Slashdot Mirror
NASA Decides No Fix Needed for Endeavor's Tiles
bhmit1 writes "It looks like NASA is reporting that no repairs are needed for Endeavor. 'After meeting for five hours, mission managers opted Thursday night against any risky spacewalk repairs, after receiving the results of one final thermal test. The massive amount of data indicated Endeavor would suffer no serious structural damage during next week's re-entry. Their worry was not that Endeavor might be destroyed and its seven astronauts killed in a replay of the Columbia disaster — the gouge is too small to be catastrophic. They were concerned that the heat of re-entry could weaken the shuttle's aluminum frame at the damaged spot and result in lengthy post-flight repairs.'"
It reminds me of a while back when a friend of mine called his mother to tell her he had a few drinks and was gonna stay the night at a friend's house. Her response was, "Yeah, I wouldn't want anything to happen to the car."
Regardless, I admire their fortitude given the history of the Columbia and all that has happened. I hope everything goes well and they get home safely.
--
Captialism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called facism.
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
They've already determined that the gouge will not endanger the astronauts lives if left alone. The question they just answered was do they risk more damage to the heat shield by attempting a repair in space or not. It sounds like they'd rather be safe and leave it alone and spend more money on repairs on the ground than risk killing the astronauts.
It's unfortunate, this could have been a good test case to see how the repair materials/procedures work under realistic conditions.
Having firm, experimental data about:
* The process of applying the patch
* How well the patch stands up to re-entry
* How well the patch protects underlying systems
and more. Better to get this data on a 'non-critical' bit of damage than waiting until something is REALLY busted before finding the inadequecy.
They've done extensive testing on the ground, I'm sure, but a real-world test scenario can trump ten lab extrapolations. That's why we do external betas of software, the real world always has something up it's sleeve.
Now that link is a bit of a read, but a very striking introduction on influencing decision-making with presentation techniques, even if this costs other people's lives.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
...or the shuttle's days will be numbered even if it is still a useful tool.
Endeavour is currently on the sixth shuttle mission since Columbia was lost. On Slashdot there's a chance that somebody could tell you what was achieved on any of those six missions. Ask an average member of the public though, and I guarantee you that less than 1% have any idea of a single piece of scientific research achieved on any of those six flights.
A large number of those members of the public will be able to tell you about the scares over foam and tiles on every single mission though - because that is the only part of shuttle missions that the media cares about.
This is only going to be fixed one way. NASA has to start giving out copious quantities of interesting video from shuttle flights to the media, and completely seal away from the media any talk of damage or problems. The damage has been of no real significance every time, but it is the only thing we're talking about.
Unless NASA can extricate itself from the media black hole, it will never again run a shuttle mission without the shuttle being called into question - and that will eventually lead to calls for funding for this "dangerous" vehicle to be withdrawn. After all, it doesn't actually do anything when it is up there, right?
Here's where we get to watch a lot of folks decide whether to comment on the effects of something outside of their experience and expertise.
I've seen photos and 3D imaging of the bashed tiles. I know very little of the forces involved. I have seen no structural analysis of the materials that are beneath the deepest part of the gouge.
To a limited extent, I can compare this damage to the past damaged tiles. There seem to have been a number of similar damaged tiles in the past, and those flights landed safely.
The astronauts could slap some of that goop on the gouge, but risk damaging the tiles by accident, or changing the aerodynamics of the craft.
There are many unknowns. I really don't know what will happen when Endeavour reenters.
I wish them well, and hope that NASA can complete the remaining shuttle flights without mishap.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
"We're good to return without repairs? Ummm...tell you what, just drop me off at the ISS and I'll wait for the next shuttle, ok?"
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
As a former USAF avionics specialist and later crew chief, one thing was always true:
The decision about air-worthiness, mission-worthiness was the pilot's, the aircraft commander.
It didn't matter if I told him that sure, the plane will fly, if he didn't like it, the plane didn't fly.
So, NASA, provide all the information to the commander, pilot, and crew, and let THEM make the call. If you don't like what they decide, it can be taken up AFTER the mission.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
> after receiving the results of one final thermal test
While playing Stairway to Heaven, bic lighters were waved back and forth over the affected area.
Bark less. Wag more.
...why don't they replace the tiles anyway, just to be sure? The article suggests that a spacewalk would create added risk, but we know that spacewalks occur all the time routinely. Perhaps there is a financial motivation for not carrying out the repair? I don't know. What I'd like to see is an actual breakdown of the possible positive and negative consequences of each course of action and the probabilities that NASA has assigned to the outcomes. I'm really hoping that they've put some serious statistical analysis into this decision and aren't just flying by the seat of their pants. Certainly, the article quotes a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Douglas Osheroff, as saying that the repairs "can only increase their chances of making it down."
Phoenix, Boston, Little Rock, see a pattern?
Life has a cost too.
We seem to have forgotten that in the U.S. lately. Granted, the integrity of the shuttle frame is not worth human life, but the panicked semi-troll responses to this crisis made me realize yet again how far we've fallen as a society.
The same people are "concerned" now, as the ones who were calling for ending the space program after Columbia.
We are so fat and content that we seem to think that anything that interferes with our blissful lives must be a curse. We have forgotten the drive and determination of scientists, engineers, and many others, which made the world we're living in possible. Make no mistake about it - without self-sacrifice, many of the technological and scientific developments that shaped the latter half of the 20th century would not have been possible.
Yet the population, spurred on by the scaremongering media, seem to think that we've now magically gotten to a point at which we can make everything safe. Well... we almost can... if we all just stay home. But if we want another revolution in the development of our species, like the one that spanned 1850-1975, we will have to accept that some things are worth it. Yes, it's important to minimize risk... but sometimes you have to accept a reasonable amount of risk, take a deep breath, and just go.
Anyway, sorry about the rant...
Subj: Space Shuttle
However tempting it may be, given the considerable savings, please don't source any more tiles from "Home Depot".
NASA Mgmt.
They can't actually replace entire tiles on orbit. They have a 'patching' system which allows them to spread a compound into any nicks in the tiles.
Now, the compound has to be applied by an astronaut attached to a long extension arm attached to the Shuttle's robotic arm. When they tested this a few flights ago, it became readily apparent that it was at best difficult to work this way. The length of the arm caused significant 'bouncing' with every motion. At the time they only pulled a gap filler and simulated the motion of filling a tile and it wasn't easy.
The real danger is that the control issues of having a 'massive' astronaut + EVA gear swinging around on the end of that very long arm so close to the TPS could actually cause more damage to the tiles than it fixed.
Furthermore, the compound could actually cause even worse localised heating issues on re-entry depending on how well it fills the tile ie: It could cause ducting etc.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
BullS**t on you for having no understanding of risk mitigation. You always do the least risky thing that is safe. In this case, you do nothing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It ain't broke, its just dinged (and quite overhyped by the media).
Man, that pretty much fixes everything... did they forget to pack any this trip?
"I will never forget sitting in reading class with my classmates watching it go up, up, up, and then kablueeee! All our mouths dropped."
-->I share that exact memory. And the teachers trying hard to figure out how to explain all that to the students.
Aside from finding out that Vader was Luke's Father, that may have been the biggest WTF! moment of childhood.
After all the problems NASA has had during reentry with foam and tiles on the shuttle, I don't understand why they haven't built a new craft with a better design; something like Burt Rutan's 'feather' reentry system used on SpaceShipOne would be good. It would reduce the risk from these blazing hot reentries.
I might update this Wikipedia article to reflect NASA's decision to NOT repair Endeavor's heat shield, just to see what WikiScanner shows for IP address 198.137.240.100 next week.
I'm happy to hear that the crew is not in serious danger, but it's still past time that we replace the shuttle, which was a poor compromise from the start, with something SnApPiEr.
Kill for fun and profit?
Just like they did test on the o-rings right? Managers always listen to engineers right??? It all comes down to money and time.
Angry General:
Son, what do you mean you've blown my multi-billion dollar shuttle ?
Pissing-in-his-pants Soldier:
Well, there was this small gouge you see, we had experts analyze it and they said it was not urgent.
Angry General:
you mean you wouldn't spend a few tens of thousand bucks to keep a multi-billion shuttle in good health ? I'll tell you what, why don't you and your experts go clean the toilets with your tongue while you think things through...
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
Actually, the whole point is that they weren't.
The problem is that so far in a relatively short interval they had two cuts in two spacesuits' gloves during spacewalks. The last one was a two inch gash, and prompted an immediate abort of the spacewalk. Precisely because noone wants to vaccuum an astronaut.
Now they weren't all the way through the glove. At least the latest one had only cut the top two layers out of five.
But essentially noone wants to find out what happens when you cut all 5 layers.
And the problem is that they don't know _what_ cut two different spacesuits. Exactly where is the sharp edge there, and how big is it? Is it only big enough to do those two layer cuts? Or are we talking about something that could cut all the way through, and we got luck the last two times?
That's, in a nutshell, why they'd rather not risk a spacewalk to fix the tiles, if they can avoid it.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I'm under the impression they've had dozens of defects more extensive than this one in the hundre-plus returns. At least they did laboratory tests and computer modeling of the exact defect they discovered this time.
You always do the least risky thing that is safe.
Then don't launch space shuttles. Send supplies up in unmanned craft like the Soyuz. Use robotic arms to install new equipment and design the fittings in such a way that humans need not spacewalk to finalize connections.
Furthermore, this isn't just media overhype. The engineers at the Johnson Space Center have asked for the repairs to be made. They were overruled. Sound familiar?
And yet even furthermore, as has already been pointed out, such a repair would provide very valuable data on the effectiveness of the as yet untested repair methods NASA has developed for such situations. That data would be put to good use in the continuing development of procedures for repairing the shuttle in flight, thus decreasing the risk involved in future repairs and increasing chance of mission success.
And why wouldn't NASA want to perform steps that only increase the chance of a successful landing?
There's every reason to perform this repair.
I take it you're the type that pushes out service packs day one throughout a corporate network too.
What if the astronaut crashes into the tiles? What if the arm locks up? What if the repairs cause more damage to the tiles? NASA's a very conservative organization. They already take risks that'd make most people white, they're not keen to take on more than they have to.
If a shuttle gets damaged to the point where repairs are required, it won't matter if the situation is made worse because it's already destined to be a flaming comet. But to take a structurally sound machine and risk making it worse is a height of folly.
We need more rants like this. Life is to easy and we take it for granted. (In the global north). To paraphrase The Libertine - "Life's most interesting experiments will come at one's own expense"
....NASA's in-space repair abilities that they spent gobs of money on after Columbia remind me a lot about our "Disaster Recovery" plans at my firm. Sure.. we have one; Sure.. we spend a lot of money on it;... but please.. oh please.. don't make us actually test it or put it into practice.
I hope they didn't just spend all that money so that could check the "Disaster Recovery" check box on some form and quiet the complaints.
The problem with that is that the lives of the crew are riding on the potential repair. Without knowing the effect in advance, the risk in making the repair is increased, beyond the risk the crew undergoes in suiting up and spacewalking in the first place. Remember, they have already had a partial glove failure. The repair itself is not without considerable risk. They have had similar gouges before and the Shuttle has landed perfectly fine. Now is not the time to experiment. They can certainly perform experiments of this type using unmanned vehicles and gain the information they need that way. That is how they tested heat shield materials in the olden, golden days.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
All the strong layers of whatever you want to strap onto an astronaut in addition to all the crap s/he's already got to wear and maneuver through won't help all that much against a small particle moving at that speed.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
After a certain point (long down the road, which will never happen in the remaining lifetime of the shuttle program) it might be worth it to experiment on a "production" system with human lives onboard. But at this stage of the game, leave the data gathering to simulations. You can get lots of good data (probably BETTER data, since you can monitor more closely) from a test environment than from the actual shuttle coming through the atmosphere.
At _some point_, the returns off of simulations will become less and less, and then it would finally make sense to take the next step and see what happens with the real thing. But that would be _way_ out there. Heck, looking at the guns/butter curve it probably doesn't even make sense for them to test the repair system on the ground even halfway to that point...the number of remaining missions and the odds of that same type of failure make it uneconomical, better to invest the section of your time and money budgeted for "cargo protection" into other things that will yield a higher likely return.
We all know the space fleet is beyond it's shelf life. So why hasn't it been scraped and reinvented with more pioneering technology?
Because every single solitary year, the budget for NASA is drastically reduced...it's at the point now where they are barely able to function.
Instead of investing in exploring the existance that surrounds us, we instead decide that our money is better spent destroying each other. To quote Bill Hicks:
"Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, NOT ONE, and united as one race we could explore inner and outer space in peace...for EVER."
Living With a Nerd
NASA flunky: "Hello, is this Canaveral Auto Body?"
CAB: "Speaking."
NASA: "Yes, well, we've kind of thinking about having some body work done on the shuttle. It's in orbit right now. Do you do mobile repairs?"
CAB: "Yeah, we have Bruce Willis. Okay, what you do you need?"
NASA: "Well, we have a little shuttle gouge."
CAB: "Teenage drivers again?"
NASA: "No. What do you think it'll cost?"
CAB: "Insurance?"
NASA: "All State."
CAB: "How big's the gouge?"
NASA: "Couple inches."
CAB: "Let me see (taps calculator keys) Okay, on-site repair mission, estimate $30,000,000. We're kind of booked up right now, but we can do it for you by .. lemme see .. next opening is after Labor Day. And... you want clearcoat?"
NASA: "!!!!!! (spits coffee) B..b..b.but we have some guys waiting on this."
CAB: "Sorry. Why don't you try Wing Chang's Golden Auto Repair down the street. He's cheaper but he can do it fast. Cuts costs by not having his crew come back. Gotta tell you, that Chinese body putty doesn't hold up for too many missions."
NASA: "I gotta ask my boss... he ain't gonna like this..." (whimper)
You know, I know nobody RTFAs anymore, but even TFS made it clear that they determined major risk and the only reason to do a spacewalk would be to prevent the shuttle's aluminum frame from sustaining damage that would be costly to repair.
They decided it was not worth risking an astronaut's life to repair the shuttle just to potentially save on repair costs.
In other words THEY ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH LIVES THAN COSTS YOU ASSHOLE.
The enemies of Democracy are
Isn't the whole justification for manned missions that people can react and do a lot more than robots, at least at this point in time? And yet we're afraid to let them out the door to actually do anything. Time and again when people are given the chance to perform they rise to the occasion and exceed expectations.
Remind me, how many astronauts have we lost on spacewalks?
"Yes, it's important to minimize risk... but sometimes you have to accept a reasonable amount of risk, take a deep breath, and just go."
The problem isn't the risk to people.
The current problem is that making systems that carry people is so expensive it eats up the budget we could be using for unmanned exploration. It ties us to primitive systems and slows development.
No matter how many people we send into space, we'll need advanced unmanned systems to exploit what we find. If we begin by focusing on unmanned systems, we can develop equipment much more rapidly and deploy it at much less cost.
There is no inherent reason we cannot focus on unmanned, robotic systems and develop them to do everything we'll need, then send the tourists later. If we need astronauts to "do" anything, that indicates we should build an appropriate machine.
Terrestrial exploration used people because we didn't have anything else. Supporting those people was a burden, they had a high loss rate, when they were lost so was their data, so why replicate those conditions?
Want to explore space? Here's the way to go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1
Think how many, and how much more advanced, unmanned systems could have been deployed if the Shuttle program hadn't gobbled up NASA funding.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
...landed just fine with tiles completely missing from the underbelly of the ship. For the earlier flights before the Columbia disaster, a typical shuttle mission had on average about 40 or so damaged tiles from foam and ice collisions during liftoff and climbout. One Columbia mission in 1997 even landed just fine with over 300 tiles damaged. In 1988, probably the most extensive tile damage was the Atlantis landing at Edwards with over 700 tiles damaged on the lower portions of the ship, with 298 of those having damage bigger than one inch. Extensive repairs were needed after that one.
While I basically agree with the thrust of your argument that armchair quarterbacks are talking out of the wrong orifice on this one, I think the same applies to those defending the decision doesn't it?
I am prepared to go along with the experts, but it still seems to me that the "downside" of repairing the hole has been wildly exaggerated. IMO it seems unlikely in the extreme, (based on previous mission reported experiences), that an astronaut would damage the underbelly of the shuttle by fixing it. It's possible of course, but these kinds of manouvres have been carried out for many years, mostly without incident. And even if they did damage it, thats a commercial loss, not a loss of human life, right?
Why gamble with human lives because you are worried about scratching the expensive "space SUV?"
It's possible that a blob on the bottom of the orbiter could cause some kind of flow abnormality also, but again, this seems like another bit of hyperbole to me. We are talking about a repair system specifically designed for this purpose. One that could possibly end up with a bit of ceramic paste sticking out a few milimetres from the bottom surface. Unless they already know that the much vaunted "repair kit" doesn't work and is more of a media item than a useful tool, why would they not take this opportunity to show us how fabulously it works?
As I said, they are most likely making the correct decision here and most of us probably don't know what we are talking about, but when the only downside to fixing it is likely a commercial loss and the downside to not fixing it is another ship full of dead astronauts, you'd think they would give their brand new space-caulking-gun a whirl.
Never send a machine to do a man's job. No amount of data will make up for the lack of information we get from seeing, and touching things.
As for JSC disagreeing, they were the only ones. The overwhelming majority of engineers said the repair attempt was a bad idea.
-- toolie
Your comment is off topic (as is mine, probably). I hope your whole thread gets modded down to obscurity. Stop whining about mod points.
Think how many, and how much more advanced, unmanned systems could have been deployed if the Shuttle program hadn't gobbled up NASA funding.
Like the Hubble? Oh wait
I blame the ISS more than the shuttle. We could've had more Hubble-like devices out there if we didn't lock ourselves into dedicating all shuttle hours to that boondoggle of Skylab 2 out there.
To properly explore space you can't rely on one thing. Sure, we've got unmanned probes to do amazing things (we being mankind; Japan's asteroid mission was incredible) but there's also a benefit to having high powered satellites within orbit that we can maintain.
Plus shuttle missions have the added benefit of being able to observe the effects of outer space on people, and what limitations they have. You know...something that might be important for when the tourists go up...
Regardless of whether it's critical or not, why don't they use this as an oppertunity to test their ability to fix such issues in space? Try the emergency sealant/filler/whatever and see how effectively it works in a *real* scenario.
Sooner or later it's no doubt going to be needed, so why not build up practical experience?
Also, this would a chance to test the repair kits in a real world scenario. It's a simple 2x2 matrix of whether is works or not and whether it was needed or not. The only problem is if the repair doesn't work and was needed, but then the results are the same as if you've done nothing.
The only time you wouldn't want to do the repairs is if there's a threat that the repairs either make things worse or the act of doing the repairs causes more damage. If these are the case then NASA needs to rethink the repair procedures.
First:
e re.htm
http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowh
Second, covering up what a piece of shit it might be isn't going to make it any better, and good luck covering up anything like Columbia(which would probably be more likely in the insular environment you propose).
Tautologically speaking, the future lies in the future, not the past. The space program should take stock of that and abandon its current public relations focus and get back to doing interesting stuff, like imaging the entirety of the planet in interesting frequencies and so on. Ten unserviceable Hubblets would have done plenty of good science too.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
After the reviews, investigations, and all the freaking hoopla about things falling on the shuttle during take-off, please tell me why we are having this discussion.
If we cant keep chunks of stupidity from falling and breaking things, maybe we need to figure out a different way to launch the thing..
entire world should be modded offtopic to hell
Read radical news here
P.S.
If given the opportunity I'd go up as a medical officer.
No, most of them were driven by desire to figure out better ways to kill other people.
I'm worried they are still playing Russian roulette with the space shuttle. "Well, it didn't burn up/blow up that time. It must be OK."
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
The damage is such that it may well destroy the spacecraft. Plasma will get into the airframe and wheel well, and not so far from the APCs, which potentially could explode. Previous protocol required that the crew return by Russian capsule and leave the shuttle docked to Fred. NASA doesn't have a good record on making non-political decisions regarding shuttle safety. They ought to at least give the crew options on return method.
. . . during re-entry wondering if leaving their fate to a committee was a smart idea.
What?
So my Ti/carbon fiber bike is more advanced than the space shuttle? What was the reasoning for that design decision?
ROFL. Dude, while I may have said "no offense" before, thinking maybe you're just repeating something you haven't thought much about. But if you actually think that the sterile controlled environment of a lab, plus the fact that once you were underpaid, make you soo entitled to demand that someone risks _death_ in a damaged shuttle... well, please do take offense. Or better yet, please go see a shrink. You're so disconnected from reality, it's funny.
Wake me up when you're actually facing risk at least similar to what you demand there. Like, I don't know, when you've volunteered for new medicine tests. Now even that isn't actually that close, but it's a step upwards.
Plus, you can't say that _you_ are doing it haughtily or foolishly, but demand no less than that NASA does just that: act haughtily and foolishly. Because it's such an outrage to you if they exercise proper caution.
Get a grip.
Plus, to get back to that bitching and moaning about how concerns over safety are braking progress, how do you see that progress happening _without_ it, in this particular case?
If NASA can't keep a multi-billion dollar shuttle from blowing up every few missions, with a whole army to take care of it, how do you propose that that progresses to the stage where it's ready for mass use? Even if we were to accept risking life and limb, a space aircraft/bus that blows up every couple of flights just isn't worth it economically. If that space bus blows up as little as every 10'th trip, even assuming everyone was fearless and bet their life on such odds, you'd be looking at a price high enough to build a new one and train a new crew every 10'th trip.
Any kind of space-related progress from where we are, will have to involve moving more humans and materials through space. Whether it's hotels and labs and office buildings in orbit, or mining sites on the moon and mars, we'll need some kind of cheap and _reliable_ space bus to move people and cargo up and down. And the current space shuttle just isn't it. Someone will have to make something with a better safety record, not because of "scaremongering", but because it's just not worth shipping anything up and down if you blow up a multi-billion dollar shuttle every few flights. There's just no price at which you can sell that cargo, or the tickets on such a space bus, that covers that kind of losses.
So from a very pragmatic point of view, NASA _has_ to work on a better safety record before that technology is ready to trickle down to civillian use. If they take a cavallier "oh well, human lives are expendable" attitude, space flight will never progress from ivory-tower national-penis-size-symbol to a more mass-use technology.
So even if it were scaremongering that drives that research into safety... good! Because we'll need that anyway, if we're progress in that direction.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Perhaps NASA should try out their procedure for repairing tile damage. If the repair doesn't work as expected, the experience gained may prove useful on some future occasion.
Is the repair procedure really riskier than re-entering the atmosphere with the damage untreated? I think the final decision should be made by the crew. The crew might even abandon the repair procedure, if it goes badly, and still learn something from the attempt.
to get decent coverage of a shuttle launch. I was watching the NASA-TV internet streaming video of the launch, and also turned on ABC network news hoping to see some better video. The network coverage:
Didn't even START until T-30 seconds.
The commentator kept talking OVER the astronauts and CAPCOM voice feed. Heaven forbid the blow-dried talking head SHUT UP for a few minutes!
Ended even before SRB separation.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
"No amount of data will make up for the lack of information we get from seeing, and touching things."
Cameras can see more than the human eye, and everything we "touch" will be through a barrier such as a glove. If you want tactile feedback, machines can offer that as well.
"Never send a machine to do a man's job."
What job can man do hands-on that must be done for space exploration and is not possible to do by machine?
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
> We all know the space fleet is beyond it's shelf life. So why hasn't it been scraped and reinvented with more pioneering technology?
It sort of has been proposed that the shuttle should be replaced with "more pioneering technology." But you'll notice that the current ideas on the table, specifically the Orion spacecraft, are similar in design to something from the Apollo era with some technology borrowed from the shuttle. What's old is new again, I suppose.
I know, I'm sure you were expecting something Star Trek-esque rather than the antiquated splash-down capsule for four to six astronauts. But, save for Apollo One, we never lost any crews on the Apollo missions--and Apollo One was lost on the launch pad. (Understandably, the shuttles have flown far more missions, but there's something to be said for simple design.)
He who has no
"benefit to having high powered satellites within orbit that we can maintain."
Which does not, in principle, require humans to do the work. The investment in bringing up humans to fix their appliances could be redirected into more developed, less expensive appliances that are expendable.
Home computers are "maintainable", but they are now so cheap they are routinely thrown away. As we move into space, we'll need lots of expendable hardware to avoid wasting expensive travel time on repairs that may or may not work.
"Plus shuttle missions have the added benefit of being able to observe the effects of outer space on people, and what limitations they have. You know...something that might be important for when the tourists go up..."
My point being that there is no rush to send those tourists up and hurrying to do so at the expense of other more useful programs is inefficient.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Exploring...
I am sure that you have no experience with scientific research, because any researcher will tell you that to do something yourself, or to have a machine do it, is worlds apart.
always report such cases to the /. administration. they take it seriously as they should. ill do it as far as im concerned now.
Read radical news here
How is the possible repair of actual damage to the Shuttle underbelly more risky than removing filler material sticking out the tile gaps previously?? It seems to me that it was much more risky to remove the filler material when there was no tile damage present. I believe the reasoning was that the filler material could affect the aerodynamics of the Shuttle, but so could a 3" gash in the underbelly.
Man, there is going to be a lot of engineers holding their breathe on this landing...
The shuttle's name is Endeavour, spelled in the British way, instead of Endeavor. The shuttle is named after HM Bark Endeavour, the ship commanded by James Cook, and the name also honors the Command Module of Apollo 15, which was also called Endeavour.
Hier staat een stukje tekst.
Here is what is different from STS-107 and before:
* Many more cameras to monitor the ascent, including those cool views from the tops and bottoms of BOTH SRB's
* A new orbiter sensing boom with LASER cameras to get 3D images. Used at least twice every mission, day 2 and again two days before re-entry
* An extra back-flip maneuver during the ISS rendezvous for hi-res photos.
So as a result, they knew about this problem prior to landing which they WOULDN'T have on any mission before STS-107.
Also new:
* 3 different methods of tile repair if needed.
So now they take all of this and make a detailed engineering and risk analysis. What are we risking by landing as is? Computer model predicts that it is OK to land. Also, ACTUAL TILE is put into the arc-jet and tested in REAL REENTRY CONDITIONS to determine what happens if we leave it alone.
Oh, and don't forget they have the engineering expertise of 116 prior SUCCESSFUL Space Shuttle reentries and landings to draw from too, including a very similar tile damage event from STS-26.
Compare all of that to the VERY REAL RISK of causing WORSE damage by attempting the repair.
Their careful judgment: Leave it alone.
Is this a risk free decision? Nope - spaceflight is ALWAYS GOING TO BE A RISK. So everyone needs to get over that part. As long as they are making decisions on SCIENTIFIC and ENGINEERING grounds instead of the old Challenger/Columbia "well the o-ring/foam hasn't killed us before so it won't this time" mindset from before the accidents.
They did a good job here. Think it through and give them a break...
Oh, and as for the "why don't we get a new vehicle" posters - we are. Orion, 2014. Shuttle program over no later than October 1, 2010. Want it sooner? Give NASA MANY more billion dollars per year than we are now and they can get Orion going faster. Otherwise, here we are.
Well it's not offensive when you put it like that, but it's still not right. They are still considering the lives the astronauts at the expense of the shuttle. Their analysis and simulation said that with the present damage the worst that will happen is that the shuttle's wing might be damaged and require lengthy, expensive repairs on the ground. That's the money angle. They could try to patch the damage and prevent this, but EVA is dangerous and these repairs are difficult, if it ends up causing more damage to the delicate tiles then all the astronauts' lives are in danger. On-the ground repairs, no matter how expensive, are a better option.
The enemies of Democracy are
The decision sort of already is with the crew. They may have nerves of steel, but I seriously doubt any of them are going to blindly take the risk unnecessarily.
If the crew didn't trust the engineers on the ground, they don't have to re-enter. Ground control can't get the shuttle down remotely without the crew prepping it (landing gear control needs to be hooked up to the computer, thrusters need to be powered on, docking hatch has to be sealed). They can raise a fuss and holler, and NASA will get them down by their altnernate means (Soyuz or rushed rescue shuttle). Sure, outright rebellion would be the end of their careers, but these are smart people, and a career doesn't mean much if you're dead.
So the crew is implicitly in the decision loop. They might not have all the info, but at the very least you know they've seen the damage. The general public probably doesn't really appreciate how much the crew, especially the pilot and commander, are very familiar with the inner workings of the shuttle. They definitely know enough to be able to make intuitive assessments of various situations, such as aircraft pilots passed on your work as an avionics specialist, and possibly numerical ones too (since about half the crew has engineering degrees).
Assuming ground control has fully briefed them, which there is not really any reason to doubt, they recognize there is an added risk to re-entering as-is, and there is a risk to sending astronauts out-of-sight underneath the shuttle where there's potential for them to cause further damage if they're not careful. They've said in several interviews they're aware of the damage, but trust the assessment from the ground.
I personally thought this would be an outstanding opportunity to do a real test of their repair method, but obviously people more familiar with it don't find the payoff equal to the added risk.
When you need to do an EVA to repair, there is a risk you will do more damage.
Just to point it out again, the shuttle has landed many time with missing tiles.
It is classic risk analysis.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Historically, most orbital return vehicles primarily use some sort of ablative heat shield technology where some outer coating burns off to create a boundary layer which protects the re-entry object from the full effect of the heat from the high-temp gas shock region.
;^). Nearly everyone involved with this stuff are aware of the facts and tradeoffs already (or could have googled for them)...
On the other hand, the shuttle tiles are basically form a big thermal soak that absorbs the heat and keep it away from the shuttle frame. Since nothing is "burning-away" in a thermal soak scheme, it was thought that this would help in resuability.
Some more modern re-entry devices use radiatively cooled systems (so called hot-metal) which instead of absorbing all the heat and storing it (e.g., in tiles), actually try to re-radiate the heat into the atmosphere (after the initial heat shock of initial re-entry, generally the average heat load is lower so this usually works). I think the leading edge of the space shuttle wings are radiatively cooled, but the bulk of the body is tiles for weight reasons. I also have heard of proposed modern re-entry vehicles that used various types of shingles as radiatively cooled systems for the bulk (and I seem to recall that this was also proposed for the shuttle).
I'm not sure what you mean about thermal plating (is that not what a tile is?). The reason the tiles are small and have gap-fillers between them is that the tiles expand when they heat up (as most things do). A solid piece of thermal plating that covered the whole underside would likely deform and/or crack if heated irregularly and that would be pretty tough to engineer or reuse.
I assume that metal-ceramic material science has advanced enough to make radiatively cooled systems more practical now (where they weren't very practical cost/weight-wize when they had to be all made of titanium)...
I don't really think any of this is "rocket-science" (just material-science
These articles on NASA are definitive proof that when it comes to aerospace/NASA if ignorance was truly bliss, the average Slashdotter would be orgasmic.
-- toolie
Riiiight ... like god forbid they should actually conduct (gasp) an experiment (one that can be called off if things get wonky, perhaps unlike the next gouge) to see if the repair protocol works.
Better to find the bugs in the checklist now than when they can't call it off.
This isn't about risk mitigation. One day, this WILL have to be dealt with. Its like a hard drive crash - its not "if", its "when". So you prepare accordingly, so as to mitigate future risks.
"Now is not the time to experiment. They can certainly perform experiments of this type using unmanned vehicles and gain the information they need that way. That is how they tested heat shield materials in the olden, golden days."
A few points:
Better to run an experiment now, when if the patch doesn't work, its not going to lead to a catastrophic failure.
This will not give them information on how well humans can do the patching in a space suit, and on whether the procedures worked out are optimal, or even possible. Here they can call it off if reality doesn't conform to their expectations. You can't test this without humans.
And even in the olden, golden days, you needed people in the loop to make decisions and act on them. Remember the warning light that said Glenn's Mercury capsule's heat shield was loose?.
Even today, its too bad there's nobody around to wipe the dust of the Mars rovers' solar cells ... humans are the best general-purpose tool ever.
I'm no expert on these things, but wouldn't it make sense to leave the astronauts on the ISS to be returned by a Soyuz capsule, rather than risking their lives by landing them on a potentially damaged craft?
After all, the shuttle did gain the ability to land on its own a few years back.
Sure, Russia would have to send 2 extra pods to the ISS, but from what I understand, that's a fairly trivial procedure when compared to a shuttle launch. (Compare these two pictures. Note the size of the man standing next to the rocket, along with the profound lack of ground infrastructure.)
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
The original catastrophic failure statistics were supposed to be between one in 10,000 and 1 in 100,000. This is how the program was sold - a fleet of 8 shuttles with a launch a week, with a very low risk of loss during the life of the program. Real life is another story - total failure odds worse than 1 in 100, and turn-around times that are ludicrous and costly (nearly half a billion - disposables would be cheaper).
NASA also originally projected (1976) up to 75 flights a year ... for 10 to 12 years. Here's what the program looked like back in 1980 - a financial disaster. Read about the problems with ice and the tiles, and all the other bugaboos. The Saturn 5 could have outdone the shuttle in every way - cost per mission, payload to LEO (5-1/2x as much). Heck, the Saturn V could put twice as much in orbit around the MOON than the shuttle can put into earth orbit.
Everyone in the space community admits that the shuttles were a waste of money, draining funding from all other areas.
As long as they have an inanimate carbon rod.
Oh, those Golden Grahams.
Oh, those Golden Grahams.
Crispy, crunchy, graham cereal, brand new breakfast treat......
What?
If the shuttle burns up on entry from these chipped and cracked tiles that could have been fixed...
The proper action would be to throw the NASA staff who made the decision not to fix it out of an aircraft at a high altitude without chutes or other means of rescue...
Like fair is fair.
"I am sure that you have no experience with scientific research, because any researcher will tell you that to do something yourself, or to have a machine do it, is worlds apart."
:)
I'm sure you didn't answer the question.
For terrestrial research, perhaps, but in space one interfaces with the environment via machines and sensors. Therefore, the difference is human proximity to the sensor. The machine is not doing things for you, it is the mechanism by which you do things.
"Exploring..."
That is not a specific reply.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The trouble is that you think of space exploration as dry data-gathering. It's not.
That's the cardinal difference between data gathering and exploring - the human element.
It seams every time one goes up we hear about a hole being knocked in it. I don't remember hearing too much about that in the 80's and 90's. Are they just that freaking old that they're falling apart with every launch?
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"