Space Shuttle Launch Delayed Until July

DarkNemesis618 writes "NASA decided on Tuesday to delay the launch of Space Shuttle Discovery until July, squashing all hopes that it would launch in May. The external fuel tank is again the culprit, but this time it's not the foam. One of the four fuel sensors in the fuel tank that control when the space shuttle's main engines cut off was discovered to be faulty. This delay does however, give NASA the time it needs to decide what to do about the small crack found on the robotic arm. Over a week ago, a worker bumped the arm leaving a small crack in it. The arm is key to this next mission as the cameras and lasers used to inspect the shuttle for damage are mounted on the robotic arm. All things aside, NASA engineers are saying that the next possible launch date will be July 1st."

Comments

This is news?

[east coast]

As much as some moan about the concept, turning space into a tourist attraction may be the only way we're ever really going to get off this rock. It's pretty apparent that NASA isn't going to be doing much more than sending out probes. Not to say that probes aren't needed but we need to be a bit more mobile. Life is not a spectators sport.

Re:This is news?

[brother bloat]

Without proper funding, the space program can't do a heck of a lot. Right now, even the international space station has barely enough funding for maintenence, let along cutting-edge research.

Maybe commercial space flight will do something to jump-start space exploration once more.

Re:This is news?

[kimvette]

By that logic, why did you ever leave Mommy and Daddy to go out on your own (or have you yet)? This is intended to be funny and drive across the point, BTW, and not an attack.

Why go to a bar, or to a movie? It's not even remotely useful to do either since they do not provide a living.

Ever go skiing? Why go up a mountain just to take a huge risk balancing on narrow pieces of fibreglass while sliding down the side of a mountain at 60-90mph, when at any moment you might just fall and end up crashing into a tree and dying?

Why bother doing ANYTHING?

It's human nature. Why not explore? I would LOVE to see the gas giants up close - especially Jupiter and Saturn. I would love visit the Horsehead nebulae up close. I would love to visit the vicinity of a black hole just to find out whether it is actually visible or not. I would love to visit a brown dwarf to see just what happens while a star "dies."

Wouldn't it be fascinating? For no other reason than to SEE it. In person. Wonder in amazment at the universe.

We're human. We explore. We have curiousity. Of COURSE we want to get off this "rock" - does there have to be any reason other than "it's out there, and I have never been there." - to paraphrase from The Truman Show - "Because I never have! That's why people go places, isn't it?"

Does there HAVE to be a tangible result?

of course, I'd love to see an end to political strife, starvation, etc. first before spending money on space exploration, but again, it's all human nature and it's human nature to bicker and those issues will never be solved, so why not spend money on exploration?

Re:This is news?

[Rei]

There's a more fundamental bit of logic one must apply. Believe me, I know what you're talking about: few here *wouldn't* like to be able to go into space. Even seeing others do it is a rush at times. But lets back up for a moment. Payload launch costs are 7,000$/kg, and that's if you go Russian (unless you get a special deal, which is known to happen). Manned launch costs are even more pricey than just paying to ship your mass up. Only the rich can afford that, plain and simple. And there's only one thing that can change this state of affairs: money. Lots and lots and lots of money invested in tech, tech, launch subsidies (to help build a self-sustaining industry), and more tech.

If we blow our space budgets flying people around the cosmos with current launch prices, that's all we're doing: blowing our budgets. Better to put the money into tech research (and stick to cheapo robotic probes to satisfy our exploration needs for now) than to have a few select humans darting about space on economically unsustainable joyrides.

Launch pushed back?

[cgenman]

They must be revamping the copyprotection.

A modest suggestion

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

"Over a week ago, a worker bumped the arm leaving a small crack in it. The arm is key to this next mission as the cameras and lasers used to inspect the shuttle for damage are mounted on the robotic arm."

JB Weld

Re:A modest suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, crap, one shouldn't feed the trolls. I sin. I'm no supporter of the shuttle orbiters, but this one has to be answered.

Mods- if you have any sense at all, make the parent +1 DUMBASS, then make this post +1 Troll pickler. Let folks read it and judge for themselvs. Yes, I'm going to unload on the fucker. And I'm going to say FUCK! Repeatedly! I might even misspeel. My nomex briefs are on...

I wonder what they mean by "bump"?

Lets start out with an article from a real space news site: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0603/08shuttle/

Go read that, or at least the first sentance. Then think about it for a bit. I quote:

The shuttle Discovery's robot arm is undergoing ultrasound inspections after a weekend mishap in which a moveable access bucket bumped into the arm during work to clean up broken glass.

As in the dipshits at KSC were working to clean up broken glass from a busted heat lamp, and rammed the fucker with a movable man holding bucket. I'll bet that would even put a nice sized ding in your beat to hell dumbass driver's Ford pinto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto/. Probably not a quarter million dollar ding, though. And they wouldn't likely need to spend a quarter mill worth of analysis to figure out what if anything to do to fix your pinto. Hell, I'd offer to fix your ride by gluing old bubble gum onto the side of your shitbucket with stale ass chaff- for free.

That arm is a piece of shit if you ask me. Like a lot of stuff designed at NASA (some is very good don't get me wrong) it's designed to work within insanely too small a tolerence.

Stick to something besides pretending to intelligently critique space hardware design.

See, an item like the arm doesn't just need to be precise (as you muttle on about), but also a few other things that go along with space flight hardware:

+ Strong (its a flying crane and can handle 65,000 pounds on orbit.)
+ Clean. As in contiminate free so that it doesn't fuck up things that fly inside the shuttle.
+ Lightweight. As in every pound that the arm packs up is an pound of cargo you can't fly (at ~$12k to $30K per pound).
+ TVAC compatible. As in it lives in space. Insane heat, vacum, cold... Nasty stuff. Also, cant outgass or warp in space.
+ Shirtsleeve compatible. As in lives inside the VAB and landing sites and everywhere the shuttle goes on earth.
+ Highly instrumented.
+ Accurate. (look that one up, it is different than precise)
+ Gentle. (can't damage the hardware while schlepping it around)
+ Reliable as all hell(as in who thefuck fixes it if it breaks on orbit)
+ Able to carry the OBSS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Boom_Sensor_S ystem/
+ Documented to all bloody hell. As in the QA bastards can probably tell you what mine hauled up the metal in the wire that runs down the arm next to the bump, what miner brought it up, on what shift, using which truck, and so on and so on... For every component, again for every subassembly, again for every next level assembly. Oh, and the entire build, test, rework, and flight history of everything associated with the SRMS. Go look up heritage, in the space flight context.

The world is not a static place and the unexpected can happen, don't design a frigging billion dollar robotic arm that breaks if you touch it. I can't even count how many times those arms have broken.

Really? You must be mistaking the SRMS with that pinto that you drive!

Do you want to try and tell the world how many times the SRMS has broken on orbit?

disclaimers: Yes, homer, I do work in the aerospace business. No, I don't work for the fine cannucks that build the SRMS. Yes, I think that

Water is running out?! OMG!!?!?

[NekoXP]

But the shuttle uses hydrogen and oxygen to get into space. That's what's in the orange foam-clad tank.

The SRB's (the little white ones) use aluminium and ammonium perchlorate.

No oil there.

For manuevering the shuttle burns hydrazine and oxygen (there was a big fuss when Columbia crashed as hydrazine is pretty toxic)

Not gasoline, not even kerosene. Why is fighting over oil affecting then again?

Most things worthwhile are also risky

[xtal]

Talk to an astronaut, and they all understand the risks of manned space flight. It wouldn't stop them for a second, though.

How many people died discovering the new world? How many died in WWII defending western democracy?

Somebody is going to put men on mars and the moon. Maybe it'll be China or Japan instead of the USA. Maybe it'll be Russia. If we are unwilling to accept the risk, then we will not share in the reward.