Slashdot Mirror


Safe Landing For Space Shuttle Discovery

dylanduck writes "Discovery is back safe and sound, despite minor problems with a leaky power unit and a last minute change of approach direction to the runway. The mission tested some post-Columbia safety changes, and also set up the space station for future construction. But in some ways, the tough job starts now - NASA has just 40 days or so to get Atlantis up."

36 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Nice by 9x320 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I can't wait for the next mission.

  2. Welcome back! by dubmun · · Score: 2, Funny

    Um.... now... take off again. 16 more missions to complete the space station?

    Space shuttle pilot would not be the life for me!

    --
    (end of post)
    1. Re:Welcome back! by mrxak · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't forget the Hubble servicing missions. If those don't happen, we'll be without our pretty pictures for several years before the next orbiting telescope is up and running.

    2. Re:Welcome back! by Mayhem178 · · Score: 2, Funny

      NASA has just 40 days or so to get Atlantis up.

      Bah! The Stargate team only had a matter of hours to get Atlantis up before they drowned, and they managed just fine. NASA should take a page out of their book.

      --

      "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

  3. Good news indeed by Quasar1999 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is good news that nothing major went wrong... but somehow lately when I hear of the space shuttle making a journey, I'm reminded of my first car... towards the end of its life, I was quite happy as well to make a long road trip without major problems... But unlike with Nasa, that didn't mean I was eager to go on a long road trip again, just because I got lucky... I knew not to trust push my luck...

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:Good news indeed by mrxak · · Score: 4, Informative

      A 2% failure rate is to be expected, and that's what we've got. Right now they're being over-cautious and it's slowing up everything the Shuttle was supposed to do. Space exploration is dangerous. We can't let a couple of accidents throw away everything we've worked for. But I am looking forward to a new vehicle, that is for sure. I just hope we don't stop the Shuttle missions before any new vehicle is ready.

    2. Re:Good news indeed by MindStalker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Technically the shuttles get repaired so extensively at each launch that they are as safe today as they were 20 years ago. That of course is the problem, they weren't safe 20 years age we just didn't know the extent of the problems and didn't have any other choice.

    3. Re:Good news indeed by Golias · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "A 2% failure rate is to be expected"

      Really? That's pretty bad news for all these space-tourism schemes. No way in hell I'm taking a vacation where there's a one-in-fifty chance of not ever coming back. It would be safer to take a vacation in Iraq.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    4. Re:Good news indeed by BodhiCat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The media tends to concentrate on problems with the Shuttle, but we forget that there have been minor problems and glitches with any of the prevous manned space programs. We hear about the missions where they had major problems, such as Apollo 13, but even John Glenn (The first American to orbit the earth) had a problem with his heat shield which could have prevented a safe reenty. What makes for a good space program is not that everything goes perfect, nothing ever does (ask Mr. Murphy), but how mission control handles problems as the crop up. The same could be said for any technological undertaking. A good programmer is not one who writes a program without bugs, but one who is able to find them and make the corrections before they cause larger problems.

    5. Re:Good news indeed by kabdib · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Space exploration is dangerous"

      Put on roller-skates, all your winter clothing, welding goggles, motorcycle helmet, then strap on fifty pound bags of cement until you can barely walk, and crossing the street is dangerous.

      While I have a great deal of respect for the people who fly the thing -- astronauts, controllers, all -- the shuttle is a set of fatal compromises driven by budget and politics. The shuttle has done more to hold space travel back than any other spaceflight program. It needs to go.

      I'm hoping for a dropped wrench in the VAB -- no lives lost, but we lose another shuttle to something mildly spectacular. That would put a thankful end to the program, whereupon we could start spending the money where it counts: Unmanned programs, and launch vehicles that don't suck.

      (I used to be a big shuttle fan until I realized how much it was costing us).

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
    6. Re:Good news indeed by mrxak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People still fly in planes that have killed many more than that in their history. I would like to hope that space travel won't be threatened by the occasional disaster, because if nothing else, a few thousand here or there is peanuts compared to what will happen in a few billion years when our solar system becomes rather uninhabitable, or possibly sooner with a meteor strike, war, or plague.

    7. Re:Good news indeed by mrxak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't you still need to ferry people back and forth between the space dock?

    8. Re:Good news indeed by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Funny

      Somehow, I don't think I thought my cunning plan all the way through.

    9. Re:Good news indeed by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      But planes "have killed many more than that" in how many millions of flights?

      The catstrophic failure rate for planes is absolutely miniscule.

      So you and I know it, but there's a lot of people out there who are scared to fly, but not scared to drive P.O.S. cars with bad brakes and bald tires in the pouring rain during rush hour.

      Statistics don't matter to some people - but a large scale emotionally charged event does.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    10. Re:Good news indeed by Teancum · · Score: 2, Informative

      A couple point to note:

      The idea of a "spaceport" is hardly new. In fact, it was proposed by none other than Werner Von Braun as his preferred method of getting to the Moon. Had it been built, there would have been real infrastructure for continued Lunar excursions rather than the glory missions we now know as Apollo, and many more than 12 men would have been able to walk on the Moon in the 20th Century, with only another dozen getting into circumlunar orbit. And it would have been much "cheaper" to send yet another mission to the Moon, with potentially vehicle reuse for return trips to the Moon. Fuel tenders could certainly be sent up unmanned at comparatively cheap prices in terms of cost/lb. Imagine, you wouldn't even have to supply a payload faring or any other gear other than just spacecraft navigation equipment and a few connectors to pull the fuel out after it gets to orbit. This is done, BTW, with the ISS already and was done successfully with MIR by the Russians.

      One of the things to keep in mind, in addition to the significantly reduced atmospheric drag on spacecraft in LEO, you also have (usually) very high velocity that isn't that much more to simply reach escape velocity. The rockets used to push satellites to GEO aren't really all that big... but they do need to be on top of a huge stack that gets to LEO in the first place. Getting to the Moon from GEO is very trivial in comparison to what it took to get there in the first place.

      You are correct, that the actual gravitational pull while standing on a huge tower or "sky scraper" that would be built to LEO altitudes would be almost identicle to standing at sea level on the Earth. The difference is that you are already moving at orbital velocities.

  4. Shuttle is successful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a perfect example that STS program has fulfilled expectations placed on it. Astronauts are now able to go to low earth orbit, take pictures of the shuttle and land it safely.

    Oh? The scientific experiments? We forgot about those. Maybe next time.

  5. Congratulations! by GundamFan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Congratulations To the crew and all of NASA. I am glad to have our astonauts back home safely. And I am glad NASA is willing to overcome this chalange and continue our space program.

    --
    I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
    Mark Twain
  6. Congrats by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Congratulations to NASA on a very successful mission. Most slashdotters will whine about spending money on this, but what we have to realize is the internet and much of our communications infrastructure depends on satellites and other things that the shuttle either researchs or launches directly. Many improvments in many things we use today are a result of research NASA either has did in space or did to get to space. GO NASA! :D

    --

    Gorkman

  7. Atlantis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It won't be easy, the wraith will find it soon and the power cells can only last so long.

  8. post-CAIB mission over by helioquake · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This was technically the last flight to test the changes made for the CAIB recommendations.

    In the next flight, the shuttle program resumes the construction of the ISS (not just delivery of the supplies and take back some garbages). So until the next mission is complete, I wouldn't say that we are back on track with this mission.

    It's good to have her back safely, nontheless.

  9. ...the tough job starts now... by Mondoz · · Score: 4, Informative

    The tough job starts now?
    Not really... The other orbiters are processed in separate buildings, by separate groups of technicians.
    After Columbia, each flight requires a 'backup' orbiter be available to rescue the crew, should an emergency arise, so Atlantis is already nearly flight-ready.
    The processing of Atlantis and the training of the next crew has been underway for quite some time.
    It's not like KSC can only process one orbiter at a time...

    --
    /sig
  10. Fun Fact! by saboola · · Score: 5, Funny

    Upon entering Kennedy Space Center, Homeland Security made the crew take off their shoes, belts, and put laptops into plastic bins before entering.

    1. Re:Fun Fact! by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 3, Funny

      May be apocryphal, but more than one of my ROTC buddies from college have stories about needing to go to a high-level government or military installation in Iraq, stopping at the security gate to make sure they don't have a bomb, then being handed back their M-16 so they can continue on their way.

  11. Orbital Decay? by Darth_brooks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Random ISS question here: Are the shuttle dockings ever used to give the ISS a slight nudge to counteract a decaying orbit? I know the ISS isn't going to drop back into the atmosphere anytime in the near future, but i wonder if there are any adjustments made to its orbit by the shuttle of the supply rockets.

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    1. Re:Orbital Decay? by helioquake · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think the Discovery pushed the ISS's orbit higher in this mission, but NASA indeed uses the Shuttle to do that.

      We are approaching another Solar minimum. It is a good thing since Earth's atmosphere doesn't puff up too much during the minimum period, hence reducing the level of drag onto the ISS (hence less decay in its orbit).

    2. Re:Orbital Decay? by cyclone96 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are the shuttle dockings ever used to give the ISS a slight nudge to counteract a decaying orbit?

      The change in the orbit from the docking itself is negligible (since the shuttle and station are in essentially the same orbit at docking - the closing rate at docking is ~ 0.1 feet/second).

      That being said, the shuttle is occasionally used to reboost the Space Station by using up the excess shuttle propellant onboard. Additionally, in certain attitudes when the shutte is in attitude control the attitude control jets just happen to be pointed the correct direction to boost it slightly as well.

      This is all secondary to the Progress resupply ships, which are the main mode of performing reboosts.

      --
      Worst...sig...ever!
  12. definitely by peter303 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This was one of the fears of a too-long gap between shuttle visits. ISS needs a shuttle-assisted orbit boost at least every other year.

  13. 2% is a meaningless number by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when that results in half your usuable vehicles being lost.

    The 2% number might mean something if we didn't need the main piece back. As such, that number is only good for people who love to toss numbers around without including the context of them

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:2% is a meaningless number by mrxak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, after Challenger was destroyed they built the Endeavour to replace it. If they wanted to, they could replace the Columbia as well. Not that they're going to, but the point is that one lost vehicle every 17 years doesn't have to kill off a program from lack of vehicles.

    2. Re:2% is a meaningless number by mrxak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're remembering right. But it's not like they don't have the blueprints around somewhere. The only thing stopping them from building another 100 Shuttles is the lack of funds and launch dates.

  14. Journaists and public perception by ch-chuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been following this flight since a great launch on July 4th, watched it on NASA TV streaming to Realplayer - and the biggest lesson I learned is that journalists are really such dopes. I love reading about the mission, the challenges, the science, etc. But everytime NASA has a press conference the reporters ask such idiotic questions I just turn it off. Having to rely on them for the only source of knowledge about the US space program is the pits. It's like great science filtered thru the brian of a tabolid publisher. It's like they don't know what to ask, and are constantly digging for some 'human angle' to make an interesting story for people who would rather watch soap operas and golf games. Over and over we get "How do you FEEL about taking such an incredible RISK knowing there are problems with FOAM". I *just* turned on a post landing press conference and the first thing I heard, an NPR reporter AGAIN WITH THE FORM (then hit STOP in disgust). Thankfully we can get info directly from NASA these days. People who get their info thru 3rd party media don't know how badly a distorted view they're getting. Journalists reporting on NASA are like Martha Stewart reporting on NASCAR.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    1. Re:Journaists and public perception by jo7hs2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Watch the launch (and landing maybe, not sure) on CSPAN next time. Nothing but the NASA radio chatter. The cameras aren't as good, but they don't have tickers everywhere.

    2. Re:Journaists and public perception by helioquake · · Score: 3, Funny

      And most importantly... no Miles O'Brien on CSPAN!

  15. "old" airframes by dpilot · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't forget the good old B-52. Half a century and those things are still flying. I suspect there's been a lot of learning since, "No Highway in the Sky."

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  16. You have to be kidding. by pavon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would take longer and cost more money to restart production on the shuttle than it will for the CEV to be completed. It took over five years for endevour to be built, and they already had stuctural spares. It is the worst possible decision that NASA could make both politically and pragmatically.

    Shivetya is right. The reason for the ultraconservative behavior with regards to NASA is because they can't afford another failure until the CEV is ready to fly. It would very likely result in the termination of the shuttle program altogether. Now many people here would applaud that, thinking that it would free up money for the CEV, but it wouldn't.

    One of the major costs of any rocket program is the maintainance, launch, and support crews. There is no CEV related work for them to do right now as it is still on the drawing board, and you can't just fire all those people, and then expect to hire them back once there is work again. They will have moved onto other jobs, and the people you hire as thier replacements wouldn't have the working knowledge of the system that they current staff does - remember that the new launcher will be heavily based on shuttle technology.

    So NASA has to keep flying the shuttle, in order to justify these jobs, and they can't be to risky about it, lest they lose another. I have the luxury of saying that we should just accept the risks, and finish the ISS with the shuttle as quickly as possible, but NASA doesn't. So we will continue to see slow sheepish behavior until the replacement is ready, and NASA is poised to do things that the public finds worthy of risk.

  17. One or two successful missions != Safe Shuttle by antispam_ben · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been reading James Gleick's bio of Richard Feynman, "Genius" and I've just been through the part where Feynman is on the 1993 Challenger investigation team, and he does the famous rubber-O-ring-in-the-ice-water trick for Congress. Feynman interviewed many engineers in different areas of the Shuttle program and was appalled as he found out that NASA was "approaching the envelope" on so many things. They had set high technical standards at the beginning, and then loosened them as they had more flights, and assumed that since they had had an uneventful flight that the more lax standards were okay. As the Challenger loss (and more recent Columbia loss) shows, this is a bad, HORRIBLE way to run things.

    I do hope that not only future Shuttle missions, but also future NASA manned programs are run much differently and to much more rigorous standards.

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.