Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Discovery Launch Delayed Due To Engine Issue

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the oh-here's-yer-problem dept.

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."

8 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. The thing's been out of warranty... by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... for 20 now? How many miles on it?

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    1. Re:The thing's been out of warranty... by camperdave · · Score: 3, Informative

      They are buying new stuff: The Ares I and V. Well, they are technically supposed to be based on the shuttle system, but for all intents and purposes they are completely new spacecraft. The Ares I is an oversized SRB, but with different fuel and different flight characteristics. The only thing they have salvaged is the ignitor. The Ares V uses different SRBs, a wider external tank, and different engines. It will be seven or more years before they start producing this rocket. With Ares as the launch platform, there will be a 5-7 year gap between end of shuttle and start of Ares. Too long to maintain people's jobs.

      Direct on the other hand, will use standard "off the shelf" SRBs, will use current external tank manufacturing processes, will use much of the same systems as the shuttle. There will be huge numbers of jobs saved. Plus, the gap between end of shuttle and first Jupiter launch is only two years. Short enough on its own, but if NASA also delayed the shuttle retirement date, the gap could be reduced to zero.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  2. As much as I love space by Dyinobal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I feel that manned space flight for the last thirty years or so has been more or less stagnant. I'm hoping the introduction of private sector space initiatives will change this. Only time will tell though.

    1. Re:As much as I love space by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:As much as I love space by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the biggest thing is that NASA needs to come up with an actual number for acceptable risk, then make it clear that the public and the astronauts know and understand that number. I believe the current acceptable risk is something like 1% chance of failure and due to the non-replaceable nature of the spacecraft and astronauts that is probably a realistic target to shoot for (if we lose another shuttle it will be virtually impossible to continue our current commitments). If we move to disposable spacecraft, that number should probably be adjusted.

      I know it's harsh to say that 5% risk is acceptable when we're talking about human lives, but if they know and understand the risk it is their decision to sign up for a mission. Having a goal of perfect just adds unreasonable amounts of overhead and increases costs faster than savings. Far too much time and effort is wasted in the bureaucracy of NASA, especially considering that the causes of both shuttle losses were brought up by engineers before the accidents occurred but weren't responded to at the upper levels. They need to change the way things are done to identify true risks instead of filling out a mountain of paperwork to change a few bolts out if something is broken.

    3. Re:As much as I love space by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.'"
  3. Says who? by djupedal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The ISS is having trouble with a 'mysterious' vibration that occurred last time they tried to fire the engines for an orbital adjustment.

    My guess is the Shuttle engine delay is just an excuse to postpone things while they try to find a way to move the ISS without it shaking itself to pieces.

    1. Re:Says who? by rufey · · Score: 4, Informative

      The vibration problem appears to have been caused by the engines being "steerable" and having a hard time finding their "sweet spot", so they kept adjusting where they were pointing during the firing.

      More information here.