Slashdot Mirror
Endeavour Rolled Out As Rescue Ship
stoolpigeon writes "The space shuttle Endeavour was rolled out to Launch Pad 39B yesterday. Space shuttle Atlantis is already at Launch Pad 39A, being made ready for the STS-125 mission to repair Hubble. We recently got a look at some behind-the-scenes photos for this mission. Endeavour is now in place to act as a rescue vehicle if there are any problems with Atlantis, once they are in space. This is the first time one shuttle has been prepared to act as a rescue vehicle for another. If all goes well for STS-125, Endeavour will move over to 39A to be used for STS-126."
Are they expecting the thing to flameout?
I understand the reasoning and the chances are reduced with a double failure but there's something perverse about using the same inherently flawed vehicle as a rescue crasft should anything go wrong.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Direct link for the photos, since it's not actually in the article: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/09/preparing_to_rescue_hubble.html
Also, karma whore.
in this
That is about as weird as a two truck towing a tow truck.
Hook up and pull them if they get stranded ?
Collect the bits in case the original craft explodes ?
This makes very little sense to me, admittedly I don't know very much about rocketry but the few times that things went wrong a rescue vehicle would have only compounded the problem, not mitigated it. If there still is enough of the original craft left to do something about the astronauts then sending up a similar craft sounds like a pretty dumb idea, first you'd need to figure out the cause of the problem before sending up an identical craft.
Better to rely on the russians for a rescue mission. Of course that would not do, to depend on a foreign power in times of distress...
MP3 Search Engine
NASA are just making sure they're prepared just in case the Atlantis crew break down and call up claiming that they are a lone female with kids in the spacecraft. Don't forget it will be night time wherever they are.
Astronauts signing new life insurance policy agreements. Insurance company tricked into promising to deliver a rescue vehicle within 20 minutes of accident. ...in economy news... AIG shares fell by 89 percentages
Being a bit of a cynic, to me this looks like a bit of a political statement aimed at Russia. After the recent cooling of relations following the issues between Russia and Georgia, it was very quickly stated that the Shuttle may be used beyond its previously stated shelflife. Now putting out 2 Shuttles on the launchpads seems to be indicating that NASA is capable of operating without the aid of the Russians. A foolish ploy if this happens to be the case, as currently NASA just can't compete with either the Russian or European space agencies capabilities.
Something about this stinks of... something. Corporate profit taking, perhaps.
In any case, considering the small number of situations this could help in, NASA shouldn't be complaining about budget cuts if dropping the billion or more dollars to prep a second launch is considered frugal.
who will be the rescue ship for Endeavour?
Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
I think that this might be a sign of increasing maturity in the process for making decisions about the space program. It seems, at least a little, a bit more reasonable to prepare a rescue option for missions like this rather than simply strapping on the cowboy boots and riding some crazy contraption out of the atmosphere with no viable hope of coming back, should something go wrong. Even if it is the same type of craft as the one that it would be rescuing, this decision shows some initiative to make the space program into a less willy-nilly operation than it might have been in the past. It is, as has been mentioned above, really the only option for some sort of fall-back plan, should something go wrong on the way up.
Good job NASA.
If you don't know what you're doing, you can't make mistakes.
The cost is actually far less than you believe. The "rescue" shuttle is simply the vehicle for the next flight (minus payload). It's already going through the normal processing flow to ready it for its planned launch in November. The additional cost to protect for a rescue mission is in the low millions.
Worst...sig...ever!
Who will rescue the rescuers?
If I get the article right, a crew of four astronauts is planned for endeavour in case of such a rescue mission.
I'm just wondering why it is necessary to put four more astronauts at risk. As far as I know, liftoff and orbit-insertion are done automatically and don't need human interaction. As soon as endeavour is in a stationary orbit that is not too far away from the damaged atlantis, the rendevouz maneuver could be controlled by the atlantis crew, as well as the deorbit and landing of endeavour.
So where is the need for a manned rescue ship?
And even if I am completely wrong and human interaction is necessary during launch, why are 4 astronauts required? I think 2 astronauts should be enough in any case.
Will it be possible to dock a remote controlled craft to it? If yes, wouldn't it make sense to design one that can move the HST to an orbit with a different inclination so it can be serviced again in a couple of years? There was talk about de-orbiting Hubble safely at the end of its life, so why not "de-orbit" it to an orbit that's close to the ISS?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Endeavour was rolled out to Launch Pad 39B ... If all goes well for STS-125, Endeavour will move over to 39A to be used for STS-126.
Why are they moving it? Is there some reason they can't launch the non-rescue STS-126 from 39B?
This statement puzzled me:
If all goes well for STS-125, Endeavour will move over to 39A to be used for STS-126.
Anyone have any idea why this is? Is there some reason they can't just leave Endeavour on pad 39B and launch the next mission from there?
If Endeavour is all set to launch from pad 39B in the event of an emergency rescue mission, then why are they planning to move it across to 39A for the "regular" mission?
Sadly, no-one has ever released a high resolution photo of a double shuttle stack & probably never will.
STS-35 and STS-41 (yes, that long ago) were two shuttle missions that had its shuttles out on pads at the same time as well. Pictars:
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/STS41/10064404.jpg
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/STS41/10064405.jpg
Sadly they did not launch together.. now that'd be quite the sight.
Anyway, I'm hoping to see lots and lots of awesome imagery of this setup, as it will indeed most likely be the last time we'll be able to see this again outside of Hollywood.
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=37485
evokes the feeling that it's just a viewport into actual field with 100s of shuttles ready to launch, as a sign of civilian space travel gone mainstream:)
"Everything's good! Mission is a success!"
"Crap, send up a shuttle to rescue us!"
"Oh, double crap. We just lost 2/3rds of the shuttle fleet in one shot and crapped out the US Space Program!"
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
Two burning shuttles tailed by a big space telescope hit the LHC, causing a massive disruption in the very fabric of time and space.
Think of a fair six sided dice. You rolled it 5 times. You got 4 four times and 1 once.
You would say your odd of getting a 4 as oppose to 1 on a fair dice is 4:1?
An artist's conception of a dual shuttle rescue mission is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MPTbSJH0lE
First:
think of a fair six-sided die. You rolled it 5 times. You got 4 four times and 1 once. You would say your odds of gettin a 4 as opposed to 1 on a fair die are 4:1?
You've got to do better than that.
Now, the problem with what you're trying to say (ask?). In your example:
a) all 5 rolls have already happened, so they're no longer in question. This is different from asking what the probability of future events is.
b) the die is a fair one by your own definition. To state that an n-sided die is "fair" is to state that the probability of *each* outcome is 1/n.
c) your statement that a moderately improbable set of outcomes has already been obtained (namely, a-a-a-a-b) is a canard (in light of (a) and (b)). Knowledge of the specific outcome of an event is only useful if you don't already know from other analysis (the symmetry of the die, the homogeneity of the gravitational field affecting it, etc.) the probabilities involved.
Suppose the probability that an event occurs is 1/100. The probability that it happens twice is (1/100)*(1/100) = 1/10,000. If one of them has already occurred, there is only one future event; only one event whose probability you must estimate.
Your example accuses the poster of incredibly poor math, and it's hard to fathom how you could attribute it as a corollary of the reasoning he gave. The probability of getting 4-4-4-4-1 on five rolls of a fair, six-sided die is the same as getting a-a-a-a-b. You're accusing the poster of thinking:
"Let's forget it's a fair die with six sides, remembering only the two sides and forgetting the other four. The conclusion is that the probability of getting a 2, 3, 5 or 6 is zero on any roll, and the probability of getting a 4 is four times more likely than getting a 1."
You don't have a clue about probability, how to think about it, or how to calculate it, and your English is terrible. I suggest finishing the last 4 years of your secondary education, and 4 years of post-secondary education, working on your composition skills, and studying elementary probability, the "gambler's fallacy", the "inverse gambler's fallacy", the "three prisoners problem", and the "birthday problem". Throw in some formal logic too, and pay special attention to the forms of fallacy, both formal and informal.
The idea of having a 2nd spacecraft at the ready in case of an emergency should've been the norm since the very inception of manned space flight.
I heard it had been cancelled, at least by the SCiFi channel. But maybe they were going to do some DVD movies of it, like they did (ARC of Truth, Continuum) with SG1.
I also heard rumours of a new series - called Stargate Universe, does anybody know anything about that?
Look on gateworld or wikipedia
.
STOP the Hubble Servicing Mission 4 now!!!
It's TOO dangerous!!!
There's no ISS "safe haven" near the Hubble!!!
Do you want TWO Shuttles and 11 astronauts LOST in space???
It could be THE END of the Shuttle program and (perhaps) THE END of ALL manned space programs for LONG, LONG time!!!
There are SEVERAL (much safer!!!) ways to upgrade the Hubble WITHOUT risk to lose 11 astronauts lives and make 11 widow(er)s and 20+ orphans!!!
http://www.ghostnasa.com/hubbledeathtrap.jpg
.