Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Discovery Heads Into Retirement

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the rest-in-pieces dept.

dweezil-n0xad writes "Technicians in bay No. 2 of Kennedy Space Center's Orbiter Processing Facility remove shuttle Discovery's forward reaction control system (FRCS) on March 22 as part of the ship's transition and retirement processing. The FRCS will be completely cleaned of all toxic fuel and oxidizer chemicals, which are used for the steering jet system while a shuttle is in orbit. NASA says the FRCS will then be put back into Discovery to help prepare the shuttle for future public display." These photos are pretty cool.

129 comments

  1. Cool? by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These photos are pretty cool.

    Only if you consider the US dismantling what little remains of its manned space program cool.

    1. Re:Cool? by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      Also, the photos are pretty poorly done - someone did these with an inexpensive camera, and without much photographic experience.

      I know NASA has good photographers that work for them, as I've seen their photos - these are awful in comparison, and they don't do the occasion justice, in my opinion. I mean, really - most of them are crooked, even.

      One hopes that the good NASA photographers are actually documenting all this stuff, and that these photos were just taken by someone who was there and happened to have a camera. Although the apparent lack of a professional photographer at this occasion suggests otherwise... or perhaps they don't consider this as poignant a moment as it's being portrayed as?

    2. Re:Cool? by chaim79 · · Score: 0

      At this point I don't think that NASA is in any way able to push forward in space exploration. Though we are in for some 'dry' years in space I really think that this will be the best move, get NASA out of the way and allow private corporations to get into the mix.

      If you really want something interesting on this topic, look at Burt Rutan's talk on TED. He makes some very excellent points on the pace of space exploration and technology and why NASA just isn't helping the situation.

      --
      DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
      AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
      Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
    3. Re:Cool? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      The US also dismantled the last of its IBM 360 mainframes. Why? Because they're obsolete. So is manned "space travel".

      A strange thing to say when there are dozens of companies trying to get into the space tourism business. Orbital flight won't be affordable to non-millionaires for years yet, but prices are only going down from here.

    4. Re:Cool? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      It means NASA is going to have to work a lot harder to kill 7 astronauts in one shot.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    5. Re:Cool? by strack · · Score: 1

      the space shuttles were the most expensive and risky way to get people into orbit. this isnt dismantling the US manned space program. its dismantling the most wasteful parts of it to make way for much more efficient and safer ways to get people into orbit. and thats pretty fucking badass if you ask me.

    6. Re:Cool? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Just as UAVs are taking over the dull and dangerous jobs of aerial surveillance and warfare, so to can remote-manned spacecraft take over exploration. Astronauts don't explore, they merely operate equipment while demanding

      There is plenty of time to play about with sending manned missions when we have more advanced knowledge of space and a far more advanced matrix of supporting technologies and materials to choose from.

      We can also exploit tech growth of other countries. Spacefaring won't be a single nation Cold War cockwaving exercise like the Moon missions. Other countries benefit from US tech, why not turn the tables?

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Cool? by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      I'll trust Rutan's opinion of NASA when one of his spacecraft puts people into orbit and returns safely.

      --
      Support SETI@home
    8. Re:Cool? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yah, I would very wary of any meetings for small groups of astronauts scheduled by NASA...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:Cool? by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Other countries benefit from US tech, why not turn the tables?

      Because then we will be doomed to playing catch up with Russia/India/China. As they develop cutting edge materials science and propulsion technologies to further their own space programs we will be stuck licensing or reverse engineering their toys.

  2. I know the shuttles are ancient... by LordStormes · · Score: 1

    ... but to me, we shouldn't take the shuttles apart until we have a viable replacement that isn't just drawings and a budget meeting. If we dismantle the shuttles, and then the Republicans cut space budget for the new vehicle, we're at the mercy of Russia, China and the EU for the foreseeable future. Bad, bad move without a functioning replacement in the hangar.

    1. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by Burdell · · Score: 2

      The problem is that flying the shuttles costs a lot of money, and developing a replacement costs a lot of money. NASA is never going to get enough budget to keep flying and developing a replacement at the same time. The only real option is to stop flying so NASA can concentrate on development.

    2. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      It actually looks like they are being very careful with this process. Odds are they are doing it in a way that they could return them to flight if they needed to. But I am just guessing.

      Part of me kind of wishes they would launch the last one unmanned and boost it up past Geosync and leave it there. Vent the volitals and park it there for some far distant generation to find.
      Yes I know the Shuttle lacks the fuel to go into that high of an orbit it would take launching and docking a separate booster and would cost a lot of money and effort but I can dream can't I?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It actually looks like they are being very careful with this process. Odds are they are doing it in a way that they could return them to flight if they needed to.

      Uh, no. The parts production line was mostly shut down a year or two back; there will be no more external tanks after the currently planned flights, and they'll presumably be laying off shuttle workers before long.

      Restarting the program now would be expensive and complex; restarting it in a couple of years would probably cost as much as building a new spacecraft from scratch.

    4. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by darkpixel2k · · Score: 2

      ... but to me, we shouldn't take the shuttles apart until we have a viable replacement that isn't just drawings and a budget meeting. If we dismantle the shuttles, and then the Republicans cut space budget for the new vehicle, we're at the mercy of Russia, China and the EU for the foreseeable future. Bad, bad move without a functioning replacement in the hangar.

      We'll only be at the mercy of Russia, China, and the EU if Democrats cut the military budget. The military has it's own launch capabilities.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    5. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we dismantle the shuttles, and then the Republicans cut space budget for the new vehicle

      It is just as likely that the Democrats will cut the space budget for the new vehicle.

      More likely, in fact, since they've done that already.

      Try not to let your political prejudices affect everything in your life.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by agentgonzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's more that the shuttles had a limited lifespan. They are old. The airframes are only rated for so much before they get mechanical weaknesses in the airframe and they just become too dangerous to fly. The longer we keep aged vehicles flying, the more chance they have of failing during flight and giving us another Columbia. The shuttles are already flying beyond their original lifespan. After a certain point, mechanical fatigue means you have to replace major parts of the airframe, essentially building a new orbiter. This is not just about the cost of keeping them running. It's about not unduly putting the lives of those who fly in the shuttles in jeopardy - replacement or no replacement.

    7. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      That will depend in large part if they keep the jigs and fixtures. There are still spares available The will have a short time frame in which to do it but it may be possible for a year or so but you are correct after that time frame. I wonder how much it would cost to build a new Shuttle today. If you used the same requirements but with modern production methods and materials.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is the shuttle main tank. No spares and the assembly line is being closed down right now.

    9. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by LordStormes · · Score: 1

      The Republicans have the majority. Congress requires a majority to pass any resolution. So nothing can happen if the Republicans don't do it. It's not prejudice, it's simple math.

    10. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      The shuttle airframes are rated at 100 flights each. I think it's more that they were designed 35 years ago - this is one case where a new vehicle really could be better, faster, cheaper.

    11. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by Danathar · · Score: 1

      I find it ironic that it was a Democrat that really kicked off America's space program (Kennedy), a Republican to hobble it (Nixon) and finally a Democrat (Obama) to stomp on whats left....

    12. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by strack · · Score: 1

      id say there being careful because of the hydrazine propellant involved in the manuvering thruster system. off the top of my head.

    13. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Republicans have the majority.

      Of one half, of one third of the federal system. Doesn't sound like much of a majority to me.

    14. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      We don't need manned missions to deploy military hardware.

      The idea of manned missions for space is as silly as manned aircraft, which we are rapidly supplanting with remote-manned systems.

      The ideal mechanical servant is expendable. The ideal job is not done by humans, but for them at their will. Work on the remotely manned tech that we REALLY need on Earth and Space.

      We don't need meat tourists. Let the romantics pay out of pocket for adventure.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    15. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by tibit · · Score: 1

      They are careful because that RCS section is quite toxic. MMH can kill very easily if you're not careful.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    16. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by strack · · Score: 2

      what, cut the pork barrel ares and orion, and try and get more funding for COTS and spacex? which, by the way, are fucking awesome.

    17. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'll remember correctly, it wasn't the Republicans who cut the space budget, it was Obama, a...DEMOCRAT.

      Republicans will never WANT to cut the space budget, since it's military subcontractors that do 99% of the real work, and get a significant amount of money. Say what you want about pork and lobbying, but the Republicans aren't trying to piss off their benefactors. I should know, I work for the largest subcontractor in the country.

    18. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by Mindwarp · · Score: 1

      I find it ironic that it was a Democrat that really kicked off America's space program (Kennedy), a Republican to hobble it (Nixon) and finally a Democrat (Obama) to stomp on whats left....

      And they say that bipartizanship is dead.

      --
      The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
    19. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and then the Republicans cut space budget for the new vehicle...

      Traditionally, cutting NASA's budget has been what the Democrats have excelled in.

      I'm not trying to be partisan here, but that's the history of it.

    20. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      The Republicans have the majority.

      Of one half, of one third of the federal system. Doesn't sound like much of a majority to me.

      They have the majority of a full half of the legislative body (the part that actually has the constitutional authority to make law). The three branches are intended to check and balance each other sure, but the legislative is definitely the part that controls where our money is spent.

    21. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by Gravatron · · Score: 2

      No, he stomped on a bad project, in order to direct money to better projects. How much did Ares cost, versus how many orbital flights? Now compare that to what Falcon costs, and how many orbital flights it's had.

      Now, with that in mind, which is offering the better return on investment?

      Obama made the right call.

    22. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SRB line is DEAD. All the "brain trust" has been RIF'd. There can be no more- It's like the Saturn's when they're gone, they're gone.

    23. Re:I know the shuttles are ancient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but to me, we shouldn't take the shuttles apart until we have a viable replacement that isn't just drawings and a budget meeting. If we dismantle the shuttles, and then the Republicans cut space budget for the new vehicle, we're at the mercy of Russia, China and the EU for the foreseeable future. Bad, bad move without a functioning replacement in the hangar.

      Um, it wasn't the Republicans who cut NASA's budget for the new vehicle. It was Progressive Wonder Boy^H^H^H President Obama and the Democrats who controlled Congress between 2006 and 2010.

  3. Typical Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    **A massive disaster occurs on earth, forcing humanity to flee.**

    "Oh wait...we forgot we took apart our space only space ships."

    Darwin would be proud.

    1. Re:Typical Scenario by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

      **A massive disaster occurs on earth, forcing humanity to flee.** "Oh wait...we forgot we took apart our space only space ships." Darwin would be proud.

      The shuttles can't do anything beyond going to low Earth orbit and only can carry a handful of people. If that sort of situation occurs humanity is toast even if we had a fleet of shuttles orders of magnitude larger.

    2. Re:Typical Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You my fine sir take /. comments too seriously.

    3. Re:Typical Scenario by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I believe the words you're looking for are "LOL I TROL YOU".

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    4. Re:Typical Scenario by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      even if we had a fleet of shuttles orders of magnitude larger.

      If we had a fleet of shuttles orders of magnitude larger (say, 300), we'd be having a shuttle launch pretty much every day.

      Which means, for example, that we'd have boosted about 70,000 tons of cargo to orbit over the last decade.

      Which means massive (by our standards) orbital infrastructure. And probably several deep-space vehicles assembled in orbit. At least.

      Plus, of course, if we had that much stuff in orbit, it's likely that some of the shuttles would have been modified to be people-lifters. Say, 60 passengers per.

      The biggest problem with building a handful of shuttles then stopping is that we constrained our ability to do anything in space to the limits imposed by three shuttles. A larger fleet would have expanded our limits, rather than contracting them....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Typical Scenario by maxume · · Score: 1

      So for a few trillion dollars we could have a toy lunar base and make some pretty bootprints on Mars?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Typical Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beats the hell out of spending it on a toy middle eastern country and some bootprints in brown peoples' faces.

    7. Re:Typical Scenario by tgd · · Score: 1

      The impact that took out the dinosaurs would've put crap into orbit plenty high enough to take out a "space ship" that can't actually go anywhere.

    8. Re:Typical Scenario by maxume · · Score: 2

      Doesn't beat the government not spending it at all.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Typical Scenario by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      You my fine sir take /. comments too seriously.

      Nah, it was just easy to believe you were that ignorant.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    10. Re:Typical Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly yes. But think about it, what was the price that Spain paid to discover America? Remember the expedition was launched in an age where the kings where at war with the muslims on homeland, and economy was not as developed as we are used today.
      Was it woth it immediately? They got some tomatoes and funny looking people.
      Was it woth it mid term? New crops (potatoes saved so many lives here), slaves, and do not forget: gold!
      Was it worth it long term? Economical growth (Spain became an Empire), cultural development.

      A toy lunar base may be a little step for a nation...

  4. Sad day for American space dominance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is yet another artifact of the downward spiral America has embarked on. What was once a great nation, now has become a nation of debtors.

    1. Re:Sad day for American space dominance. by tibit · · Score: 1

      Guess what. SST was a contributor to the budget hole. Good riddance. Go SpaceX (no, I'm not affiliated with them).

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    2. Re:Sad day for American space dominance. by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      I'd say you're both wrong.

      SST did not have a big impact on the deficit. $175 Billion over 30 years of operations. The deficit is $14.262 Trillion. So the Shuttle program in total represents about 1.2% of the current debt. So you're right of course in that it is a non-zero number.

      That said, what did it get us? Why do we send people into low earth orbit? To what end? What is the purpose or goal of having people in space?

      As far as I can tell there's very little purpose. We have this program, and we make up busy work that's not much benefit. I'm not opposed to a manned space program. (In fact, I love the idea) But I think if we're going to spend the money on one, that it should have clear, defined goals that can't be obtained other ways.

      If we can't do that, robots are cheaper and do good science.

      Robots first, humans when you have a reason to send them.

      --
      Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
    3. Re:Sad day for American space dominance. by tibit · · Score: 1

      I'd say that 1.2% of current debt is a hell of a lot of money ;)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  5. How is this better than nothing? by JudgeFurious · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why aren't we replacing this generation of shuttles with an updated and improved "Mk.II" version? This just seems like an enormous step back to me and I can't get excited about this process at all.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    1. Re:How is this better than nothing? by Burdell · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The current vehicles are already essentially a Mark II (or III or IV ...). There is actually not much more than the airframe/skin left from the originals. They've upgraded the engines, replaced the computers and flight instruments, etc. Each vehicle underwent an extended downtime in Palmdale to be refurbished/rebuilt.

      Also, the problems that lead to loss of life are inherent in the design, so the only way to "fix" them is to build something else. In retrospect, a staged vehicle with stages and tanks side-by-side is a bad idea. Both Challenger (first stage SRB punctured the tank) and Columbia (tank debris damaged the vehicle) would not have happened in a stacked setup (like basically every other orbital launch system has used). Obviously, there were a number of contributing factors, both in design and management, but the basic fact is that a stacked vehicle (with the crew at the top) would not have had these failures. Columbia wouldn't have happened at all, and Challenger at worst would have been a survivable event.

    2. Re:How is this better than nothing? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      We could have upgraded the TPS to metalic heat pipes. Google heat pipe leading edge

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    3. Re:How is this better than nothing? by Wowsers · · Score: 1

      Why aren't we replacing this generation of shuttles with an updated and improved "Mk.II" version?

      Speaking as a non-American so looking at it dispassionately, it looks like Mr.Obama had a bigger priority of keeping whoreporations like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan rich, then keeping the Shuttle going.

      Not that it's any better in other parts of the world who have also bowed down to the banking whoreporations.

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
    4. Re:How is this better than nothing? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Challenger probably would have been a disaster still. An explosion that large is hard to deal with, and you only have a scant few moments to figure out what happened and act to have any hopes of saving the vehicle (immediate separation of the upper stage and an attempt to land the vehicle somewhere).

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    5. Re:How is this better than nothing? by Burdell · · Score: 4, Informative

      There wouldn't have been an explosion in a stacked system. The explosion was a direct result of the first stage booster being attached to the second (or 1.5) stage tank. The booster did not explode; the burn-through eventually destroyed the bottom strut between the booster and the tank. The booster pivoted and the nose punctured the tank, at which point the tank lost structural integrity and the fuel and oxidizer mixed and exploded. The orbiter was not "blown up" (nothing inside it exploded), it was torn apart by aerodynamic forces.

      If this had been a stacked system (think something like the Ares I design), the burn-through would have eventually caused enough of a off-axis thrust that the guidance system wouldn't have been able to compensate, and you'd fire the escape tower and separate the capsule. Even if somehow the burn-though managed to burn all the way around (unlikely), you wouldn't have an explosion; you might could have a segment of the booster separate, but that would only increase the solid fuel surface area a little. You'd lose control, but again, separate the capsule and the crew should survive.

    6. Re:How is this better than nothing? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Challenger probably would have been a disaster still. An explosion that large is hard to deal with

      The ET didn't explode. If it had, there'd have been nothing much left.

      But you're right, it would probably still have caused an increase in angle of attack large enough to tear the wings off, the way the ET disintegrating did in this world. Surviving a major launch incident is hard when your spacecraft needs wings to land.

    7. Re:How is this better than nothing? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Why aren't we replacing this generation of shuttles with an updated and improved "Mk.II" version? This just seems like an enormous step back to me and I can't get excited about this process at all.

      Because every time NASA tries, Congress shuts them down.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:How is this better than nothing? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Heat pipes to channel away the re-entry heat. Interesting idea. I'm not to thrilled about using lithium as the working fluid. I'd rather see something more benign. Any idea how much mass something like this would take up?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:How is this better than nothing? by qwertyatwork · · Score: 1

      When you use phrases like whoreporations how do you expect people to take anything you say seriously? If you have a valid argument to make, then make it in a civilized way and don't use childish name calling.

    10. Re:How is this better than nothing? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Unmanned missions at this primitive stage of technology ARE better than manned missions that gobble the budget.

      If your goal is romantic tourism, send people early.

      If your goal is to RAPIDLY EXPLORE space and LEARN about what's out there, remote-manned missions are the way to go.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    11. Re:How is this better than nothing? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      but the basic fact is that a stacked vehicle (with the crew at the top) would not have had these failures

      No, a tandem vehicle wouldn't have had those failures - it would have had different failures.
       
      But there's another basic fact you're either ignoring or unaware of, the Shuttle isn't the only vehicle to use parallel staging. In fact, there are many such and many flights of them under our belt - and their failure rate isn't noticeably different from those using only tandem stages. Notably, the Shuttle's reliability rate is around 99% - with a couple of tenths of a percentage point of pretty much every other launch vehicle.
       
      Your conclusion that parallel staging is a bad idea or worse than tandem staging is unsupported by facts.

    12. Re:How is this better than nothing? by tibit · · Score: 1

      So you say that strap-on solid boosters that would blow up the first stage would be OK if only the shuttle was on top of the 2nd stage? Can I have what you had? Solid and liquid propellants don't mix...

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    13. Re:How is this better than nothing? by strack · · Score: 1

      you do realise they spent very large amounts of money to get that reliability rate that high. the shuttle dosent have a crew escape system, so everything has to be perfect, and work every time. and thats expensive.

    14. Re:How is this better than nothing? by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      From what I read after a quick google, only the leading edges, since they're piping the heat to cooler areas to radiate away. A big advantage is that this is apparently a metallic alloy, not the reinvorced carbon-carbon, so a direct hit on it like what doomed Columbia would not have left a gaping hole in the most heat-sensitive place on the craft. On the other hand, it could disable the coolant circulation system...

      You probably couldn't replace the entire TPS because the surface area covered by the black-tiles is HUGE. You couldn't possibly pipe it all to a cooler (white tiled) area, the piping would be impossibly complex and add a lot of weight. It's also an active cooling system, i.e. energy needed to circulate the coolant, and Fukushima has amply shown why you want passive cooling whenever possible.

    15. Re:How is this better than nothing? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Yes, I realize that. I also realize that that large amounts of money are spent to make all launch systems and manned craft that reliable. The Shuttle isn't unique in that respect.
       
      I also realize that of the various manned accidents to date (Russian and US), escape systems would have been useful in only a fairly small percentage of them. Out of two hundred odd manned launches, and twenty odd serious accidents - escape systems were or would have been useful in precisely two... And for the Soviet accident in which it was used, the US wouldn't have used theirs - they have a different system (present on the Shuttle) for use during pad accidents.
       
      So, like the poster to whom I responded, you aren't exactly conversant with the facts either.

    16. Re:How is this better than nothing? by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      But, most other parallel staging launch vehicles use liquid propellant boosters, not solid propellant ones that can't be shut down early once they're fired. And the payload for most of these launchers is still at the top, the Soviet-era shuttle notwithstanding.

    17. Re:How is this better than nothing? by Burdell · · Score: 1

      All those other vehicles have crew/cargo on top of the vehicle, not down beside the stages. When the crew/cargo area is beside the stages, a failure in the stages is almost certainly to be fatal or destroy the cargo. If the crew/cargo area is on top, you have an escape rocket and can recover the crew or cargo safely.

    18. Re:How is this better than nothing? by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      The point is not that a stacked vehicle has a higher reliability rate than a side-mounted vehicle. The point is that IF something goes wrong, you're more likely to survive in a stacked vehicle because all the exploding stuff is below you rather than under your chair. If Challenger had been perched on top of a stack, and an O ring failure happened in the first stage booster, the crew vehicle probably wouldn't have broken up. And assuming it had, since it would have been in a stacked configuration they'd have had an escape tower and a parachute system like on all the other stacked manned vehicles we've launched, and therefore there would have been a much better chance that the vehicle would gently splash down in the ocean rather than hurtling into it at over 200mph.

      As for Columbia, in a stacked configuration, Columbia simply wouldn't have happened. Any foam from the ascent stages would not have fallen upward and busted a hole in the vehicle. The big advantage of a stacked system is that when something breaks off, it falls down, and so does not hit the crew vehicle.

      Now all that said, I'm not sure how we'd have stacked something with the size requirements of the shuttle without rebuilding the VAB to make it even taller. If you perch a shuttle on top of an ET/SRB stack (which also needs a module on the bottom where the SSME's now have to be since they can't be on the orbiter anymore) it would probably be significantly taller than a Saturn V, which is what that building was designed to accommodate. I would also imagine that moving that stacked vehicle out to the pad would be a nightmare.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    19. Re:How is this better than nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stacked design failures- Really? Have you ever LOOKED at the NASA archives of stacked design failures? There have been and continue to be stacked launch vehicle failures. They just don't get the press coverage that a man carrying vehicle failure gets.
      RE: Challenger- the original SRB design SUCKed- and everyone knew it, BUT no one had the cajoles to stop the flights even after evidence that the flange/seal was a total FUBAR design. FYI- the was NO explosion ( read the report) the tank contents BURNED, a nit to be sure but the vehicle was destroyed by aerodynamic forces NOT the tank failure.

    20. Re:How is this better than nothing? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      But, most other parallel staging launch vehicles use liquid propellant boosters

      Wrong. Virtually all parallel staged launched vehicles use solid propellant.
       

      not solid propellant ones that can't be shut down early once they're fired.

      Wrong. Solids can be shut down in flight. (It was first done back in the 1950's.)
       

      And the payload for most of these launchers is still at the top, the Soviet-era shuttle notwithstanding.

      Irrelevant to my basic point. No matter how you slice it, the Shuttle's failure rate is not significantly different from any other vehicle.
       
      Three for three.

    21. Re:How is this better than nothing? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      When the crew/cargo area is beside the stages, a failure in the stages is almost certainly to be fatal or destroy the cargo.

      Go look up how many tandem staged vehicles have failed - and how many cargo's have been destroyed. (Hint: The numbers are identical.)
       

      If the crew/cargo area is on top, you have an escape rocket and can recover the crew or cargo safely.

      In some strange universe where it's impossible to put an escape rocket on a parallel staged vehicle. (Hint: we don't live in that universe.)

    22. Re:How is this better than nothing? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      And assuming it had, since it would have been in a stacked configuration they'd have had an escape tower and a parachute system like on all the other stacked manned vehicles we've launched

      Actually, that's not true. (Gemini used ejection seats and had no escape tower.)
       

      Now all that said, I'm not sure how we'd have stacked something with the size requirements of the shuttle without rebuilding the VAB to make it even taller.

      And at last, you begin to show the glimmer of wisdom - every design is a compromise. No design is perfect.

  6. Cantankerous! by antifoidulus · · Score: 2

    The shuttle was overheard to be saying, "Damn kids! Get off my launchpad you lazy bums!"

    --
    Monstar L
  7. Ok, I read this first as by JamesP · · Score: 1

    Discovery heads into Restaurant

    But wouldn't it be cool to turn Discovery into a restaurant for a museum?!?

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    1. Re:Ok, I read this first as by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      But wouldn't it be cool to turn Discovery into a restaurant for a museum?!?

      Didn't the commies do that with one of their retired shuttles?

  8. Hope for Smithsonian by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    I know the Evergreen Aviation and Space "Museum" also wants a shuttle for display. After visiting there, about half the displays are replicas and the other half are so far behind ropes you might as well look at a post card image. I was severely disappointed by the limited access to the Spruce Goose. In fact, after charging $20 for entry they charge another $25 to enter the flight deck.

    1. Re:Hope for Smithsonian by nharmon · · Score: 1

      I believe it has already been determined that Discovery will be going to the Smithsonian. That is where Enterprise is located, so it seems Enterprise will be going somewhere else. It would be nice to see one end up at the USAF Museum in Dayton, OH. And likewise see the rest of the fleet find locations that are free to the public.

    2. Re:Hope for Smithsonian by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      I hope for the Air Force Museum in Dayton, OH. I grew up there and they have huge hangars where all the aircraft are indoors in an air-conditioned environment. Admission is free (except for IMAX movies), and lots of aircraft are open and free to walk through. Ohio also has a huge history in spaceflight, and I believe it would be one of the best venues for a shuttle.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    3. Re:Hope for Smithsonian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope SAC air museum gets one. Been there a couple of times. Where else can you walk up to a mig jet, a b52, and a sr71 and touch them. AND see one of the 'red phones' (its ma bell lime green btw). It quite cool they even have one of the few minuteman II missiles on display. If you are ever there in omaha, go. It is worth it. Walking under an sr71 and a b52 wings you really get an idea how big these things were. Too bad they didnt have the u2 closer to the ground :(

      Most importantly they take care of their stuff.

      Also getting to tell my dad not to 'lean' on the nuke bomb display was priceless. I did not know he could move that fast.

    4. Re:Hope for Smithsonian by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      I didn't find Evergreen to be all that different from the way Dayton, or most any other air museum, has their displays arraigned. (I remember sitting on the nose wheel of Bock's Car at Dayton). I was a bit bummed about the cost for the Spruce Goose, but that is their star attraction and earner, especially since their B-17 is no longer flyable due to the dreaded wing spar AD. They're also a pretty new facility, so I don't blame them for having a bit of fluff and filler. Didn't see much in the way of obvious replicas for that matter, just a collection that needs a bit of guidance and theme. Right now they're in the "here's a plane, here's another one, here's a helicopter, here's some stuff a guy gave us, here's some more stuff" hole that lots of museums end up in.

      Here's my flickr set from my trip a while back. Judge for yourself:

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/tenthousandmarbles/sets/72157626254980751/

      Their space section was quite nice, but the area they have allocated was pretty bare. Excellent SR-71 display. Interesting they way they had the engine bay open and the start cart parked nearby. Much better than the usual "Ooooh, look at the pointy black thing" setup that most places use. Given that they're one of the few really nice facilities on the west coast, I don't doubt that they'll be getting a shuttle. They've shown that they're willing to spend, and they're well funded.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    5. Re:Hope for Smithsonian by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      Supposedly (I can't find any reliable, from NASA themselves statements, only reporters saying) Discovery has already been promised to Udvar-Hazy (the Smithsonian), who will in turn loan out Enterprise.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    6. Re:Hope for Smithsonian by Wowsers · · Score: 2

      Hey, the British sent a Concorde to the USA on retirement despite Concorde being hated (mostly by environmentalists). How about sending a Shuttle to the UK for display?

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
    7. Re:Hope for Smithsonian by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      "...I don't blame them for having a bit of fluff and filler. Didn't see much in the way of obvious replicas..."

      To their credit, they labeled replicas as such, you just have to pay close attention to each plaque. Your mention of "fluff and filler" reminds me of my other complaint: so much space (particularly in the space building) was taken by video viewing areas showing stuff you probably have already seen on TV. I can watch TV at home, I go the the museum to see the real thing up close. But they do have a fabulous gift shop that you must traverse to exit.

    8. Re:Hope for Smithsonian by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      If a Shuttle comes to Europe, I'd argue it should go to the Technical Museum in Speyer, D. They already have a Buran (the atmospheric test bed).

    9. Re:Hope for Smithsonian by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      As I said, they're still comparatively young as a museum. Getting a Shuttle would go a long way towards filling that otherwise empty(-ish) space hall.

      I've been to better air museums; Fantasy of flight had a bit more of an overall theme, and the fact that they flew something everyday was fantastic (the day I was there they had a Fieseler Storch doing low speed flight and STOL demos). I've been to worse air museums; Pacific Aviation out at Pearl comes to mind. Evergreen's on a good track, they just need to keep the momentum going for another decade or so.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    10. Re:Hope for Smithsonian by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

      Buran was not an atmospheric test bed, it was a soviet aerodynamic replica of the US Space Shuttle. Buran only looks the same as the Space Shuttle, inside, it's completely different.

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    11. Re:Hope for Smithsonian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it'll happen, given the scarcity of these things, and the fact that the UK was only involved with this program on the periphery. I have seen the Concorde at the Udvar-Hazy Center outside of DC, and it was amazing to behold!

    12. Re:Hope for Smithsonian by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      The one at Speyer is the atmospheric test bed, not the orbiter, same as Enterprise was. They have unit OK-GLI which is named "Buran aerodynamic analogue" on Wikipedia.

      http://speyer.technik-museum.de/en/spaceshuttle-buran

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    13. Re:Hope for Smithsonian by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      That's incorrect. The Buran program included a number of airframes. One of them, OK-GLI, was an atmospheric test bed. It featured four jet engines so it could take off under its own power. It was used to test the glide characteristics of the airframe.
      OK-GLI is now on display in Speyer.
      Maybe your confusion stems from the fact that both the program and the first shuttle in that program to be used for an orbital flight (OK-1K1) were named Buran.

  9. maybe I'm reading too much into what I see by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe I'm reading too much into what I see - but it looks to me like most of the people in those pictures are about ready to weep.

  10. Humanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These pictures really made me stop and think. After years of reading and watching sci-fi, seeing the Apollo stuff as a kid, then the shuttle, the ISS, and being completely amazed by all the recent astronomical discoveries, these pictures of a group of humble space workers, working on a real live space ship, is just mind-boggling. Humanity has space craft. We can leave the surface of this planet.

    It really is unreal.

  11. Discovery? Oh, the space shuttle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I read the title I thought that the Discovery channel was retiring. Please don't take away the last good thing on TV!

    1. Re:Discovery? Oh, the space shuttle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *not* Myth Busters Busted.

  12. Good ridddence by kurt555gs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We went down the wrong path with the shuttles. I think their main purpose was a plot to make the Soviets copy them breaking their economy. If we would have kept making Saturn V's ( 10 times the lift capacity of the shuttle ) we would be walking on Mars TODAY.

    But no, 30 years of waste, tiny lift capacity, and far more expense than single use rockets.

    The best use of the Shuttles in my opinion it to let people look at them in museums.

    The program can't end soon enough for me.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:Good ridddence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The [space shuttle] program can't end soon enough for me.

      Yeah, because we have such a great successor to the shuttle lined up.

    2. Re:Good ridddence by vlm · · Score: 1

      30 years of waste

      What you call "waste" the politicians in charge call "buying votes". That was the only purpose. If they could have found a more expensive way to do it, they'd have done it.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Good ridddence by tuffy · · Score: 1

      As I recall, their function was to carry things between the Earth and some orbiting station. To "shuttle" them, if you will. The problem is that they were meant to perform this shuttling with rapid turnaround times that never materialized in practice. Therefore, it seems some launch vehicle with less emphasis on reusability would likely be a better replacement.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    4. Re:Good ridddence by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Therefore, it seems some launch vehicle with less emphasis on reusability would likely be a better replacement.

      The problem with the shuttle isn't that it's reusable, but that most of it isn't reusable. From what I remember the fastest shuttle turnaround was less than two months, and a week of that was being flown back to KSC from Edwards.

      Most of the problems that have delayed shuttle launches have been either due to parts that are replaced every flight (e.g. external tank) or parts that require major refurbishment every flight. If a reusable component has flown a hundred times and has no obvious faults it's probably going to work on the next flight, whereas with an expendable component every flight is the first flight.

    5. Re:Good ridddence by Truth+is+life · · Score: 1

      It would have been easy to find a more expensive way to do it (really easy, since Shuttle development costs were quite low); just go with the Paine plan, or the Mueller plan. Much, much more expensive, involved building a big space station (much larger than the ISS), continued production of the Saturn V, and so on. They didn't even have to keep doing Moon missions or Mars missions, it would have been perfectly easy to avoid doing that but still spend money like water.

      They didn't do that because they wanted to spend the money on things that would more directly affect people's lives (to paraphrase a few opponents of the Shuttle, sewers and houses), but they couldn't just wipe out NASA funding altogether. So, yes, they did waste quite a lot of money, in the effort to spend the savings relative to a larger program on things which (you could interpret as) buying votes more directly.

    6. Re:Good ridddence by strack · · Score: 1

      i believe the shuttle ended up costing the same per launch as the saturn V, which, by the way, put 120 tonnes of payload into orbit vs the shuttles 20 tonnes.

    7. Re:Good ridddence by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      We went down the wrong path with the shuttles. I think their main purpose was a plot to make the Soviets copy them breaking their economy. If we would have kept making Saturn V's ( 10 times the lift capacity of the shuttle ) we would be walking on Mars TODAY.

      In some parallel universe where Shuttle development didn't begin in the early 60's and Saturn V production hadn't been canceled in 1965, sure. But we don't live in that universe. In our universe the Saturn V was canceled because there weren't any payloads for it in the pipeline, and no prospect for any in the foreseeable future. (Mostly because reasonable payloads for it cost in the billions of dollars.)

    8. Re:Good ridddence by Truth+is+life · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      And your point is...? (I said "development" not "operational" costs up there. Different things.)

    9. Re:Good ridddence by jonwil · · Score: 1

      One of the big reasons the shuttle was built the way it was was due to the military funding and the fact that the military demanded the ability to be able to return payloads to earth.

  13. Original equipment for display by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why even bother reinstalling it? If the only part visible from the exterior is a dark cone, just install a conical cap. Most of the hardware inside the shuttle such as computers, control panels, actuators etc is completely unnecessary for a museum piece. Just remove most of it and install dummy components.

    1. Re:Original equipment for display by jandrese · · Score: 1

      It would be really cool if they had it "exploded" with doors and windows so you could see the internal workings.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Original equipment for display by scotts13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why even bother reinstalling it? If the only part visible from the exterior is a dark cone, just install a conical cap. Most of the hardware inside the shuttle such as computers, control panels, actuators etc is completely unnecessary for a museum piece. Just remove most of it and install dummy components.

      Because it's about history and legacy, pal - not a tourist attraction. There will be a time when people will look at the shuttles trying to figure out how we did what we did - and a mockup won't tell them that.

    3. Re:Original equipment for display by agentgonzo · · Score: 1

      Then why bother putting it in a museum? Throw it away and make a wooden replica to put there or stick with Enterprise. The whole point of putting stuff like this in a museum is because it's real

    4. Re:Original equipment for display by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      That probably could have been phrased better without using the word "exploded".

    5. Re:Original equipment for display by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      That is the technical term. But I agree with jandrese - having the Reaction Control System box pulled out and hung in space above the nose cone would be way cool. Pieces parts!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Original equipment for display by tibit · · Score: 1

      Eventually, I'm sure, some enthusiast group will work on setting up simulators for the avionics, and they'll get flight software running for others to play with. Just like it happened with Apollo's software (what was left of it, that is). Hopefully NASA will preserve shuttle's mission software better than MIT did Apollo's.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    7. Re:Original equipment for display by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Better yet, why not just make the Shuttle software open source...

  14. There will be one unused stack by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

    Even with the last flight, there is a standby flight waiting if there is on-ascent damage preventing re-entry. That stack will never be used because there is no backup for it will probably sit alongside the segmented Saturn V at Kennedy.

    --
    Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    1. Re:There will be one unused stack by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 2

      Actually I might be wrong, but I believe there is no backup shuttle for Atlantis. The boosters it's using were the last ones made, and they were meant to not be used because Atlantis was supposed to be the emergency backup for Endeavour. But when another flight was authorized, Atlantis moved from backup to being an actual flight. If there's a problem with Atlantis, the astronauts will ride home in a Soyuz from the ISS.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    2. Re:There will be one unused stack by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 1

      There will be no rescue shuttle for the Atlantis flight. It is being flown with a skeleton crew that can live in the ISS if needed and await evacuation by Soyuz. You would have been right, but the plan changed. Atlantis is going to be prepped for rescue of Endeavour. Since most of the cost of an Atlantis launch will have to be spent in those preparations anyway, it's just being launched with supplies and the small crew if a rescue of Endeavour is not needed.

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
  15. NASA TV by willda · · Score: 0

    NASA TV had a video of this on this past weekend. The pics look like they came from the video, same angles and all. this is kind of sad but, what a great experiment they were. Hope one of them ends up at Wright-Patterson AFB Museum, I love to see one up close.

  16. Clean...for why? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    I'm curious, why the cleansuit smocks?

    I mean, it's not like it has to be sterile-clean to sit in a hangar in Poughkeepsie.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Clean...for why? by paulej72 · · Score: 1

      The clean suits in this case is to keep toxic materials from getting on the people. Also I would think that they have not other work clothing available. Eric

  17. All I keep thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I keep thinking while looking at these photos: "I wonder which of these technicians is high on cocaine, right now...".

  18. Why are they in their little smocks? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Sort of seems like the doctor swabbing the convicts arm before he administers the lethal injection.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:Why are they in their little smocks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW, until you've pushed all the drugs, you can't be sure that the governor won't call with a commutation or pardon. And, to pick a nit, physicians don't administer those drugs.

  19. I retract this by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Just wasn't thinking when I posted it. (Those look like LOX suits).

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  20. Sad, but it was on the block by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Anytime I see an antique car, airplane, shoved into a museum, it makes me want to cry. They were born to fly, not put in a museum hanging from the ceiling, but alas, it was going to happen. The shuttles were never practical, and too expensive to fly. So long to the STS...it was nice knowing you.

  21. Use Discovery don't mothball it by hhawk · · Score: 1

    Yes the tech is old and the computer systems highly dated, but boost them up one more time and leave them up where they can do a world of good. Like a used car they can't do the cannonball run any more but they have much more use in space then they do down the gravity well in a museum. With two of them up there you have lots of possibilities (and spare parts).

    Up there they can be emergency escape pods, a space bound pick-up truck, they can use the robot arm(s) to help work on the space station and they could use the pair of them for other research: a test bed for new propulsion, communications, and life support systems.

    In a fantasy world they could mod one to fly to the Moon (landing on a robot built landing strip) or sit in orbit around the moon to test space elevator technology (best to test on the Moon before testing on earth). In a super fantasy world you could tow one to Mars and let any crew working in orbit have a vehicle move around and deploy/fix communication and imaging satellites; or set up in auto pilot mode to fly extra supplies to the Moon or Mars; a slow and steady was to send packaged foods and toilet paper.

    --
    http://www.hawknest.com/
  22. RIP Shuttle, RIP USA in space by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2
    As we retire our shuttle fleet, we also retire our space aspirations. Something "better" can be done with all that money. I suspect that "better" means distribution of possible NASA money among Banking CEO's.

    It was a good ride while it lasted, sad to say, we'll probably sit by and watch while other countries carry on in space.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:RIP Shuttle, RIP USA in space by eriqk · · Score: 1

      As we retire our shuttle fleet, we also retire our space aspirations.

      I read stuff like that all the time. I don't really understand why, because the space program has been delivering one success after another, more and more spectacular.
      Sure, all of them unmanned, but really, why would you want to send meatbags into space when current technology allows robots to perform much, much better?

    2. Re:RIP Shuttle, RIP USA in space by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      The reason I like to send meatbags into space is that I'm one. Space exploration without human presence is interesting enough, but not particularly inspiring.

      What I don't get is if we are never ever to leave the surface of this planet, what's the point of spending billions to find out what it's like on Mars, or explore the rest of the solar system. Nothing to see there folks, it's not on our radar screen, because were not going anywhere near that. Now piggybacking the robotic stuff with the Manned missions? That's great.

      I watched some of the old Apollo footage and documentary videos on Youtube last night. It's still inspiring, gives me chills and thrills after all these years. I was just a little kid in '69, but I remember sitting in the living room three feet away from the TV on the right hand side of it, watching Armstrong leave the LEM. School next day was a hoot - a lot of tired kids that were still hyper about all the excitement of the landing.

      I Watch Spirit and Opportunity traipsing around on Mars, and I say "cool".

      There's a huge gulf between having the hair on the back of your neck stand on end, and "cool". We need a lot of money to do this stuff, and it helps if you have inspired people to cough it up. And that is why without a manned component, I support an annual NASA budget of $ 0.00.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  23. A sign of the end of civilisation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I'm overegging that a little... but...

    When my Grandfather was born in 1895 the Wright Brothers had yet to fly, and the streets were full of horses and carts. By the time he died man had walked on the moon, and you could get on an aeroplane to fly across the Atlantic at the speed of a rifle bullet. He even had one trip on it (around the Bay of Biscay) so he experienced personally everything from Sopwiths to supersonic.

    This is all history now.

    I once flew transatlantic on Concorde, which makes me the first person in my family ever to fly intercontinental faster than the speed of sound. It really bothers me that it looks as though I will be the last.

    1. Re:A sign of the end of civilisation? by Morty · · Score: 1

      I feel your pain on Concorde. But the end of shuttle is not the end of manned spaceflight. Far from it. SpaceX/Dragon is a promising approach that may finally lower the costs of American manned space access.