Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

NASA Hopes Discovery's Move Is Not The Last

Posted by Zonk on Sat May 20, 2006 04:32 AM
from the go-go-rocketship dept.
Space NASA
An anonymous reader wrote to mention the movement of the space shuttle Discovery. The upcoming mission, if it launches, is crucial to the future of American manned space flight. From the Washington Post article: "A successful flight will allow NASA to resume construction of the half-built International Space Station and possibly extend the life of the beloved Hubble Space Telescope, which has allowed humans to peer into far galaxies. But with the shuttle fleet due to retire in 2010, any serious problems during July's mission likely would bring a premature end to the shuttle program and disrupt NASA's plans to keep its skilled work force intact while a replacement spacecraft is being developed."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Hubble Space Telescope's Sixteenth Anniversary 66 comments
An anonymous reader writes "This week marks the sixteenth anniversary of the launch of Hubble Space Telescope. 'To celebrate [...] NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA), are releasing this image of the magnificent starburst galaxy, Messier 82 (M82). This mosaic image is the sharpest wide-angle view ever obtained of M82. The galaxy is remarkable for its bright blue disk, webs of shredded clouds, and fiery-looking plumes of glowing hydrogen blasting out of its central regions.' Wired News also has some nice additional images."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

NASA Hopes Discovery's Move Is Not The Last 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • A humble suggestion to NASA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by helioquake (841463) * on Saturday May 20 2006, @05:01AM (#15371405) Journal
    Abandon the ISS now and channel all its investiment to the next generation space shuttle.

    If you don't want to kill the ISS completely, then focus on maintaining the ISS in orbit while developing the new generation vehicle (you could do this with a conventional booster). The use of the current shuttle should be restricted to non-ISS issue only.

    Building something that cannot be used until the next generation space shuttle becomes available (for supply and emergency evacuation, etc) isn't exactly a smart thing to do.

    Have courage and let go the ISS for now.

    • The European and Japanese can ship the parts for the ISS. If NASA isn't going to continue with their shuttle program the Indian and Chinese space programs will have more time to catch up to the US and I guess Europeans too.
      • The European and Japanese can ship the parts for the ISS.

        No they cannot. They do not have the proper means to deliver right now (both Arian and H-II are wrong for the size of the ISS payload, nor do they have experience in rendezvous maneuver with a station).

        But if they want to, they should be definitely welcome to that.

        the Indian and Chinese space programs will have more time to catch up to the US

        No. If the NASA keeps its focus on the ISS only, then these nations would have time to play a catch-up (they ar
        • Take a look at the Automated Transfer Vehicle [wikipedia.org]. It's ESA (So not affected by NASA), and specifically designed to move stuff to the ISS and then burn up on re-entry with the waste. It launches on an Ariane 5, which has more than enough raw lifting capacity.
          • Wrong... the ATV (and HTV) are cargo vessels only - akin to Russia's Progress vessels. By cargo we are talking food, water and underwear - and in the case of the HTV a small quantity of external payload. Neither can come remotely close to carrying an ISS module. The Space Shuttle is the only spacecraft currently capable of this.
        • Congress did NOT cause the shuttle program. That was a pure nixon program in the early 70's. NASA fought against it, but accepted it in the end.
      • The European and Japanese can ship the parts for the ISS.
        No, they can't.

        They have no experience with automated rendezvous, and the payloads are designed to 'hang' in the Shuttle's cargo bay as opposed to 'sitting' on the payload ring of a conventional booster. (Not to mention they depend on the shuttle for power, cooling, communications, etc...)

        One could develop an adapter to handle these problems - but such development would take years.


    • Building something that cannot be used until the next generation space shuttle becomes available (for supply and emergency evacuation, etc) isn't exactly a smart thing to do.
      Do you really think NASA is that stupid? The ISS is supplied and evacuated by Russian Progress vessels. It's always been the plan to use the Shuttle to build the space station, and use Progress vessels to supply and man it after it's built. What do you think has been being used to keep ISS going for the past 3 years?

      • Re:A humble suggestion to NASA (Score:5, Interesting)

        by helioquake (841463) * on Saturday May 20 2006, @05:34AM (#15371466) Journal
        The NASA's guideline for the use of the ISS facility is this: the ISS can be staffed to the maximum number of astronauts that can be evacuated off the station in case of emergency.

        With a Soyuz pod, the maximum number of staff is limited to three. And currently there are only two ports available on the ISS (so theoretically they could go up as high as six today).

        In a fully configured mode, the ISS should hold at least three international teams (US, Europe and Japan, say). Each team has about 5 -- 6 staff scientists on board to conduct a variety of experiments. So it needs to staff about 15 or more people. There is no conceivable way to achieve that right now, because of the next generation shuttle problem (or a lack of thereof).

        That is what I meant by my original post. I think others got it, though.
      • NASA is pretty stupid, yeah. They've been using the wasteful, fuel inefficient beast with the tendency to explode and drop shit for a long time with no justification, after all.

    • Humble? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Hardly humble, that's an arrogant American centric suggestion. It's the INTERNATIONAL space station. Not America's space station. Not NASAs. Other nations have a say in this you know.
      • Hardly humble, that's an arrogant American centric suggestion. It's the INTERNATIONAL space station.

        I know that if *I* buy and pay for something, I consider it to be *mine*.
      • I don't believe NASA, or most Americans would have much trouble with any other nation stepping up and keeping the progress going on the space station while NASA works on internal issues. Other nations don't realy have a say, if you mean in forcing NASA to single-handedly continue development of the space station.

        Cheers!
              • You mean more "Americans supported the right than the left." Have you noticed how the policies of the left always take hold and become the new middle over the course of a few years? The heartlands do what the coasts tell them to do. All your media are belong to us.
    • Nonsense. There are no plans at all for a next generation shuttle in the near to intermediate future.

      For now (semi)expendable boosters are the way to go, shuttles are technically too complex hence not cost-efficient. I'd think the current line of shuttles has proven that more than adequately, no?

      SSTO, real reusable shuttles are quite a way off.
    • ***Abandon the ISS now and channel all its investiment to the next generation space shuttle.***

      Regretably, that's more easily said than done. The I in ISS stands for International. It's International because when Reagan's misbegotten "Space Station Freedom" predictably ran out of schedule and funding simultaneously along about 1993 we sold a bunch or suckers on making this useless and rather silly project an International effort. So, the US doesn't own the thing any more.

      As far as I can see, it reall

      • Re:A humble suggestion to NASA (Score:4, Interesting)

        by WindBourne (631190) on Saturday May 20 2006, @11:38AM (#15372411) Journal
        put someone competent in charge of NASA -- quite possibly for the first time ever.

        Yeah, James webb who got us to the moon in 8 years, was incompetent

        As far as I can see, it really doesn't matter very much. The Bush league fantasies about going to Mars via the space station and the moon are probably going to flounder sometime just before or after we get back to the moon for a day or two. Reason -- cost overruns and the fallout from Bush's nutty fiscal policies.

        Actually, if the USA can get heavy lift rockets and our own mission to their working, we will probably be ok. The reason is that private enterprise is not really interested in going to space for spaces sake. They want to go to the moon/mars and start exploration. They will also build small hotels to help fund it, but all this requires heavy lift capablities running at least once a month (or more) to be low cost enough.

      • Utter nonsense. We've got a 747SP sitting in a hangar, victim of a budget cut. The plane was modified with an infrared window, a large infrared telescope, and named SOFIA. That was an international project too. It's also COMPLETE. As in, it needs to be run through trial tests and it's operational.

        We cut SOFIA and fucked the German partners. Why not just cut the ISS? SOFIA was going to give us IR astronomy results that would have blown our socks off, just like we all collectively ejaculate whenever Hubble pr

  • 2010 (Score:5, Funny)

    by DJTodd242 (560481) on Saturday May 20 2006, @05:22AM (#15371445) Homepage
    Well of course Discovery is going to retire in 2010. It'll be destroyed when Jupiter is imploded by the Monolith.

    ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE. USE THEM TOGETHER. USE THEM IN PEACE.
    • ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE.

      That was totally a marketing bluff from the aliens, and we all know this really means "SHIT, FORGET EVERYTHING AND COME TO EUROPA RIGHT NOW."

      Plus, why not land there. Are they hiding weapons of mass destruction or somethin'?
  • The ISS serves no purpose other than international good-will. It is scientifically irrelevant, ridiculously expensive, and not safe for the inhabitants if we can't rely on the space shuttle to get up there. Fuel it up, pull the people and keep it in orbit as long as possible or until we need it for something.

    • Re:I have to agree (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rackrent (160690) on Saturday May 20 2006, @05:32AM (#15371463)
      My understanding is that both the concept and design of the ISS were contingent on the Space Shuttle offering convenient flights to help build the thing. It wasn't uncommon to have one Shuttle flight each month back in the so-called heyday.

      What's failed is that the international, co-operative vision of the ISS kept on going even while the Shuttle fleet was realized to be an aging dinosaur, at best. Had the Shuttle been more reliable over the past decade, the ISS would be vastly different than it is now.
    • and not safe for the inhabitants if we can't rely on the space shuttle to get up there.
      Deaths in manned spaceflight since beginning of the Shuttle Program] USA: 14 [STS-51-L and STS-107] RUSSIA: 0 (last confirmed death: Komarov, Soujuz 1, 1967... ) Really, no way to get inhabitants up there safely ;)
      • Correction: Last confirmed Russian death is those of the cosmonauts of Soyuz 11 on June 30th 1971

        However ... Sojuz seems a lot more reliable to me...

        • However ... Sojuz seems a lot more reliable to me...

          You are right, Soyuz seems to be a lot safer.

          Mostly it seems so because it's numerous failures and problems (with the exception of Soyuz 1 and 11) are little known outside of Russian space program. (During the Soviet era they told niether the US, nor their own people.) However an account [jamesoberg.com] of just the re-entry and landing problems makes for frightening reading - and leaves out the two launch accidents and multiple loss-of-mission accidents/incidents.

          The

      • Not only has the shuttle failure highlighted the reliability of Russian conventional booster technology, the political situation seems to be helping the ESA align themselves more with Russia than the U.S. And that makes some geographical sense.

    • Re:I have to agree (Score:4, Interesting)

      by wertarbyte (811674) on Saturday May 20 2006, @12:05PM (#15372503) Homepage
      That's because the science related modules [wikipedia.org] have to wait for the shuttle (or an equivalent). There is no other way to lift the european Columbus module - where "real science" could take place - into orbit.

  • Star Wars (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "A successful flight will allow NASA to resume construction of the half-built International Space Station and possibly extend the life of the beloved Hubble Space Telescope, which has allowed humans to peer into far galaxies. But with the shuttle fleet due to retire in 2010, any serious problems during July's mission likely would bring a premature end to the shuttle program and disrupt NASA's plans to keep its skilled work force intact while a replacement spacecraft is being developed."

    Zoom to Yoda: In dan

  • Jerry Pournelle has the answer YET AGAIN! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mikelieman (35628) on Saturday May 20 2006, @06:08AM (#15371525) Homepage
    --------
    http://www.jerrypournelle.com/topics/gettospace.ht ml#prizes [jerrypournelle.com]

    Jerry Pournelle Wrote:

    "I can solve the space access problem with a few sentences.

    Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States:

    The Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay to the first American owned company (if corporate at least 60% of the shares must be held by American citizens) the following sums for the following accomplishments. No monies shall be paid until the goals specified are accomplished and certified by suitable experts from the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Science:

    1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.

    2. The sum of $5 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a space station which has been continuously in orbit with at least 5 Americans aboard for a period of not less than three years and one day. The crew need not be the same persons for the entire time, but at no time shall the station be unoccupied.

    3. The sum of $12 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a Lunar base in which no fewer than 31 Americans have continuously resided for a period of not less than four years and one day.

    4. The sum of $10 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a solar power satellite system which delivers at least 800 megaWatts of electric power to a receiving station or stations in the United States for a period of at least two years and one day.

    5. The payments made shall be exempt from all US taxes.

    That would do it. Not one cent to be paid until the goals are accomplished. Not a bit of risk, and if it can't be done for those sums, well, no harm done to the treasury."

    ------------

    The problem is our GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT TO DO IT
    • Interesting idea, but as you say, the US Govt doesn't want to do it.

      So how about the UN, EU, China, and Middle East step up and do something like that? Middle East money is plentiful, Chinese production is cheap, Japanese technology is excellent, European engineering is suberb.

      We'd get it done in no time... if it wasn't for effing politicians.
      • Middle East money is plentiful, Chinese production is cheap, Japanese technology is excellent, European engineering is suberb.

        Of course, politics would ensure we'd get Middle East technology, Chinese engineering, Japanese money and European production costs.
      • Chinese production is cheap,

        Every day at work I evaluate parts made at our Chinese manufacturing facility that is 'cheap Chinese production.' There is this strange myth that processes and capital can just be airlifted to China and the machines turned on and the quality will be the same. That is a myth, and a frightening myth when it comes to anything that will be flying overhead.

        I am sure there is (expensive) high quality Chinese production. I know firsthand that the cheap Chinese production is terrible.
    • I agree whole heartedly. NASA, back in its early days, was a great program. Today, it needs to be scrapped. We keep funneling taxpayer dollars into a system that has been going backwards since before they space shuttle program was ever even started. I can't even begin to fathom why our government wants to keep dumping money into this system, when they could just promise rewards as Pournelle suggests, and watch the ingenuity of competitive industry take its course.
    • There's a small matter of the companies surviving long enough to accomplish the task and collect the reward money. I know that I'd have trouble finding billions of dollars in my couch to fund such a project with no guarantee of ever collecting the reward or of costs not soaring way beyond the reward amount.

    • The problem is our GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT TO DO IT

      No, the problem is that Jerry Pournelle, like a lot of Space Cadets, has this fixed idea in his head the somehow the US Goverment is responsible for making their dreams reality. The idea that commercial developments are generally funded by the market - and the lack of realistic profit opportunities, doesn't bother him one bit. Apollo, done by the goverment, provided him and his ilk with decades of masturbatory fantasies - and he and others like him now

  • This is regarded by folks at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD (where they design and engineer the Hubble and parts for it) as Servicing Mission 4. When I was last there in March, the scientist the designed and built the mass spectrometer for it told me that its current one is no longer working. It had actually outlived its expected age by around 50% I believe. Furthormore, this will be the last servicing mission for the Hubble. After that, the hopes is to have the new and much more power
    • "They handle unmanned space missions here."

      They handle *some* unmanned space missions here. JPL out in Pasadena, handles quite a few unmanned missions as well. There used to be a fairly strong rivalry between the two, in fact, but I believe that that has started to go the way of the Hatfield vs McCoy rivalry.

      The GSFC campus *is* huge, by the way, and the JPL campus is relatively small and on a hill.

      One of the best things about the JWST (James Web Space Telescope, the follow-on to Hubble) is that it will p

  • I just read about this on the BBC and they say it isn't due for lift-off until early July. So they expect to have it standing out there for nearly two months? What's the situation re the likely chance of a hurricane sweeping through the neighbourhood during that timeframe? Or is it safer there than where it was?

    • Even if there aren't any hurricanes, it seems crazy to leave it parked outside, right beside the sea for a couple of months. Salty sea air is a corrosion nightmare.

      Plus simple rain of course, and cold nights, etc...

      I can't for the life of me imagine why they wheeled it out now, rather than keeping it safe and warm in the vehicle assembly building until the last possible moment - say, the day before launch.

  • Dubious Assumptions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bombula (670389) on Saturday May 20 2006, @09:21AM (#15371984)
    A successful flight will allow

    That's a pretty big leap, in my opinion. I honestly don't mean to be a troll, but the shuttle has more or less proven to be a dangerously unreliable machine. So saying that a single successful flight will, ergo, guarantee subsequent successful flights is a bit like playing Russian roulette and figuring everything will be fine in the future as long as there's no bullet in the chamber this time. It just isn't very sensible.

    Maybe it's just the wording, but it seems to me that it would be better to say something like, "despite the very high risk of catastrophic failure involved, NASA will attempt to continue to fly the space shuttle in order to maintain the ISS," since that would at least be honest and accurate.

  • Face it, the end of US spaceflights is near! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by malsdavis (542216) * on Saturday May 20 2006, @09:56AM (#15372094)
    People who think NASA is going to replace the Space Shuttle with an entirely new system allowing regular manned trips to space are kidding themselves. US based manned space flight will be a rare thing in the future, there's simply no political will to continue it anymore.

    A sad end to a once great US endeavour which was the envy of the world, but hey there's always the war on terror, look how popular that is making us, and at only 20 times the cost!

  • NASA rolled the space shuttle Discovery onto a launch pad on Friday hoping to leave behind problems exposed by the 2003 Columbia disaster and begin a final round of flights

    The posted article is, um.... not a confidence booster for astronauts. So if you're an astronaut click here [whitehouse.gov] for a more politically correct article.

  • It all went downhill after that fault was found in the AE-35 unit [everything2.com].

    Hmmmm. Check this [2001spacesuit.com]. Not sure if I'm more impressed or saddened.

    • I'd volunteer in a heart-beat whatever the dangers are. The Shuttle, despite NASA stupidity, is far safer than taking the freeway on our side of the pond. Hell, get me up to the ISS and you'd need armed guards and crowbars to pry me out of there. To insure the continuation of the race, and by that I mean the whole human race we need to get off this fragging planet. NASA ain't gonna do it, near as I can tell. I hope someone does.
      • To insure the continuation of the race, and by that I mean the whole human race we need to get off this fragging planet.

        Right. And the goldfish in that bowl on the table needs to leap up out of the water, too.

        Get real. The human race is based in and of this 'fragging' planet, and inseperably part of the earth's biosphere. We cannot 'run away' from the problems here. The planet Earth would need to be replicated to a higher degree than we are even yet capable of understanding before we can 'run away.'

        A h
        • Exactly what species are you thinking about that would:

          a) care
          b) be able to celebrate (considering what our extinction might also mean for the rest of this planet)
          c) have the cognitive abilities to celebrate?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.