> A plausible scenario is an altitude triggered explosive device.
It would be easier to smuggle a bomb onto Airforce One than onto a Shuttle. Consider that whenever anything happens to flight hardware there are three people present. One does the work, the other two observe and document. While this is for safety reasons, not security, it would make it rather difficult for your average terrorist to slip a bomb onboard.
Besides, if you do want to blow up a shuttle, the easiest and most reliable way to do it is to use a high-powered rifle to hit the external fuel tank at liftoff. Smuggling a bomb onboard is thousands of times more difficult.
> The engineer (i forgot who it was) said that Columbia and Challenger both would have been too heavy to reach it, but Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour were lighter and thus were the three orbiters used to service the ISS. This may or may not be true, i'm just relaying what i heard...
It is not true. Columbia's next mission was to have been to ISS.
> From what I saw on Sky News over here in the UK (I think it was the same feed the US got though) they could (don't remember if they did) inspect the underside of the shuttle from the ground using telescopes, so there would be no point in risking an EVA to do it.
On the very first shuttle mission (also Columbia), they lost a lot of tiles on takeoff. Publically NASA worried and fretted about whether there were missing tiles on the belly, which they couldn't see. Publically they said they couldn't tell, and couldn't do anything about it. So they crossed their fingers and hoped for a good reentry.
Privately it was quite different. They called up the US military and had one of thier spy satellites look at Columbia's underside. They were then able to quietly tell the two astronauts onboard that there was no significant tile loss on the underside. This info was secret since it would have given away the resolution of US spy sats of the time.
> Has anybody explained why they couldn't have done a spacewalk to inspect the damage from the insulation strike?
Because they had Spacelab in their cargo bay and bolted onto their airlock. Which as far as I know means that they'd have no way to get out. Thus they probably didn't even bring up EVA suits.
More interestingly, they didn't use the Canadarm to inspect the left wing. This arm is on the left side. Anybody know if it wasn't flying this mission? It would make sense if they weren't planning on using it.
> [...]perhaps getting them out to the ISS [...]
Sorry, the laws of orbital mechanics prevent that. You can't change your orbital inclination without using massive quantities of fuel. Altitude and phase are easy to change, but ISS is at an inclination that is right at the limits of NASA's shuttles. Getting there after you've achieved orbit is completely impossible. Besides, they had Spacelab in their cargobay, not the required ISS docking tunnel.
> If there was left wing damage, park it at the space station until another can go uo to take parts for repair or just to pick up the crew. It shouldn't be that big of a deal.
Ack, a back-seat astronaut!
Columbia didn't have the fuel to shift its orbit in synch with ISS. It is extremely difficult to change your orbital inclination. Much more difficult that merely changing altitude or phase.
FYI, the space station is in a very difficult orbit for NASA shuttles to hit. Getting there intentionally is hard enough. Don't expect them to be able to go there on a whim -- after they've already achieved orbit.
Oh, and never mind the fact that Columbia had a Spacelab in its cargo bay, instead of the required ISS docking module.
> I wouldnt be surprised if they were back and on the ball by the end of 2003. Challenger was a shock; columbia is returning to familiar ground for many of the people who were around when the first catastrophe happened, and I expect it to move along much faster because of their experience in the latter.
I really really hope you are right. Something else that might help is that while Challenger was a 'photogenic' accident (lots of fire and smoke), Columbia's best pictures are blury and faint.
Thus it may not be as jarring to the general public since they won't see it replayed over and over. Contrast with September 11 footage.
> If I'm not mistaken, the 3 main engines are used on launch only. They're useless in space, since they run off of the main fuel tank, which is jettisoned after the boost phase.
Which is what makes me cringe every time I see the 007 movie "Moonraker". It shows a shuttle on the back of a 747 (no ET) firing all three main engines and breaking free. I'd love to know where that fuel comes from...
> ISS is dependent on the STS for deliveries. Even if Columbia was unable to do go there she did other important work freeing up the newer shuttles for ISS-related activities.
> The long term solution (circa five years)would be to completely replace the STS with a new, cheap and safe reusable launch system.
Development of the Orbital Space Plane was announced last fall. Due for operation in 2008.
But if the shuttles are grounded for two years (like after Challanger), there will be no ISS for the Orbital Space Plane to go to. Much as everyone hates the ISS, if we lose it, the USA will loose critical mass and discover that it is starting form scratch.
After Challenger we had the luxury of being able to take our time. But ISS urgently needs shuttle flights. We need to either get back online right away, or close up shop.
I don't mean to Troll, but I am thankful that Tomorrow's World has been canceled. It is by far the worst 'science' show I've ever seen, and is (in its current form) a discrace to the Beeb. I live in the UK and have had the misfortune of watching it from time to time.
When they present a story, they repeat the same material three times (using slightly different wording each time) just to make sure that the viewers comprehend. It is like watching Teletubbies.
The content they present is beyond 'light'. They never go into any depth. They don't sray from the press release upon which they based the segment.
And they dwell on safety. All they care about is safety. Did I mention that safety is important to them? (A good example is the segment on a new line of kitchen appliances that have lower magnetic fields. They [or rather the manufacturer's press release] implied that magnets are dangerous to your health. Nothing was offered to back up this claim.)
I remember when the Canadian Discovery Channel purchased Tomorrow's World. They jumped up and down for joy at acquiring the BBC's flagship science program. After airing two episodes, they realised what a collosal mistake this was and pulled it.
The Ukranian government has a history of politically milking Chernobyl for all it's worth. Need some foreign loans? No problem, just pull out the Chernobyl reactivation plans (again) and watch Europe go nuts and provide aid (again). Rinse, repeat. Take these plans with a grain of salt.
Even if Chernobyl were reactivated, it isn't that big of a deal. Chernobyl isn't as ludicrously safe as western reactors, but it isn't bad. The only reason it blew up is that the _mechanical_ engineers were running a test to see what would happen if they turned off all the safety systems, removed all the control rods, and shut off the power (duh). The _nuclear_ engineers were horrified at the proposed test, but under the Soviet system they didn't get veto power.
The first sarcophagus was built in great haste over a hot reactor. The article points out there there are huge holes in the roof, but doesn't point out that the holes are a feature of the design, not a bug. If it were air-tight it would melt.
It has been nearly 20 years, and the sarcophagus has done its job well. Conditions are much better, and it is time for a new containment structure that addresses the current requirements.
In 100 years when the new structure is worn out, it will be time to reevaluate the conditions, and build a permenant enclosure. Suggestions I've heard are that a simple (but large) sand pile might be the best option at that time (presumably waterproofed on the outside).
The requirement for a 100 year lifespan for the current enclosure is a good one. Any longer, and you end up designing something that has to perform two very different jobs.
> "what version of windows are you using?"
> "its a dell."
They're not so bad. It's the Windows 97 users who drive me up the wall. Every single person I've met who uses Windows 97 is a total moron. How'd that happen?
> Just the materials science aspect of the Apollo programme must have added billions to the economy - Just how much velcro and teflon is sold each year?
> Only the harddrives were taken from the machines
Keep in mind that when geeks like us talk about 'harddrives', that's not the same thing as what the general population refers to as 'harddrives'. Nearly every non-geek I've met thinks that the case is the hard drive.
These thieves may have stolen the computers (leaving the bulky monitors), and the non-geek reporter wrote that they only took the harddrives.
> Here's what I don't get, back when Yahoo (tm) wanted to expand its search horizan it used inktomi, then moved to altavista, then to google. If inktomi was so wonderful then why on earth was superceded?
Easy. They compared their traffic from the Inktomi days with their current logs, and decided that the slight increase in traffic isn't worth the extra cost of their Google subscription. So they are selling the Rolls Royce and switching back to their Ford Pinto.
Yahoo knows that Google is better than Inktomi, but they've calculated that the extra traffic isn't justifying the extra bill.
From the (slashdotted) article: URL > 75 Characters Long URLs break the Web's social navigation because they make it virtually impossible to email a friend a recommendation to visit a Web page. If the URL is too long to show in the browser's address field, many users won't know how to select it. If the URL breaks across multiple lines in the email, most recipients won't know how to glue the pieces back together. The result? No viral marketing, just because your URLs are too long. Bad way to lose business.
There are two side points to this:
To shorten your addresses and make your URLs more durable to change, point your links to www.foobar.com, NOT to www.foobar.com/default.htm (or index.jsp, or whatever).
Don't invoke sessions unless absolutely needed. Sometimes these are in the URL, sometimes they are cookies. It is irritating to copy a URL, mail it to someone, and find that they can't access it because it is relying on a session which expired (in the case of a URL) or a session which their computer doesn't have (in the case of a cookie).
One kludge to get around massively long URLs is to use a service like ShortURL. Neat idea. But definitely a hack.
My personal opinion would be to take the long-term view. Let the conspiracy nuts dig themselves deeper and deeper at your expense. Then in a few years the evidence will start rolling in.
You've got TransOrbital's TrailBlazer mission which will take photos of the landing sites. Followed a few years later by TransOrbital's Electra II which will drive rovers up to the landing sites. And within 15 years we'll have Chinese astronauts on the Moon (they say by 2010, but personally I think that's about 5 years too optimistic).
None of these things will convince the conspiracy nuts. Nothing would. But that's not the point. The point is to discredit them in the eyes of the public.
Many years ago one of our staff left at the end of the summer. Our boss said "Thank you very much for working for us... [pause as the door closed, then turned to a coworker]... delete his account."
>Am I missing something here? I mean, we managed to send a bunch of guys over to the moon over 30 years ago with the combined processing power of today's toasters, yet now we have a 33% failure rate on the latest technology, computer designed craft and all that experience?!
The Europeans are attempting to send large payload into orbit without spending 1% of the US GNP in the process.
Remember that the Europeans are the ones who pioneered comercially affordable access to space. They suceeded brilliantly. Now they're trying to do even better. At the moment they're having problems with their new generation of rocket.
>1) The space shuttle fleet is fully booked for the foreseeable future, mostly on space station stuff.
Columbia is sitting at KSC without anything to do. It has one mission left on the books, then they're not sure what to do with it. It is too heavy to make it to the space station with any useful cargo.
However, it would still be highly inadvisable to go chasing this satellite for the rest of the reasons you mentioned. That third stage is essentially an undetonated bomb, poking and proding it during an EVA would be unwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Psst: Columia's next mission (STS-118) was scheduled to dock to ISS to deliver supplies and a truss.
It would be easier to smuggle a bomb onto Airforce One than onto a Shuttle. Consider that whenever anything happens to flight hardware there are three people present. One does the work, the other two observe and document. While this is for safety reasons, not security, it would make it rather difficult for your average terrorist to slip a bomb onboard.
Besides, if you do want to blow up a shuttle, the easiest and most reliable way to do it is to use a high-powered rifle to hit the external fuel tank at liftoff. Smuggling a bomb onboard is thousands of times more difficult.
It is not true. Columbia's next mission was to have been to ISS.
On the very first shuttle mission (also Columbia), they lost a lot of tiles on takeoff. Publically NASA worried and fretted about whether there were missing tiles on the belly, which they couldn't see. Publically they said they couldn't tell, and couldn't do anything about it. So they crossed their fingers and hoped for a good reentry.
Privately it was quite different. They called up the US military and had one of thier spy satellites look at Columbia's underside. They were then able to quietly tell the two astronauts onboard that there was no significant tile loss on the underside. This info was secret since it would have given away the resolution of US spy sats of the time.
Because they had Spacelab in their cargo bay and bolted onto their airlock. Which as far as I know means that they'd have no way to get out. Thus they probably didn't even bring up EVA suits.
More interestingly, they didn't use the Canadarm to inspect the left wing. This arm is on the left side. Anybody know if it wasn't flying this mission? It would make sense if they weren't planning on using it.
> [...]perhaps getting them out to the ISS [...]
Sorry, the laws of orbital mechanics prevent that. You can't change your orbital inclination without using massive quantities of fuel. Altitude and phase are easy to change, but ISS is at an inclination that is right at the limits of NASA's shuttles. Getting there after you've achieved orbit is completely impossible. Besides, they had Spacelab in their cargobay, not the required ISS docking tunnel.
Ack, a back-seat astronaut!
Columbia didn't have the fuel to shift its orbit in synch with ISS. It is extremely difficult to change your orbital inclination. Much more difficult that merely changing altitude or phase.
FYI, the space station is in a very difficult orbit for NASA shuttles to hit. Getting there intentionally is hard enough. Don't expect them to be able to go there on a whim -- after they've already achieved orbit.
Oh, and never mind the fact that Columbia had a Spacelab in its cargo bay, instead of the required ISS docking module.
Psst: Columia's next mission (STS-118) was scheduled to dock to ISS to deliver supplies and a truss.
I really really hope you are right. Something else that might help is that while Challenger was a 'photogenic' accident (lots of fire and smoke), Columbia's best pictures are blury and faint.
Thus it may not be as jarring to the general public since they won't see it replayed over and over. Contrast with September 11 footage.
Which is what makes me cringe every time I see the 007 movie "Moonraker". It shows a shuttle on the back of a 747 (no ET) firing all three main engines and breaking free. I'd love to know where that fuel comes from...
Columbia's next flight was to go to ISS: STS-118
> The long term solution (circa five years)would be to completely replace the STS with a new, cheap and safe reusable launch system.
Development of the Orbital Space Plane was announced last fall. Due for operation in 2008.
But if the shuttles are grounded for two years (like after Challanger), there will be no ISS for the Orbital Space Plane to go to. Much as everyone hates the ISS, if we lose it, the USA will loose critical mass and discover that it is starting form scratch.
After Challenger we had the luxury of being able to take our time. But ISS urgently needs shuttle flights. We need to either get back online right away, or close up shop.
When they present a story, they repeat the same material three times (using slightly different wording each time) just to make sure that the viewers comprehend. It is like watching Teletubbies.
The content they present is beyond 'light'. They never go into any depth. They don't sray from the press release upon which they based the segment.
And they dwell on safety. All they care about is safety. Did I mention that safety is important to them? (A good example is the segment on a new line of kitchen appliances that have lower magnetic fields. They [or rather the manufacturer's press release] implied that magnets are dangerous to your health. Nothing was offered to back up this claim.)
I remember when the Canadian Discovery Channel purchased Tomorrow's World. They jumped up and down for joy at acquiring the BBC's flagship science program. After airing two episodes, they realised what a collosal mistake this was and pulled it.
It's not as scary as it sounds. Two reasons:
This is actually really good design.
The first sarcophagus was built in great haste over a hot reactor. The article points out there there are huge holes in the roof, but doesn't point out that the holes are a feature of the design, not a bug. If it were air-tight it would melt.
It has been nearly 20 years, and the sarcophagus has done its job well. Conditions are much better, and it is time for a new containment structure that addresses the current requirements.
In 100 years when the new structure is worn out, it will be time to reevaluate the conditions, and build a permenant enclosure. Suggestions I've heard are that a simple (but large) sand pile might be the best option at that time (presumably waterproofed on the outside).
The requirement for a 100 year lifespan for the current enclosure is a good one. Any longer, and you end up designing something that has to perform two very different jobs.
> "its a dell."
They're not so bad. It's the Windows 97 users who drive me up the wall. Every single person I've met who uses Windows 97 is a total moron. How'd that happen?
Velcro was invented in the 1940's by a Swiss inventor. Not NASA.
Teflon was invented in the 1930's by Dupont. Not NASA.
NASA has a page which lists real spinoffs from Apollo, not urban legends.
Keep in mind that when geeks like us talk about 'harddrives', that's not the same thing as what the general population refers to as 'harddrives'. Nearly every non-geek I've met thinks that the case is the hard drive.
These thieves may have stolen the computers (leaving the bulky monitors), and the non-geek reporter wrote that they only took the harddrives.
Easy. They compared their traffic from the Inktomi days with their current logs, and decided that the slight increase in traffic isn't worth the extra cost of their Google subscription. So they are selling the Rolls Royce and switching back to their Ford Pinto.
Yahoo knows that Google is better than Inktomi, but they've calculated that the extra traffic isn't justifying the extra bill.
URL > 75 Characters Long URLs break the Web's social navigation because they make it virtually impossible to email a friend a recommendation to visit a Web page. If the URL is too long to show in the browser's address field, many users won't know how to select it. If the URL breaks across multiple lines in the email, most recipients won't know how to glue the pieces back together. The result? No viral marketing, just because your URLs are too long. Bad way to lose business.
There are two side points to this:
- To shorten your addresses and make your URLs more durable to change, point your links to www.foobar.com, NOT to www.foobar.com/default.htm (or index.jsp, or whatever).
- Don't invoke sessions unless absolutely needed. Sometimes these are in the URL, sometimes they are cookies. It is irritating to copy a URL, mail it to someone, and find that they can't access it because it is relying on a session which expired (in the case of a URL) or a session which their computer doesn't have (in the case of a cookie).
One kludge to get around massively long URLs is to use a service like ShortURL. Neat idea. But definitely a hack.You've got TransOrbital's TrailBlazer mission which will take photos of the landing sites. Followed a few years later by TransOrbital's Electra II which will drive rovers up to the landing sites. And within 15 years we'll have Chinese astronauts on the Moon (they say by 2010, but personally I think that's about 5 years too optimistic).
None of these things will convince the conspiracy nuts. Nothing would. But that's not the point. The point is to discredit them in the eyes of the public.
Many years ago one of our staff left at the end of the summer. Our boss said "Thank you very much for working for us ... [pause as the door closed, then turned to a coworker] ... delete his account."
The Europeans are attempting to send large payload into orbit without spending 1% of the US GNP in the process.
Remember that the Europeans are the ones who pioneered comercially affordable access to space. They suceeded brilliantly. Now they're trying to do even better. At the moment they're having problems with their new generation of rocket.
Dmoz maintains a list of dead-end pages.
As a matter of fact, I do. Skydriving was covered in an eariler /.
article.
I love it when a plan falls together...
>1) The space shuttle fleet is fully booked for the foreseeable future, mostly on space station stuff.
Columbia is sitting at KSC without anything to do. It has one mission left on the books, then they're not sure what to do with it. It is too heavy to make it to the space station with any useful cargo.
However, it would still be highly inadvisable to go chasing this satellite for the rest of the reasons you mentioned. That third stage is essentially an undetonated bomb, poking and proding it during an EVA would be unwise.
Knock yourself out. Meanwhile the rest of us will just read the article:
> NIMA is releasing virtually all of its imagery from these programs except for imagery of Israel.