Slashdot Mirror
NASA Probes Shuttle Oxygen Leak
Cherita Chen writes "NASA is investigating the possibility of a gaseous oxygen leak, posing a serious fire risk, during the launch of the space shuttle Discovery in July. From the article: 'Engineers uncovered possible evidence of high concentrations of the gas in the rear engine compartment about two minutes after lift-off. A leak could lead to a fire or even an explosion in flight.'"
They'd better not let all of that dangerous oxygen escape into the atmosphere!!
NASA is investigating the possibility of a gaseous oxygen leak,
If it's leaking into the atmosphere it's going to become gaseous very quickly anyway.
posing a serious fire risk... evidence of high concentrations of the gas
High concentrations of oxygen won't combust, it's the lower-middle concentrations (especially mixed with certain other chemicals) you have to watch for.
Well, at least NASA's engineers are finding the space shuttle's flaws, even if they're not FIXING them.
...can really make you unpopular with the rest of the crew.
What is the significance of the 500 parts per million figure in the article? What is the rest of the gas made up of? As a reminder, normal air is 20% oxygen, or 200,000 parts per million.
TFA: "A high concentrations of the gas in the [rear compartment]"
I think something smells fishy.
It's a hand twinkler, you dumbass! And I got a bag of whoopass for you!
See DHMO.org for more info.
Realistically, losing another shuttle would, AT BEST, put us out of the manned spaceflight game for 15-20 years.
TODO: Something witty here...
High concentrations of oxygen won't combust, it's the lower-middle concentrations (especially mixed with certain other chemicals) you have to watch for.
I believe you're confusing oxygen with a fuel. Oxygen won't combust at all. But putting a solid or liquid fuel in contact with pure oxygen and an ignition source is a recipe for disaster. It's true that if the oxygen concentration were to reach such a high level that all other flammable gasses present were below their LFL the mixture wouldn't burn, but that wouldn't make the situation safe because a more concentrated fuel source could be introduced and you'd have a huge fireball on your hands.
If you can read this sig, you're too close.
It appears that they are more concerned with the amount of oxygen present than the location of the oxygen. Does this mean that they expect a leak in there in the first place?
The shuttle program has run its course, it's too complicated to maintain and operate, unreliable and countless times, astronauts, engineers have said it that it would have been more cost effective and safer to just use re-usable expendable rockets. The irony is Nasa probably had hints about this back in the 80's and only now 20+ year's later are the heading to the drawing board to come up with a replacemnet. NASA lost it's forward thinking ability after the moon landings... We need maybe one or two smaller versions with forward thinking individuals..
Historically, there have been many space flights with very few fatal malfunctions (Challenger and Columbia). There were even more test flights of the shuttle craft. Out of curiosity, has it always been a possibility that an "explosion could happen during flight" but with probability on their side, it didn't?
What I'm trying to say is that you're trying to put a rocket into space with (almost) a piece of the sun on its backside. Aren't there always possibilities of explosions when what's powering you is, essentially, a controlled explosion?
My work here is dung.
"Realistically, losing another shuttle would, AT BEST, put us out of the manned spaceflight game for 15-20 years."
Sadly, this would actually SAVE lives...
--ken
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
So they found out about a potential serious problem 2 minutes after liftoff and they said nothing until 5 months later? Seems to me that NASA is trying to save face and not doing a good job at it. I've always been a strong supporter of NASA, but enough is enough, they just keep dumping billions of dollars into the space shuttle program and nothing constructive is happening.
Doubtful. We have some many more advanced materials because of space.
TODO: Something witty here...
We have many (MANY) technological advancements because of war too. I don't see people advocating your point of view generally advocating that though.
I'm no Hawk, just a Libertarian pointing out some hypocrisy.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Sadly, this would actually SAVE lives...
How?
It's not hypocrisacy at all. 20 or so in the history of space exploration in the US, versus 20 every few days in Iraq...
Not a valid comparison at at all.
TODO: Something witty here...
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that we have had astronauts killed from this combination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1
No more significance than rumors of (insert male celeb)-iffer's breakup, or Jane Whosis on As the World Turns getting a positive on her latest test results, meaning she has to go back into the hospital and lie in bed for a couple episodes.
Seriously, someone strips a screw on some control panel, and it warrants a press release because NASA's general idea of "any press mention is a good press mention" these days, for budgetary reasons.
Please help metamoderate.
I see. So as long as we good a good value for every american life lost, then it's morally OK.
I'm opposed to both based on the fact that both are unnecessary taxation and unconstitutional, but that's a different ball of wax.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
They forgot to account for the fact the crew had just eaten an Arby's Roast Beef Sandwich.
basiCreations Software
I see. So as long as we good a good value for every american life lost, then it's morally OK. Absolutely. To put it in monetary terms, they are things you'd buy for $1, but that you wouldn't pay $1000 for. We make value judgements all the time.
TODO: Something witty here...
Maybe we should stop forcing people to be astronauts...oh wait.
Seriously is there any astronaut who doesn't know and accept that their job is dangerous?
Where are the probes shuttling the oxygen to?
Your favorite
Heh, well OK then.
I agree with you there, I was suspecting you might not take such a view though, playing devils advocate.
You know all the people that spout garbage like "If (something extremely expensive or freedom-hampering) saves just one life then it was all worth it".
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
If you mess with oxygen levels the chances of fire go up quite a bit, one of the reasons why people are paranoid about static electricity some high oxygen environments like operating theatres and decompression chambers.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I remember it from the book about the movie. The book was really good, and fairly informative without using integrals/fluid mechanics/thermodynamics.
For NASA, it takes a disaster to change anything worthwhile. This is a problem with the accountant bean-counters, not the engineers or the astronauts. The problem is the current management team.
The problem is that NASA is no longer run by engineers for engineers. It's run by Marketing and Business Administrators for Marketing and Business Administrators.
As I just happened to read today... http://www.counterpunch.org/grossman12132005.html ...an in-flight explosion could be quite serious if that shuttle happens to be carrying large quantities of plutonium.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
It seems like every time we turn around, there's some new problem with the space shuttles. They all need to be redesigned and rebuilt! Too bad all the of budget's going to blow things up overseas...
I kill harmless processes for sport
Wouldn't probing the leak just make it bigger?
So we shouldn't even try to make their jobs safer? What kind of screwed up mind did that come from?
There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
I'm not so sure. Maybe someone knows the numbers to answer this question:
Would the money saved by abandoning the shuttle (explosion or otherwise) be enough to outright buy the Russian manned spaceflight program?
I quit!
Shouldn't that be, "another explosion in flight".
/. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
Every time I read something about the space shuttle program, I learn another mildly disturbing fact. If the bottles are important enough to have, and are prone to failure, then why aren't they made redundant? Sigh.
If it wasn't, well, we wouldn't be here to contemplate it. ;-)
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
It's funny I don't hear day-to-day of any problems in the Russian (or maybe any non-US) spacecrafts.....
Unfortunately for this story, 'probes' turns out to be a verb rather than a noun. Wonder what Cassini or the Mars rovers are up to...
It's already leaking! You want to make matters worse?
There are 40,000 highway deaths each year in America. If we tried to make cars as safe as Shuttles we would have only one car trip in America every three years (one Shuttle flight since Columbia). That's being OVERLY cautious in my opinion. And cars carry lots of small children who are NOT volunteering for the trip (unlike the astronauts) and who die in the process. Asking for (and paying for) 100% safety is unrealistic.
The shuttle program is abandoned anyway, so why bother ?
Lesse, we have a heat engine turning hundreds of gallons per second of cryogenic liquids into heat, then into a bazillion horsepower, a fair percentage of which gets turned into vibration. What are the chances of a bolted flange working loose, or a pipe fracturing, or a short temperature imbalance warping a pipe, valve, seal, or flange? What are the chances some piece of paper or other material was left in a hot zone, and the oxygen is just being boiled off the object? 500ppm is miniscule-- you can't get a flame or explosion until the fraction gets 100's of times higher. And a lot of the compartments are filled with inert gases, so it's even harder to start a fire.
It's Pluto not Jupiter. Pluto. Pluto has practically no solar radiation reaching the planet. Solar cells are useless.
This is linked from the main article
And this is relevant how?? The probe isn't even using a reactor.
Ummm... You can hold plutonium in your hand. It's fairly safe if you don't inhale it. Alpha particles can be stopped with a piece of paper and most everyone has a source of alpha particles in their home. In fact one of the first power sources for the pacemakers was a RTG. http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/Miscellaneous/
Also, your post should be modded offtopic because they don't launch these probes on the rockets they use for the shuttle. This one probe is launch on the Atlas V.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
MARTY: Does it run on regular unleaded gasoline?
DOC: Unfortunately, it requires something with a little more kick: plutonium!
Keep your eyes to the sky.
WHOOOOOSHHHH!!!!!!