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.

10 of 129 comments (clear)

  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.

  2. 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 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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"
  7. 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.

  8. 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.