Slashdot Mirror
Discovery Launch Delayed Due To Engine Issue
An anonymous reader writes "The launch of Space Shuttle Discovery was originally slated for February 12th, has now been postponed to February 19th — at the earliest. The change of launch dates were decided by NASA managers during a review of the shuttle's flow control valve in the main engine. The new date is pending further analysis of the flow control valve and everything checking out okay for pre-flight tests. Discovery's STS-119 14-day mission will deliver the station's fourth and final set of solar arrays, completing the orbiting laboratory's truss, or backbone. The arrays will provide the electricity to fully power science experiments and support the station's expanded crew of six in May."
Private investment in space flight seemed so likely in the 1990s. I remember science fiction author Michael Flynn's future history starting with Firestar suggesting that FedEx would be a major force behind space flight because deliveries could be made anywhere on Earth in much less time than with airplanes. Nowadays, however, no company is going to want to spend that much money on courier services, and with the present economic crisis there's not much investment in anything.
It's a real shame that companies presently developing private space vehicles are more concerned with just getting people far up enough to enjoy freefall (for dumb prices) instead of really looking towards space.
Managers actually making a smart decision about not pushing a shuttle out the door before it was ready?
I suppose this can be attributed to the fact that this isn't a time sensitive flight, or a race against the reds or something. I really got tired of reading about the blunders of management in NASA during my engineering ethics class back in the day. Now I just read about it happening elsewhere in my spare time. At least now I'm only paying an exorbitant price for internet instead of tuition.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
I think it's probably a situation where it's cheaper, safer and more productive to send robots for most everything we're interested in right now.
Disappointing, I know.
It's a real shame that companies presently developing private space vehicles are more concerned with just getting people far up enough to enjoy freefall (for dumb prices) instead of really looking towards space.
I really don't care how the commercialization of space happens - in a capitalist society that's how you get things done. I just want it to happen and we can work out the details later.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yeah, well, as reasonable as that is, I hate to say this but no matter what NASA says or does if another shuttle (or whatever manned NASA craft) blows up in the next 10 or even 20 years, that could be it for our manned space program. Our actual (in-)ability to continue operations without a shuttle won't be the reason. The willingness of the astronauts despite knowing and understanding the risks won't enter into it. Public outrage will.
You mention NASA management paying attention to the true risks instead of filling out mountains of paper work to change a bolt. What will actually happen is that they will do both, and blanket the real risks with their own mountains of paper work to make damn sure (complete with verifiable paper trail) that they paid attention to and mitigated those risks. When the Challenger blew up, the political situation pushed them towards launching in spite of the risks. Today, the political situation is pushing them towards making damn sure no more astronauts are lost, and doing everything they can to demonstrate that this is their overriding concern. So they will err on the side of caution.
The enemies of Democracy are
Did you know the Space Shuttle is comprised of 2.5 million parts making it the most complex machine ever built? Of these parts, steel valves are considered critical and of the highest order to resolve before launch.
Though the Shuttle has a huge amount of redundancy, there are an amazing number of parts which are "must work' devices, i.e. failure of the part would almost certainly lead to catastrophic loss of the vehicle. The main engine flow control valves are of course one of these, but there are many others which are not so obvious, such as the payload bay latching mechanism. If this doesn't work, you're stuck in orbit with an open payload bay and cannot re-enter. The explosive bolts that secure the payload are also must-work devices, if they fail due to vibration on launch you might have the payload come loose inside the bay during ascent - a very bad thing to happen. Also, they must not fail to work when releasing the payload, or the payload might become lodged half in and half out of the Shuttle, preventing re-entry.
Whatever the theoretical advantages of DIRECT, in practice Ares has years of design and testing already. They've already got real working hardware for many of the major components.
So does DIRECT. It's called the Space Transport System. DIRECT uses existing, proven hardware with large mass margins. It uses existing facilities and existing manpower. An argument could be made that DIRECT has more existing tested components ready than ARES. The SRBS are ready, the engines are ready for unmanned test flights. The infrastructure is ready. All that's needed is the strengthened tank, and the engine mounts. Given the green light, a test flight could be made by the end of next year. Sure there will be unforseen issues and problems. Sure there will be cost overruns. However, even at twice the cost, DIRECT will be cheaper than ARES (assuming no cost overruns for ARES). Even if there is a three year delay, DIRECT will have manned flights before ARES.
To be honest, I don't care if it is DIRECT or some other system that takes over. What worries me is the reports that NASA is cutting safety margins and equipment so that ARES-I can get Orion off the ground. What worries me is the reports that the ARES-V is morphing into an unsustainable behemoth. What worries me is that if NASA continues down the ARES path and there are significantly expensive problems, that ARES-V will be cut. ARES-I without ARES-V is essentially useless. NASA could lose the ability to host a manned space program. I want to see astronauts land on Mars. I have my doubts that this will happen with ARES.
In these economic times, the budget slashing knife is kept razor sharp. If NASA engineers using NASA procedures and NASA software say that rocket B will cost less and save more jobs than rocket A, and deliver better performance, sooner and safer, well I say that's worth at least a thorough looking in to.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!