Endeavour Rolled Out As Rescue Ship

One faulty space truck to rescue another by syousef · 2008-09-20 01:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

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

Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-20 01:41 · Score: 5, Funny

we'll remember that next time your car breaks down and come and rescue you with a Piper Cub... or a Cushman Golf Cart... or something else essentially different from a Car.
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another by ozbird · 2008-09-20 01:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Apparently two wrongs do make a right.
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another by Chris+Burke · 2008-09-20 02:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

And the superior rescue vehicle they're going to use is...?
I mean what do you think they did when a Huey went down in Vietnam?

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another by DougBTX · 2008-09-20 02:22 · Score: 1

If the rescue craft was safer than the shuttle, they'd be using the rescue craft to get up there in the first place...
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another by bhtooefr · 2008-09-20 02:24 · Score: 1

Pay the Russians to get a Soyuz ready? Although it might take two trips...
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another by cyclone96 · 2008-09-20 02:53 · Score: 5, Informative

Pay the Russians to get a Soyuz ready? Although it might take two trips...
The orbital inclination of Hubble is 28.5 degrees (essentially due east from Kennedy Space Center). The Soyuz pad at Baikonur is too far north to reach that inclination without doing a plane change, which takes more propellant than Soyuz carries.

--
Worst...sig...ever!
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-20 03:13 · Score: 3, Funny

There is no escape from the car analogies.
Resistance is futile.
You will be Simile'ded.
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another by jacklebot · 2008-09-20 03:41 · Score: 1

I must disagree. There is nothing any more inherently flawed about the shuttle design than there is about a car, and we send those to rescue themselves all the time. I would say bully for them having that docking technology in place for these sorts of rescue missions.
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another by cyclone96 · 2008-09-20 03:47 · Score: 3, Informative

He did say it might take two trips.
One Soyuz couldn't get there but two, flown serially, certainly could.
I think the extra trips was referring to the number of crew members onboard the orbiter (since Soyuz only has three seats, and really you do need two people to fly it).
I don't understand how flying Soyuz "serially" is going to get it to 28.5, if you could elaborate. The amount of propellant to do that kind of plane change is enormous, even the shuttle (which was designed do a lot of maneuvering) is only capable of doing a couple of degrees.

--
Worst...sig...ever!
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another by rossdee · 2008-09-20 05:29 · Score: 1

The big difference is that in space there is no opportunity to walk home.
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another by rpj1288 · 2008-09-20 08:24 · Score: 1

Mod parent up! He knows what he's talking about!

--
Marvin knew: "Think of a number, any number..."
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another by amRadioHed · 2008-09-20 08:32 · Score: 1

Not necessarily if the rescue vehicle didn't have enough cargo space or was substantially more expensive to operate. Of course there is no alternative vehicle they could use at the moment so the point is sort of moot.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another by type40 · 2008-09-20 08:53 · Score: 2, Funny

The big difference is that in space there is no opportunity to walk home.
sure there is. Just watch that first step.

--
"You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another by ArsonSmith · 2008-09-20 10:10 · Score: 4, Funny

I don't think the Soyuz would have been a very good vehicle to rescue helicopter pilots in Vietnam.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another by ArsonSmith · 2008-09-20 10:12 · Score: 1

Perhaps they should go with a smaller craft for carrying people and a larger craft for carying stuff. They could also simply both by using a capsule for the crew and a disposable cargo trailer for the larger cargo items. I'm sure they could probably re-use some of the good parts of the shuttle like the SRBs and a large portion of the main fuel tank.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.

Direct link by Kagura · 2008-09-20 01:19 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re:Direct link by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-20 01:57 · Score: 1, Funny

Dude that's some of the best nerdporn ever. When I realized those two cylinders the size of the dude's torso were turbos, I nearly had to find a towel.
Space Camp didn't have as good photos as the Globe dug up.
Re:Direct link by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-20 02:57 · Score: 1, Informative

And here's the link to the NASA source which skips the "registration required" Boston Times. Sorry, New York Globe. No, wait, Boston Globe. I always get those two confused since they're (literally) the same damned paper.
AC so as NOT to karma whore.

Maybe its NASA's entry... by josquint · 2008-09-20 01:20 · Score: 2, Funny

in this

Tow Truck? by stevedmc · 2008-09-20 01:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

That is about as weird as a two truck towing a tow truck.

Re:Tow Truck? by stoolpigeon · 2008-09-20 01:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Which is exactly what you do if a tow truck breaks down.

--
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Re:Tow Truck? by amRadioHed · 2008-09-20 08:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

How is it that the guy repeating your point got +5 Insightful and you get bupkis? The mods work in mysterious ways.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:Tow Truck? by JLF65 · 2008-09-20 12:16 · Score: 1

The OP had poor spelling. :)

what is it going to do ? by jacquesm · 2008-09-20 01:25 · Score: 1

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

Re:what is it going to do ? by rsmith-mac · 2008-09-20 01:35 · Score: 4, Informative

Hook up and pull them if they get stranded ?
Actually yes, that's the idea. The concern is that the ever so fragile titles may be greatly damaged ala Columbia, in which case someone needs to come pick up the astronauts stranded in Atlantis, because it can't be flown back in to the Earth's atmosphere and it can't be flown to the ISS. Since the Columbia incident all missions have been to the ISS or to a point in space where you can reach the ISS. This is not possible with the Hubble mission, it's too far away for the shuttle's limited fuel supply.
Re:what is it going to do ? by stoolpigeon · 2008-09-20 01:35 · Score: 4, Informative

This is in case there is a problem on launch that allows Atlantis to make it to orbit, but it is too damaged to safely return. They would launch Endeavour to join Atlantis in orbit, they would use the robotic arms to pull the two vehicles together and then transfer crew from one to the other.

This msnbc article on it has some more details. I'd have linked that article for the submission - but I didn't see it until later, and the NASA site didn't have a permalink for their page on it at the time.

--
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Re:what is it going to do ? by mikael_j · 2008-09-20 01:36 · Score: 1

I believe it is related to the recent problems with the shuttles where they've noticed problems that could (and did) result in disaster on re-entry. In such a situation it's probably nice to have a backup shuttle to be able to rescue the crew of the damaged shuttle.
That said, I've always wondered why it isn't standard procedure to have a sort of "rescue capsule" ready for launch during shuttle missions. I suspect cost is one of the reasons...
/Mikael

--
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Re:what is it going to do ? by jacquesm · 2008-09-20 01:47 · Score: 1

that makes some sense but because the two craft are equal in design the chances that the second shuttle would develop the same problem are actually higher than if the first one did not have a problem...
I really don't get the logic behind this, but presumably nasa has some very smart people working for them and they know their stuff.

--
MP3 Search Engine
Re:what is it going to do ? by slashmojo · 2008-09-20 01:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think the idea is that if on the way up a shuttle sustains the type of damage to the heat shield that ultimately destroyed the last one on the way down, they can send up the rescue craft.
By careful examination of the craft after it gets up there (which they seem to do now) they can ascertain if it is in fit shape to make the journey home, other wise it stays up there and presumably the crew all get into the ISS and wait for the rescue craft to arrive.
Of course if the rescue shuttle is also too badly damaged on the way up then they are screwed.. unless they bring a 'shuttle repair kit' with them.
I was wondering though does the ISS have more than one place to dock a shuttle? Or do they have to somehow undock the damaged craft after the crew disembark and then dock the rescue craft? Or does the whole rescue process happen while both craft are undocked and the crew do a cool space dive between shuttles?
Re:what is it going to do ? by neumayr · 2008-09-20 02:08 · Score: 1

I don't see an alternative. As far as I know, there is no other spaceship (something not Space Shuttle) available they could use as a rescue capsule.
Actually, I hope I'm wrong. So please, tell me I am.

--
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
Re:what is it going to do ? by v1 · 2008-09-20 02:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

If the odds of a specific problem with a shuttle occurring are 1 in 100, the odds of it the same problem occurring on TWO shuttles at the same time is 1 in 10,000, not 1 in 100.
You're taking for granted that once a problem occurs, the odds that "it could occur" are no longer 1 in 100, they are 1:1 because it HAS occurred. In other words, the odds of a double failure pre-launch is 1:10,000. The odds of a double failure, once you HAVE a single failure, is 1:100. Until the single failure occurs, the odds remain at 1:10,000.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:what is it going to do ? by cyclone96 · 2008-09-20 03:11 · Score: 4, Informative

I was wondering though does the ISS have more than one place to dock a shuttle? Or do they have to somehow undock the damaged craft after the crew disembark and then dock the rescue craft? Or does the whole rescue process happen while both craft are undocked and the crew do a cool space dive between shuttles?
The damaged orbiter is undocked first by remote control from the ground. The crew needs to install a cable to allow the command to open the docking system hooks (which is normally a push button the crew performs on the aft flight deck) to be sent from the ground.
If you really want to see everything in excruciating detail, this NASA pdf has it...
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/153444main_CSCS_Resource_%20Book.pdf

--
Worst...sig...ever!
Re:what is it going to do ? by Whiteox · 2008-09-20 07:35 · Score: 1

Where are you going to find an additional 7 seats?
Even if you can pilot a rescue shuttle with 2, where's the standing room?

--
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Re:what is it going to do ? by imsabbel · 2008-09-20 08:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

Put a crew module in the cargo area?
The rescue mission doesnt have a payload to fill it anyways...

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Re:what is it going to do ? by RedWizzard · 2008-09-20 11:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

If the odds of a specific problem with a shuttle occurring are 1 in 100, the odds of it the same problem occurring on TWO shuttles at the same time is 1 in 10,000, not 1 in 100.
You're taking for granted that once a problem occurs, the odds that "it could occur" are no longer 1 in 100, they are 1:1 because it HAS occurred. In other words, the odds of a double failure pre-launch is 1:10,000. The odds of a double failure, once you HAVE a single failure, is 1:100. Until the single failure occurs, the odds remain at 1:10,000.
The point the parent is making is that if a particular problem occurs then it might mean that the design has a previously unknown flaw that makes that problem more likely than original estimates. So pre-launch the chance is 1 in 100 for each shuttle, which makes 1 in 10,000 for both. But if the first shuttle develops the problem then it might mean that the 1 in 100 was wrong - maybe it's actually 1 in 20. Now you're looking at launching a rescue mission with a vehicle that might have a 1 in 20 chance of failing, and you've got no time to properly assess the risk.
Re:what is it going to do ? by v1 · 2008-09-20 11:54 · Score: 1

If the initial odds are estimated at 1 in 100, and there is a failure, the appearance of the failure does not affect the odds of another one just like it failing. It's still a 1 in 100 event.
You may find it necessary to re-evaluate the odds if experience is proving to be grossly different than predicted odds, but experiencing a single expression of an uncommon event should not immediately draw into question the odds of the next occurrence.
If I'm shooting craps, and I know my odds of getting a seven is say, 1 in 4, and I shoot a seven, and then another, and then a third one, what are my odds of getting another seven on my fourth roll? Better than 1 in 4 now would you say? no. Still in 1 in 4 same as it always was. Changing the dice won't make any difference either.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:what is it going to do ? by RedWizzard · 2008-09-20 12:05 · Score: 1

If the initial odds are estimated at 1 in 100, and there is a failure, the appearance of the failure does not affect the odds of another one just like it failing. It's still a 1 in 100 event.
You're missing the point. You think the initial odds are 1 in 100. You don't actually know that they are. The occurrence of the event may indicate that your original estimate of the odds was wrong and that the true odds were higher.

If I'm shooting craps, and I know my odds of getting a seven is say, 1 in 4, and I shoot a seven, and then another, and then a third one, what are my odds of getting another seven on my fourth roll? Better than 1 in 4 now would you say? no. Still in 1 in 4 same as it always was. Changing the dice won't make any difference either.
You don't know that the dice are fair. You think that the odds are 1 in 4. But then you roll 3 sevens in a row. Maybe the dice are fair and odds of getting another seven are 1 in 4. Or maybe the dice are loaded and the odds of getting another seven are much higher. The fact that you rolled 3 sevens in a row might indicate that the dice are loaded.
Incidentally the odds of rolling a seven on two fair dice are 1 in 6.
Re:what is it going to do ? by RealGrouchy · 2008-09-20 12:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sorry, I've already commented on this story, otherwise I'd mod you DOWN. In "regular" Shuttle missions, the destination is already to the ISS. If something goes wrong, they have time to wait at the ISS for another shuttle to be prepared and blasted up into space.
The reason *this* mission requires them both to be on the launch pad is because they *can't* get to the ISS, which you erroneously imply that they could. This has been mentioned in many comments, in most news stories, etc., etc.
- RG>

--
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Re:what is it going to do ? by blueturffan · 2008-09-20 15:13 · Score: 1

That would be a great idea if we had a man-rated crew module that fit in the cargo area.
By the time we designed, built and qualified the crew module, it would be too late to help Hubble.
Re:what is it going to do ? by jacquesm · 2008-09-21 23:17 · Score: 1

exactly.
It's absolutely amazing that someone would think that a failure would not have any impact on the evaluation of the odds for the future as well.
Obviously if there is a 1:100 perceived chance for a problem to occur and it occurs in a relatively short series as opposed to somewhere in the middle of a series then it's high time to re-evaluate the model to make sure the original estimate was correct, since the evidence shows that there is a good chance that the original estimate was too optimistic. With infrequent events such estimates can be wildly off anyway (both to the positive and to the negative side).
If you have the proof of the situation in your hand (failed shuttle launch, crew stranded) it would be absolutely stupid to risk another vehicle and another crew becoming stranded in the same way without a thorough and not too time constrained evaluation of the cause so that the chance of the event happening during the rescue mission decreases to the point where the risk becomes acceptable.
If you still don't get any of this then you should study Bayes theorem for a bit.

--
MP3 Search Engine
Re:what is it going to do ? by jacquesm · 2008-09-21 23:21 · Score: 1

whoever modded you insightful should be banned from getting mod points for life, if a problem has already happened to the first shuttle then:
- the next shuttle developing a problem is as likely as it was before, namely 1:100 (assuming the model is correct)
- the model is likely incorrect, so the chance could be *MUCH* higher
The problem has at least happened once so the model needs re-evaluation, and most likely the rescue shuttle is operating under a much higher chance of failure unless the cause of the original failure is determined and fixed.
Otherwise you will possibly lose your *ONLY* chance to fix things.

--
MP3 Search Engine

Re:That's confidence... by stoolpigeon · 2008-09-20 01:40 · Score: 4, Informative

I think all the missions since the Columbia accident have been to the ISS. (I could be wrong - just going by memory) And when they go there they have multiple options for getting back, other than the shuttle they took to get up there.

When Atlantis goes to Hubble - if they have a Colombia repeat - with damage to a wing or something- they will have no way to come down safely. This gives them one option.

--
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?

Re:That's confidence... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-20 01:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

I know the media is latching on to this, but if you look at the mission articles in Wikipedia since Columbia, there has been a "rescue mission" for EVERY flight. It seems that the only difference here is that this rescue mission is set to go at a moment's notice while other rescues would take some weeks to set up (as ISS is available for the rescue shelter).

Just want to be able to meet their SLA by b1rdy · 2008-09-20 01:57 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

In other news... by barwasp · 2008-09-20 02:16 · Score: 1

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

A Political Statement maybe? by You+ain't+seen+me! · 2008-09-20 02:20 · Score: 1

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.

Re:A Political Statement maybe? by ducomputergeek · 2008-09-20 04:59 · Score: 1

Or it could be that the only way to rescue a shuttle crew going to Hubble is another shuttle? The Soyuz does not have the room to bring back a 7 man Shuttle crew IIRC. So is it more logical that it is a political dog and pony show or that another shuttle is the only option should something go wrong.
And remind me the track record of ESA doing manned missions again? When was the last time the Ariane rockets put a man into space again? Oh wait, I think all the ESA astronauts have gone into orbit either atop a US or Russian craft.

--
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.

Re:That's confidence... by stoolpigeon · 2008-09-20 02:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

One other thing that is cool about it - in a purely subjective way - is that this is the last time 2 shuttles will be out on launch pads at the same time.

To get the full impact of this, one really needs to drive out there and take a look. Any time any of them are out there is just incredibly impressive. I know I've become pretty used to looking at pictures of the shuttle but every time I'm out at the space center or the wildlife refuge - I'm just blown away by the size of it all. This is all rather subjective, but it's still a big deal to me.

--
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?

And yet NASA will complain about their budget... by tgd · 2008-09-20 02:44 · Score: 1

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.

Yes but... by Archimonde · 2008-09-20 02:47 · Score: 1

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.

Possible maturity evident? by johndmartiniii · 2008-09-20 02:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Possible maturity evident? by DerekLyons · 2008-09-20 03:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
More accurately, it's a sign of the hype and hysteria surround space flight and astronauts that such expensive precautions must be taken - when there are thousands of USN submariners at sea right now with no viable hope should something go seriously wrong. Not to mention the hundreds of people who winter over in Antarctica each year. Not to mention the hundred of scientists and crew at sea on USNS research vessels. (A friend of mine is in the middle of the Pacific right now - hundreds of miles from land and well off the shipping lanes. It would take over a day for a search aircraft to reach them - and most of a week for a rescue ship to do so.)

The submariners have rescue vessels standing by, sorta - we were told to expect to wait a week or more back in the 1980's, and our capabilities have declined sharply since then. None of the others have dedicated rescue capability standing by.

And that's just the government jobs...
Re:Possible maturity evident? by Free+the+Cowards · 2008-09-20 04:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

But do those submarines have relatively obvious unfixed failure modes the way the Shuttle does? It's one thing to have no protection from unknown problems and rather different to know that there's a problem with a significant chance of killing you but taking no precautions against it.

--
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Re:Possible maturity evident? by hcdejong · 2008-09-20 05:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Apples and oranges. Surface vessels have lifeboats, for submarines there's the rescue vessels you mention, but until now, astronauts who stranded in space were SOL. NASA said in the past that should this happen, they'd take the next available shuttle and reassemble it as quickly as possible, but they recognized that this would probably be too late. With the Shuttle failure rate being what it is, having a second one on standby IMO isn't responding to hysteria, it's prudent. You'll notice submarines don't have a 1% failure rate.
Also, it's not as if they're wasting resources. The standby shuttle will simply become the next mission.
Re:Possible maturity evident? by DerekLyons · 2008-09-20 08:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

With the Shuttle failure rate being what it is, having a second one on standby IMO isn't responding to hysteria, it's prudent.
With the failure rate so low, it's responding to hysteria.

Also, it's not as if they're wasting resources. The standby shuttle will simply become the next mission.
The standby Shuttle has been rolled out weeks before it would have been rolled out for it's next mission - which means it will be exposed to the elements for weeks longer than it would otherwise have been. Before it can become it's next mission, it will have to be rolled back to the VAB to have it's payload installed, and then rolled to pad 39A (it's currently on 39B) for launch - which means all the connections between the mobile and fixed pads have to be broken at 39B, attached in the VAB, broken in the VAB, and finally reattached at 39A for launch. This being a (theoretically) technical audience, I shouldn't have to recap the risks involved in all that extra handling and mating/demating.

until now, astronauts who stranded in space were SOL. NASA said in the past that should this happen, they'd take the next available shuttle and reassemble it as quickly as possible, but they recognized that this would probably be too late.
And the odds are non trivial that even with a rescue shuttle standing by - they still stand a good chance of being too late. Even with the new, streamlined, procedures in place, it will take 2-4 weeks to get Endeavor off the ground. But the maximum life span of Atlantis on orbit (assuming a failure that is recognized early on, and a subsequent drastic power down) is around 3 weeks. With every day Atlantis is on orbit, fully powered up, the odds of a sucessful rescue drop dramatically.
Re:Possible maturity evident? by DerekLyons · 2008-09-20 08:40 · Score: 1

But do those submarines have relatively obvious unfixed failure modes the way the Shuttle does? It's one thing to have no protection from unknown problems and rather different to know that there's a problem with a significant chance of killing you but taking no precautions against it.
Since the Shuttle has no known problems with a significant chance of killing the crew... What's your point?
Re:Possible maturity evident? by ThrowAwaySociety · 2008-09-20 10:24 · Score: 1

With the failure rate so low, it's responding to hysteria.
The fatal event rate for shuttle flights is about 2%. Half of those were caused by a known design problem for which there is no implemented solution.
You can bet that if SSBNs were that unreliable, they would either be shadowed constantly by rescue craft, or never launched in the first place absent a national emergency.
Re:Possible maturity evident? by Free+the+Cowards · 2008-09-20 12:29 · Score: 1

What's your definition of "significant"?
Given the histories of the Shuttle and American submarines, the Shuttle's chances of a fatal ice/tile incident are much greater than anything that would happen to a submarine, and well into the realm of what I would call significant.

--
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Re:Possible maturity evident? by DerekLyons · 2008-09-21 04:15 · Score: 1

What you would call significant is hardly relevant. What matters is what constitutes significant from an engineering standpoint - and with the current probability vastly reduced from original low probability of an ice/tile event...

The consider that across the life of the Shuttle, submarines have suffered one two loss-of-hull accidents (rammed the bottom of the Irish Sea hard enough to damage beyond repair, significant fire damage) and multiple significant damage incidents (ramming the ocean floor, ramming other vessels, fire, flooding)... Consider that in approximately the same time frame as since the loss of Columbia the Submarine Service has had both Dolphin and San Francisco seriously damaged and nearly lost. San Francisco was particularly frightening, I figure had the bulkhead between ballast tanks 3A and 3B been torn (vertically) only six more inches she'd have never made the surface. Had she hit as little as a foot closer inboard, vertically, or both... the torpedo tubes would have been driven into the hull, flooding her instantly.

And yes, I served in the USN Submarine service and have studied them for over twenty years. Additionally, I've studied the Shuttle (not just read what's in the papers) for roughly the same period.
Re:Possible maturity evident? by Free+the+Cowards · 2008-09-21 05:37 · Score: 1

I don't think that "significant" has an official engineering definition. What an individual considers "significant" is certainly important to the discussion, as it is essentially a shortcut way of asking what risk level you consider high enough to make rescue preparations for to mitigate the chances of loss of human life.
Your comparisons to submarine accidents make no sense to me. Unless I'm grossly misinformed about the US Navy's frequency of operations, there have been far more submarine missions than Shuttle missions in any given period. Comparing absolute numbers is utterly meaningless in that context. You must compare the Shuttle's historic record of roughly 1/70 fatal accidents with whatever the rate is for submarines. I don't know that number, but I'd be extremely shocked if it were anywhere near 1/70.

--
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.

Re:And yet NASA will complain about their budget.. by cyclone96 · 2008-09-20 03:20 · Score: 2, Informative

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!

That leaves one question by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-20 03:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

Who will rescue the rescuers?

Re:That's confidence... by dgatwood · 2008-09-20 04:27 · Score: 1

That goes to show what a little grammar error can do to understanding. Put another way, whether the GP was right depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.

I think the GP intended to use the word "was".

I know the media is latching on to this, but if you look at the mission articles in Wikipedia since Columbia, there has been a "rescue mission" for EVERY flight. It seems that the only difference here is that this rescue mission is set to go at a moment's notice [because ISS is not available] while other rescues would take some weeks to set up (as ISS was [not is] available for the rescue shelter [in earlier missions] ).

--

Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

Wondering about the docking ring for Hubble by rrohbeck · 2008-09-20 05:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:Wondering about the docking ring for Hubble by DerekLyons · 2008-09-20 08:42 · Score: 3, Informative
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?
1. That would take an enormous amount of fuel, about ten Shuttle flights worth.
2. A craft to Shuttle between ISS and Hubble that can support a serving mission doesn't exist anyhow.

Move? Why Move? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-20 05:10 · Score: 1, Interesting

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?

Re:Move? Why Move? by toddestan · 2008-09-20 10:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Launch Pad 39B was deactivated as a shuttle launch pad when the number of shuttle missions was slashed, and it currently being remodeled for the Ares rocket. They knew they were going to need 39B again for this shuttle mission, so they presumably left all the hardware in place so it could launch a shuttle if need be, but once 39A opens up again they are going to want to get the shuttle out of the way so they can continue with the remodeling.

Why move Endeavour to pad 39A? by hazee · 2008-09-20 05:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

Re:Why move Endeavour to pad 39A? by WankersRevenge · 2008-09-20 06:36 · Score: 3, Informative

From this article: Pad 39B, meanwhile, is due to be turned over to NASA's Constellation program to be modified to launch the agency's new Ares 1 rockets. The launch vehicle is being designed to loft the agency's Orion shuttle successor into orbit by 2014 and on to the moon by 2020. The first Ares 1 test flight is set for June 2009.

no high resolution photos by heroine · 2008-09-20 06:47 · Score: 1

Sadly, no-one has ever released a high resolution photo of a double shuttle stack & probably never will.

Re:no high resolution photos by imsabbel · 2008-09-20 08:32 · Score: 1

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/imageviewer.cfm?mediaid=37485&mr=l&w=0&h=0&fn=08pd2737&sn=KSC-08pd-2737

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?

But not the first time... by Animaether · 2008-09-20 07:08 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:But not the first time... by stoolpigeon · 2008-09-20 07:54 · Score: 1

It's my understanding they've had 2 shuttles out at the same time - 17 times prior to this, but that this is the last, and the only time it was for the purpose of an emergency plan. Of course this is all stuff I've read on news sites - so any of it could be wrong. I don't work for NASA or have any inside info. on just what is going on.

--
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?

Beautiful pic by ypctx · 2008-09-20 08:05 · Score: 1

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:)

Three possibilities! by arthurh3535 · 2008-09-20 08:10 · Score: 1

"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!)

In other news by ypctx · 2008-09-20 08:18 · Score: 1

Two burning shuttles tailed by a big space telescope hit the LHC, causing a massive disruption in the very fabric of time and space.

Re:That's confidence... by Derlum · 2008-09-20 08:51 · Score: 1

That's what parent was trying to say. Hubble is nearly twice as high as ISS to minimize ambient light from Earth, clearly too much of a difference for the shuttle to have even close to enough delta-v to transfer, even assuming the inclinations were the same, which they're not. Hubble's orbit is essentially the maximum service altitude for the shuttle.

Artists conception by bitrex · 2008-09-20 10:18 · Score: 1

An artist's conception of a dual shuttle rescue mission is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MPTbSJH0lE

Re:That's confidence... by RealGrouchy · 2008-09-20 12:16 · Score: 1

Not only that, but if nothing goes wrong, Endeavour will have a "regular" mission.

Unless and until something goes wrong with Atlantis, Endeavour is just a "potential" rescue ship, IMVHOTYVM.

- RG>

--
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!

Should've been the norm all along. by Nick+Driver · 2008-09-20 15:06 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Trouble with (SG) Atlantis by isorox · 2008-09-20 22:37 · Score: 1

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

Slashdot Mirror

Endeavour Rolled Out As Rescue Ship

82 of 110 comments (clear)