Slashdot Mirror


Change In Experiment Will Delay Shuttle Launch

necro81 writes "A $1.5 billion gamma ray experiment, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, that was to have launched aboard the space shuttle Endeavor to the International Space Station in July, has undergone a last minute design change that will change the launch date, pushing back the end of the shuttle program by at least several months. The change replaces the original liquid helium-cooled superconducting magnet with a more conventional one, which will reduce the risks involved (superconducting magnets can be problematic — just ask CERN) and will greatly extend the useful life of the spectrometer (the liquid helium coolant would have boiled away within a few years of launch). Although the conventional electromagnet is only 1/5th as strong, its increased lifespan should allow for substantially more science to be conducted, especially considering the ISS's extended mission life. As the change is still underway, the impact to the final shuttle schedule is not fully known."

27 of 64 comments (clear)

  1. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    IAASIE (I am a space instrumentation engineer) and I really find such a major last minute decision hard to believe, seeing how long and detailed the flight model / integration tests are...

    1. Re:Seriously? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IAASIE (I am a space instrumentation engineer) and I really find such a major last minute decision hard to believe, seeing how long and detailed the flight model / integration tests are...

      Maybe they are actually swapping one validated unit for a different validated unit.

    2. Re:Seriously? by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds like it'll mean more science and less risks. If he had wanted to delay to fix the magnets that caused the quench in the LHC would you have called him a whackjob then?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    3. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, according to Wikipedia, they are indeed swapping the cryo-cooled superconducting electromagnet for the conventional one that flew on the AMS-1. Reading the AMS website, I found out that both have the same dimensions and mechanical interfaces to the instrument, since they were developed as swappable alternatives for short- and long-lived mission profiles. However I think the overall working of AMS-2 has still changed enough (especially with the removal of the cryogenic circuitry and the change in magnetic field) for the whole integration and testing process to be redone from scratch.

    4. Re:Seriously? by gumbi+west · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I also find it hard to believe that someone would name a spectrometer designed to measure gammas the "alpha spectrometer."

    5. Re:Seriously? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Funny

      IAASIE (I am a space instrumentation engineer)...

      Quiet peon, and bow to the administrator! [flexes pencil like arms]

    6. Re:Seriously? by Kartoffel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yep. I was a payloads integration engineer TEN YEARS AGO, and wrote one of the early ops baselines for this shuttle flight.

    7. Re:Seriously? by drerwk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look up Gravity B; 43 years from NASA funding to launch. I won't read the details, but higher B field usually means higher resolution in mass spectrometry. Maybe longer life will make up for it; but a 0 field forever will tell you nothing.

    8. Re:Seriously? by sentientbeing · · Score: 4, Funny

      They havent bought it yet.

      They're waiting for the second-chance offer to come up on ebay.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    9. Re:Seriously? by biryokumaru · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is the National Air and Space Administration

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    10. Re:Seriously? by reverseengineer · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's because, contrary to what the summary says, this is a cosmic ray detector, not a gamma ray detector. The point of the big magnet is that there will be charged particles streaming through that can be steered by a magnetic field (and so identified). Of course, most cosmic rays are protons, but a significant fraction are alpha particles, and one of the major objectives of the experiment is to look for alpha antiparticles (antihelium nuclei, in other words).

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    11. Re:Seriously? by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Doubly so since the cryogens aren't the only limit on the experiment's lifetime. There's also the gas supply for the photomultiplier tubes, whose expected life I cannot find anywhere.

    12. Re:Seriously? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Funny

      IATGWTTEAAISACTIAEIF (I am the guy who thinks that explaining acronyms and initialisms straight after them is an exercise in futility).

      I prefer to tall this phenomonon VAES Syndrome (Verbose Acronym Explaination Syndrome... Awww crap).

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    13. Re:Seriously? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If anyone other than Sam Ting were running it, I would also find it hard to believe. But Sam Ting gets what he wants, no matter the cost, no matter how stupid.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  2. But does it run Linux? by machine321 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If only it ran Ubuntu, then we'd know what's the Shuttleworth.

  3. Contingency plans for X37B? by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if this delay extends the set of contingencies (such as reboost, de-orbit, or repair) for the experimental unmanned space plane currently on orbit. The recent X37B liftoff was on a much lower inclination than the ISS's and "is designed to fly at altitudes between 110 and 500 nautical miles, or 126 to 575 statute miles" according to SpaceflightNow. This puts it within reach of Endeavor. The last time a supersecret bird went awry, they had to shoot it before it fell to keep it from raining hydrazine and beryllium on populated areas ... or so they said.

    --
    Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    1. Re:Contingency plans for X37B? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Having a different inclination actually puts X37B out of reach of Endeavor or any Shuttle-ISS flight. These are completely different missions with no plans for any interaction between them.

      Regarding your skepticism about the destruction of USA 193, I refer you to Jim Oberg's excellent summary here

  4. Re:Oh please by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Um, please remind me, how did they orbit the Hubble?

  5. High-temperature superconductor magnets? by reverseengineer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just throwing a question out there: What's holding back the use of high critical-temperature superconductors in applications like the AMS magnet? Helium cooling is a vital, yet difficult and expensive proposition for many high-profile physics projects, to say nothing of innummerable NMR and MRI magnets out there. I realize that as ceramic-type substances, cuprate superconductors aren't as easily drawn into wire as the niobium alloys commonly used, but it seems like those technical challenges are worth dealing with in order to cool with liquid nitrogen rather than liquid helium. Particularly the superfluid helium that was planned for AMS- that stuff abhors a container. Is there some other physical limitation to cuprates that I'm missing, or is it just that the multi-decade nature of the big projects have kept them from adopting newer materials?

    --
    "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    1. Re:High-temperature superconductor magnets? by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are a few reasons: 1) high temp superconductors have a relatively low critical magnetic field strength at liquid Nitrogen temperatures and 2) At this point, switching to high tempt superconductors in the design would require an even longer delay due to the testing required. Of course if 1/5 the field strength is a ok then high temp superconductors should still have a sufficient critical magnetic field strength at liquide Nitrogen temperatures. Although really, you'd still have coolant boiling away just at a somewhat slower pace.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  6. Re:summary is wrong by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Submitter is a moron who does not know what he is talking about.

    If you're going make that sort of statement, you could at least:

    1. Offer up some evidence to back up your statement. A link would do.

    2. Sign your fucking name to it.

    Thank you,

    The Internet

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
  7. Re:Space is cold by biryokumaru · · Score: 5, Informative

    Space isn't actually cold. There's nothing there to be cold. In order to transfer heat, you need something to transfer it into, and there's just nothing there.

    See this excellent discussion of cooling problems for the Star Wars planet-city Coruscant.

    --
    When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
  8. NOT gamma-rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    AMS is not a gamma-ray detector. It is designed to measure cosmic rays. http://ams.cern.ch/AMS/ams_homepage.html

  9. The case for intact equipment return by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Interesting

    AMS is one of the poster children for a capability that will be lost with the retirement of the shuttle, a capability many insist we don't need - intact equipment return.
     
    The original plan was, when the cryogens ran out, to return AMS to Earth and rerun the pre launch calibration checks (essentially using a particle accelerator to shoot particles through the AMS) - not only allowing us to learn about the effects of the orbital environment, but also being able to apply the knowledge of those effects to the analysis of the science data collected on orbit.

  10. Re:Oh please by markov_chain · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There was no reason to use a manned launcher to orbit the Hubble.

    For the cost of the repair mission and all the other worthless manned flights they could have put up 10 Hubbles.

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  11. Re:Space is cold by biryokumaru · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If an object radiates away all its energy because it's in space, it doesn't get cold because space is cold. It gets cold because there's nothing there to radiate energy back into the object.

    You can say that the stuff in space that isn't just empty space has a temperature, but it's so spread out that radiation becomes the dominant mode of heat transfer, and it has such little mass and is so cool that its black body radiation is meaningless. It is effectively not there for this interaction.

    --
    When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
  12. Re:Oh please by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The above "cost analysis" was hyperbole pulled out of the poster's ass. Your delicious understatement of the benefits of having 9 simultaneously operational Hubble telescopes only underlines the hyperbole. No worse off? Try fantastically well off. Astronomers would be giddy for months for the chance to gain access to such an armada.

    I'm not especially pleased by the ridiculous expense of the Shuttle, or the welfare for engineers that it represents, but on the other hand I believe that any organization not practicing an activity rapidly becomes incapable of that activity and has to relearn it from scratch if someone wants to resume that activity. Going around in circles for the last 20 years at least kept our hand in. There is still a crowd of people who know how to do manned space flight, and prove it on a semiannual basis. If we hadn't been doing it, you could say definitively that we wouldn't really know how.

    There's some argument to be made that the way NASA goes about it, they don't really know how either, but that's another problem...