Have the JW robots met at the front door by your electric monk. You have an answering machine to talk on the phone for you, a vcr/tivo/recorder to watch TV for you...why not an electric monk to believe things for you?
We may have saved one crew but frankly, the crew is easier to replace than the shuttle.
Frankly, that's the whole point. If the shuttle loses a large chunk of the TPS, it's considered lost and the only priority at that point is to save the crew.
Were something to go wrong with the shuttle during launch and not discovered until the checkout at the ISS, the shuttle could dock and the crew use the shuttle systems to augment the ISS life-support capacity. This would enable the shuttle personnel to survive much longer in orbit, giving plenty of time to mount a rescue with a Russian spaceship.
There are even contingency plans where both the ISS and shuttle crew could return to Earth in the Russian spaceship already docked. There wouldn't be acceleration couches for everyone, there'd probably be some injuries, but none life-threatening.
None of those options are available during a Hubble servicing mission.
So no, it's not "almost the same risk." There is value in the ISS, much of which is simply learning to live and work in space. No, not as much immediate value as the Hubble, but in the really long term, it might be far more important.
Space exploration has never been a high priority to the politicians. One of the weaknesses of democracy is that someone who needs to be re-elected will do what is best to get him re-elected, not what is best for the country. As a result, democracies tend to be a little short-sighted.
The only way to get the shuttle built was to parcel out pieces to various districts as a form of pork. It increased cost, but it's not really the main source of the problem.
The shuttle was ahead of it's time for the time it was built. As a result, it was an experiment, and not surprisingly, not everything worked. There are times when you do experiments that you know the outcome of, but this wasn't one of them.
We went for a Space Transportation System instead of an experimental testbed to learn how to build a reusable vehicle. The resulting conflict in design constraints, intended use (the Pentagon added to the mess), and available technology created a ship that is an amazing vehicle. It's amazing, but it's not a reliable Space Transportation System.
Now, with the Hubble facing life-expectancy issues and there no longer being a way to cheaply access the Hubble, that amazing vehicle will let us down.
I hope folks will learn from the experience in designing the next vehicle. Judging from the problems with the ET on the X-43, maybe they won't.
Hubble has been crucial in imagingSupernova 1987A. We have an astonishing volume of data from the Hubble as we follow the sequence as this progresses in the Greater Magellenic Cloud. If Hubble is lost without any replacement, we will lose a rare opportunity to image a supernova this close.
The Hubble was designed to fit in a cradle in the shuttle cargo bay, and that's how it got there.
To deorbit it, they would have latched on, executed a burn with the OMS (orbital manuvering system, those big outside pods on either side of the tail fin, not the three main engines), left go of the Hubble, and moved out of the way with the OMS.
There would have been no need for a fueled propulsion vehicle in the cargo bay. They did design a Centaur that could have been carried onboard Discovery. Not after the Challenger disaster, though.
There were quite a few plans for Hubble originally, including the possibility of bringing it back to Earth or having a shuttle give it a nudge to deorbit it.
After the Challenger disaster, plans to bring the Hubble back were dropped. Landing the shuttle with that much weight was found to be too risky.
After the Columbia accident, going to Hubble to repair it or deorbit it with a space shuttle was found to be too risky.
The Hubble was designed back when the shuttles were believed to be far more robust and expected to have a bit more carrying capacity. Going from the drawing board to a flight-worthy vehicle with a design that managed to be both revolutionary and out-of-date resulted in some difficult problems.
Eventually (as the Estes catalogs taught us in the late '60s) reusable is the way to go. But with the current state of engineering and finances, the Russians are doing a lot better with big, dumb, reliable, mass-produced single-use vehicles.
We desperately need a new space vehicle system that's safe, versitile, and cheap in terms of the cost of kg. to orbit. The new system is doable engineering wise, but probably dead politically.
That's what I get for going for the cheap space-bat laugh. I'd thought about that, but left it off the list.
You bring up a good point. But when you lose two in a short period of time, the first thing you ask is if there is a common flaw that will then take out more of the same series of satellites. Even one-off items can share history, basic design and operating procedures.
I put bad luck first because bad things tend to cluster. Of course they do - if they were spaced out in time at regular intervals, that would be darn freaky!
Target practice for satellite-destroying technology
Giant space-bat's radar fried satellites
I'd bet on 1 or 2, 3 is an outside possibility, and 4 the result of eating cold pizza for breakfast. It's worth noting that (as near as I can tell from SpaceWeather.com, there were no solar flares when the second satellite was lost. So if the satellite was lost to a design flaw, at least it's not due to poor protection from solar flares.
First, NASA is fixing the shuttle as much as it can be fixed. We really need a better launch system for humans and probably a separate heavy launch system. Shuttle reliability and cost/kg in orbit have some integral problems.
Second, there's a heck of a lot we need to know about space. For example, the comet will tell us what the early solar system was made of. This is useful in that it tells us about the remnants of supernovas that produce most of the elements we're made of (except for hydrogen). The data will help us fine-tune our understanding of how our solar system was created - are Earth-like planets rare or common?
Lastly, taking a longer view, this is a preparatory mission for man's emergence from the cradle Earth. We'll know what comets are made of, how they're put together (rubble or solid) and what we'll need to know to move them. Why move a comet? Two reasons - one, if one's aimed at Earth, it would be a useful skill. Two, if you want to provide a cheap source of water, comets might be a good source, either placed into orbit, or deposited on Mars for use by colonies later.
Karma Killer:
Smack comet into Mars
2. Colonize
3. Profit!
I for one welcome our comet-moving overlords - as long as it's we ourselves.
I get by without running any of them live on my home recording studio computer - the programs are there, but since it's rarely connected to the home network or the Internet, I can get by with only running them when I connect.
Home recording needs all the possible resources, especially when you have a lot of separate tracks.
After a vicious round with spyware, I switched to Firefox and regularly running AdAware and Spybot. Still, I ran the MS program to see what would happen.
Adaware and Spybot report a lot of cookies. MS's program didn't. On the other hand, the AntiSpyware program found stuff the other two didn't. Total "hits" weren't 2-3x, but I've decided to keep AntiSpyware in addition to the other two programs.
"...a polyurethane foam applied with CFC-11 chlorofluorocarbon, was used on domes, ramps and areas where the foam is applied by hand." (Columbia Acident Investigation Report, disk version)
It was the hand-applied foam that came off. Also, the procedure for applying the foam was not modified as it should have been when CFC-11 ceased to be used on most of the tank. Had it been changed, there shouldn't have been a problem.
BTW: Freon is the term for "refrigerant." There are multiple freons. Sigh.
"And what are they going to do if they see damage, tell the crew to jump out?"
That's one scenario.
There are multiple abort scenarios if one or more of the main engines cut out. These scenarios can be modified to deal with significant tile damage. The orbiter will not have orbital velocity if one of these aborts were called, and so the tile system will be much less crucial.
The problem, of course, is that any damage will need to be assessed rapidly. The earlier in the launch an abort can be called, the more options there are.
Some of the abort scenarios have the shuttle gliding over an ocean and bailing out. There's a pole they would slide along to make sure they clear the orbiter. So, in fact, there are scenarios where the crew would be told to jump out.
Far better if the shuttle can land at one of the designated landing sites around the globe. Even there, NASA will have fun returning the orbiter to the United States.
If the abort cannot be called in time, then the shuttle would continue on to the ISS. Docked with the ISS, there would be a chance to a) review how bad the damage is and b) wait until another shuttle or Soyuz could be launched.
If the shuttle does make it to orbit and is damaged, recovery of the shuttle would be problematic. So far, there is no way to repair the shuttle in orbit.
The shuttle still needs a human to activate some landing systems, so the shuttle cannot be sent back on a "hope it makes it back, too bad if it doesn't." If I remember correctly, that little design screwup was actually promoted by the astronauts. Job security.
Now lets try for a Mars Year, 322 days to go.
Ya'll realize this is why we're celebrating the Earth year and not when the Rovers are on Mars for a Mars year, right?
Then again, who knows? Maybe there will be a surprise and we'll get both celebrations. In which case, we get to party three or four times!
As Dr. Pepperberg's Alex has shown, parrots are capable of cognitive feats normally associated with five year olds. At least three of ours are tool users and can use language to a limited degree - far better than any dog I've owned.
It's rather difficult to think of them as tools to be sacrificed.
So I asked Cirrus the African Grey what she thought of your idea. Cirrus' reply was "Pppppt!"
Slashdot Mirror
...until some pencil pusher decides it's more cost-effective to have the humans sacrifice themselves to protect the robots....
I miss Douglas Adams.
the Mel Brooks version!
Frankly, that's the whole point. If the shuttle loses a large chunk of the TPS, it's considered lost and the only priority at that point is to save the crew.
At best it would save a few lives....
And if it were yours, you'd be damned glad.
Were something to go wrong with the shuttle during launch and not discovered until the checkout at the ISS, the shuttle could dock and the crew use the shuttle systems to augment the ISS life-support capacity. This would enable the shuttle personnel to survive much longer in orbit, giving plenty of time to mount a rescue with a Russian spaceship.
There are even contingency plans where both the ISS and shuttle crew could return to Earth in the Russian spaceship already docked. There wouldn't be acceleration couches for everyone, there'd probably be some injuries, but none life-threatening.
None of those options are available during a Hubble servicing mission.
So no, it's not "almost the same risk." There is value in the ISS, much of which is simply learning to live and work in space. No, not as much immediate value as the Hubble, but in the really long term, it might be far more important.
The only way to get the shuttle built was to parcel out pieces to various districts as a form of pork. It increased cost, but it's not really the main source of the problem.
The shuttle was ahead of it's time for the time it was built. As a result, it was an experiment, and not surprisingly, not everything worked. There are times when you do experiments that you know the outcome of, but this wasn't one of them.
We went for a Space Transportation System instead of an experimental testbed to learn how to build a reusable vehicle. The resulting conflict in design constraints, intended use (the Pentagon added to the mess), and available technology created a ship that is an amazing vehicle. It's amazing, but it's not a reliable Space Transportation System.
Now, with the Hubble facing life-expectancy issues and there no longer being a way to cheaply access the Hubble, that amazing vehicle will let us down.
I hope folks will learn from the experience in designing the next vehicle. Judging from the problems with the ET on the X-43, maybe they won't.
Hubble has been crucial in imaging Supernova 1987A. We have an astonishing volume of data from the Hubble as we follow the sequence as this progresses in the Greater Magellenic Cloud. If Hubble is lost without any replacement, we will lose a rare opportunity to image a supernova this close.
To deorbit it, they would have latched on, executed a burn with the OMS (orbital manuvering system, those big outside pods on either side of the tail fin, not the three main engines), left go of the Hubble, and moved out of the way with the OMS.
There would have been no need for a fueled propulsion vehicle in the cargo bay. They did design a Centaur that could have been carried onboard Discovery. Not after the Challenger disaster, though.
After the Challenger disaster, plans to bring the Hubble back were dropped. Landing the shuttle with that much weight was found to be too risky.
After the Columbia accident, going to Hubble to repair it or deorbit it with a space shuttle was found to be too risky.
The Hubble was designed back when the shuttles were believed to be far more robust and expected to have a bit more carrying capacity. Going from the drawing board to a flight-worthy vehicle with a design that managed to be both revolutionary and out-of-date resulted in some difficult problems.
Eventually (as the Estes catalogs taught us in the late '60s) reusable is the way to go. But with the current state of engineering and finances, the Russians are doing a lot better with big, dumb, reliable, mass-produced single-use vehicles.
We desperately need a new space vehicle system that's safe, versitile, and cheap in terms of the cost of kg. to orbit. The new system is doable engineering wise, but probably dead politically.
You bring up a good point. But when you lose two in a short period of time, the first thing you ask is if there is a common flaw that will then take out more of the same series of satellites. Even one-off items can share history, basic design and operating procedures.
I put bad luck first because bad things tend to cluster. Of course they do - if they were spaced out in time at regular intervals, that would be darn freaky!
For those of us who moved out of our parent's basement, it's a far too-well known phenomenon.
There don't appear to have been any warnings on the 14th. It's unlikely it was fried by a solar flare.
I'd bet on 1 or 2, 3 is an outside possibility, and 4 the result of eating cold pizza for breakfast. It's worth noting that (as near as I can tell from SpaceWeather.com, there were no solar flares when the second satellite was lost. So if the satellite was lost to a design flaw, at least it's not due to poor protection from solar flares.
Nope. Not me.
They really should take away my computer when I pull an all-nighter vacuuming water out of my basement.
First, NASA is fixing the shuttle as much as it can be fixed. We really need a better launch system for humans and probably a separate heavy launch system. Shuttle reliability and cost/kg in orbit have some integral problems.
Second, there's a heck of a lot we need to know about space. For example, the comet will tell us what the early solar system was made of. This is useful in that it tells us about the remnants of supernovas that produce most of the elements we're made of (except for hydrogen). The data will help us fine-tune our understanding of how our solar system was created - are Earth-like planets rare or common?
Lastly, taking a longer view, this is a preparatory mission for man's emergence from the cradle Earth. We'll know what comets are made of, how they're put together (rubble or solid) and what we'll need to know to move them. Why move a comet? Two reasons - one, if one's aimed at Earth, it would be a useful skill. Two, if you want to provide a cheap source of water, comets might be a good source, either placed into orbit, or deposited on Mars for use by colonies later.
Karma Killer:
I for one welcome our comet-moving overlords - as long as it's we ourselves.
In Russia, the probe hits the comet!
Norton Antivirus.
I get by without running any of them live on my home recording studio computer - the programs are there, but since it's rarely connected to the home network or the Internet, I can get by with only running them when I connect.
Home recording needs all the possible resources, especially when you have a lot of separate tracks.
Adaware and Spybot report a lot of cookies. MS's program didn't. On the other hand, the AntiSpyware program found stuff the other two didn't. Total "hits" weren't 2-3x, but I've decided to keep AntiSpyware in addition to the other two programs.
I should have checked. Thanks for the correction.
"...a polyurethane foam applied with CFC-11 chlorofluorocarbon, was used on domes, ramps and areas where the foam is applied by hand." (Columbia Acident Investigation Report, disk version)
It was the hand-applied foam that came off. Also, the procedure for applying the foam was not modified as it should have been when CFC-11 ceased to be used on most of the tank. Had it been changed, there shouldn't have been a problem.
BTW: Freon is the term for "refrigerant." There are multiple freons. Sigh.
That's one scenario.
There are multiple abort scenarios if one or more of the main engines cut out. These scenarios can be modified to deal with significant tile damage. The orbiter will not have orbital velocity if one of these aborts were called, and so the tile system will be much less crucial.
The problem, of course, is that any damage will need to be assessed rapidly. The earlier in the launch an abort can be called, the more options there are.
Some of the abort scenarios have the shuttle gliding over an ocean and bailing out. There's a pole they would slide along to make sure they clear the orbiter. So, in fact, there are scenarios where the crew would be told to jump out.
Far better if the shuttle can land at one of the designated landing sites around the globe. Even there, NASA will have fun returning the orbiter to the United States.
If the abort cannot be called in time, then the shuttle would continue on to the ISS. Docked with the ISS, there would be a chance to a) review how bad the damage is and b) wait until another shuttle or Soyuz could be launched.
If the shuttle does make it to orbit and is damaged, recovery of the shuttle would be problematic. So far, there is no way to repair the shuttle in orbit.
The shuttle still needs a human to activate some landing systems, so the shuttle cannot be sent back on a "hope it makes it back, too bad if it doesn't." If I remember correctly, that little design screwup was actually promoted by the astronauts. Job security.
Now lets try for a Mars Year, 322 days to go. Ya'll realize this is why we're celebrating the Earth year and not when the Rovers are on Mars for a Mars year, right? Then again, who knows? Maybe there will be a surprise and we'll get both celebrations. In which case, we get to party three or four times!
Sorry about that, Chief!
Shoulda used the preview button. Sloppy.
As Dr. Pepperberg's Alex has shown, parrots are capable of cognitive feats normally associated with five year olds. At least three of ours are tool users and can use language to a limited degree - far better than any dog I've owned.
It's rather difficult to think of them as tools to be sacrificed.
So I asked Cirrus the African Grey what she thought of your idea. Cirrus' reply was "Pppppt!"