If a system is that important, and only has a single task, such as communicating with a spacecraft, why would it be accessible from outside sources?
Indeed. The article is pretty thin on what was actually compromised and what "manually communicating with spacecraft" really meant. Rule number 1 with mission critical systems at NASA (I work for them, but not at the locations attacked) is that they are *completely* walled off from the outside.
Now, there are some mission associated systems that are accessible from the internet which are storing spacecraft data. Here's one that has datasets from the acceleration system on the International Space Station:
It's out there because that's the easiest way to get the data to researchers, many of whom are at universities around the world. I suppose if that server ended up hacked, it would hit the news as "Hacker brings down Space Station support system!". Sounds bad, but it's not like you can actually gain control of the spacecraft. I suspect the machines affected were used for this sort of purpose.
Absolutely. Voyagers 1 and 2 are still doing significant work, since they are so distant and still functioning. They have begun to encounter the outer reaches of the solar system, where the influence of the Sun ends and interstellar space begins. NASA believes they recently crossed the termination shock and may be approaching the Heliopause. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliopause
It's going to be a very, very, very long time before another probe gets out as far as the Voyagers are (if Pluto Express lasts that long, at least 20 years). Voyager gets a fairly decent chunk of Deep Space Network tracking time because of the importance of what it is doing.
The oldest satellites still functioning are Pioneers 6,7, and 8, which are all around 40 years old and still ticking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_6,_7,_8_and_9. They don't get tracked much, however, because the science they are returning has been surpassed by other probes. They've basically become an experiment in how long satellites can still function.
Having everybody and their brothers call themselves "engineer" is... annoying.
Doesn't happen here in Texas. There are some draconian laws dealing with using the title "engineer", tracing back to (IIRC) a school explosion in the 30's caused by work done by someone who wasn't a real engineer.
You can't call yourself an engineer unless you are a licensed professional engineer. There are a few very specific exceptions, such as being an engineer employed by the US government.
I think some of the comments are missing a critical point here...
Not all emergencies requiring rapid pad evacuation necessarily involve just the crew in a capsule on a fueled booster ready to go. During the final count, the normal method of escape is going to be to fire the escape tower and pull the whole capsule off the booster.
However, before the crew is strapped in and the access arm is retracted there is the possibility of an emergency arising where they (and the closeout crew) need to leave in a hurry. In fact, that possibility is there days and days before launch for the the folks that work out on the pad. That's what this system is designed for.
I have been out on the shuttle pads when routine pre-flight work was being done, about 2 weeks before launch. Before I was given access to those areas, I had to be trained in escaping from the pad if an emergency like a fire or chemical leak arose (not a simple matter, the pad itself has hatches and a labyrinth of internal passages not unlike a ship). One part of that training was learning how to operate the slide wire baskets to rapidly get from the the access arm level to the ground. As I recall, you follow the big yellow arrows, get in facing backwards, pull the release handle, and pray.....
At that time the crew was about 1000 miles away from the pad, but the baskets were there to protect the pad workers in what is essentially a hazardous industrial area not unlike an oil refinery.
I work for NASA supporting the Space Station, and the irony of a Microsoft guy going up is pretty amusing.
The crew has a network of laptops running WinXP to do non-critical support tasks, chiefly email. While they work pretty well and generally can be maintained from Houston, the crew does spend a fair amount of time keeping them working. You can often hear tales of woe with the network interspersed with operational discussions on the space to ground audio.
Jeff's attempts yesterday to set up an Outlook email account for Soyuz taxi crewmember Anousheh Ansari were not successful. This is a repeat of a problem seen with previous email accounts for Soyuz taxi crewmembers. Plans are in work to give the SFP (Space Flight Participant) a regular ISS email account.
I have the feeling that he is going to be jokingly dubbed the "new on-site IT support" by the commander as soon as he arrives.
This is about the best suggestion I've seen in this topic. Don't like the priorities of the administration? That's why schools are run by elected officials.
As it so happens, school board elections (especially in non-urban districts) have extremely low turnout - meaning that's it's not especially difficult to replace a sitting board member with a concerted effort.
When I was in high school, many of the faculty were upset over the priorities of the board (which, as I recall, was filled with the non-working wives of the wealthier citizens of the town of about 25,000 people). So they staged a coup and managed to kick the board chair from office by having a stealth write-in campaign - all it took was a few hundred write in votes and she lost. That's how low the turnout is in those elections, especially when the board members on the ballot appear to be running unopposed.
Now, that's not going to fix your problem with technology classes, but if you think athletics is getting over-prioritized it's a great topic to discuss with the local board.
Believe it or not, NASA would very much like this to happen. The Commercial Orbital Transportation Services contract is providing $500 million to Rocketplane/Kistler and SpaceX to try to develop a low earth orbit launch/resupply system that NASA could later buy. There's more details here: http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_cots_wingo_06 0827.html
Somehow I doubt the laptops are responsible for anything on the mission beyond multimedia applications and the crew's personal use.
Basically yes - they are used for "non critical" applications (meaning nobody gets killed if the box goes belly up). They are used for a little more than just personal use - for example, the windows machines on ISS are used for the crew to reference flight procedures. Timelines are sent to them over the Windows machines. All the high resolution photos taken of the orbiter with a digital camera for thermal protection system evaluation are transferred to Windows machines and downlinked.
All the core software on the orbiter and ISS (the stuff that runs pumps, flies the vehicle, whatever) is all custom software (written by IBM/Rockwell/USA for the orbiter, Boeing on ISS) running on cusom hardware. The laptops used by the ISS crew to command the vehicle use a modified version of RedHat on IBM A31p laptops.
It's unfortunate that you were modded as a troll, because I think you bring up some good points.
The parent argued that astronauts were "reused" because of the amount of training they received. You replied:
How many PhDs does one have to have in order to push a button (which is essentially all they do)?
A decent sized chunk of astronauts do not have PhDs. Having a PhD is simply used as a measure of what an astronaut candidate has already accomplished and their ability to learn. Most astronauts don't really even use their PhD.
They do go through 2 years of training by NASA after they are selected in things like space systems, EVA, flight training, etc. They also typically do a few years of work in jobs which could be generally considered engineering support (such as working rendezvous procedures, or whatever) before they are flown. By the time an astronaut flies, there is several million dollars with of training invested in them - that's the point the parent was attempting to make. This isn't unique to NASA...the level of investment is similar to that a, say, Air Force Colonel has.
I wouldn't quite classify astronauts as technicians, but they aren't some sort of God either. The best description is either "Reseach Pilot/Engineer" (for the Pilot types) or "Systems Engineer" (for the Mission Specialists). There job is a lot more than button pushing, they are deeply involved in the development of procedures, techniques, and space equipment.
NASA tries to project confidence, but don't we/they really want a next gen orbiter without all the worries?
We (I'm a NASA engineer, and I work on manned systems) absolutely do. The Orion vehicle will be a lot safer since it will have realistic abort options through all phases of flight, not have the complications of a winged vehicle, and will have an escape rocket. The crew will be on top of the vehicle away from falling debris (where, as Mike Griffin said, God intended them to be).
That being said, human spaceflight is never going to be "worry free", at least not for awhile. Riding rockets to orbit is still a very dangerous business, with even the most reliable launchers in the world turning in a 1% failure rate (imagine if aircraft had that...). Most rockets (including the shuttle) carry explosive charges to terminate the flight. The requirement to have those range safety packages are a reflection of the relative immaturity of the launch business.
While great strides have been made in the nearly 50 years orbital launches have been occuring, once or twice a year we have an explosion or failure to reach orbit that reminds everyone it's tough to get into space. Everyone I know in this business (whether their payloads are robots or humans) spends a great deal of time worrying about the ride uphill.
Whenever we've hired a new guy (I work for the US government), one of the first things I point out to them is:
- Your typical government engineer costs the government ~$200K to employ. - Your typical engineer may be paying ~$10,000 in federal income tax.
In other words, the tax burden of 20 people just like them is going to keep them employed for the public good. Please make as good of use of their money as you hope other folks are doing with yours.
Atlantis is actually named after the Research Vehicle Atlantis, the first ship of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. It was in use from 1931-1964 by WHOI, and apparently is still in use in Argentina.
All of the shuttle orbiters are named after sailing ships which were involved in research or exploration.
At best, it's a very rough estimate indeed. I don't understand why every story about a launch delay seems to have to include "it cost $XXX" for the delay. They do the same thing for landings at Edwards (which requires transporting the orbiter back to KSC on the NASA 747). Those costs are expected and budgeted for, and in the overall scheme of things - quite small.
While we are at it, the genius that wrote the article also included the following:
If Atlantis cannot lift off on Saturday, it will have to wait at least until late September and even then, NASA will have to waive a post-Sept. 11 rule that says launches must be conducted in daylight so that the spaceship can be photographed for signs of damage.
Post Sept. 11? WTF? That's post COLUMBIA ACCIDENT rule. Wow, that's really bad. Evidentally the news drone at ABC churning out web stories must have been working on a Sept. 11 anniversary piece about the same time and mixed up his disasters....
Does this mean NASA doesn't consider radiation to be a problem, or think it has a workable solution? Is so, what is it? And isn't it irresponsible to begin contracting if they don't have a solution?
Well, remember that the Orion capsule is intended to be the primary transport to low earth orbit and the moon, not Mars. Orion is part of a long term Mars plan, but it would likely be only the ship the crew would use for launch and return, the long haul Mars transport craft would be something else.
In fact, the Mars part of Constellation isn't really funded...it's sort of a long term goal. The idea is to put together an infrastructure of craft that could be used to get there, if the funding comes around a decade or so out. The goal of all the current hardware is the moon, with direction that "make sure we can use it to get to Mars if we want to someday".
Radiation is still a problem. I'm not an expert on this, but the solution will likely be some sort of heavy shielding of a small part of a transport craft...basically a safe haven. There may be some useful things that could be done by using water for shielding too. But long term shielding isn't being dealt with on this contract.
But, to surpass your role in the ISS and instead strike up another working plan with China is kind of... well, not very supportive of the ISS.
You make a good point, but I think the space.com article from 2001 was off the mark when it suggest the Russians may take away support from ISS for other programs.
I've worked extensively with the Russians on ISS and been to Moscow many, many times. Culturally, manned spaceflight is a big deal to the Russians, much more so than Americans (how many Americans even know what the ISS is?). ISS (and Mir before it) is considered a jewel of Russian technology, and is the focal point of their space program. Many of the current generation of Russians were brought up in a society where technology and the engineers that created it were regarded as heroes. The space program epitomized the capability of the Russian people and represented a great deal of pride.
With times tough in Russia, I think many Russians regard the manned space program as tangible evidence that Russia remains a great nation and world power. In the eyes of many Russians, even the mighty United States needs the Russians and their know-how to keep its manned space program afloat. I'm constantly amazed by how much they do with the resources they have, and how much they sacrifice to keep the manned program going. If Russia imploded economically, I swear they'd spend their last ruble on the space program.
There's a nice article on the flight team from a few years ago here.
Taking an educated stab in the dark (I've done satellite operations for NASA, but not on Voyager), I'm guessing that you've got a couple that deal with trajectory (where it is in space), one that handles the scheduling of time on the Deep Space Network downlink stations and queing command activities on the spacecraft itself, and maybe 3 that handle sustaining engineering on vehicle hardware systems like electrical, communications, attitude control (including momentum wheels and propulsion), and science instruments. Maybe 1 or 2 that handle the onboard computer and flight software. Finally, probably 1 or 2 maintain the ground data retention system and support workstations, plus a manager for the whole shebang.
It's also almost certain that most or all of these 10 people work on other JPL projects, too.
Indeed, the Thinkpad is so dependable it's been the only laptop used by NASA in space for over a decade, as described here. In all fairness, some of that can also be attributed to the long relationship between NASA and IBM. IBM wrote the flight software for the Space Shuttle, among other things, and in general does an outstanding job on government contracts.
The crew of the Space Station has around a dozen A31Ps that are used for both non critical office type tasks (those run XP) and critical command and control functions (those thankfully DO NOT run XP, they run RedHat). There's a few elderly 760XDs and 760EDs onboard that are used for some specialized functions that aren't worth certifying on faster machines as well.
The Russian Segment also has a suite of Thinkpads (which, given the practical nature of Russian engineering to use what "just works" - is probably the biggest compliment).
I was under the impression that no one was willing to insure payloads because the risk was too high.
It's all about the numbers. If the premium is high enough, you will find underwriters. The more risk, the more the premium. In the satellite business, the premium for insuring the launch, successful activation, and on-orbit lifetime can be a big portion of the overall budget. For a very expensive commercial satellite (think the billion+ Boeing 701s, like the XM satellites and DirecTV), it can be over 100 million dollars.
Because of the hefty premium, many satellites forego the insurance, and the US government (which spends the most on satellites) is self insured.
Lloyd's of London is the most well known underwriter. They discuss it some here
This has been looked at a few times...but the only launchers that currently have payload recovery capability are manned ones (for obvious reasons).
In general, while losing a payload sucks, it doesn't justify the weight and monetary cost of a payload recovery system and the infrastructure required to go get said payload wherever it lands. The satellite itself would end up needing to be a much more robust design to survive the dynamic environment of an ascent abort.
It's all a numbers game - with the worldwide launch success rate around 97%-98%, it's simpler/cheaper simply to buy the insurance or eat the loss.
Many of these less proven launch systems (such as Dnepr, Falcon) have given very inexpensive rides to orbit to help establish a track record while they work out development issues. The track record is important, because an established launch record helps lower the insurance premium, which is a very large fraction of launch costs to commercial customers. That's why you see a lot of student projects (which are done on the cheap, and usually are uninsured) blowing up.
That would perhaps account for why this article concludes that engineers having multiple responsibilities is somehow surprising. Everything I'm seeing in the article strikes me as pretty normal expectations for an engineer holding a degree.
From TFA: "From taking on supervisory and budgetary functions to learning new skill sets, to broadening their responsibilities, today's design engineers are doing far more than they ever had before."
In other circles, that's generally defined as "career progression".
It's kind of misleading that they got a quote from a 28 year old mechanical engineer. Five years out of school (which is about where I would guess that he is) is where a lot of engineers transition from working under close supervision on limited projects to being expected to do a lot more on their own, and be able to do some training and supervision of newer employees.
You are right...while they could egress the Russian Airlock (Pirs) and hang out over on the Russian Segment, most EVAs take some advantage of NASA assets. Primarily communications - the audio from the suits is relayed through the NASA Tracking and Data Relay satellite system which essentially has global coverage. While the EVA could be done with only Russian communications assets, it would take place only over Russian groundsites (about 15 minutes every orbit of 90 minutes). There is a considerable safety margin gained with the constant communications.
Russian EVAs also take advantage of the external US television cameras, including those that are on the robotic arm. The robotic arm takes some planning and crew time to reposition, which is another NASA asset they are utilizing.
Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised the Russians are offering this. I don't think the general public quite has a sense of how complex and how dangerous EVA actually is. The suits themselves are complicated little machines, and you need a great deal of training to react to emergencies (pump failures, leaks, etc.) to keep yourself from getting killed. Additionally, most EVA astronauts go through a lot of personal training to build up upper body strength and endurance. This is because doing an EVA is physically grueling, since you are working against the pressure in the suit.
In other words, whoever goes outside really needs to know what they are doing. This is in contrast with simply riding up for the week onboard. While the trip up/down is dangerous, the customer doesn't really have to know/do all that much, except stay strapped into the seat and be trained on how to use the toilet.
ISS can and does maintains orbit using Russian assets (primarily the Progress resupply vehicles, but the Service Module can also do it).
The shuttle reboosts of ISS are considered a bonus, ISS does not depend on them. They are not required (and won't be post shuttle retirement in 2010 - the ISS program will continue until at least 2014 and probably longer without shuttle reboosts).
Are the shuttle dockings ever used to give the ISS a slight nudge to counteract a decaying orbit?
The change in the orbit from the docking itself is negligible (since the shuttle and station are in essentially the same orbit at docking - the closing rate at docking is ~ 0.1 feet/second).
That being said, the shuttle is occasionally used to reboost the Space Station by using up the excess shuttle propellant onboard. Additionally, in certain attitudes when the shutte is in attitude control the attitude control jets just happen to be pointed the correct direction to boost it slightly as well.
This is all secondary to the Progress resupply ships, which are the main mode of performing reboosts.
The payload racks in the US segment laboratory are water cooled, there are two internal water cooling loops in the laboratory that circulate through the racks. The internal water system dumps heat through a heat exchanger to an external ammonia loop, which gets rid of the heat through the radiators you can see deployed as some of the external ISS appendages. Basically, they are the big white panels that aren't solar arrays.
It is not at this time believed that the shuttle can be landed without a human pilot for the simple reason that the autopilot is not good enough to land on a runway.
Well, that's just wrong.
This mission is actually the first where the shuttle can be landed remotely, as reported here. Basically a cable was built that allows the ground to actuate some functions that orginally the crew had to do switch throws for.
What is interesting about the cable is that (if I recall correctly) it only cost a couple hundred thousand to fabricate, which is all that was keeping the orbiter from being able to land unmanned. The orbiter autopilot is quite capable of landing automatically as long as the crew drops the landing gear, and has been since the first flight in 1981.
I've flown in the motion based simulators the crew uses for training (I work for NASA), and have witnessed the autopilot land the orbiter. In fact, even when the thing isn't engaged it's providing the cues on the HUD for the pilot to follow down to the runway. The orbiter is surprisingly easy to land because of all of this help.
For some reason, the capability of the orbiter to do this was little known. It's not that surprising, though. Aircraft have been able to land themselves for some time. The crew typically lands the orbiter because it reduces failure modes and they are better able to cope with malfunctions.
Slashdot Mirror
If a system is that important, and only has a single task, such as communicating with a spacecraft, why would it be accessible from outside sources?
i ve.html
Indeed. The article is pretty thin on what was actually compromised and what "manually communicating with spacecraft" really meant. Rule number 1 with mission critical systems at NASA (I work for them, but not at the locations attacked) is that they are *completely* walled off from the outside.
Now, there are some mission associated systems that are accessible from the internet which are storing spacecraft data. Here's one that has datasets from the acceleration system on the International Space Station:
http://pims.grc.nasa.gov/html/ISSAccelerationArch
It's out there because that's the easiest way to get the data to researchers, many of whom are at universities around the world. I suppose if that server ended up hacked, it would hit the news as "Hacker brings down Space Station support system!". Sounds bad, but it's not like you can actually gain control of the spacecraft. I suspect the machines affected were used for this sort of purpose.
does NASA still get anything from them?
9 . They don't get tracked much, however, because the science they are returning has been surpassed by other probes. They've basically become an experiment in how long satellites can still function.
Absolutely. Voyagers 1 and 2 are still doing significant work, since they are so distant and still functioning. They have begun to encounter the outer reaches of the solar system, where the influence of the Sun ends and interstellar space begins. NASA believes they recently crossed the termination shock and may be approaching the Heliopause. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliopause
It's going to be a very, very, very long time before another probe gets out as far as the Voyagers are (if Pluto Express lasts that long, at least 20 years). Voyager gets a fairly decent chunk of Deep Space Network tracking time because of the importance of what it is doing.
The oldest satellites still functioning are Pioneers 6,7, and 8, which are all around 40 years old and still ticking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_6,_7,_8_and_
Having everybody and their brothers call themselves "engineer" is... annoying.
Doesn't happen here in Texas. There are some draconian laws dealing with using the title "engineer", tracing back to (IIRC) a school explosion in the 30's caused by work done by someone who wasn't a real engineer.
You can't call yourself an engineer unless you are a licensed professional engineer. There are a few very specific exceptions, such as being an engineer employed by the US government.
More below:
http://www.tbpe.state.tx.us/eng_req.htm
I think some of the comments are missing a critical point here...
Not all emergencies requiring rapid pad evacuation necessarily involve just the crew in a capsule on a fueled booster ready to go. During the final count, the normal method of escape is going to be to fire the escape tower and pull the whole capsule off the booster.
However, before the crew is strapped in and the access arm is retracted there is the possibility of an emergency arising where they (and the closeout crew) need to leave in a hurry. In fact, that possibility is there days and days before launch for the the folks that work out on the pad. That's what this system is designed for.
I have been out on the shuttle pads when routine pre-flight work was being done, about 2 weeks before launch. Before I was given access to those areas, I had to be trained in escaping from the pad if an emergency like a fire or chemical leak arose (not a simple matter, the pad itself has hatches and a labyrinth of internal passages not unlike a ship). One part of that training was learning how to operate the slide wire baskets to rapidly get from the the access arm level to the ground. As I recall, you follow the big yellow arrows, get in facing backwards, pull the release handle, and pray.....
At that time the crew was about 1000 miles away from the pad, but the baskets were there to protect the pad workers in what is essentially a hazardous industrial area not unlike an oil refinery.
I work for NASA supporting the Space Station, and the irony of a Microsoft guy going up is pretty amusing.
8
The crew has a network of laptops running WinXP to do non-critical support tasks, chiefly email. While they work pretty well and generally can be maintained from Houston, the crew does spend a fair amount of time keeping them working. You can often hear tales of woe with the network interspersed with operational discussions on the space to ground audio.
For example, this is from the September 8, 2006 ISS status report posted at http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=2199
Jeff's attempts yesterday to set up an Outlook email account for Soyuz taxi crewmember Anousheh Ansari were not successful. This is a repeat of a problem seen with previous email accounts for Soyuz taxi crewmembers. Plans are in work to give the SFP (Space Flight Participant) a regular ISS email account.
I have the feeling that he is going to be jokingly dubbed the "new on-site IT support" by the commander as soon as he arrives.
This is about the best suggestion I've seen in this topic. Don't like the priorities of the administration? That's why schools are run by elected officials.
As it so happens, school board elections (especially in non-urban districts) have extremely low turnout - meaning that's it's not especially difficult to replace a sitting board member with a concerted effort.
When I was in high school, many of the faculty were upset over the priorities of the board (which, as I recall, was filled with the non-working wives of the wealthier citizens of the town of about 25,000 people). So they staged a coup and managed to kick the board chair from office by having a stealth write-in campaign - all it took was a few hundred write in votes and she lost. That's how low the turnout is in those elections, especially when the board members on the ballot appear to be running unopposed.
Now, that's not going to fix your problem with technology classes, but if you think athletics is getting over-prioritized it's a great topic to discuss with the local board.
Believe it or not, NASA would very much like this to happen. The Commercial Orbital Transportation Services contract is providing $500 million to Rocketplane/Kistler and SpaceX to try to develop a low earth orbit launch/resupply system that NASA could later buy. There's more details here: http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_cots_wingo_06 0827.html
Somehow I doubt the laptops are responsible for anything on the mission beyond multimedia applications and the crew's personal use.
Basically yes - they are used for "non critical" applications (meaning nobody gets killed if the box goes belly up). They are used for a little more than just personal use - for example, the windows machines on ISS are used for the crew to reference flight procedures. Timelines are sent to them over the Windows machines. All the high resolution photos taken of the orbiter with a digital camera for thermal protection system evaluation are transferred to Windows machines and downlinked.
All the core software on the orbiter and ISS (the stuff that runs pumps, flies the vehicle, whatever) is all custom software (written by IBM/Rockwell/USA for the orbiter, Boeing on ISS) running on cusom hardware. The laptops used by the ISS crew to command the vehicle use a modified version of RedHat on IBM A31p laptops.
It's unfortunate that you were modded as a troll, because I think you bring up some good points.
The parent argued that astronauts were "reused" because of the amount of training they received. You replied:
How many PhDs does one have to have in order to push a button (which is essentially all they do)?
A decent sized chunk of astronauts do not have PhDs. Having a PhD is simply used as a measure of what an astronaut candidate has already accomplished and their ability to learn. Most astronauts don't really even use their PhD.
They do go through 2 years of training by NASA after they are selected in things like space systems, EVA, flight training, etc. They also typically do a few years of work in jobs which could be generally considered engineering support (such as working rendezvous procedures, or whatever) before they are flown. By the time an astronaut flies, there is several million dollars with of training invested in them - that's the point the parent was attempting to make. This isn't unique to NASA...the level of investment is similar to that a, say, Air Force Colonel has.
I wouldn't quite classify astronauts as technicians, but they aren't some sort of God either. The best description is either "Reseach Pilot/Engineer" (for the Pilot types) or "Systems Engineer" (for the Mission Specialists). There job is a lot more than button pushing, they are deeply involved in the development of procedures, techniques, and space equipment.
NASA tries to project confidence, but don't we/they really want a next gen orbiter without all the worries?
We (I'm a NASA engineer, and I work on manned systems) absolutely do. The Orion vehicle will be a lot safer since it will have realistic abort options through all phases of flight, not have the complications of a winged vehicle, and will have an escape rocket. The crew will be on top of the vehicle away from falling debris (where, as Mike Griffin said, God intended them to be).
That being said, human spaceflight is never going to be "worry free", at least not for awhile. Riding rockets to orbit is still a very dangerous business, with even the most reliable launchers in the world turning in a 1% failure rate (imagine if aircraft had that...). Most rockets (including the shuttle) carry explosive charges to terminate the flight. The requirement to have those range safety packages are a reflection of the relative immaturity of the launch business.
While great strides have been made in the nearly 50 years orbital launches have been occuring, once or twice a year we have an explosion or failure to reach orbit that reminds everyone it's tough to get into space. Everyone I know in this business (whether their payloads are robots or humans) spends a great deal of time worrying about the ride uphill.
I hope so too!
Whenever we've hired a new guy (I work for the US government), one of the first things I point out to them is:
- Your typical government engineer costs the government ~$200K to employ.
- Your typical engineer may be paying ~$10,000 in federal income tax.
In other words, the tax burden of 20 people just like them is going to keep them employed for the public good. Please make as good of use of their money as you hope other folks are doing with yours.
Atlantis is actually named after the Research Vehicle Atlantis, the first ship of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. It was in use from 1931-1964 by WHOI, and apparently is still in use in Argentina.
All of the shuttle orbiters are named after sailing ships which were involved in research or exploration.
At best, it's a very rough estimate indeed. I don't understand why every story about a launch delay seems to have to include "it cost $XXX" for the delay. They do the same thing for landings at Edwards (which requires transporting the orbiter back to KSC on the NASA 747). Those costs are expected and budgeted for, and in the overall scheme of things - quite small.
While we are at it, the genius that wrote the article also included the following:
If Atlantis cannot lift off on Saturday, it will have to wait at least until late September and even then, NASA will have to waive a post-Sept. 11 rule that says launches must be conducted in daylight so that the spaceship can be photographed for signs of damage.
Post Sept. 11? WTF? That's post COLUMBIA ACCIDENT rule. Wow, that's really bad. Evidentally the news drone at ABC churning out web stories must have been working on a Sept. 11 anniversary piece about the same time and mixed up his disasters....
Does this mean NASA doesn't consider radiation to be a problem, or think it has a workable solution? Is so, what is it? And isn't it irresponsible to begin contracting if they don't have a solution?
Well, remember that the Orion capsule is intended to be the primary transport to low earth orbit and the moon, not Mars. Orion is part of a long term Mars plan, but it would likely be only the ship the crew would use for launch and return, the long haul Mars transport craft would be something else.
In fact, the Mars part of Constellation isn't really funded...it's sort of a long term goal. The idea is to put together an infrastructure of craft that could be used to get there, if the funding comes around a decade or so out. The goal of all the current hardware is the moon, with direction that "make sure we can use it to get to Mars if we want to someday".
Radiation is still a problem. I'm not an expert on this, but the solution will likely be some sort of heavy shielding of a small part of a transport craft...basically a safe haven. There may be some useful things that could be done by using water for shielding too. But long term shielding isn't being dealt with on this contract.
But, to surpass your role in the ISS and instead strike up another working plan with China is kind of ... well, not very supportive of the ISS.
You make a good point, but I think the space.com article from 2001 was off the mark when it suggest the Russians may take away support from ISS for other programs.
I've worked extensively with the Russians on ISS and been to Moscow many, many times. Culturally, manned spaceflight is a big deal to the Russians, much more so than Americans (how many Americans even know what the ISS is?). ISS (and Mir before it) is considered a jewel of Russian technology, and is the focal point of their space program. Many of the current generation of Russians were brought up in a society where technology and the engineers that created it were regarded as heroes. The space program epitomized the capability of the Russian people and represented a great deal of pride.
With times tough in Russia, I think many Russians regard the manned space program as tangible evidence that Russia remains a great nation and world power. In the eyes of many Russians, even the mighty United States needs the Russians and their know-how to keep its manned space program afloat. I'm constantly amazed by how much they do with the resources they have, and how much they sacrifice to keep the manned program going. If Russia imploded economically, I swear they'd spend their last ruble on the space program.
There's a nice article on the flight team from a few years ago here.
Taking an educated stab in the dark (I've done satellite operations for NASA, but not on Voyager), I'm guessing that you've got a couple that deal with trajectory (where it is in space), one that handles the scheduling of time on the Deep Space Network downlink stations and queing command activities on the spacecraft itself, and maybe 3 that handle sustaining engineering on vehicle hardware systems like electrical, communications, attitude control (including momentum wheels and propulsion), and science instruments. Maybe 1 or 2 that handle the onboard computer and flight software. Finally, probably 1 or 2 maintain the ground data retention system and support workstations, plus a manager for the whole shebang.
It's also almost certain that most or all of these 10 people work on other JPL projects, too.
Indeed, the Thinkpad is so dependable it's been the only laptop used by NASA in space for over a decade, as described here. In all fairness, some of that can also be attributed to the long relationship between NASA and IBM. IBM wrote the flight software for the Space Shuttle, among other things, and in general does an outstanding job on government contracts.
The crew of the Space Station has around a dozen A31Ps that are used for both non critical office type tasks (those run XP) and critical command and control functions (those thankfully DO NOT run XP, they run RedHat). There's a few elderly 760XDs and 760EDs onboard that are used for some specialized functions that aren't worth certifying on faster machines as well.
The Russian Segment also has a suite of Thinkpads (which, given the practical nature of Russian engineering to use what "just works" - is probably the biggest compliment).
I was under the impression that no one was willing to insure payloads because the risk was too high.
It's all about the numbers. If the premium is high enough, you will find underwriters. The more risk, the more the premium. In the satellite business, the premium for insuring the launch, successful activation, and on-orbit lifetime can be a big portion of the overall budget. For a very expensive commercial satellite (think the billion+ Boeing 701s, like the XM satellites and DirecTV), it can be over 100 million dollars.
Because of the hefty premium, many satellites forego the insurance, and the US government (which spends the most on satellites) is self insured.
Lloyd's of London is the most well known underwriter. They discuss it some here
This has been looked at a few times...but the only launchers that currently have payload recovery capability are manned ones (for obvious reasons).
In general, while losing a payload sucks, it doesn't justify the weight and monetary cost of a payload recovery system and the infrastructure required to go get said payload wherever it lands. The satellite itself would end up needing to be a much more robust design to survive the dynamic environment of an ascent abort.
It's all a numbers game - with the worldwide launch success rate around 97%-98%, it's simpler/cheaper simply to buy the insurance or eat the loss.
Many of these less proven launch systems (such as Dnepr, Falcon) have given very inexpensive rides to orbit to help establish a track record while they work out development issues. The track record is important, because an established launch record helps lower the insurance premium, which is a very large fraction of launch costs to commercial customers. That's why you see a lot of student projects (which are done on the cheap, and usually are uninsured) blowing up.
That would perhaps account for why this article concludes that engineers having multiple responsibilities is somehow surprising. Everything I'm seeing in the article strikes me as pretty normal expectations for an engineer holding a degree.
From TFA:
"From taking on supervisory and budgetary functions to learning new skill sets, to broadening their responsibilities, today's design engineers are doing far more than they ever had before."
In other circles, that's generally defined as "career progression".
It's kind of misleading that they got a quote from a 28 year old mechanical engineer. Five years out of school (which is about where I would guess that he is) is where a lot of engineers transition from working under close supervision on limited projects to being expected to do a lot more on their own, and be able to do some training and supervision of newer employees.
You are right...while they could egress the Russian Airlock (Pirs) and hang out over on the Russian Segment, most EVAs take some advantage of NASA assets. Primarily communications - the audio from the suits is relayed through the NASA Tracking and Data Relay satellite system which essentially has global coverage. While the EVA could be done with only Russian communications assets, it would take place only over Russian groundsites (about 15 minutes every orbit of 90 minutes). There is a considerable safety margin gained with the constant communications.
Russian EVAs also take advantage of the external US television cameras, including those that are on the robotic arm. The robotic arm takes some planning and crew time to reposition, which is another NASA asset they are utilizing.
Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised the Russians are offering this. I don't think the general public quite has a sense of how complex and how dangerous EVA actually is. The suits themselves are complicated little machines, and you need a great deal of training to react to emergencies (pump failures, leaks, etc.) to keep yourself from getting killed. Additionally, most EVA astronauts go through a lot of personal training to build up upper body strength and endurance. This is because doing an EVA is physically grueling, since you are working against the pressure in the suit.
In other words, whoever goes outside really needs to know what they are doing. This is in contrast with simply riding up for the week onboard. While the trip up/down is dangerous, the customer doesn't really have to know/do all that much, except stay strapped into the seat and be trained on how to use the toilet.
ISS can and does maintains orbit using Russian assets (primarily the Progress resupply vehicles, but the Service Module can also do it).
The shuttle reboosts of ISS are considered a bonus, ISS does not depend on them. They are not required (and won't be post shuttle retirement in 2010 - the ISS program will continue until at least 2014 and probably longer without shuttle reboosts).
Are the shuttle dockings ever used to give the ISS a slight nudge to counteract a decaying orbit?
The change in the orbit from the docking itself is negligible (since the shuttle and station are in essentially the same orbit at docking - the closing rate at docking is ~ 0.1 feet/second).
That being said, the shuttle is occasionally used to reboost the Space Station by using up the excess shuttle propellant onboard. Additionally, in certain attitudes when the shutte is in attitude control the attitude control jets just happen to be pointed the correct direction to boost it slightly as well.
This is all secondary to the Progress resupply ships, which are the main mode of performing reboosts.
Does anyone know how cooling is done in space?
The payload racks in the US segment laboratory are water cooled, there are two internal water cooling loops in the laboratory that circulate through the racks. The internal water system dumps heat through a heat exchanger to an external ammonia loop, which gets rid of the heat through the radiators you can see deployed as some of the external ISS appendages. Basically, they are the big white panels that aren't solar arrays.
It is not at this time believed that the shuttle can be landed without a human pilot for the simple reason that the autopilot is not good enough to land on a runway.
Well, that's just wrong.
This mission is actually the first where the shuttle can be landed remotely, as reported here. Basically a cable was built that allows the ground to actuate some functions that orginally the crew had to do switch throws for.
What is interesting about the cable is that (if I recall correctly) it only cost a couple hundred thousand to fabricate, which is all that was keeping the orbiter from being able to land unmanned. The orbiter autopilot is quite capable of landing automatically as long as the crew drops the landing gear, and has been since the first flight in 1981.
I've flown in the motion based simulators the crew uses for training (I work for NASA), and have witnessed the autopilot land the orbiter. In fact, even when the thing isn't engaged it's providing the cues on the HUD for the pilot to follow down to the runway. The orbiter is surprisingly easy to land because of all of this help.
For some reason, the capability of the orbiter to do this was little known. It's not that surprising, though. Aircraft have been able to land themselves for some time. The crew typically lands the orbiter because it reduces failure modes and they are better able to cope with malfunctions.