Slashdot Mirror
Space Shuttle Gains Remote-Control Landing Capability
rufey writes "An article over at Space.com mentions two new tools that Space Shuttle Discovery will have aboard during its upcoming flight, designated STS-121, scheduled to lift off on July 1, 2006. One tool is for tile repair. The other tool is a 28-foot-long cable that would be used to connect an avionics bay located on the mid-deck with the flight-deck controls. The cable enables flight controllers on the ground to land the Shuttle completely by remote control, including the ability to lower the landing gear. The remote control landing would be used in the case where the Shuttle was damaged to the point that it would be too risky to land it with humans aboard, but could be landed without humans aboard in an attempt to save the vehicle. The astronauts would take refuge on the ISS while mission control in Houston attempt to land a damaged Shuttle."
From memory, the original shuttle design specifically excluded remotely lowering the landing gear. The reasoning was if the entire landing could be remote controlled, there was no reason for a human crew.
I am not sure that "Buran" means "snow-storm" in russian, despite it was written like that on wikipedia and babelfish.altavista.com also translates it like that.
... (not tornado, just a stormy weather). In Russia, "bura" can probably refer to a "snow-storm" as well, but then "buran" means "something that is as wild as a snow-storm".
In Serbian, which is very similar to Russian in may aspects, "Buran" means "something that is like 'bura'" and "bura" is a type of wind that makes the see go mad, makes big waves,
Not that this makes any difference to the rest of the text. I really don't understand why it is such a news to have a remote-controlled shuttle. Since all the commands on the shuttle are, contrary to the cars without the servo, implemented by the machines, it is only the matter of creating a communication channel with the remote-controller. And the communication from earth to shuttle and vice versa is already implemented and in use for decades. Therefore, implementing the remote control support on the shuttle must be trivial (or almost trivial, since nothing is trivial on shuttle).
The shuttle has a bad architecture
Like what, the fact it has enough cargo space to bring a school bus to orbit? I agree, it's time to move to the next-gen space vehicle, but the shuttle has done a terrific service to manned space flight. Guess I'm just tired of the bandwagon effect - everyone, let's pile on to the shuttle-hating team!!
Apollo was safer, and Soyuz is safer than Apollo. But you're flying in a cramped closet. The shuttle is still THE best space vehicle in the world.
"But the astronauts hated the idea of just being useless cargo, so they *demanded* some human input be required."
It's more down to the fact that they hated the idea of dying because the computer lowered the landing gear in orbit. There's no way to raise the landing gear on the shuttle from inside: the hydraulic systems to do so don't exist and the landing gear doors have some heat-protection added after they're closed on the ground.
And the lack of trust of the autopilot was somewhat well founded: John Young had to fly part of Columbia's first re-entry manually because the real aerodynamics at hypersonic speed turned out to differ enough from the models that the shuttle would probably have been destroyed if there were no people on board.
Now, of course, they've done more than enough re-entries to trust the computer to fly most of the way, but you're still dead if the computer has a brain-fart and lowers the gear in space. Similarly, the Apollo command module had a switch to completely disable the system that opened the parachutes until just before landing.
The soviets have also used automated docking for a long time, something the US has still to implement afaik. The regulary launched russian progress cargo ships use this when they dock to ISS. If you havent seen it in action I recommend searching for it on youtube or google video, it looks cool :)
The best by what criterion? By costing a helluva lot more to do the same job, just to resemble travelling in a mac truck instead of a car? Just as a national penis size symbol along the lines of "we can afford to haul a giant truck into orbit, even at the expense of blowing up a few astronauts now and then"? Or maybe as a way to waste whatever space budget is left on a couple of uber-expensive flights per year instead of several flights with a smaller vehicle?
Yes, in an ideal world, where money and resources are unlimited, flying in style in a giant airplane would be cool. In the real world, you have a finite space budget. Wasting it on lifting something that size _and_ on trying to patch an unsafe design is actually detrimental. The same budget would allow a helluva lot more if it wasn't wasted on the shuttle.
Even the original shuttle design would disaggree with your assessment that the current shuttle is good. Just as a quick reminder:
The original shuttle design was, basically, the equivalent of a car. It was little more than a reusable capsule with wings. It was supposed to be reusable, cheap, safe, and pay for itself by doing lots of trips up and down. It also had buggerall cargo space and was only supposed to go into sane orbits.
Except NASA didn't have the budget for it. So they look at who else has a budget to put stuff in orbit: the Airforce. They're shooting these huge spy satellites into space. So NASA goes to the Airforce and says basically "you know, if you gave us your l(a)unch money, we could put those satellites in orbit for you safer and cheaper. And even bring them back down if needed! You won't have to launch another Titan rocket ever again. Won't that be nice?"
The Airforce payloads were, however, (A) bloody huge, and (B) went in a polar orbit, so they'd sweep over the soviet union. That's what the Airforce needed done. So if they're to give their space budget to NASA, then NASA had to guarantee they could do that. Enter the new shuttle concept: a freaking huge truck that can load one of those in its cargo bay.
Look at that huge cargo bay, and that's what it's for. It's not to give the astronauts leg room or anything, it's just big enough to pack one of those huge spy satellites.
The aftermath:
1. Even for those satellites, using a manned shuttle is fucking stupid. You don't need humans onboard to put a satellite into orbit, when a computer can do the same thing. And you don't need to deal with the media fallout when you blow up some humans. (Not to mention the irresponsibility of risking some human lives when you can do the exact same without them.) And you don't need to lift a huge ultra-expensive shuttle either, when you can just lift the satellite itself instead.
So do you want to know how those satellites are launched nowadays? By the Airforce, with a big rocket.
2. For smaller satellites, which was the original shuttle's idea, now the thing is too big and expensive. It's like using an 18 wheeler truck to haul your computer. It's just not worth it.
So how are all those satellites launched nowadays? With a smaller rocket.
3. For hauling humans into orbit, it's too big, too expensive, and too unsafe. And it becomes even more expensive by trying to patch that unsafe design.
4. But wait, isn't it used to haul materials up to the ISS? Isn't that worth having a huge flying truck? Well, guess what? The same applies as for the Airforce's satellites: the cargo can go up with a cheap rocket just as well. A computer can put it into any kind of orbit you want it in. And the Russians have been doing just that, for a fraction of the cost, _and_ more reliably. Who do you think supplies the ISS when the shuttle is grounded for months trying to figure out what foam to use and where? Right. Traditional Russian rockets do.
Even if you needed something assembled into space, there's no reason whatsoever to carry the humans and the cargo together. You can put the humans up with a small shuttle and whatever cargo they need up with a rocket.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Funny you say that when the subject of conversation is a copy of an American project. Or do you suppose that the shuttle/buran geometry is the only way to do the job?
Not to say the russians didn't make some good stuff, but this isn't the best choice to discuss it on.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Just wondering. I realize that it would only be used in an extreme emergency... and that even if the remote landing system didn't work properly, the surface of the earth is very large and the risk to people on the ground would be small.
I also wonder whether it wouldn't be possible (and perhaps safer) to use the shuttle's remaining fuel to lift it into some stable orbit... (thereby, of course, only postponing the problem).
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
... and it's not a conspiracy theory - it's because there's enough room for three people and a few post-it notes.
Getting in a Soyuz simulator un-suited is an unpleasant experience. Doing it for real is only for very dedicated people.
This is not something that people are going to want to get into space with big-time.
We've moved from something pointing to routine space travel (shuttle class vehicles) to glorified escape pods.
Yes, their stuff is reliable - so is a 1955 GMC stepside pickup. You want to use one to get a current big budget construction job done?
If we were still flying Gemini-era equipment, there'd be a crowd here yelling about how backwards we are.
They have not distinguished themselves in expanding horizons, pushing the envelope, whatever you want to call it.
Yes, they have far less resources, but that's like saying a kart racer is the real winner at LeMans, just cause he got out there.
As for "stayed technologically superior" - if by that you mean it auto-landed, then remember the only two-orbit flight was done with no environmentals or on-board software other than what was needed to complete a pre-programmed flight. And that was it. The rest are incomplete and never flew. You may want to factor in the fact that one of the vehicles and its launch equipment sat in an old hangar so long that they and the building they sat it rotted and collapsed, killing 8 people.
I'll take existing STS over Buran any day, I'll take a 99% STS over Soyuz or CEV.
Before you bring up the safety issue - what do we find acceptable? NASCAR has had 32 drivers killed, and we still hand them $1.3B every year. NASA's FY 2007 request is $1.7B.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
The Shuttle, due to it's configuration, has what is called a "non-minimum phase response" in pitch. Simply put, when you pull back on the stick, it goes down for a while first, then, after it gets sufficient angle of attack, it will start to climb. It does the opposite when you push the stick forward. That is, the increse in wing camber makes it want to go up first, then, as it pitches down, it will start to dive. So, in addition to all the issues stated above, there is also this rather nasty behavior.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
On the contrary. My father-in-law works for LockMart and he got to witness a launch from Baikonor of a LM vehicle using a motor designed with the help of (IIRC) Energia (it was basically a "here's a lot of cash, we want your motor" deal). It was the first time since Saturn that the US was able to put up such a huge payload using one of our puny non-shuttle birds. The engineers were rightfully impressed, and we have lots to thank the Russians for. Hell, all of our plans for the "shuttle replacement" look a heck of a lot like the Russian lifting-body-atop-a-tube designs.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
People trust their lives to "computer" controls all the time. Aircraft autopilot comes to mind, as well as many others. The thing is, the "computer" controls have been proven reliable. When some people read computer controls, they thing of a windows pc with some software thats controlling something. That obiously isn't the case or we'd have shuttles falling out of the sky. I'm no rocket scientist, but I expect they use control systems similar to automation in manufacturing - simplified hardware, simplified programming, and validation that would make the FDA blush. They're not pushing the limits of these controls systems, they're pushing the limits of the mechanical systems. Think of all the shuttle catastrophes were the cause was a mechanical/structural system compared to a computer control system problem. You could say the same for the airline industry for that matter - seems to always be pilot error or mechanical/structural.
Of course those comparisons will go out the window when Skynet takes over in 2029 and starts producing the neural net processors (the learning computers)
I for one would like to welcome our new Cyborg overlords.