Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Space Shuttle Atlantis Delayed Again

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the mom-says-i'm-grounded dept.

eldavojohn writes "An electrical short cause the space shuttle Atlantis to be delayed since a lightning strike to the pad and Tropical Storm Ernesto caused delays. From the article: 'Liftoff was only hours away Wednesday morning when engineers reported a short in one of three fuel cells that supplies electricity for all the on-board systems, including the crew compartment.' It also points out that 'The faulty cell is currently operational even with the short. But after the 2003 Columbia disaster, which killed all seven astronauts, NASA says it has adopted an aggressive, safety-conscious approach to launching.' It causes one to wonder whether pre-Columbia-disaster NASA would have just replaced the fuel cell on the fly without telling anyone — and whether or not that is an ethically sound choice."

5 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Tad unfair by StuBeck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think its a tad unfair to question what may or may not have happened years ago. They learned and are acting on the safe side now.

  2. Re:Tell me again, Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "why, exactly, our country's spaceport is still located in a state known for nothing so much as lightning and storms?"

    Uh...because being as close to the equator as possible has advantagous trajectory characteristics for many important orbits and with a trajectory heading eastward one needs to be on the east coast so as to minimize time over land while still at low altitudes?

  3. oh, the misstatements! by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Lotsa questionable statements in this article:
    • There's very little likelyhood the lightning strike is directly connected to the fuel cell problem.
    • It's not a "short". Everything isnt a "short". A shorted fuel cell would be totally unusable.
    • NASA, now or then, can't replace the fuel cell without major trouble-- the whole thing has to be taken back to the assembly building, anything in the cargo bay has to be unloaded, the cargo bay floor has to be taken up-- major hassle. Not something that can be done on the Q.T.
    • The shuttle has *three* fuel cells, so it's not a major problem if one is acting a teensy bit unusual.
    • There are plenty of safety issues with *not* launching, parts tend to age quickly when out in the humid Florida sun. It's not clear that delaying launch is a ssafety improvement.
  4. Re:If it's broken ... by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the Wikipedia article (emphasis mine)
    The Hatfield rail crash was a railway accident that occurred on 17 October 2000, at Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK. Although the accident had a low death toll in comparison to other railway incidents in British history, Hatfield's historical significance has become much greater, since it demonstrated many of the flaws present in the mid 1990s privatisation of the British railway system and ultimately triggered its partial renationalisation.
    As someone who was a civil servant and now works in the private sector (my job was sold) I have seen both sides of the fence. I'm not saying that the public sector is better, but I know that the private sector has just as many problems and is not a panacea. In very broad brush terms the public sector tends to err on the side of caution, and hence fail to achieve anything, the private sector is so profit driven that it cuts too many corners. I know which attitude I want behind me if I ever fly on the shuttle.
    --
    init 11 - for when you need that edge.
  5. Whether or not it is ethical? by Snowtide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well here goes my positive karma.
    The summary asks if it would be ethical to replace the cell or not without telling anybody. Who does the author want them to tell? The only people who have an ethical need to know the conditions of the shuttle and the risks associated with them are the crew in the shuttle and the ground crew. These people, the crew in particular, are taking the risks and making the decisions. These two groups of people are likely to know anyway, astronauts, especially the flight crew, tend to be technical people, it goes with the job. Read about the boring parts of an astronaut's job, including hundreds of hours getting to know the details of the shuttle and the booster assembly. It is often said Murphy was an aircraft engineer, astronauts know this. Space travel is risky and can be dangerous. From Florida to orbit and back is hell on materials, electronics and mechanics. The decision to go or not go under a set of conditions belongs to the crew on the shuttle and the ground crew.
    Any errors in grammar, spelling and tone are due to my uncaffinated state. Getting my breakfast apple and Dew now.