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."

22 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Fuel Cell Supplier by tygerstripes · · Score: 5, Funny

    NASA are presently in conference with the fuel-cell's supplier, Dell.

    --
    Meta will eat itself
    1. Re:Fuel Cell Supplier by kingtonm · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dear Dell Customer,

      Dell has identified a potential issue associated with certain batteries sold with the NASA Shuttle(TM) series. In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and other regulatory agencies, Dell is voluntarily recalling certain Dell-branded batteries with cells manufactured by Sony and offering free replacements for these batteries. Under rare conditions, it is possible for these batteries to overheat, which could pose a risk of fire, explosion, or firey death.

  2. If only. by rtyall · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet they wished they bought Duracell now.

  3. Great timing there... by interiot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unfortunately the article is a day old... Countdown is continuuing for a launch this morning (Friday morning).

    1. Re:Great timing there... by keithmoore · · Score: 5, Informative

      for news about something like the shuttle, where the status changes from day to day,
      it really pays to check a primary source. like
      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/ind ex.html

    2. Re:Great timing there... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not that they didn't fix it. They tried. There's only so much you can do to the ET to fix this problem. This is what happens when you use Cryo fuels. Even with the improvements that were made, when you have the FL humidity freezing on the side of your tank, it has a tendency to work itself into the cracks, expand and then the vibration of launch shakes it loose.

      I think NASA has come to the realization that space craft don't need to land like aircraft and that space vehicles need to be designed for launching to and operating in space and not for the landing which is what the shuttle was designed for. Also, modern day astronauts could care less about the space vehicle handling like a airplane (which is what the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts wanted).

      --

      Gorkman

  4. 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.

  5. If it's broken ... by Gaima · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... replace it.
    As long as they test it properly after replacement, what's the problem?

    1. Re:If it's broken ... by PrinceAshitaka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is filling out the paperwork in triplicate. They may have enough time to safely repair the shuttle for launch, thye just don't have the time to do all the paperwork. This is why private space endeavors are they way of the future.

      --
      quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    2. Re:If it's broken ... by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The problem is filling out the paperwork in triplicate. They may have enough time to safely repair the shuttle for launch, thye just don't have the time to do all the paperwork. This is why private space endeavors are they way of the future.
      So you would be quite happy with the batteries being replaced with a cheaper alternative which might work almost as well because the savings made will increase share dividends.

      For those who insist that the private sector is always preferable my I remind you what happened to the Herald of Free Enterprise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herald_of_Free_Enterp rise or, for that matter, how much better UK trains are running in the Hatfield area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield_rail_crash since privatisation.

      --
      init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    3. 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.
    4. Re:If it's broken ... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      In a nutshell, better to not go up than to blow up.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. On again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    CBC radio is saying it's on for today. This is in spite of the fact that the chief safety officer objects. They say they can go with only two fuel cells and don't need the third one. The spokesman I heard said that replacing the fuel cell had its own risks. Could this thing be so complicated that they can never get the whole thing working at the same time?

  7. Tell me again, Americans... by Sunburnt · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...why, exactly, our country's spaceport is still located in a state known for nothing so much as lightning and storms? I'm silly enough to live in Florida right now too, but I'd be moving even sooner if I had a multimillion dollar vehicle parked in my garage. Everything seems to point to Florida's climate worsening throughout the foreseeable future.

    Ha, I'm just kidding. Congress would love to see NASA inoperable so they can go back to spending money on bridges to nowhere (Thanks, Ted Stevens!)

    --
    Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
    1. 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?

    2. Re:Tell me again, Americans... by onion2k · · Score: 4, Informative

      You save a huge amount of money if you launch from a geographic location that is near the equator, heading east (so you get the benefit of the Earth's rotation, which saves fuel and allows for an increased payload), and is far enough away from people that you don't get bits of rocket landing in residential areas if it all goes wrong. Being near the equator also puts you in a good position for a geostationary orbit.

      --
      http://twitter.com/onion2k
    3. Re:Tell me again, Americans... by clickclickdrone · · Score: 5, Funny

      >a state known for nothing so much as lightning and storms?
      And oranges. It's a well kept secret that rocket fuel is actually distilled orange juice. What colour is the shuttle's fuel tank? Orange. To hide the leaks.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  8. Hmm .... T minus 4 hours pr so by CiRu5 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This article is a little late wouldn't you say, the shuttle launches this morning baring any further delays. Also I believe they are choosing to fly with the damaged fuel cell as it is not a threat to the safety of the crew.
    Good Update: http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/3484
    Countdown ticker: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/ind ex.html

    --
    "Some of the worst mistakes in my life have been haircuts." - Jim Morrison
  9. Weather.. sure.. right by saboola · · Score: 3, Funny

    ..or maybe it's the Goa'uld Ha'tak mothership sitting a couple hundred miles above Port Canaveral preventing the launch. You can fool me Nasa, I watch television.

  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. Re:Lightning? Phht. I know the fix... by zerocool^ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The poster of the above comment is a friend of mine, aside from being a pre-space shuttle space program junkie and also a big fan of apollo 12, and he explains the above post as this (over IM):


    HIM: man, im a fucking dork.
    ME: how's that?
    HIM: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=196049 &cid=16065585
    HIM: gotta read the story
    HIM: problem is, no one at /. is gonna get it.
    HIM: basically, like 90 seconds into the apollo 12 flight it was hit by lightning and the entire computer stopped working
    HIM: the fix was a switch labled SCE, and to flip it to aux to basically power cycle the computer.
    ME: heh
    ME: you know your shit.
    HIM: Apollo 12 is the shit.
    HIM: its my specialty.
    HIM: haha
    HIM: im *that* guy on /. that has a absurd amount of knowedge about one small area of things that are discussed.
    HIM: and its useless information.


    I figured those of us who haven't spent weeks in the Air and Space museum, or read the audio transcripts from all available NASA flights, would want an explanation.

    ~Wx
    --
    sig?