical roles in every shuttle launch, and that U.S. Strategic Command is also heavily involved), the new launch observation and monitoring measures performed brilliantly. We've collected more data and imagery on this shuttle launch than on any human space flight in history. The systems worked. Because of that, we know we still have things to fix on the external tank.
Spectacular Success No. 3 - The NASA culture. Within moments of understanding that foam shedding is still a problem, NASA managers immediately and unequivocally decided th
i am a soviet space shuttle
The rather large hole in Columbia's wing did doom the mission and should have prompted an abort to land, or at least a repair attempt of some sort if no rescue could be attempted, even if it was just stuffing pieces of a spacesuit in the hole.
My point is, we didn't image the huge damage, but now we are being way to cautious with every nick and ding we are seeing in exquisite detail that were probably there in similar degrees on every previous mission. Am I the only one worried they are going to break something critical trying to fix these minor problems? It wasn't some minor airflow problem over Columbia that doomed the mission, but a gapping hole.
On a related note, it does seem that more debris is falling of the external tank than ever before. One reason for the increase shedding was explained as a change in fabrication techniques for the foam using ozone safe chemicals. This being speculated in the wake of loosing Columbia. Have we gone back to the older fab technique, or are the few shuttle launches a year just too much of a strain on the environment? Seriously, I support the replacement of dangerous CFCs, but only in situations where they don't endanger life. What percent of ozone depletion could the foam on the Shuttle possible represent?
Seems like NASA should concentrate on first causes, not this piddling after the fact stuff.
Letter To Iran
Or do these shuttle 'repairs' seem like its just a bunch of PR to show off the new safer NASA?
If my auto machanic can charge me 100$ an hour to work on my car...
If I was them, and I made it back ok, I think I might send them a little bill for services rendered.
The best part is, you could probably charge whatever you like, its not like there are a lot of examples of "Shuttle Repair in Space".
Heh, that would also sound good on a resume eh?
"So what makes you think you are suited to work here?"
"Well Sir, I did repair a space shuttle while in outer space, and then decend in it. I stand by my work!"
From a gravitational standpoint, Discovery is parked on top of a very, very big hill, so by your analogy they should be just fine.
PDF of STS-114 Mission Overview:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/112310main_114_miss_overvi ew_july05.pdf
NASA provides a ton of information about the shuttle and ISS programs online. You have to go find it. You're not going to see most of this info reported by the general media because it doesnt have all the foolsih drama and it would require research/explanation.
I've been off all week and have had the chance to watch almost the entire mission on NASA TV as well as crawl their websites. (Yes, I need a shower and shave about now.) They update their website pretty quickly when new events take place and just about anything you could want to know is available by doing a simple search.s p l
http://search.nasa.gov/nasasearch/search/search.j
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/
http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/crew/index.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html
It's been interesting to watch the mission and press meetings live and then compare that to the drivel the media spews. The only issue I have with NASA TV is that I have to watch it over the web because my cable operator only offers it with a overpriced package of junk I could care less about. Would be nice if it were freely broadcast, at least when there is an active mission.
The Stone Age did not end because humans ran out of stones. - William McDonough
Forward Light Escort Armored-cancelled right at the last second due to politics, not engineering
I think after korea, nam and gulf disaster 1, grunts should realise it's a different military service now. Hummvees are big go karts, never designed to be armored, and as such, will never be an adequate vehicle.
Ever since we stopped actually declaring righteous war,after WW2, it's gone downill fast. Anyone going in now should realise that they are encountering the same corporate boss mindset that drives civilian workplaces,ie, it sucks, there is no loyalty or thought for the "workers", the push is to make maximum profits for the few big corporations who are really running the show, and that's it. the rest is political razzle dazzle smoke and mirrors huckstering. Snake oil politics.
As I understand it, the CRV would cost something like 3 billion dollars to develop. I would imagine that, for less money, we could redesign the docking adapters to support two Soyuz capsules. Let's say that costs a billion dollars. Two Soyuz will hold six people, so that's what we limit the space station crew to.
Buy six Soyuz capsules at 100 million dollars each. Send them up and attach them to the new docking capsules. Presto! Lifeboats for half the cost. You also have more redundancy, which is always good in lifeboats. For that matter, you have some advantages. Suppose one of your crew gets injured. Toss him in a Soyuz capsule with a buddy and send them down. You still have 5 capsules left for everybody else.
Another idea is to do a competitive bid. The "space lifeboat" must have the following capabilities:
- It must be able to survive exposure to space for 1 year -- For budgeting purposes, it must be at least one year (so "replacing lifeboats" can be conveniently budgeted). Obviously, more years is better.
- It must be able to support a crew of 7 for 6 hours -- Again, the number of hours is arbitrary.
- It must be able to land anywhere -- Water or ground, it shouldn't matter. When you're trying to get away from a dangerous situation, the last thing you want to do is to have to wait for a "return window." If it lands in water, it should be able to float for at least ten minutes. Ideally, longer, but if one person can't open a self-inflating lifeboat and dump 6 unconscious colleagues into the raft in under ten minutes, they've got bigger problems.
There are somewhat more mundane things (strength of chairs etc.) that would have to be specced. But, again, it's a freaking lifeboat! It should cost nowhere near 3 billion dollars. Put it out to a world-wide competitive bid (after all, it is the International Space Station) and see what people come back with. Sit down with a calculator and figure out which bid will be cheapest over five years (Cost of each lifeboat times number of lifeboats times years). Give bonus points to craft which exceed specifications (eg, can support a crew of 7 for 12 hours, can float for two hours, etc.). Pick the best one. Give them the contract for five years. In four years, start the process all over again.I mean, this isn't rocket science...