NASA To Try To Resume Flights By Fall 270
underground alliance writes "According to BBC News, space shuttle flights could resume as early as this fall. The article says that 'Engineers have been put on standby to fix problems already raised by the investigating board, and devise a way of checking the exterior shuttle for defects while it is in orbit.' I think that this is a good move especially since ISS construction has been put on hold because without the space shuttle. The space shuttle is the only heavy freighter and the only means of putting a new ISS component in space."
An interesting question.. (Score:5, Interesting)
And lastly, how many people can the Soyuz capsules handle? If the shuttle could not handle a landing they might have to orphan it in space and send up multiple Soyuz capsules, or a second shuttle?
In that case (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In that case (Score:5, Informative)
This was covered here at the time of the accident.
It needs to carry the orbiter docking system. In a bind, however, transfers via EVA (space suits) mightbe possible. The station has 2 Russian suits and 2 US suits. Shuttles typically have 2 US suits.
Shuttle and ISS aren't on the same orbit unless Shuttle is expressly going there, and for a mission like Columbia's there wasn't enough fuel to make the orbit change.
Columbia launched to a 39 degree inclination. The Space station is at a 51.6 degree inclination.
Only the OMS and RCS engines are available in orbit, and their capability is roughly 1250 feet per second, or about 1400 km/h speed change (delta v).
Re:In that case (Score:2)
Simple launcher (Atlas?) on standby, with tools, fuel, food, oxygen, etc... If a spacecraft were in trouble, it gets launched to meet up with the troubled craft. Astronauts tie a rope, and ferry across the goods. Perhaps make repairs on the spot, perhaps just use the fuel to get to the ISS, perhaps just stay up long enough for somebody to think of SOMETHING better...
Match orbits, ferry the goods needed to repair, and if all else fails, pack the people into the small old-style rentry capsule, and get them
Re:In that case (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't refuel in space for a number of reasons, the main being the OMS and RCS fuel are hypergolic and they just can't deal with that crap with current procedures and equipment.
The Oxygen systems on shuttle are all CO2 removal scrubbers.
All the "older" launchers use liquid fuel and say a Delta is the size of the old Saturn I-B.
Say you get the crew off, what does one do with 100 tons of Shuttle in an uncontroled d
Re:In that case (Score:3, Insightful)
The shuttle is aliminum, which is something you can burn with a household match. The tiles and the ceramic nose are the only pieces of shuttle that is actually burnproof. If the tiles don't protect the body (that is something they can do only at a speci
Re:In that case (Score:2, Insightful)
When Shuttle does a controled entry like Columbia did, things are tucked away, doors closed and it's put on a proper flight path under human and computer control.
If the crew were to leave, they'd not be able to close the doors, nor would anyone be able to put it on the right course/heading/atitiude/speed. So it would do a much less controlled entry than say Mir did. Instead of a hollow modified fuel tank like Skylab was, Shuttle would be 1
Re:In that case (Score:3, Insightful)
If NASA can't control this kind of thing from the ground (at least for the initial re-entry) then they shouldn't be launching things into space at all.
Shuttle would be 100 tons of mostly reentry-protected metal and ceramics
Well apparently a small section of missing tile made a big difference. If it were to re-entry inverted, where the are no heat tiles, I'm sur
Re:In that case (Score:5, Interesting)
Columbia wass the only shuttle that has real difficulity getting to ISS (this was covered after the origional accident). Now all shuttles can get there, though admitidly not all orbits make it easy. Though we can get around that. (send an atlas up with supplies, a few space suits, and a second rocket designed to change orbits, or devise a way to refuel. Nothing easy of course)
And has been pointed out, nearly all shuttle missions are ISS missions. If you arrive at the ISS and someone says "The shuttle won't get you home safely", then you just sit tight, in crowded conditions. In fact given a docked shuttle that can't safely get back home I could see engineers devisiong a way to use it as a part of ISS since it is there. A second airlock for remaining shuttles would have to be added, and a lot of details, but getting things into orbit is hard, if you got something on the ISS you want to use it for the ISS as much as possiable. Who cares that it is mostly useless, if nothing else use it as a private office for someone who just wants to be alone.
Re:In that case (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a very interesting point. However there could be problems. What if (I'm just pulling this out of thin air) a shuttle in prolonged orbit starts to degrade. Something like repeated heating/cooling cycles cause tiles to get loose and fall off. That would become a terrible danger to the station. You don't want bits of tile floating around those sola
Re:In that case (Score:3, Insightful)
A tile loose in the ISS orbit will soon be a re-entering tile. There is noticeable hydrodynamic drag on the ISS itself, which is why they have to keep bumping its orbit. And those tiles are very light for their size.
one of the problems was that the foam insulation would outgas for years.
That tends to mess up experiments depending on vacuum. It was a research pr
Only three per capsule (Score:2)
Re:In that case (Score:2)
And, as many people are stating in their replies, many things would have to come together to abort to ISS, the most important of which being someone waving a magic wand. One does not simply change orbit by firing a few attitude jets--orbiters are launched into specific orbits using fuel that is exhausted once the extern
Re:In that case (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I think the article [spaceflightnow.com] says the Russian Enterprise module is capable of docking two Soyuz capsules, each of which can evacuate six crew members, for a total of six.
The ISS only bear three permanent crew members, between shuttle flights, now, because that is the total number that can be evacuated by the single Soyuz it has mounted now.
The Soyuz are replaced every six months. There was recent talk
Re:In that case (Score:2, Interesting)
The station was envisioned with a 7 man crew ultimately but that is with the addiction of the US hab module whose future is very uncertain at this point in time. At this point 2 crew have designed sleeping quaters and one sleep in an empty rack location in the US Lab.
Repairing the shuttle on orbit is almost a hysterical proposition. Each tile is cutom ground for its location. Granted if you knew which tiles needed replacin
Re:An interesting question.. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is little they can do. NASA originally planned to produce a tile repair kit for the Shuttle. Contracts were given to Martin Marietta around 1980, but I don't think it ever flew. The plan was to use a paste to fill in small cracks and dents in tiles and carry blocks to fill larger gaps in t
The problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean no insult to the story's submitter, but that kind of thinking is the heart of the problem. NASA is not a freight service - they're a space program, dammit. Their job is not hauling stuff into orbit, but doing real, hard science.
Re:The problem (Score:2)
Let me put it like this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let me put it like this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The problem (Score:2)
I mean no insult to the story's submitter, but that kind of thinking is the heart of the problem. NASA is not a freight service - they're a space program, dammit. Their job is not hauling stuff into orbit, but doing real, hard science.
Well, in order for the ISS to do any useful work they need lot of unromantic supplies. For one thing, the whole things is "falling" a few 100 m per day, and needs
What about the Titan IV-B? Better than shuttle. (Score:3, Informative)
Titan IV-B, LEO payload capacity 47,800 pounds. [lmco.com]
And at an estimated cost of only 350-450M, it's somewhat cheaper than the shuttle. With a better than >95% estimated success rate, it's also probably safer than our current shuttle fleet.
Even better, the upgraded IV-Bs have a LEO payload capacity roughly equal to that of the shuttle. (~48,000 lbs-LEO)
And, they're unmanned and not expected to be
Re:What about the Titan IV-B? Better than shuttle. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about the Titan IV-B? Better than shuttle. (Score:2)
You can get 22 000 kilos to low orbit on a Proton-M. The ISS has already received the Zarya and Zvezda modules from Proton rockets.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:The problem (Score:5, Insightful)
hrm.. Kinda negates the name being the Space Transportation System, doesn't it? I don't see transportation limited to people/science. And how do you imply items hauled into space like LDEF, SpaceLabs/SpaceHabs, ISS components, Hubble, TDRS and so on are not science-related? The shuttle is the cornerstone for building the entire current space research infrastrucure. It's doing the job for which it was designed.
-r
Ahmen! (Score:2)
Re:The problem (Score:2)
Absolutely correct. Which is why NASA isn't doing most of the mundane transportantion for ISS. That's what the Russian Progress [astronautix.com] and the European ATV [terranisch...b-eden.com] are for. Shuttle is primarilly being used for the construction phase. These are not delivery runs. These are complex missions; exactly what NASA was designed for.
Yah, except (Score:3)
Re:Yah, except (Score:2)
However, the Hubble was launched with a rather defective mirror. Subsequent repair missions have ameliorated this problem. The STS crew has also replaced cameras and gyroscopes, extending the useful lifespan of the telescope.
Of course, the Hubble's design was also constrained by NASA's choice of launch vehicle. It is questionable
Re:Yah, except (Score:2)
NASA were forbidden from working on commercial satellites in the wake of Challenger.
The other reason why this is a poor reason for a vehicle as expensive as the Shuttle is that very few satellites sit in Shuttle-suitable orbits. The only ones NASA did work on were comm satellites that had failed to fire their booster into geo
Foam (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Foam (Score:5, Informative)
They did, several years ago. But they had a small supply of old tanks (with the old foam) in their inventory. Columbia's flight used the second last [orlandosentinel.com] of these old tanks.
In fairness, the issue of falling foam was known, but it wasn't considered to be a danger, just an annoying bug. Heck, even a month *after* the accident, the best minds on the planet still can't figure out how the foam drop could have done enough damage to threaten the orbiter.
Re:Pray (Score:5, Funny)
Who broke the paper towel holder you may ask? Oh, I don't know.... SATAN!?
The best thing NASA can do ... (Score:4, Insightful)
* Identify and correct any problems that can be fixed.
* Resume flights as soon as feasible;
* Ask Congress for a boatload of money;
* Use boatload of money to design Shuttle2.
Line 1 is interesting because well, there are inherent risks in flying the shuttle. You absolutely can't guarantee safety; I mean, honestly, if a micrometeor hits the shuttle while in space, well, it's a problem.
*ALL* future shuttle flights should be equipped with a Canadarm, ISS docking ring, EVA packs, and enough fuel to get to the ISS.
No matter what. If that means we have to cut back on the payloads, well, too bad.
Even if we knew there were cracked tiles on Columbia in space, what could we have done for them? Not really very much.
We need a rescue system; some way to either get guys down without their vehicle, or a way to park 'em up there 'till we can get another vehicle in motion.
That should be Priority One. Next up, let's replace the shuttle with something more modern --- something that can carry as much payload, but more modern.
--DM
Re:The best thing NASA can do ... (Score:4, Interesting)
In addition of having seven go up at one time, have another seven train with them and use them to pilot the second shuttle. Itll would be much cheaper then hauling all the potentially needless safety equipment every flight.
Of course it wouldnt hurt the first shuttle to have more diagnostics and sensors.
Re:The best thing NASA can do ... (Score:2)
There's 39-A and 39-B; you'd have to have the other shuttle on the pad during the first one's mission for a shot at this
Re:The best thing NASA can do ... (Score:2)
Of course there would be trajectory problems and actual planning lift off and such like, but still its a better chance of saving the first than risking re-entry.
Then again I would suggest liquidating NASA and pump all the money into building a space elevater! :)
Re:The best thing NASA can do ... (Score:4, Informative)
Launch facilities are at KSC in FL for a reason. By launching in an easterly direction, you pick up an essentially "free" 1000mph or so, due to centripetal effects. You could do this anywhere. But by launching from the east coast, discards, such as ETs and SRBs fall into the ocean, rather than on (potentially) populated areas (an issue that Heinlein touched on in "The Man Who Sold the Moon").
Similarly, by using a southerly launch from Vandenberg, though you don't get the velocity bonus, you do have the ability to drop discards into the Pacific ocean.
Re:The best thing NASA can do ... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the Vandenberg pad that was built for the shuttle is in the process of being retooled (if it's not done already) to launch the USAFs new Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), otherwise known as the Delta IV and Atlas V.
Re:The best thing NASA can do ... (Score:2)
Re:The best thing NASA can do ... (Score:2)
So what that it takes a full day to put a shuttle on the pad. The shuttle can stay up for 14 days at least, and I'm sure even if a critical problem was discovered on the last day they could stretch the trip out for 3 days to launch another shuttle.
I don't know if a shuttle sitting in the hanger, ready for a rescue mission can be not only brought to the pad, but also fueled up in a few days, but if not it is only an enginnering problem to correct it.
I decline to speculate what it would cost to outfit a se
Re:The best thing NASA can do ... (Score:2)
As to your costs justification, depending on the payload it could be anything to losing £50 million upwards if a ship blows up. I doubt that keeping another shuttle on standby would cost that much, especially if you share the costs out between all the other shuttle lauches itll cover.
Re:The best thing NASA can do ... (Score:5, Interesting)
This point WAS being addressed by the European Space Agency when they were still considering their own shuttle. In fact, This Guy's [legrandsaut.org] project came out of that research.
On a side note, Michel's jump is to take place just a few miles from where I live. :-)
Shuttle bailouts/Space Diving [good links] (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The best thing NASA can do ... (Score:2)
and enough fuel to get to the ISS.
Not as easy as you make it sound. Because of the high energies and angular momentums involved, it's extremely difficult and costly in terms of fuel to change orbits once in space. In practice this would mean that all future shuttle missions would be missions to the ISS, meaning no more Hubble servicing missions, etc.
Re:The best thing NASA can do ... (Score:5, Informative)
That's a moot point. If you check NASA's launch schedule, you'll find that the missions for the forseeable future after Columbia's were dedicated to ISS:
- March 1: STS-114 Atlantis to the ISS.
- May 23: STS-115 Endeavour to the ISS.
- July 24: STS-116 Atlantis to the ISS.
- Oct. 2: STS-117 Endeavour to the ISS.
- Nov. 13: STS-118 Columbia to the ISS.
- [see the rest [nasa.gov]]
There was only one non-ISS flight still on the books, the final Hubble repair mission (STS-122).A shuttle at ISS doesn't need Canadarm, ISS has got Canadarm2 which is bigger and better. A shuttle at ISS doesn't need EVA packs, ISS has got both Russian and US EVA packs and two separate airlock systems. A shuttle at ISS doesn't need a rescue system, the astronauts can camp out there (albeit uncomfortably) for as long as it takes to bring them down with Soyuz or other shuttles (or OSP [orbital.com] in the future).
Basically, NASA was extremely unfortunate by having this failure happen on the last flight it could have happened on.
Putting all that gear on the shuttle is a waste. (Score:5, Interesting)
An even better option is admit we've got a flawed system and do the sensible thing and abandon it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for manned space flight. But we need to set a real goal. Like Men on Mars by 2020 or bust and then build the needed items like a space elevator, moon base to mine Helium, and a space station that is able to rotate so that we can simulate gravity.
The Space elevator could possibly be built at a cost of $7-15 billion dollars. Each shuttle trip cost
The moon base can mine the fuel needed to power nuclear engines for a Mars trip.
A rotating space station is needed to simulate gravity. We are going to have to provide gravity to any one going on this trip. Our past experience on Mir proved that weightlessness is harmful to our bone structure over the long haul.
Space elevator (Score:3)
$t-15 billion is similar to the cost of designing the shuttle (and the ISS, for that matter). However, there is a quite big difference between the design process for the shuttle and the design process for a "space elevator", namely:
'Most' of the engineering required to build a space elevator is understood (well, so the proponents claim). The only thing missing is, ahem, the construction material simply does not exist today.
In theory, diamond or carbon nanotubes could do it. But nanotube
Cheap, safe, effective - pick any two (Score:3, Insightful)
Good idea, but the problem is that, first of all, getting things into orbit is insanely expensive. And, the payload of the shuttle is limited. So what you propose is that on every flight the shuttle would carry a boatload of gear it may very well have no intention of using - that's pretty wasteful, and you don't get much return on your investment - the vast majority of the time,
Re:The best thing NASA can do ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Some may say that this is irresponsible. I disagree. What happened to the Columbia was a freak accident, it won't happen again. At least for another 40->50 flights.
That should be enough time for Nasa and whoever else is involved to rethink their plans and design a couple of different types of craft.
In the meantime, they should stop acting like a bunch of pussies and just fly the shuttle. Let them run their investigations, which I realize are important,
Re:The best thing NASA can do ... (Score:2)
I must applaud your attitude here, I do agree with it - at least in principle. What happened to the Columbia was a freak accident and is very unlikely to happen again. However, the US public, the US congress and most other reasonable people are never going to let it go to chance without at least some contingency plans should this million-to-one chance happen a third time (think: Challenger).
It looks like it was a damaged tile that broke off. I am NOT go
Re:The best thing NASA can do ... (Score:2)
A half a billion dollars a launch, I wonder why this wasn't done already. If all that money was not going into safety, the Joe taxpayer in me wants the current team out and a new team put in.
The shuttle was a great experiment. We've learned our lesson. Let's buy some surplus soyuz to hold us over until we can get our own expendible launch fleet together. The only place the last
Keep an extra Orbiter in space (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Keep an extra Orbiter in space (Score:5, Informative)
By doing that you essentially cut the usable shuttle fleet in half, with the lose of Columbia and the loss of use of another shuttle parked in orbit. Castrates the STS usability and turnaround time. Plus, you leave an orbiter with a lot longer exposure to micrometeroid strikes than nominal orbital excursions. Also a greater chance of it getting damaged by orbital junk, if you believe that may have been a contributing cause to Columbia's loss. And the long-term exposure to space is a question mark as it wasn't really desigined for that.
Lots of info from discussion in sci.space.shuttle is compiled in the Columbia Loss Faq [io.com]. It's worth a read before asking questions...
-r
Re:Keep an extra Orbiter in space, Yep, the BURAN (Score:2)
The Energia booster team has been split up with the breakup of the Soviet Union. The strap on boosters were built in the Ukraine and have now become the Zenit rocket which is used for the Sealaunch programme. The Russian workers have been deployed to other tasks such as the new Angara rocket which should fly this year.
Sadly it looks like Buran will never fly again. The Russians have
So you detect fault in flight (Score:5, Interesting)
Rus
Re:So you detect fault in flight (Score:3, Funny)
Obviously someone hasn't seen Armageddon.
Re:So you detect fault in flight (Score:3, Informative)
As far as I know, they have not. I think the ability to use a second shuttle as a rescue craft was part of the original plans, the idea being that in an emergency a second shuttle could be prepared for launch in less than a week. But this was at a time when NASA were forecasting close to a shuttle launch a week anyway. NASA gave up on that a long time ago.
The Molniya Space Company? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Molniya Space Company? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Molniya Space Company? (Score:2)
Per kg the shuttle costs NASA about 3-4x more than Apollo; and Apollo could lift 4x more payload. So for hardly any more cost
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Molniya Space Company? (Score:2)
She was the better craft of the two - the product of the genius of two design teams, the Americans who put the Shuttle together, and the Soviet team who took their product and improved it.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Two common sense things they can do now (Score:2)
2) Build all missions so that inspection of the shuttle can take place early enough into the mission to allow for a detour to the space station if a problem presents itself.
Re:Two common sense things they can do now (Score:2)
Re:Two common sense things they can do now (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole time the satellite is busy taking pictures and recording pictures.
Then do another half-revolution and retrieve the satellite.
Man, all we're really talking about here is a camera!
Re:Two common sense things they can do now (Score:2)
Re:Two common sense things they can do now (Score:2)
Which is why I said that you have to design the mission with this in mind. It may mean you'll lose certain kinds of orbits, and you may even need to better position the space station to better provide emergency sanctuary, but it is certainly doable.
Besides, there's an argument for restricting the shuttle to ferry-duty between here and the ISS anyways. Let the dumb rockets put satellites into orbit. Hell, for geosync
Junk the Shuttle -- and ISS while you're at it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the satellites that are "launched" by the shuttle suffer from the design constraint that they have to fit into the friggin' bay AND have room for the accompanying boosters that will put them into their real orbit once the shuttle lets them out. Again, the shuttle can't go high enough for real deployment.
The idea of capturing and reparing satellites is inherently absurd; most aren't where the shuttle can get 'em and the total cost of the program utterly dwarfs the expense that would have been incurred had they said of the Hubble "Well, we screwed it up...build another one and get it right this time."
The safety record sucks. After Challenger Richard Feynman put the probability of a fatal accident at one in fifty. So far, NASA's on the money and the nature of the shuttle is such that if someone dies, everybody dies.
Lest I be misunderstood, I understand the romantic and scientific appeal of manned space flight, of the visceral sense of satisfaction we can have as a species when we look up to the skies and say "We live there." I'm a strong proponent of that. I also recognize the complaints that the money spent on that is money not spent on (feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, inoculating the sick, fill in your pet cause). The manned space program is hellishly uneconomical and a great deal of that can be laid at the feet of the shuttle program.
It's a white elephant without a mission, a bastard child of a spacecraft and an airplane which like most gadgets that try to do two fundamentally different things does neither well. Its payload capacity compared to heavy-lift rockets is a joke, it's barely capable of crawling out of the atmosphere, it's presented a tremendous constraint to the rest of the space program by forcing many missions to be less than they could have been in order to be shuttle-doable, and it bears repeating that every fifty flights it kills everyone on board.
It's time to ground the shuttle fleet permanently. Space isn't going anywhere. Stop pouring the hundreds of millions of dollars into the shuttle program and pour them into a new design effort. Scrap the silly "space-plane" concept and develop a family of lifters and craft that _can_ be used for many things but don't back NASA into a corner that forces them to use it for all missions. Make crew safety an inherent feature (recognizing that there are tradeoffs and that getting out of the gravity well is a fundamentally dangerous activity). Stop throwing good money after bad on that ISS as well, and use the collective resources of the two programs to start over. It's not true that the second design is always better than the first (see again ISS and Mir/Skylab) but you're wise to play those odds.
Let's do it over. And do it right.
Re:Junk the Shuttle -- and ISS while you're at it. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the space station was placed in that orbit as a compromise so that both the American (Shuttle) and the Russian (Soyuz) vehicles could get to it. Baikonur [astronautix.com] and Cape Canaveral [nasa.gov] are at quite different lattitudes. ISS is half way in between.
> Let's do it over. And do it right.
I'll be honest. I agree with most of your criticisms. But your remedy would be disasterous. If we axe the shuttles and drop ISS into the Pacific, you are starting from square one. The US population isn't interested in constructing anything grand anymore. If we had nothing in orbit, things would stay that way.
If you stop, you'll never get started again. The only politically viable option is to move along one step at a time. Let's make sure that we make each little step count.
Re:Junk the Shuttle -- and ISS while you're at it. (Score:2, Insightful)
And you're probably right about that all-stop meaning that we're quitting, but that's too depressing to contemplate before noon on a Saturday (where
Re:Junk the Shuttle -- and ISS while you're at it. (Score:5, Informative)
>so that both the American (Shuttle) and the Russian (Soyuz)
>vehicles could get to it. Baikonur [astronautix.com] and Cape
>Canaveral [nasa.gov] are at quite different lattitudes. ISS is
>half way in between.
Yes, true to a point - and it was a stupid compromise. Had we relied on the cheaper, more reliable Russian boosters and scrapped utilizing the Shuttles for ISS construction, crew delivery and resupply, the ISS could have been placed into a substantially higher orbit, requiring fewer reboost missions and therefore becoming inherently cheaper to operate.
Compare the cost of launching unmanned payloads (say, ISS components) on a Russian Proton rocket to the cost of launching them on the Shuttle. It costs around $4,729 a pound to put a payload into low earth orbit with the Shuttle, as opposed to $1,953 a pound with the Proton. Proton can't launch payloads that are quite as large as the Shuttle's (19,760 kg for the Proton vs. 28,803 kg for the Shuttle), but the cost per pound for the Russian vehicle is vastly lower. As opposed to the $300 million plus launch cost of a Shuttle, a Proton costs a comparatively paltry $85 million to build and launch.
And you don't need a rocket as big as a Proton to launch men into space - the Russians routinely send people to the ISS aboard the relatively tiny Soyuz rocket, which only has a capacity of 7,000 kg and costs just $37 million to build and launch (the per-pound cost is also cheaper than the shuttle - $2,432). Compare this to the Shuttles, which cost at least $2 billion to build each (probably more, if you factor in R&D), and well in excess of $300 million each launch (some accounting puts Shuttle launches at an incredible $500 million each).
There also hasn't been a fatal accident involving Soyuz since the 1970's, when an air seal failed during reentry and the crew suffocated. There was a serious accident during the '80s when the booster failed, but the cosmonauts were able to successfully escape the destruction of the vehicle and came away with only minor injuries. That's simply not possible with the Shuttle, since the astronauts are strapped right next to huge tanks of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen (an insanely stupid design - there's no way to be safely blown clear).
There have been something like 1,600 launches of Soyuz-family rockets, as opposed to a little more than 100 Shuttle launches, so clearly most of the bugs have been worked out of the Soyuz system by now. The fact it's a far smaller rocket means less energy is required to launch it into orbit, reducing the stress and strain on the system and making it inherently safer than the Shuttles, with all that fuel and weight they have to contend with. There's also no reason to couple human payloads with equipment and supplies bound for orbit. In fact, it's downright senseless.
Here are some reliability figures [faa.gov] for boosters in common use. With the exception of Soyuz, these are all unmanned boosters. Note that many of these unmanned boosters are as reliable (or even more reliable) than the Shuttle, which becomes a 2 billion dollar supersonic crematorium for all 7 astronauts aboard roughly 1 mission in 50:
Atlas 1&2 - 49 launch attempts, 95.9% reliability
Delta 2 - 73, 98.6%
Ariane 4 - 81, 96.3%
Proton - 254, 89.4%
Soyuz - 958, 99.3%
Long March - 54, 90.7%
Quite frankly, the Shuttle is nothing but a jobs program. Everything that's being done with the ISS could be done - cheaper and safer - using Russian launchers. For some interesting stats regarding launchers and costs, see this PDF file [futron.com] (sorry for the format, but it's informative), this NASA FAQ on launchers [faqs.org] (it's from the mid-'90s, but still mostly accurate), and
Re:Junk the Shuttle -- and ISS while you're at it. (Score:2)
The saturn F-1 has even less launch time on it than SSME's have. SSME's have a similar reliability record to those systems you mentioned, in fact a better one I believe. Challenger was due to a problem in the SRB's.... in my mind one of the silliest design choices ever, and columbia's failure was a far different beast than any of the payload suystems your comparing it to. The F-1's were used 18 times in 5 packs or 90 launches.. SSME's gone 100+ times
Re:Junk the Shuttle -- and ISS while you're at it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The romantic side of exploration is a contrivance to compensate for the fact that most returns are so long term as to be uneconomical and so dangerous as to beyond a sane person's capability. What makes the adventure worthwhile is the practical knowledge gained from the act of doing, and the application of that knowledge. We cannot get the practical knowledge without being there.
If we do as you say and junk everything to start over, all we will get is the loss of years of practical experience and a set of whole new problems. We can't think of everything, even when we know these things exist. The system is too complex, the interactions too numerous. I was on one project that was crippled by two well known effects. The problem was that we just did not have the experience to know how those effects would affect our science. That knowledge is now available. It was expensive and painful to acquire, but I believe there was no cheaper way to acquire it.
We need to build new LEO infrastructure. We need to build other delivery vehicles. We also need practical experience so we can make those new technologies as practical and useful as possible. We cannot sit in front of our computer running simulations and thinking about how wonderful it would be in space. Simulations are fun because they never knocks us down and tell us we are wrong. Real life is hard because it does.
Re:Junk the Shuttle -- and ISS while you're at it. (Score:2)
Well written post. I agree with every point you make.
But I will say that I think that for now NASA should keep launching the shuttle, finish the missions that they have planned, and maintain the ISS. While at the same time, they need to look at stopping in at the Home Depot for a different variety of tools. AKA, they need to think long and hard about new designs, and what they need to accomplish. Not limited by what the STS can accomp
Re:Junk the Shuttle -- and ISS while you're at it. (Score:2)
While I agree with much of you post, I cannot agree with this line of thinking. Consider:
Re:Junk the Shuttle -- and ISS while you're at it. (Score:2)
the space shuttle should be modded: (Score:2, Funny)
Scanning the exterior for trouble. (Score:2, Interesting)
Are we placing too much emphasis on life? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Are we placing too much emphasis on life? (Score:3, Insightful)
The feasibility of designing a single-stage launch vehicle has been explored in depth over the past few years. Proponents of the shuttle program always seem to di
computing power's effects????? (Score:2)
this is more bold action, but this time in an appropriate fashion. well, at least it would make me feel better to see things moving again. i'm sure the nasa engineers are shitting their pants right now wondering if they are going to fire off another shuttle be
Separate the cargo from the astronauts (Score:4, Interesting)
1) A honking powerful rocket to lauch heavy payload to wherever they want. Safety is not an issue, just reliability.
2) A small, safe crew module that re-enters the way Apollo did. Everything focused on getting the crew to space and back as safely as possible.
Imagine a mission set up this way. Payload launchs on a Monday. It may be a LEO science project, something you don't need to go the space station with. It safely achieves orbit, and on Tuesday, up goes the crew. They dock with the module, spend a week doing experiments, load up whatever results you need to bring back home and splash down in the ocean. Maybe, to decrease the descend rate, they'll have some extra fuel to slow themselves down (like that very old computer game!). Science module burns up on de-orbit. Or maybe it could be boosted up to hook up with the space station.
Re:Separate the cargo from the astronauts (Score:2)
I think when it comes to firing people or equipment up into space, safety and reliability are pretty much the same thing...
Re:Separate the cargo from the astronauts (Score:2)
100% Safe (Score:2, Insightful)
how about we retire those old girls? (Score:3, Interesting)
lets face it folks, Columbia and her sisters were NEVER supposed to be in operation for this long.. iirc AIRLINES aren't allowed to fly planes which are more than 25 yrs old (i may be wrong on this one).. and the shuttle goes through MUCH more stress in reentry than your regular airliner.
the shuttles use outmoded technology and are designed for missions that are in many ways different from what they have to do now. should seven lives be risked just to get some satellites into space? or to get some supplies to the ISS? i would say the answer is no.. the US needs to get its priorities straight. start using rockets to get hardware into space, and then use the jettisoned hardware as part of the ISS, use a space equivalent of a delivery truck (pilot, copilot, navigator/arm controller ONLY, and lots of cargo space) for the kind of mission that absolutely HAS to have a human to handle the cargo and use a "space RV" which is what the shuttle was, to conduct some of the missions the shuttle did.. but i believe that once the ISS *REALLY* gets going a lot of those experiments that they were doing on the shuttle could be done just as easily on the ISS labs, with just the experiment components being brought to them via the "delivery truck" or by rocket.
lets face it folks, the shuttle as we know it is not the right tool for the job. so how about we put them out to pasture, and use the lessons they taught us to build a proper spacefleet?
oh i remember why now.. PORK..
ah well... forget it then
Suchetha
Re:NASA stands for... (Score:4, Insightful)
that makes about as much sense as not wanting to get on a 737 because another 737 crashed that day.
yes, the design of the space shuttle probably has some flaws but then again they had a hell of a lot of flights that didn't blow up - it's not the least bit more dangerous than it was before, they actually will have more safety measures in place next time.
being an active astronaut is not an office job and everybody knows it's dangerous.
Re:The shuttle should be permanently grounded (Score:2)
Re:The shuttle should be permanently grounded (Score:2)
The rest of my points stand.
Re:The shuttle should be permanently grounded (Score:2)
Myself, I think Easterbrook simply doesn't accept the fact some things have high inherent risk. If you use simple stats, we should never have flight test programs of new fighter aircraft, artificial hearts and other high-risk research endeavours. Hey, a lo
Re:The shuttle should be permanently grounded (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh goodie, argument from authority. I suppose you don't put much weight in physics theories from patent clerks, either?
The "rebuttals" at hal-pc.org are pathetic nitpicks. They do nothing to undermine the basic thrust of Easterbrook's positions, which seem to be that the Shuttles are:
1) Outrageously expensive to build and operate compared to any other lift system.
2) More dangerous to their occupants than any other manned booster.
3) Incapable
Re:suspended (Score:5, Insightful)
Not entirely realistic. You want another 6-10 year drought in the US manned space program while this development takes place? A number of projects were started and cancelled/disbanded/abandoned and I'm not sure any real active projects are underway. If you use the Apollo program as a model it could be 5-7 years from initial designs to usable product.. (I believe the shuttle design process took LONGER, starting in early 70s and making first real manned spaceflight in '81(?)).. and hopefully we could do it faster, but in the interim the ISS fell back to earth, Hubble may have had enough component failures to be currently offline (if it hasn't re-entered too) and public sentiment is even WORSE for NASA.
Ah.. we should return to the days of Pentiums because at this point they're so solid. Uh, no thanks. Enough current-gen unmanned rockets are available, though I'm not sure any have the lifting capability to get ISS components (probably the largest shuttle payloads) into orbit. And then there's rendevous, docking/joining of components, etc.. not easily done via unmanned missions. So send astronauts! Oh wait.. they're still waiting for a new vehicle that's 3-4 years off. Oops.
Columbia's demise (imho) will have a major component of its failure be the age of the airframe, compromised ground review and one/two external influences that inflicted some sort of damage (foam strike, increased dynamic stress on the wing at liftoff, a strike by space junk, compromise of the RCC.. take your pick). The other orbiters do not share a number of Columbia's limitations (increased weight and age, mostly) and should suffice... but the whole affiar should put the spurs to NASA (and more importantly, Congress) to get another manned (or manned/unmammed combo) program in the pipeline to actual completion.
my $0.02; take or pitch as you will.
-r
Double, Triple or Quadruple NASA's Budget... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell where's all the interest going that's being charged because of the deficit? How about this, balance the budget and give the money we would have thrown away in interest to the banks, to NASA!
My God! Where is the 380-400 Billion we spend a year on the Military Industrial Complex going? Why did we have to kill 79 American's during the Gulf War cause of friendly fire? Why does it seem every other day another Black Hawk or Offspree goes down - in non-combat situations!?! Any video game developer worth their salt would have invented a fully encripted, wireless battlefield tracking system so that a friendly couldn't even lock onto equivalent troops even if they tried - the system would lock them out! Those friendly troops would appear with colored markers over their heads/units/armory even if they were lost on the battlefield.
My point is, we, as a society, a nation, a civilization seem to reep so many more benefits from the work of scientists, and NASA specifically, and no benefits whatsoever with of all this money we are throwing at the military except how to kill each other more efficiently and in greater numbers.
Change our focus, end this path of destruction, embrace our enemies (aka the friendly-hug, no dictator will survive western cultural and economic influence because of it) and GIVE NASA A MUCH BIGGER BUDGET! They are not just about Space Exploration, you know?
Finally, lets have a national agenda to get to Mars. Once we do, we'll suddenly realize were killing our own planet burning fossil fuel's and dumping toxin's into the environment with no consideration of future generations. Please, let's stop thinking about what this means to the shareholder. We are all shareholders when it comes to the well being of this tiny blue world. NASA makes such a difference in all our lives, let's make a difference in theirs.
Peace.
JM
Insightful? (Score:3, Insightful)
My God! Where is the 380-400 Billion we spend a year on the Military Industrial Complex going? Why did we have to kill 79 American's during the Gulf War cause of friendly fire? Why does it seem every other day another Black Hawk or Offspree goes down - in non-combat situations!?!
I work at Sikorsky Aircraft. If a helicopter "went down every other day", I'm sure the company would no longer be in business. There are thousands of Black Hawk he
Re:Double, Triple or Quadruple NASA's Budget... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I think the point of the military over the past 10-20 years has been to develope more efficient ways to kill in smaller numbers. Highly well-guided bombs and minimizing civilian deaths and all...
Re:suspended (Score:2, Interesting)
>they can develop a next generation launch
>vehicle that is safe.
What does "safe" mean? Launching people into orbit and returning them again isn't fundamentally a proposition.
A next-generation spaceframe may very well take advantage of lessons we've learned with the Shuttle, and certainly won't be vulnerable to any issues found to be fatal in it. Nonetheless, I'm sure, this being reality, that brand new flaws and weaknesses will be exposed.
Please n
Re:suspended (Score:2)
A safe human transporter is a lot easier to build if you aren't trying to put mondo amounts of stuff in orbit. Putting mondo amounts of stuff in orbit is a lot simpler if you don't have people on board. Frobbing items in orbit is a lot simpler if you aren't trying to c
Re:Subcontract (Score:2)
Re:NASA Engineers said they could (Score:2)
Sure, except for two things. Number one, they didn't believe there was any reason for concern. Do you have any idea how many people come up with possible problems during any given mission? The engineers at NASA are trained to think worst case scenario at all times so they can plan accordingly. As such, the mission contr