Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Space Shuttle Atlantis Delayed Again

Posted by CowboyNeal on Fri Sep 08, 2006 06:29 AM
from the mom-says-i'm-grounded dept.
eldavojohn writes "An electrical short cause the space shuttle Atlantis to be delayed since a lightning strike to the pad and Tropical Storm Ernesto caused delays. From the article: 'Liftoff was only hours away Wednesday morning when engineers reported a short in one of three fuel cells that supplies electricity for all the on-board systems, including the crew compartment.' It also points out that 'The faulty cell is currently operational even with the short. But after the 2003 Columbia disaster, which killed all seven astronauts, NASA says it has adopted an aggressive, safety-conscious approach to launching.' It causes one to wonder whether pre-Columbia-disaster NASA would have just replaced the fuel cell on the fly without telling anyone — and whether or not that is an ethically sound choice."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Shuttle Atlantis Being Readied For August Launch 34 comments
DarkNemesis618 writes "The Space Shuttle Atlantis was moved into the Vehicle Assembly Building today to begin the mating process to it's external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters. Atlantis is scheduled to launch either August 27th or 28th, being only the 3rd launch since the Columbia tragedy in 2003. Atlantis is set to resume construction of the International Space Station by bringing up the second set of massive solar arrays needed for the laboratory modules that are to be added later on in the station's construction. Once the flight review is completed (Aug. 16), an exact date will be set for launch. Pending any problems, rollout to the launchpad is scheduled for July 31st."
[+] NASA Clears Shuttle Atlantis for Sunday Launch 40 comments
Davemania writes "This Sunday, NASA will resume the reconstruction of the International Space Station with the launch of the Space Shuttle Atlantis. NASA predicts a 60% chance that the weather will hold but will be keeping their eye at Tropical Storm Ernesto. The six-astronaut crew is tasked with deploying two large solar arrays and integrating the port 3/port 4 truss segment. As usual, the live launch can be seen on NASA TV."
[+] Atlantis Expected to Launch Today 104 comments
PreacherTom writes "Following recent delays, NASA makes its fifth attempt to get Atlantis off the launchpad at 11:15 a.m. EDT today. NASA stopped Friday's launch try only 45 minutes before its scheduled departure for a faulty fuel tank sensor: the same glitch that thwarted two previous missions. The launch delay cost NASA $616,000, and if the mission is scrubbed again, the space agency must abandon for a few weeks its efforts to send the shuttle off on a construction mission to the International Space Station."
[+] Shuttle Atlantis Finally In Orbit 96 comments
Klaidas writes "After delays, the shuttle Atlantis has finally been launched today as expected. NASA reports: 'The shuttle Atlantis is in orbit, headed for a challenging new phase in the construction of the International Space Station. Commander Brent Jett and his five crewmates will install a new 17-ton segment of the station's truss backbone, adding a new set of giant solar panels and batteries to the complex. Three spacewalks are planned.'"
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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by tygerstripes (832644) on Friday September 08 2006, @06:32AM (#16065183)
    NASA are presently in conference with the fuel-cell's supplier, Dell.
    • by kingtonm (208158) on Friday September 08 2006, @06:35AM (#16065195)
      Dear Dell Customer,

      Dell has identified a potential issue associated with certain batteries sold with the NASA Shuttle(TM) series. In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and other regulatory agencies, Dell is voluntarily recalling certain Dell-branded batteries with cells manufactured by Sony and offering free replacements for these batteries. Under rare conditions, it is possible for these batteries to overheat, which could pose a risk of fire, explosion, or firey death.
    • If you think thats bad, think about the poor Dell guy who has to replace the ISS batteries.
      Nasa were smart and paid for onsite maintenance.
  • If only. (Score:4, Funny)

    by rtyall (960518) on Friday September 08 2006, @06:33AM (#16065186) Homepage
    I bet they wished they bought Duracell now.
  • by interiot (50685) on Friday September 08 2006, @06:33AM (#16065188) Homepage
    Unfortunately the article is a day old... Countdown is continuuing [space.com] for a launch this morning (Friday morning).
    • by keithmoore (106078) on Friday September 08 2006, @06:49AM (#16065245) Homepage
      for news about something like the shuttle, where the status changes from day to day,
      it really pays to check a primary source. like
      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/ind ex.html [nasa.gov]
        • by Chanc_Gorkon (94133) <.gorkon. .at. .gmail.com.> on Friday September 08 2006, @08:23AM (#16065600)
          It's not that they didn't fix it. They tried. There's only so much you can do to the ET to fix this problem. This is what happens when you use Cryo fuels. Even with the improvements that were made, when you have the FL humidity freezing on the side of your tank, it has a tendency to work itself into the cracks, expand and then the vibration of launch shakes it loose.

          I think NASA has come to the realization that space craft don't need to land like aircraft and that space vehicles need to be designed for launching to and operating in space and not for the landing which is what the shuttle was designed for. Also, modern day astronauts could care less about the space vehicle handling like a airplane (which is what the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts wanted).
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Thanks for that info. Between the state of the shuttle program and the state of Slashdot, I didn't know whether this was an old article, a dupe or Yet Another Shuttle Delay.
  • Tad unfair (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StuBeck (983120) on Friday September 08 2006, @06:34AM (#16065191)
    I think its a tad unfair to question what may or may not have happened years ago. They learned and are acting on the safe side now.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The moon landing was real, at least in my view ... the U.S. had a do anything spirit up through the 1960s with some of that flowing over into the early 70s.

        Major projects invisioned / started around the late 1950s / 1960s...

        * World Trade Center Complex in NYC

        * Supersonic Concord

        * U.S. Interstate system

        * The Internet

        * The Space Shuttle

        Much of what is holding back progress these days in the U.S. is the lack of will, not technology.

        Ron
  • If it's broken ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gaima (174551) on Friday September 08 2006, @06:34AM (#16065194)
    ... replace it.
    As long as they test it properly after replacement, what's the problem?
    • by PrinceAshitaka (562972) * on Friday September 08 2006, @06:36AM (#16065199) Homepage
      The problem is filling out the paperwork in triplicate. They may have enough time to safely repair the shuttle for launch, thye just don't have the time to do all the paperwork. This is why private space endeavors are they way of the future.
      • by Silver Sloth (770927) on Friday September 08 2006, @06:56AM (#16065272)
        The problem is filling out the paperwork in triplicate. They may have enough time to safely repair the shuttle for launch, thye just don't have the time to do all the paperwork. This is why private space endeavors are they way of the future.
        So you would be quite happy with the batteries being replaced with a cheaper alternative which might work almost as well because the savings made will increase share dividends.

        For those who insist that the private sector is always preferable my I remind you what happened to the Herald of Free Enterprise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herald_of_Free_Enterp rise [wikipedia.org] or, for that matter, how much better UK trains are running in the Hatfield area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield_rail_crash [wikipedia.org] since privatisation.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Both of those incidents could have happened either to a private or publically owned company - they all boil down to negligence of which there is plenty in both the private and public sector and it doesn't really make your argument one way or the other!
          • by Silver Sloth (770927) on Friday September 08 2006, @07:29AM (#16065367)
            From the Wikipedia article (emphasis mine)
            The Hatfield rail crash was a railway accident that occurred on 17 October 2000, at Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK. Although the accident had a low death toll in comparison to other railway incidents in British history, Hatfield's historical significance has become much greater, since it demonstrated many of the flaws present in the mid 1990s privatisation of the British railway system and ultimately triggered its partial renationalisation.
            As someone who was a civil servant and now works in the private sector (my job was sold) I have seen both sides of the fence. I'm not saying that the public sector is better, but I know that the private sector has just as many problems and is not a panacea. In very broad brush terms the public sector tends to err on the side of caution, and hence fail to achieve anything, the private sector is so profit driven that it cuts too many corners. I know which attitude I want behind me if I ever fly on the shuttle.
    • As long as they test it properly after replacement, what's the problem?

      One article I saw said the faulty pump is between the payload bay and the heat shield of the spacecraft. You would have to disassemble the whole stack and much of the orbiter to replace one little motor. That might be six months of work and if you think you can get by safely without this motor it may be worth the risk.

  • On again? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2006, @06:37AM (#16065202)
    CBC radio is saying it's on for today. This is in spite of the fact that the chief safety officer objects. They say they can go with only two fuel cells and don't need the third one. The spokesman I heard said that replacing the fuel cell had its own risks. Could this thing be so complicated that they can never get the whole thing working at the same time?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      It's complex system. You often see similar issues with modern jet aircraft. There are so many things than can degrade or fail that it is unusual for 100% of the systems to be working perfectly. You end up making a list of what systems must be working before takeoff. That's also why there are redundant systems. You don't want to be in a situation where you are one failure away from a catastrophe. You don't want to be running on a single fuel cell. With two fuel cells, you can lose one, abort the mission and
      • "With three fuel cells, you can lose one and safely continue the mission."

        No you can't. Every mission that's lost one fuel cell has been brought back early, because they can't risk losing another.

        Given how heavy the current payload is, you seriouly don't want to have to bring it back to Earth unless you really, really have to (e.g. an early engine failure during the launch where there's no alternative).
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      CBC radio is saying it's on for today. This is in spite of the fact that the chief safety officer objects. They say they can go with only two fuel cells and don't need the third one. The spokesman I heard said that replacing the fuel cell had its own risks. Could this thing be so complicated that they can never get the whole thing working at the same time?

      From the looks of it, it might be another 24 hours (credit to CNN the bias news source):

      The scheduled late-morning liftoff of space shuttle Atlantis
  • by Sunburnt (890890) on Friday September 08 2006, @06:37AM (#16065204)
    ...why, exactly, our country's spaceport is still located in a state known for nothing so much as lightning and storms? I'm silly enough to live in Florida right now too, but I'd be moving even sooner if I had a multimillion dollar vehicle parked in my garage. Everything seems to point to Florida's climate worsening throughout the foreseeable future.

    Ha, I'm just kidding. Congress would love to see NASA inoperable so they can go back to spending money on bridges to nowhere (Thanks, Ted Stevens!)
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2006, @06:42AM (#16065220)
      "why, exactly, our country's spaceport is still located in a state known for nothing so much as lightning and storms?"

      Uh...because being as close to the equator as possible has advantagous trajectory characteristics for many important orbits and with a trajectory heading eastward one needs to be on the east coast so as to minimize time over land while still at low altitudes?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      why, exactly, our country's spaceport is still located in a state known for nothing so much as lightning and storms?

      Ummm because its in the extreme south east of the country. Launches to the north give you a high inclination orbit. Launches further west expose landmass to bits of spacecraft in the event of an abort.

      I could suggest that they launch from Cape York [wikipedia.org] but the weather is pretty bad [wikipedia.org] in that general area as well.

    • The spaceport is located in Florida at least partially for two reasons: (1) the extreme easterly location means that launches in the direction of Earth's rotation are over water, reducing hazards for persons and property on the ground. (2) it's closer than most states on America's mainland to the equator, which makes for more efficient launches (more payload can be lifted into a given orbit).
    • by onion2k (203094) on Friday September 08 2006, @06:53AM (#16065261) Homepage
      You save a huge amount of money if you launch from a geographic location that is near the equator, heading east (so you get the benefit of the Earth's rotation, which saves fuel and allows for an increased payload), and is far enough away from people that you don't get bits of rocket landing in residential areas if it all goes wrong. Being near the equator also puts you in a good position for a geostationary orbit.
    • by clickclickdrone (964164) on Friday September 08 2006, @07:11AM (#16065317) Homepage
      >a state known for nothing so much as lightning and storms?
      And oranges. It's a well kept secret that rocket fuel is actually distilled orange juice. What colour is the shuttle's fuel tank? Orange. To hide the leaks.
  • by CiRu5 (859713) on Friday September 08 2006, @06:38AM (#16065208) Homepage
    This article is a little late wouldn't you say, the shuttle launches this morning baring any further delays. Also I believe they are choosing to fly with the damaged fuel cell as it is not a threat to the safety of the crew.
    Good Update: http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/3484 [spacetoday.net]
    Countdown ticker: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/ind ex.html [nasa.gov]
  • by saboola (655522) on Friday September 08 2006, @06:43AM (#16065226)
    ..or maybe it's the Goa'uld Ha'tak mothership sitting a couple hundred miles above Port Canaveral preventing the launch. You can fool me Nasa, I watch television.
    • Dude, get over it. They blew up the Goauld ships two (three?) seasons ago. Colonel (now General) O'Neil used the Ancient Control Chair they found in Antartica. He can control it because he has a special gene. It shoots these really cool yellow drones.
  • by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Friday September 08 2006, @06:53AM (#16065263)
    Lotsa questionable statements in this article:
    • There's very little likelyhood the lightning strike is directly connected to the fuel cell problem.
    • It's not a "short". Everything isnt a "short". A shorted fuel cell would be totally unusable.
    • NASA, now or then, can't replace the fuel cell without major trouble-- the whole thing has to be taken back to the assembly building, anything in the cargo bay has to be unloaded, the cargo bay floor has to be taken up-- major hassle. Not something that can be done on the Q.T.
    • The shuttle has *three* fuel cells, so it's not a major problem if one is acting a teensy bit unusual.
    • There are plenty of safety issues with *not* launching, parts tend to age quickly when out in the humid Florida sun. It's not clear that delaying launch is a ssafety improvement.
    • "The shuttle has *three* fuel cells, so it's not a major problem if one is acting a teensy bit unusual."

      But if one stops working, then mission rules say they have to return to Earth within a couple of days in case another one stops working. It just seems bizarre to me that the new supposedly 'safety-conscious' NASA is going to fly with a possibly duff fuel cell and possibly duff fuel tank sensors, apparently because 'it's never caused a disaster before'.
  • Dupe!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by mangu (126918) on Friday September 08 2006, @07:05AM (#16065302)
    How long will Slashdot keep reposting this "Space Shuttle Delayed" story?
  • If Apollo 12 (and the lighting strike) were to happen under the current safety-focused NASA brass, its likely that NASA would have ordered an immediate abort without even considering what went wrong with the CSM (or failing that, ordered some kind of abort from earth orbit in case something fried)
  • I've always wondered how things that cost millions and millions can be so shaky. I kind of understand, but it just seems odd that their hardware is so sensitive.

    Can't they just hire Woz to build it for them?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      It's just the total complexity of the system. Most successful systems are simple enought hat, at some level, one person (such as Woz) can understand the whole system; and the purts on which that system are well understood and well characterised. In the se of the Shuttle, there too many parts, and too many of the parts are designed for that system alone, for anyone to understand the whole thing.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      It's not that it's a "shaky" piece of hardware, per se. It's just there are SO MANY points of failure, and after a few really bad problems, they've learned to be almost overly cautious with every failure.

      An electrical supply on the ground goes down, you're fine. You just wait for a new one. An electical supply goes down in space, it's likely you're going to face serious challenges just staying alive.
      • Yeah, but isn't it something another million couldn't fix? It's not like they have a realistic udget or something.

  • It causes one to wonder whether pre-Columbia-disaster NASA would have just replaced the fuel cell on the fly without telling anyone -- and whether or not that is an ethically sound choice.

    Sorry, but who cares?

    Was that a questioning of their historical policies having been ethically sound? Ummm...
  • by Snowtide (989191) on Friday September 08 2006, @07:41AM (#16065408)
    Well here goes my positive karma.
    The summary asks if it would be ethical to replace the cell or not without telling anybody. Who does the author want them to tell? The only people who have an ethical need to know the conditions of the shuttle and the risks associated with them are the crew in the shuttle and the ground crew. These people, the crew in particular, are taking the risks and making the decisions. These two groups of people are likely to know anyway, astronauts, especially the flight crew, tend to be technical people, it goes with the job. Read about the boring parts of an astronaut's job, including hundreds of hours getting to know the details of the shuttle and the booster assembly. It is often said Murphy was an aircraft engineer, astronauts know this. Space travel is risky and can be dangerous. From Florida to orbit and back is hell on materials, electronics and mechanics. The decision to go or not go under a set of conditions belongs to the crew on the shuttle and the ground crew.
    Any errors in grammar, spelling and tone are due to my uncaffinated state. Getting my breakfast apple and Dew now.
  • No, it does not cause me to wonder, it causes YOU to wonder. Please leave the passive-voice editorializing out of this... or was this a feeble attempt by an Editor to actually edit?
  • The shuttle Atlantis is set for liftoff from NASA's Kennedy Space Center at 11:41 a.m. EDT this morning. This "news post" is a little delayed. See NASA Launch Blog [nasa.gov] and NASA Online TV for up-to-date info.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    It's not a short in the fuel cell. Its a short in 1 phase of a 3 phase pump motor that supplies coolant to the fuel cell. The pump is currently limping along on 2 phases. If this pump looses another phase, it will be unable to pump and the fuel cell must be shutdown within 9 minutes. With the loss of 1 fuel cell, the mission must be aborted, and shuttle return to earth.

    Nasa has said in the past that it would be unsafe to retreve the hubble and bring it back to earth because of its weight causing problems du
  • by AsnFkr (545033) on Friday September 08 2006, @08:21AM (#16065585) Homepage Journal
    SCE to Aux.
    • by zerocool^ (112121) on Friday September 08 2006, @08:30AM (#16065636) Homepage Journal

      The poster of the above comment is a friend of mine, aside from being a pre-space shuttle space program junkie and also a big fan of apollo 12, and he explains the above post as this (over IM):


      HIM: man, im a fucking dork.
      ME: how's that?
      HIM: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=196049 &cid=16065585 [slashdot.org]
      HIM: gotta read the story
      HIM: problem is, no one at /. is gonna get it.
      HIM: basically, like 90 seconds into the apollo 12 flight it was hit by lightning and the entire computer stopped working
      HIM: the fix was a switch labled SCE, and to flip it to aux to basically power cycle the computer.
      ME: heh
      ME: you know your shit.
      HIM: Apollo 12 is the shit.
      HIM: its my specialty.
      HIM: haha
      HIM: im *that* guy on /. that has a absurd amount of knowedge about one small area of things that are discussed.
      HIM: and its useless information.


      I figured those of us who haven't spent weeks in the Air and Space museum, or read the audio transcripts from all available NASA flights, would want an explanation.

      ~Wx
  • by aplusjimages (939458) on Friday September 08 2006, @08:42AM (#16065726) Homepage Journal
    They should make a Star Trek show that is realistic. The crew never fights other species, but instead are constantly doing maintenance work on the ship. The whole show takes place only 200 miles from Earth because that's as far as they can go before something goes wrong.

    It can start off with a captains log, but there's a computer error, so he never gets to complete it. Instead he calls IT to fix the problem. While that's going on the viewer is taken to the engine room where there are all sorts of problems.

    I see it as a drama/comedy. There could even be a sick bay that is constantly busy, but the doctors have enough time to have love triangles and all sorts of personal drama amongst the already suspensful disasters.
    • What's aggressive about delaying?
      Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking delays on this motherfucking shuttle!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Instead of speculating, ask or look it up. They began to move it back to the building before Ernesto, but reversed course because it would almost certainly mean that they'd miss their launch window. Missing a launch window has serious costs associated with it; the faster the shuttles launch, the cheaper payload delivered by the shuttle is because most of the shuttle costs are constant, not per-launch. As a consequence, it's often worth it to weather the numerous weaker Florida storms, even if it risks th