Slashdot Mirror
Shuttle To Fly Without Safety Revisions
HaloZero writes "In the face of safety concerns, NASA has decided to proceed with launching the Space Shuttle Discovery in July without changes to the external fuel tank. The article states that even though Discovery's last launch shed a huge 1-pound chunk of potentially devastating foam, they're willing to wait to change the spec on the disposable tank. The changes would modify the Ice/Frost Ramp assemblies, which prevent a buildup of ice on fuel lines and cables (as a side effect, they also have a tendency to dislodge large chunks of insulation)."
What's even more interesting is the blatant fact that the old foam is actually more safe than the new foam that failed. That's right, the foam that failed was a new EPA regulation applied to NASA [newsmax.com]. From that article:
But instead of returning the much safer, politically incorrect, Freon-based foam for Discovery's launch, the space agency tinkered with the application process, changing "the way the foam was applied to reduce the size and number of air pockets," according to Newsday.
You're quoting Newsmax as an authoritative source?!? Why not the National Enquirer or the Weekly World News, they're just about as authoritative. Are you aware that Newsmax, along with WorldNetDaily, CyberCast News Service (formerly Conservative News Service), and freerepublic.com are playgrounds where far-right conspiracy whackos trade theories? Friend, these are people who would abolish the EPA if they had their way! Small wonder why they spin this story as "EPA kills astronauts."
When their exemption was denied, the National Astronaut Scattering Administration had the option of not launching. But, just like with Challenger and Columbia, they're going to launch it anyway, safety be damned.
Have the guy responsible for shuttle safety fly with 'em. I hold any bets that those shuttles will be safer than driving through downtown NY rush hour... bad example.
But I guess you get the idea.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ah, the 'they don't make cars like they used to' fallacy.
I've owned older cars. They need a lot of TLC to keep running reliably - my old Mini needed new points/condenser every 6 months (with the oil change), frequent spark plug/HT cable replacements, and I had to have the cylinder head off twice in the time I owned it. Although it was a fun car to drive (and had lots of character), it needed a LOT of maintenance to have any hope of reliability. There was actually a very noticable performance difference after each 6 monthly maintenance - those old cars really did deteriorate that fast. It also suffered from rust.
My next car was a 1984 Sierra. Not much in the way of computer control, but unlike the Mini, I *never ever* had ignition problems with it, and only broke down a couple of times (the clutch cables were very bad and had a tendency to suddenly go). I had much fewer reliability problems with the Sierra. I still had them though. It could be hard starting on a cold damp morning, and would run a bit rough until it was warmed up (automatic chokes were never a good idea). It also rusted.
My current car, a 1995 Audi A4, just runs consistently, day in, day out. It always starts easily whether it's hot or cold, damp or dry. It is galvanized, so despite living on a small windswept island with a very salty atmosphere, it doesn't rust. After I've cleaned it, it looks just as good as the day it came out of the factory - the paint is so much better on it than older cars (most 1970s cars, when 11 years old would be unreliable, faded and rusty). It also drives just as well today as when it came from the factory - it still performs like the book says it should. It never needs tune-ups like carburetted cars like the Sierra or Mini did because the computer keeps it tuned all the time.
Sure, older cars are much easier to work on - but the point is, I don't have to work on my Audi like I had to work on my Sierra (or even more so, the Mini). And my Audi doesn't rust.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
That is pretty much correct. However, the higher density of ice also raises some problems. It is much harder and it the force is transferred to the shuttle over a smaller area. NASA is reasonably comfortable ignoring smaller pieces of foam because they are pulverized without causing damage if they contact the orbiter. The smaller area of contact means less skin area resisting the impact and the hardness of the ice raises the chances, for a given KE, of damaging the skin or the brittle thermal tiles. Now I don't know if the astronaut you interviewed specifically discussed ice or just relative velocity of foam chunks vs mass, and I won't claim to know more about the issue than her, but I suspect ice can easily attain enough speed difference to cause damage, so neither ice nor significant shedding can be ignored.
One other problem with ice is the added weight.
She specifically talked about foam vs. ice. She said that going into it, they all assumed that ice would be the greater threat because of hardness and mass, but after running lots of simulations (it was a simulation conference where I met her) they discovered that foam's propensity to rapidly decelerate made it a much greater threat in terms of KE once the shuttle picked up speed but was still in the atmosphere.
That is not the bottom line. The bottom line is that America, The Good Ol' USofA, does not have manned access to space. We have a system that is broken beyond usefulness, that is bringing the rest of our government space program down. The astronauts being volunteers has little to do with our strategic requirements. We can't get up there even if we want to.
We need to have a frank national discussion. If we are going to stop being spacefaring, stop. If we are going to develop cislunar space and beyond, we need to start with reliable (ie. commercial) flights to LEO for human beings. There is a new aerospace industry growing out there, and doing quite well, see Space Adventures recent PR. NASA may have to leverage these new businesses to survive. Does America need a "Space Shuttle" or be able to purchase tickets to LEO? Capabilities are more important than hardware.
The current price for a six-month stay in space via Russia, including Soyuz up and down: $44million. That and the mythical "Tito" of $20million are commercially available. That is the going rate, and American aerospace is going to need to be able to match it for the market to expand.
Josh
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Which disaster would you like credit for?
Every disaster-fated structure or system anyone's ever seen fail, was built by an Engineer.
+++OK ATH