Gouge Found on Shuttle Endeavour's Underside

SonicSpike writes " NASA has discovered a chunk missing from the underside of the space shuttle Endeavour. It was discovered after the shuttle docked with the ISS earlier today. Technicians theorize it may have been caused by ice ripping free of a fuel take during takeoff. From the article:'The gouge — about 3 inches square — was spotted in zoom-in photography taken by the space station crew shortly before Endeavour delivered teacher-astronaut Barbara Morgan and her six crewmates to the orbiting outpost ... On Sunday, the astronauts will inspect the area, using Endeavour's 100-foot robot arm and extension beam. Lasers on the end of the beam will gauge the exact size and depth of the gouge, Shannon said, and then engineering analyses will determine whether the damage is severe enough to warrant repairs. Radar images show a white spray or streak coming off Endeavour 58 seconds after liftoff. Engineers theorize that if the debris was ice, it pierced the tile and then broke up, scraping the area downwind. Pictures from Friday's photo inspection show downwind scrapes."

Comments

Can't be the First Time

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

I wonder how many times this kind of thing happened in the 20-ish years before the Space Shuttle started monitoring its underside like this. Surely this can't be the first time (ignoring Columbia) falling foam has taken a chunk out of the shuttle's heat shielding. IMHO, this is a nearly inevitable side effect of the idiotic design of the shuttle, putting the astronauts next to the fuel and not above it. These kinds of tests and precautions can only be good, but if NASA had stuck with what worked up to that point (astronauts on top of the assembly) instead of changing things up, the tests and worries wouldn't be necessary, and lives would have been saved in 2003, and possibly 1986. Here's hoping this turns out to be inconsequentially small, or at least easily repairable.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[AKAImBatman]

I'm sure it did, but there were several other issues as detailed in this Space.com article:

Foam coming off the tank because of improper application; deficiencies in the materials used; degradation during its transport to the Cape; the loading of supercold fuels; and the violent ride to space. Florida Today reported earlier this year that foam came off the tank on at least 71 flights to date, but NASA did not consider the resulting damage to the heat shield a safety issue.

Requirements and specifications not being followed in testing and manufacturing of the external tank.

Loss of institutional knowledge and experience at NASA and the Michoud plant because of "lots of old-timers retiring or taking buyouts" as the shuttle program reduced its workforce throughout the latter half of the 1990s.

NASA's limited insight into changes vendors had made with materials used in making the tanks.

Environmental requirements requiring removal of freon from the process for spraying the foam insulation onto the tank. NASA has said that the freon-free application method resulted in foam that initially did not adhere to the tank as well, but changes were later made to strengthen the bond of the environmentally friendly foam.

On top of all that, the shuttles themselves are just getting *old*. I imagine that leads to all sorts of maintenance and structural issues. They may still be within engineering tolerances, but engineering tolerances for the Shuttle predicted a 1 in 100,000 flight failure. A figure which Richard Feynman challenged and reduced to somewhere between 1 in 50 and 1 in 100.

So far we're on target for Dr. Feynman's predictions. :-/

Re:Can't be the First Time

[pallmall1]

Loss of institutional knowledge and experience at NASA and the Michoud plant because of "lots of old-timers retiring or taking buyouts" as the shuttle program reduced its workforce throughout the latter half of the 1990s.

These experienced people were replaced with appointees and engineers based on how well they fit the politically correct demographic model instead of ability.

Environmental requirements requiring removal of freon from the process for spraying the foam insulation onto the tank. NASA has said that the freon-free application method resulted in foam that initially did not adhere to the tank as well, but changes were later made to strengthen the bond of the environmentally friendly foam.

The shuttle has become a death trap because NASA has placed image before technological reality.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[QuantumG]

Shame we've gotta wait a few more years for the AltSpace community to get some people into orbit. It'll be nice when we can say "going to space? That's something people do with garage-level engineering these days."

Re:Can't be the First Time

[florescent_beige]

I wonder how many times this kind of thing happened...

Lots (yes it's a pdf so kill me). See page 9.

Sorta reminds me of the time the de Havilland Comet blew up in mid air and aviation engineers learned about fatigue and decided to go look at other airplanes for signs of fatigue cracks and found them everywhere. Talk about freaking out.

Then, after that, several smart people[1] figured out that cracks always had been everywhere and, you know, chill. The airplanes we fly around on have lots of cracks. The thing that saves our collective butts is that they are understood.

1 P Paris and F Erdogan (1963), A critical analysis of crack propagation laws, Journal of Basic Engineering, Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, December 1963, pp.528-534.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[Dunbal]

Not only that, but they insist on rolling the shuttle over to fly upside down underneath the main engines which increases the likelihood of debris from the main engines hitting the payload.

      Not at that speed. Gravity becomes negligible when creating vectors compared to the wind resistance. Upside down, vertical, horizontal, it doesn't matter. There's only one real direction: DOWNWIND. That's the only place your debris is going to go.

      Now you could make the argument that some of the streams of air are shaped to blow debris onto the shuttle, that I would buy. Gravity has nothing to do with it, however.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[Klintus Fang]

I hadn't thought of that before (the fact that the shuttle is on the side of the rocket during take off probably does increase the odds of structural damage to the underside considerably). But now that you mention it, that is a good point. I would like to add one counterpoint though: the 1986 accident was caused by a faulty O-ring (on the oxygen fuel tanks I believe) that shifted in shape beyond the design specs because of the extreme cold the night before that launch, and led to leakage of fuel and an eventual explosion of the tank. That one wasn't caused by falling debris of any sort.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[vought]

The shuttle has become a death trap because NASA has placed image before technological reality.


Oh, bullshit.

The shuttle may have been a flawed design to begin with, and that may have been because NASA was concerned with big-budget DoD and pie-in-the-sky programs during the 70s...but practically everything except the shape of the ship has changed since the Shuttle first flew in 1981.

It hasn't "become" a death trap. Even LEO flight is risky, and the Shuttle is heavy and uses very bleeding-edge technology (still) like throttled H2/LO2 engines. Be honest and argue about the fundamentals of the Shuttle designs, but don't try to bullshit me and claim that things have gotten more dangerous for Shuttle crews now.

Maybe they should have started Constellation ten years ago - but on the whole, the Shuttle is safer now than it has ever been; in other words, still very dangerous, but less so than before Columbia.

I apologize for the brusque tone, but it really cheeses me off when people who do nothing but read NASAWatch.com think they know how complex and difficult manned spaceflight really is - especially with 35-year-old technology.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[swokm]

MHO, this is a nearly inevitable side effect of the idiotic design of the shuttle, putting the astronauts next to the fuel and not above it. That makes me wonder if either of the now cancelled replacements wouldn't have been better? How would the Venture Star or Delta Clipper designs fair with his type of danger? Someone on Slashdot must know...

In any case, I think we screwed up by canceling them, even if the were over budget or whatever. I'm sure they know the risks, but loosing as many astronauts as we have is a hard price to pace for progress -- loosing them needlessly to save a few bucks is criminal... I'm sure that maintaining the 1970s era shuttles is lucrative, I hope that hasn't played a factor in the delay of a replacement.

PS. NASA, if you're listening... next time build the launch facility in a freaking low humidity desert please. I hear MASA rents for cheap!

Re:Can't be the First Time

[hughk]

Then, after that, several smart people[1] figured out that cracks always had been everywhere and, you know, chill. The airplanes we fly around on have lots of cracks. The thing that saves our collective butts is that they are understood.

At the time, stress was not understood and jet airliners were very new. The engineers figured out the effects of stress and crack propagation and the problem was solved, well, kinda. Whilst the comet was retired a long, long time ago, the same basic airframe was used for Nimrod, a aew/asw platform which has since flown for many, many years (although it too is showing its age). After Comet, it became a priority to check for cracks and when they start to move on all critical parts. At that point, the plane has to be fixed, which may involve major work to get at the parts concerned.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[MichaelSmith]

the Shuttle [..] uses very bleeding-edge technology (still) like throttled H2/LO2 engines

...which have proven to be extremely reliable. Of course, if the Shuttle was stacked vertically it wouldn't need to be throttled.

The heat shield is the bleeding edge failure in this design.

They should have stuck an Apollo Command Module on the front of the orbiter where the flight deck is and carried a launch escape tower for the first couple of minutes of flight. That way the crew would always have the option of ejecting if the orbiter fails.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[pipingguy]

Loss of institutional knowledge and experience at NASA and the Michoud plant because of "lots of old-timers retiring or taking buyouts" as the shuttle program reduced its workforce throughout the latter half of the 1990s.

"Loss of institutional knowledge and experience" is a big problem in many ongoing engineering endeavours. When cheap computing became available, many of the "old guys" retired/got fired rather than adapt/succumb to the relatively crappy software solutions available at the time. In theory, meticulous "as-built" drawings and documents are prepared but somehow this is always a half-hearted effort since there's always something newer and more interesting to move onto.

Who took over from the old guard in many cases? People that knew how to operate the computers and make deliverables look CAD-nice. It didn't necessarily matter if the documents were flawed or whether the details were sweated - there weren't many people left to check.

Now, instead of competent detail draftsmen/designers that have the ability to work within their discipline at a variety of employers we have employers demanding specific experience with specific software. Many of these guys are now button-pushers that discuss how to make "the damn machine" do what they want rather than talking about design details and getting excited about new ideas.

Don't get me wrong - it's fun to modify software to make it do what you want it to do, it's just that this is not what designers are supposed to be doing.

WaaahWaaah! Gimme back my pencil!

PS Anyone want to help out with BRL-CAD customization?

Re:Can't be the First Time

[vought]

They should have stuck an Apollo Command Module on the front of the orbiter where the flight deck is and carried a launch escape tower for the first couple of minutes of flight. That way the crew would always have the option of ejecting if the orbiter fails. I don't disagree. But we were stuck with this design 32 years ago. How does that fit the parent coment's assertion of brain drain since the latter half of the 1990s?

I can't see that it does in any way, shape, or form. Parent has an axe to grind against something he or she doesn't understand.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[pallmall1]

but on the whole, the Shuttle is safer now than it has ever been;

So, the new "environmentally friendly" freon-free adhesive's problems have been fixed? How come "In all, nine pieces of debris, mostly foam, came off the fuel tank during Wednesday evening's liftoff, and three were believed to have struck the shuttle."?

A staple-gun and patchwork repair of thermal insulation makes the shuttle safer than ever?

Seems like nothing's really getting fixed, just hacked and patched with staples, threads, and Wal-Mart brushes. If that's "safer now than it has ever been," then the shuttle has always been a death-trap.

I hope they brought up a case of silver duct-tape this time. That'll really boost the safety factor.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[Anonymous Coward]

The Shuttle rolls over as a proactive measure to facilitate an aborted launch.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[neapolitan]

>So far we're on target for Dr. Feynman's predictions. :-/

Quite unfortunately for us and NASA, when he announced these, we all assumed he was joking! :p

http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0393316041/ref=s9_asi n_title_1/102-8483475-6626520?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DE R&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0DEGJCHMSYY456CDH27K&pf _rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=278240301&pf_rd_i=507846

Seriously though, it's a great book. Well worth the read for any self-respecting nerd.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[rbanffy]

The only reason the shuttle is the way it is is politics.

Space operations have four distinct needs:

1- send people up (vehicle needs a safe abort-to-surface option, at least until abort-to-space is good enough)
2- bring people down (vehicle must be able to re-enter atmosphere from orbit and be meatware-friendly)
3- send cargo up (vehicle does not need to return, nor have a safe abort-to-surface mechanism)
4- bring cargo down (vehicle must be able to re-enter atmosphere, but not to be human-safe)

1 and 2 can be done with smaller, re-usable vehicles. 3 may need bigger non-reusable ones. 4 can use any re-entry vehicle that fits the cargo. If there is a spare seat, a human-safe one will do.

The only mission for a Shuttle-sized vehicle would be to bring down large stuff. IIRC, it was never used for that (as the cost of doing it would be prohibitively expensive when compared to launching a new one).

Re:Can't be the First Time

[LordSnooty]

But as we've seen, the most recent disaster and this latest piece of news are both related to the re-entry of the Shuttle. Escape towers aren't going to help in this regard. And it takes two days before they can flip the Shuttle over and inspect for damage.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[MichaelSmith]

But as we've seen, the most recent disaster and this latest piece of news are both related to the re-entry of the Shuttle. Escape towers aren't going to help in this regard

Separating from a Shuttle during re-entry would be hairy but not totally impossible. Columbia almost certainly tumbled before breaking up and an escape capsule could have got away from it.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[EveLibertine]

If that's "safer now than it has ever been," then the shuttle has always been a death-trap.

the Shuttle is safer now than it has ever been; in other words, still very dangerous, but less so than before Columbia. It looks like you're trying to argue with him, but really you're just agreeing with him, though it doesn't seem like you're aware of it.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[Firethorn]

As far as I'm concerned, they should be launching in a apollo style module, with the rest of the cargo going up on a separate rocket.

Then turn around, build a heavy duty space station in a useful orbit and do your stuff there.

As far as I'm concerned, the shuttle is a reusable space station. It shouldn't be. Design tolerances for earth systems are different than space systems, and the interface between is rough. Design, as much as possible, for one or the other. Once you have mass up into space, don't bring it back down unless you have to. If nothing else, the junk can be used as extra shielding.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[pallmall1]

It looks like you're trying to argue with him, but really you're just agreeing with him, though it doesn't seem like you're aware of it.

I disagree with the assertion that the shuttle is safer now than ever before. I also assert that NASA chooses personnel based as much on political correctness and public relations as on technical qualifications and experience. Just look at the crew roster for this flight for a quick example. Woo-hoo, we've got another teacher-in-space!

Just because I'm critical of NASA doesn't mean I'm technically unsophisticated. It just means that I'm not in the elitist group of NASA apologists who try dance around the fact that critical safety issues have not only NOT been resolved, but (as in the case of the foam insulation) have gotten WORSE.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[bluephone]

1 in 50? Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!

Re:Can't be the First Time

[Mr. Slippery]

So, the new "environmentally friendly" freon-free adhesive's problems have been fixed?

Yes, actually, a long time ago. When they first switched to the CFC-free foam there were some problems; changes were quickly made to improve the adhesion.

The "environmentalists make the Shuttle blow up!" meme is a Limbaugh lie; the piece that dealt Columbia the death blow was made with CFCs.

Please stop spreading Limbaugh's lie.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[rapidweather]

When I was a little kid in the 1940's and read comic books about space travel, the problem was the aliens and other bad guys, not the spaceship falling apart.
Imagine the laughter in the comic book section of the corner drugstore if there was a story line like this. Not to worry about getting blasted by alien spacecraft, (with strange technology and shapes), the big problem is ice chunks damaging the outside of the space ship. Buck Rogers types scratching their heads over technical problems like this, that could be fatal. Back in that comic book time, space ships simply landed, no "reentry through the Earth's atmosphere, with the nose of the space ship turning red hot."
The real problems once the space ship landed were usually something like this:

• Taking on more ammo to return to space to continue the battle.
  
• Telling everyone on Earth that the Aliens are coming.
  
• Dealing with the mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, and girlfriends of the space ship pilots and crew. Scream Queens abound in these sections of the story.
  

Seemingly small technical problems like those being experienced for real by the Space Shuttle crew and ground support would seem like the "flat tire" scenes in movies and comic books, written into the script to provide a little humor as the hero and heroin face an all-to-common Earthly problem of the "flat tire" on their mode of transportation.
I can just see it now, "Hey Peewee, Guess what! Buck Rogers spaceship has a dent in it, and he's up in space scratching his head over what to do"
Comic books get tossed aside, kids run over to see what all the laughter is about.
The space comic book writers of that time couldn't have envisioned what would really happen when Man Goes Into Outer Space.

Rapidweather

Re:Can't be the First Time

[everphilski]

Of course, if the Shuttle was stacked vertically it wouldn't need to be throttled.

uh, yes you would. you might eliminate the need to throttle due to Q, but you would still have excessive acceleration for a human payload. The mass fraction of the ET is on the order of 25, IIRC, and several times heavier than the shuttle. When you are almost out of fuel, the 'm' in F=ma is several times lower than when you ignited, but F is constant because you are not throttling, so a is several times higher resulting in some unconscious astronauts.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[MichaelSmith]

would still have excessive acceleration for a human payload. The mass fraction of the ET is on the order of 25, IIRC, and several times heavier than the shuttle.

The shuttle stack effectively throttles down when the solids burn out.

One site I found says that there is a throttle down at 7:40.0 to 3G before MECO at 8:00.0 so acceleration can't be much above 3G at 7:40 and would surely not go above 5 at cut off without throttling.

5G is OK for a human crew but outside design limits for the shuttle and the shuttle/ET combination, which must be the reason for keeping it at 3G.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[wasted]

I (and others) didn't think he was joking, but What Do You Care What Other People Think?

Re:Can't be the First Time

[pallmall1]

The "environmentalists make the Shuttle blow up!" meme is a Limbaugh lie;

I had no idea Limbaugh even knew there was such a thing as the space shuttle. I want to know why, if the foam adhesive problem has been fixed, "nine pieces of debris, mostly foam, came off the fuel tank during Wednesday evening's liftoff, and three were believed to have struck the shuttle."?

Re:Can't be the First Time

[bluephone]

If you want to advance in this world, you have to care somewhat, otherwise you find out There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom!

Re:Can't be the First Time

[LooseChanj]

I wonder how many times this kind of thing happened in the 20-ish years before the Space Shuttle started monitoring its underside like this.

Probably millions of times. They used to have flights come back with *hundreds* of dings just like this one, and thought nothing of it. In fact, one the flights right after Challenger had the same piece of foam that doomed Columbia fall off and scrape the bottom of the orbiter. They took what pictures they could with the arm's camera, and one of the astronauts said it looked like someone had taken a shotgun and blasted away, and said he was seriously worried about re-entry. Columbia has everyone freaked out about foam hits, and rightfully so, but the truth is those black tiles on the bottom can take a helluva pounding and still do their job. It was never a good situation, but those things turned out to be a lot more dependable than most people thought they'd be when the shuttle first flew.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[atomicstrawberry]

The shuttle doesn't fit at the top of a booster because it was never intended to be strapped to a giant set of rockets in the first place. The original shuttle design had the shuttle attached to a large booster aircraft. The booster would fly up to the edge of the stratosphere and the shuttle would detach and fly into space from there. Both stages were then completely reuseable. An extremely elegant design, but NASA's budget was torn to bits and they simply couldn't afford to build to the original design. So they decided to attach the shuttle to the side of a dirty great rocket.

What it really boils down to is that budget cuts in the 70s when the Shuttle was being designed have resulted in the current situation. You'll notice that the major problems encountered on Shuttle missions have almost entirely been problems with the booster, not the shuttle.

Re:Can't be the First Time

[everphilski]

The shuttle stack effectively throttles down when the solids burn out.

The SSME's are throttled to 74% or so mid solid flight to avoid max Q. reference. Check 6:36 pm.

One site I found says that there is a throttle down at 7:40.0 to 3G before MECO at 8:00.0 so acceleration can't be much above 3G at 7:40 and would surely not go above 5 at cut off without throttling.

I'm not convinced, but I don't have my numbers in front of me. Remember, towards the end of flight is when you are having the biggest fractional change in mass over time, which is the biggest change is acceleration

5G is OK for a human crew but outside design limits for the shuttle and the shuttle/ET combination, which must be the reason for keeping it at 3G.

The shuttle replacement (Constellation) is stacked vertically, yet the second stage engine (J2-X) retains the ability to throttle. It is very simple to convince yourself this is necessary! In order to get to space you need a lot more fuel than dry mass. (the equations are left to the interested student ... I'll use a ballpark number) Lets say you need 15kg of fuel per 1kg of dry mass. The upper stage gets you half way there, delta-v wise, so you only need 7kg of fuel per remaining kg of mass. So you are clipping along at 3g at first stage burnout T=m*a. Now, you burn off 7/8ths of your mass. Thrust is constant, mass goes down by 7/8ths. Now tell me what happens to acceleration? It increases. Greatly :)

Where's the 250 Foot Robot?

[florescent_beige]

...using Endeavour's 100-foot robot arm and extension beam. Lasers on the end of the beam...

You know what bugs me? Ok? They have this 100-foot robot arm but they don't have the 250-foot robot that it must have come from. I mean if it has lasers on its ARM, imagine what else it has lasers on. Like, for example, on it's frikken head.

Which it's important to know if theres a 250-foot frikken robot with frikken lasers on its frikken head out there roaming around all mad because NASA ripped its arm off.

Re:Where's the 250 Foot Robot?

[jollyreaper]

You know what bugs me? Ok? They have this 100-foot robot arm but they don't have the 250-foot robot that it must have come from. I mean if it has lasers on its ARM, imagine what else it has lasers on. Like, for example, on it's frikken head. Yeah, you'd think having a 250-foot tall robot would be cool but the damn thing needs an extension cord and the battery only works for five minutes.

Re:Where's the 250 Foot Robot?

[Dunbal]

Which it's important to know if theres a 250-foot frikken robot with frikken lasers on its frikken head out there roaming around all mad because NASA ripped its arm off.

      Perhaps the fact that it has "Canada" written on it is a clue as to where we should look first...

Re:Where's the 250 Foot Robot?

[florescent_beige]

No no no no. That's an obvious cia attempt to misdirect people's attention.

Re:Where's the 250 Foot Robot?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it comes in handy if you have any trouble with angels.

Re:Where's the 250 Foot Robot?

[meringuoid]

Yeah, you'd think having a 250-foot tall robot would be cool but the damn thing needs an extension cord and the battery only works for five minutes.

Damn silly system, that, born of government pork spending and design by committee. Build a proper robot instead - pack a bloody nuclear reactor onboard, it'll keep running forever off that.

I'd also recommend that admin passwords to the thing's main computer not be dictionary words, and be longer than three characters. Just a security precaution.

Re:Where's the 250 Foot Robot?

[SilentChris]

Nasa Chief: "Now evidently my cycloptic colleague informs me that that cannot be done. Ah, would you remind me what I pay you people for, honestly? Throw me a bone here! What do we have?"

Re:Where's the 250 Foot Robot?

[the eric conspiracy]

What makes you think it is just one robot? There is probably a whole ARMY of frikken robots with lasers and stuff all of them mad at NASA and us too. And the 250 foot one may be just one of the smaller Japanese models built in Canada.

Deep [bleep]

[Tablizer]

"Whaddya mean you forgot the Duct Tape?"

Re:It's curtains for them

[AKAImBatman]

It's curtains for them

Yeah, that's it. That's why NASA has sent up tile repair kits with the crew, and made sure they dock at a space station capable of supporting the astronauts for an extended stay. I'm sure the crew of the Endeavour is quite doomed.</sarcasm>

Failure is not an option!

Re:First post

[Tablizer]

3 years of reloading slashdot every day finally comes to fruition.

Think that's hard, next try to get your First Girlfriend :-)

Re:How that little porn star get there?

[jollyreaper]

by alfs boner (963844) Alter Relationship on Friday August 10, @11:14PM (#20192163)
(http://slashdot.org/...id=44091&cid=4592270)
I will never socialize with a Slashdot user. Sorry guys :(

Blame yourselves. Coming from an 80's sitcom's muppet's genitals, that hurts.

Re:It's curtains for them

[harris s newman]

Untrue. Max Q is the maximum dynamic pressure relates the static pressure (p) and velocity (V) of a fluid at point 1 to the pressure and velocity of a fluid at point 2 (per your own link!). As they go faster than Max Q, if something falls off and hits the shuttle, it will have more intertial energy to impact the shuttle with.

tagged: spacedrama

[SuperBanana]

NASA: the new Star Trek.

Re:They've had it.

[Cataclysmic730]

I sure as heck wouldn't either.

I once had a car like the shuttle...

[Hamster Lover]

I once had a little Corolla like the shuttle. Every time I took the car out for any sort of drive I had to re-inflate one of the tires, so eventually I just bought one of those lighter powered air compressors. Eventually I got the money and replaced the tires and soon after the car.

You would think that with billions of dollars and thousands of talented engineers they could come up with a way of launching the shuttle without having to resort to repairing the damn thing before they can return home again.

Re:I once had a car like the shuttle...

[Dunbal]

You would think that with billions of dollars and thousands of talented engineers

      Hey this is a government program you are talking about. They fired all the talented people YEARS ago.

Re:I once had a car like the shuttle...

[MightyYar]

I thought that the government only fired prosecutors and air traffic controllers?

Re:Google?

[apoKalypse]

Yes, but that's because the whisky is blurring my vision.

More reading

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a non-sensationalist summary of the situation that's not just yanked from AP:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5195

The damage is likely minor, but the media loves jumping on these things.

Re:It's curtains for them

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it depends a lot on the shape and mass of the piece of debris. When the piece of debris separates from the fuel tank it has the same velocity as the shuttle. Then it interacts with the atmosphere. For a piece of foam, it will slow down extremely rapidly in the lower atmosphere so that there is a large difference in velocity when the Shuttle rams it. In the upper atmosphere which is much more diffuse the difference in velocity will be much slower. For a piece of ice which will have a high mass and possibly a streamlined shape, it would not slow down nearly as much as a piece of foam. But the ice might have a greater mass. Depending upon the situation the kinetic energy (1/2*mv^2) may be higher for the foam due to the square of the velocity term.

For these reasons a loss of foam in the upper atmosphere when the Shuttle is traveling Mach 15 (for example) is not as serious as a loss of foam in the lower atmosphere when the Shuttle is traveling Mach 1. The point of maximum damage for a piece of foam or ice will occur when the slowing down of the debris relative to the speed of the shuttle is at a maximum. The piece that doomed Columbia broke off when Columbia was traveling roughly 1700 mph at about 80,000 ft. It was estimated that the piece struck with a difference in velocity of about 530 mph. This is relatively close to Max Q. Any impact within about 30 seconds of Max Q is very dangerous.

The shuttle can land without pilots

[Mal Reynolds]

The Discovery was given remote landing capability in 2006. I would be shocked if the Endeavour didn't have this same capability.

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/3 0/0458246&from=rss

If mission control thinks a manned landing too risky, they'll just hook up the remote system and send down the can without the spam. Another Shuttle will be sent up in 6 or 8 weeks and take the whole lot of them home.

This would probably be another large setback to the ISS and to the astronaut corps. The "rescue mission" would probably depart with just 2 or 3 astronauts. And if the Endeavour was lost on re-entry, it would probably doom the shuttle program.

Sucks to be an astronaut these days. Chances of dying, 1 in 59, and you're lucky to get a single ride every 10 years.

On the other hand, SpaceX may get be getting some rush orders for Falcon 9's and Dragons.

Re:The shuttle can land without pilots

[rbanffy]

What if something happens to the rescue mission shuttle? ;-)

One has to wonder how many Soyuz capsules are ready for launch in the next couple weeks.

Re:It's curtains for them

[Kashkalgar]

Not necessarily. The terminology 'gouge' could be the result of the overcompensation for the Challenger and Columbia tragedies. Reading the NASA articles carefully, it seems that there 'could' be damage to a heat shielding plate based on computer imaging. If inspection shows damage, then I am sure the ISS crew will be more than happy to host the Astronauts until the repairs are completed, and re-entry has been shown to be safe in the most conservative of minds. My prediction; the Endeavor will arrive home quite safely.

Rocket Scientists?

[n0dna]

Too bad NASA doesn't have access to any Rocket Scientists.

Maybe they could find some way to overcome whatever this treacherous material is that they've codenamed: "Styrofoam."

Although the new cameras do give us much nicer pictures of the things they decided were too hard to fix.

Re:Rocket Scientists?

[Tablizer]

Maybe they could find some way to overcome whatever this treacherous material is that they've codenamed: "Styrofoam."

The Russians must be laughing their asses off.

Re:They've had it.

[Klintus Fang]

I'm fairly certain that they will not re-enter if they can't patch the heat shield. If all attempts at fixing it fail they'll likely find another way down.

Re:Google?

[MonorailCat]

Absolutely. Twice in fact (non-consecutively (boy I'm tired)).

but seriously, where can't you find Google these days?

Perseid meteor shower

[flewp]

I have some somewhat offtopic questions I was hoping someone here might be able to shed some light on.

Does anyone know how/if NASA handles things like micrometeorites? Now, I know that for the most part they're just tiny specks of debris, and *very far* and *very few* between, but do they have any kind of contingency plan for fixing either parts of the shuttle or the ISS in a case of impact? I've seen and heard a lot of times that even a small speck at those speeds can punch a rather large hole in even thick aluminum/steel/etc plating. Can a spec of dust truly do that much damage, or are they exaggerating and really talking about something more along the size of a pebble or even a grain of sand? It wouldn't surprise me to learn that a tiny speck of debris could indeed punch a huge whole, but it also wouldn't surprise me that even the scientific/educational* shows I've seen this on could be exaggerating for effect. (* I use scientific/educational loosely, as even stuff on the Discovery Science channel is still entertainment, especially more so now than ever it seems)

Also, how would an event like the Perseid meteor shower change the odds? Again, I realize that even during a meteor shower, the actual meteors and objects are extremely sparse. What I'm wondering is, do they (statistically speaking) increase the likelihood of an impact, or are they still so sparse as to have very little consequence?

And finally, about what is the lower limit for NASA and other agencies when it comes to tracking space junk and meteors that orbit the Earth? I know they have some kind of tracking system, but I'm wondering what its limits and capabilities are. Are they making efforts to curb space junk, since I imagine there's more stuff in orbit now than ever? Are the number of launches increasing with time as well, or have they sort of leveled off or even dropped off now that we have a lot of communication, research, etc satellites in orbit?

Apologies for asking here instead of googling, but I figured it might make for good discussion. Or at the very least, expand my knowledge a bit.

Re:Perseid meteor shower

[tftp]

Yes, there are patching materials on ISS. The micrometeorite hole would be small and facing inward, so any strong duct tape like substance would seal the hole for good. The pressure is continuously monitored throughout the station, and there are airtight doors everywhere in case the hole is too large for patching. As long as the micrometeorite does not hit any occupants, they are safe enough.

I do not know for sure what they would do aboard the Shuttle. Probably there are procedures for that too, since the air leak can have other causes too (a bad valve, a crack, some defective gasket etc.) The easiest and most obvious procedure could be to jump into their pressurized suits and land ASAP. The only catch is that if the pressure loss is fast they have no compartments to escape and no doors to close.

Re:Perseid meteor shower

[imemyself]

I've read that a little piece of paint made a fairly noticeable "dent" in the Shuttle's windshield. Here's a website that mentions it: http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/SatBytes/Spac eJunk.html

Several other sites showed up on Google when I searched for shuttle, fleck of paint, windshield

Considering how small the mass of the paint must have been, I could easily see how a small pebble sized object could cause major damage, but I'm not a rocket scientist. I think there has also been some general concern about all of the debris from China's ASAT test earlier this year. I think they are tracking most of the thousands of pieces of debris, so they would hopefully have an idea if something was coming, but I'm sure that they can't track the smallest pieces of debris. There are some animations on the web that show how the debris spread out from that test - its really amazing.

When you're traveling at 7 km per second, hitting anything that is not traveling along with you on a similar orbit (they would have similar velocities and wouldn't be moving as fast relative to you) has got to be seriously bad news.

Re:Perseid meteor shower

[florescent_beige]

Lucky for you my young padawan I have no life.

Does anyone know how/if NASA handles things like micrometeorites?

Dunno exactly, how's that for a start? I do know the shuttle's glazings are replaced about once every 10 flights due to impact, mostly with man made stuff like paint chips from exploded satellites. Just guessing here and don't quote me, but the way they deal with this is probably with stats. As in, if a chip of paint can ding a window, I guess a gram-sized piece of debris can poke two holes in the orbiter (an in and an out). Although, that might not be fatal if it doesn't pass through someone's body, the little hole can probably be patched with, you know, the space shuttle hole patch kit they must have.

The Orbiter is maneuvered to avoid known space debris, but that only goes down to about tens of centimeters. So stuff smaller than that has to be handled with stats.

Re:Perseid meteor shower

[Hathor's Dad]

...I want to respond to:

"and don't quote me"..

I mean..DOH!

Re:Perseid meteor shower

[OriginalArlen]

You're right about the punch of some of the crap whizzing around up there that could run into orbiting vehicles and/or people. Have you ever seen a really nice shooting star - the sort that makes a big bright multi-coloured streak across the sky and ends with a flash of light? (Bolides aka fireballs.) Those are relatively large specks of ice and/or dust that have come off comets, and are now smeared out in a long trail roughly along the parent comet's orbit. (Comets fall out of the Kuiper Belt and/or Oort Cloud, which are respectively a long, and a long long LONG, way away from the sun. And that they've been roughly free-falling toward the inner solar system for a long long time. Thus meteor particles move very fast relative to the earth. Leonids (very fast) are supposed to be up around 45 km/sec.

Now consider that the long bright streak of light is a tube of superheated plasma, caused by the intense heat as the particle vapourises, which strips electrons off the atoms of atmospheric gas. Those tubes are 20 or 30 miles long and of the order of tens to hundreds of cm in diameter. Now, imagine that energy concentrated into a spot the size of a sandgrain on the side of the ISS or Shuttle.

Not good.

Put in a call to the IRS and increase your taxatio

[SmallFurryCreature]

Because doing what you suggest cost money, taxpayers money. It is an election year (ah, democracy were goverment is paralysed for months before and after an election every two years, might this be the REAL reason countries like Japan, Korea and now China raced ahead of the west so fast?) and you are calling for an increase in spending, and therefore taxation.

It might be possible to get setup a campaign with that but you would also be the first person in history to actually end up with a negative amount of votes.

Not saying you are not right, just ain't gonna happen. Not until the Chinese space program becomes news and the US suddenly realizes that it is loosing face and it starts another space race (by setting a goal they can achieve quickly and then loudly shouting that was the goal all along for everyone and claim victory even if some doubters question the actual results (was the US/USSR space race "won" by landing on the moon OR did the russians with the their continued space pressence with MIR really have the most succesfull program?)).

Re:It's curtains for them

[AKAImBatman]

I agree with you 100%. That was the point of the sarcasm tag. ;-)

Re:Not Your Daddys NASA Anymore

[florescent_beige]

NASA doesn't exactly come across as a "crack" outfit anymore...

I understand why you might say that, but it's a little bit unfair to cast your net that wide.

At one time in my long and sorted career I participated in a NASA sponsored symposium on UBE engines. Have to admit, there was a rush to riding the bus that had NASA written on it, and I had a NASA badge. It was really something, just being associated with that acronym.

My point is, the young lads and lasses that work for NASA are just pumped to be there. Don't disparage them for feeling that way. It's the older bunch that should know right from wrong, and that's where you have a point, they don't always act like they do.

NASA has a unique problem engineering-wise, which is that the very name psyches out the people that work there. Anywhere else, a highly qualified young person would feel protected to call bullshit, but not at NASA.

If I could give any advice to a 20-something working at that place it would be: don't act like you work for a legendary establishment. Act like you work for ACME spaceships Inc. Call it like you see it, and if you find it hard to do think of this: if NASA turfs you out, there are plenty of opportunities for people with those 4 letters on their resume to make obscene amounts of money. So, theres absolutely no reason to worry about your future. Do the right thing.

Color radar?

[RobRyland]

"Radar images show a white spray or streak coming off Endeavour 58 seconds after liftoff."
OK, it is a nit, but i couldn't let it pass...
-Rob

Re:Not Your Daddys NASA Anymore

[d12v10]

They've already been scheduled to stop "launching these beaters". Quit your "bitching", NASA is full of talented individuals, this incident is not actually "unique", and blasting them for no "reason" while surrounding your post with quotes is just "insulting".

Damn...

[amccaf1]

I have nothing comical or insightful to add. I just hope that everything turns out for the best. I want to add my voice to that.

Especially since there is a teacher on board.

Re:Damn...

[tftp]

Especially since there is a teacher on board.

I'm sure it will be seen as bad omen. Sailors, and by extension - astronauts - are superstitious. You would be too, considering the age of the equipment they have to use. Paris is worth the Pascal's Wager, so to say.

Re:Damn...

[amccaf1]

Yeah.. It'll be seen as a bad omen until -- I hope -- this teacher touches down safely.

And then I hope a new superstition replaces the current one...

Re:Not Your Daddys NASA Anymore

[cgenman]

NASA looks to me like an outfit that will keep launching these "beaters" until they HAVE to stop (after the next accident anyone can see is coming).

Ah right, like the spaceplane that congress keeps cutting the funding for?

So, did they pack one of these?

[Cef]

Only just before this mission (STS-118).

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/news/wir eless_scanner.html

Basically it's a close-range imager for cracks in the tiles, to reduce the need for manual inspection. Little detail in that link, but the question is: Was it was made for the ground crew or the shuttle crew to inspect the tiles?

Still, at least they have the SSPTS (Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer System) available and working, which gives them a few more days in orbit to evaluate and fix things.

Color Radar

[pete-classic]

Radar images show a white spray or streak coming off Endeavour 58 seconds after liftoff.

When do we get the Slashdot story about color radar?

-Peter

Of course there's a gouge!

[Khyber]

Meteor showers are the BEST times to send shuttles into space!!

Re:Of course there's a gouge!

[EraserMouseMan]

Meteors have only been spotted while the sun was on the opposite of the earth. So as long you launch during daylight hours you should be safe.

Re:Of course there's a gouge!

[OneSmartFellow]

That's it, the key to traveling to the sun has been discovered !

We'll go at night !

Re:Of course there's a gouge!

[EraserMouseMan]

Exactly! And the shuttle's should always return to earth at night when it is cooler to minimize burning up on the way back.

Re:Put in a call to the IRS and increase your taxa

[cheezedawg]

this be the REAL reason countries like Japan, Korea and now China raced ahead of the west so fast?

In what way have Japan, Korea, and China raced ahead of the west?

why the hell can't we get it right?

[DragonTHC]

We've got the best minds in the country working on these projects.

The problem is, all those lowest bidders that keep making shit parts.

Our government is going to eat itself.

Re:Put in a call to the IRS and increase your taxa

[mrchaotica]

Oh, shut up! The amount of money required to fix the space program is equal to the amount we spend in a couple of hours (or, at worst, days) in Iraq, or on Social Security, or on paying interest on the national debt. If the politicians cared, they could damn well find the money!

Funniest post on slashdot?

[Swordfish]

I've been reading slashdot since about 1998 or 1999, I forget which. My reader number is not quite accurate because I deleted my original slashdot registration after several months to change the handle name (and then someone named a movie after my new handle name, which is really irritating because I got the name swordfish from a Marx Brothers movie).

Anyway, that's the funniest post I've seen on slashdot so far, although I gave up reading the feedbacks for 99% of the articles a few years ago. So thanks for that. You've made my day. Well expressed, good timing, nice wording and smooth syntax. Too bad there isn't a hall of fame to aggregate the best feedback posts!

Re:It's curtains for them

[Anonymous Coward]

That is NOT a sacrifice, I would gladly take the risk of death for the chance to experience a trip to space.

Re:Put in a call to the IRS and increase your taxa

[hughk]

Some time last year, I calculated that we could have done about ten mars missions for one year of Iraq or several hundred shuttle missions. The problem is warfare is much better for contractors than space. The fog of war is quite forgiving over supply difficulties and quality levels. In a civilian space program, there is too much of a spotlight and you can't make money so easily.

SRB, not ET

[bruce_the_loon]

The faulty O-ring was on one of the SRB's, right side I think, not the external tank. It was a massive ring that sealed the joints between two segments. It shrunk in the cold, let burning gases past and torched a hole into the external tank.

Other than that, your counterpoint is perfectly valid.

Service vs working hours?

[complex(179,-70)]

I've seen this argument before on some blog, but: isn't the amount of hours that those people up there spend on servicing and checking for damage getting out of hand? ISTM that we don't hear anything about what it is they do, expect that it involves repairing or replacing something on either the shuttle or the ISS. Do they actually still have time and money to do scientific work or is that just a dish on the side now?

Possible rocket debris?

[micronicos]

I was up too darn late watching the Nasa TV press conference. Questions were asked about maybe the debris source being space junk from an old rocket;

"NASA also revealed that Endeavour came within a mile of a piece of floating space junk during the launch. The garbage was an old Delta rocket body that has been orbiting for years, NASA said".

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- sci-shuttle11aug11,1,1712330.story?coll=la-headlin es-nation&ctrack=2&cset=true

Tracked back to a '70s launch apparently, though I can't confirm this apart from what I heard.

Re:Put in a call to the IRS and increase your taxa

[swokm]

warfare is much better for contractors than space. Oh, I don't know about that... Lockheed Martin calculated that they'd make more money as maintenance providers for the old shuttles than to sell NASA a more easily maintained, safer new model.

Hell, they make $33 million every launch just from that huge orange External tank alone. They sell NASA a brand new one every launch. Don't even look at the price tag for all those damn tiles...

I know that's not as much as Lockheed Martin makes from aircraft sales or maintenance, or Lockheed Martin makes on missile systems for war... hey, I'm noticing a pattern here. At least when there were hundreds of defense contractors, they would fight each other for the chance to rip-off tax payers and sometimes we'd come out ahead accidentally.

Good times...

Geography

[lawyer boy]

I live within 50 miles of KSC, so I hate to turn on my fellow central Floridians, but shouldn't NASA consider moving its launch facilities to the desert southwest? Wouldn't the lower humidity mitigate the ice/foam problems? Wouldn't the thinner, drier air of the high desert require at least a little less fuel for launch? I've always assumed that the Cape was chosen as a launch location because it was fairly far to the south and allowed launches over water, but launching over water doesn't seem to be that big of a deal when (a) it doesn't add any additional safety for the astronauts and (b) there are plenty of areas in the desert SW that would allow for launches over uninhabited territories.

What am I missing?

Re:Geography

[Xolotl]

The Atlantic is much bigger than the desert areas and much less populated, so there is even more of a safety margin if something comes down. More significantly though, it is close to the equator, where the velocity boost from the rotation of the Earth is greater, so larger payloads can be carried. This is more significant than the slightly thinner air in the high desert.

Re:Geography

[icebrain]

"there are plenty of areas in the desert SW that would allow for launches over uninhabited territories."

I doubt it. Remember, the boost phase is very long--the shuttle is somewhere up by Newfoundland (I think) by the end of the launch. Draw a line heading northeast or southeast from some point in the southwest, and you are definitely going to pass over populated areas. And the fuel savings would be negligible. Ice/foam problems wouldn't be helped; even desert air still has a good bit of water in it, and when cryogenics are involved, you're still going to get plenty of ice. The only benefit of a different launch site would be weather--Florida is the king of pop-up thunderstorms, and is a big fat bullseye for hurricanes.

Also remember that the boosters need somewhere to fall so they can be recovered.

There were plans to launch from Vandenburg, too, but that's also next to water.

Re:It's curtains for them

[rbanffy]

They can still stay at the ISS and ride a Soyuz down.

And it's not even clear how serious the damage is. It may be easily repairable.

What really shocked me is that it took more than 100 flights and a lost vehicle with crew to get someone to inspect the underside of the shuttle for damage.

It should have been done in the very first EVA.

Re:Not Your Daddys NASA Anymore

[rbanffy]

I think that maybe NASA has too much on its plate to be really effective. They do research on a lot of different stuff that is not very much space-travel-related.

Maybe it is time to separate it in three different branches (as the goals are so distinct), one dealing with manned space exploration and another with unmanned probes and another taking up all base research and other activities.

Re:It's curtains for them

[Richard_at_work]

Soyuz only has three seats, and one of those has to be occupied by the pilot. With seven stranded astronauts, it would take four *extra* Soyuz missions - its doubtful that Russia has that sort of slack in the Soyuz schedule.

bring on the stainless steel duct tape!

[bl8n8r]

They'll fix it. It's most likely not as big a deal as the media is hoping for. The surprises you *don't* catch are the ones that usually kill you.

Re:Put in a call to the IRS and increase your taxa

[hughk]

Of course the other side is that a lot of the old independent contractors simply don't exist any more. If you are not one of the biggest contractors, it is simply to expensive to bid on an Uncle Sam contract. The prime contractors just want to keep the goodness for themselves and just take turns to win. The difference between the military and civillian operations like NASA is at least thin gs are a bit more open.

Re:Not Your Daddys NASA Anymore

[Alioth]

However, I suspect "fired from NASA" on the resume doesn't have quite the money making opportunities associated with it...

The solution

[I Like Pudding]

Somebody should develop a Space Roomba to crawl over the hull and look for this shit; I volunteer. Nasa: please donate at least 3bil USD to my paypal account so that I may make preparations. Donations of 10bil or more will additionally fund the development of carpet tassel-dodging algorithms.

Re:Put in a call to the IRS and increase your taxa

[swokm]

Of course the other side is that a lot of the old independent contractors simply don't exist any more I guess I messed up because that is what I was trying to say too! It is much more profitable NOT to compete, so the old boys in the boardroom got together and bought each other's companies (also making themselves richer). Here is a simplified chart (can't find a current one):

http://books.nap.edu/html/defman/fig/ch1_f2.jpg

But remember, Raytheon and Lockheed are attached now leaving... 2. There are some other very minor vendors out there, but nothing like it used to be -- Lockheed and Boeing will make sure of that. As for the difference between NASA civilian/military... NASA's stated goal is to transition most launching operations into the 'private sector' as quickly as possible. Good or bad, I don't really see Lockheed or Boeing allowing Bigelow, Armadillo, Scaled Composites, or whatever to compete once things finally get profitable.

Now is the time of mono-/duo-polies, and apparently Americans are cool with that. :(

Re:It's curtains for them

[rbanffy]

Would it be so hard to automate a Soyuz to be remotely guided as a Progress can be? Hasn't it been done already?

The worst possible case would be to send up a whole lot of food and a couple extra beds while NASA figures out what to do next ;-)

Re:Well,

[tehmorph]

.. except the shuttle's arm cannot survey the underside of the shuttle, thus making all underside assessments crew-only operations. It's technically infeasible to do anything else given the stress of reentry upon the underside. The ISS is ideally placed to review everything properly.

Photos of the Damage

[sasserstyl]

Photos of the damage to STS-118 can be found: here, here and here..