Space Shuttles almost Ready to Re-Launch 279
stagmeister writes "CNN and Space.com are reporting that the Return to Flight Task Group, the overseeing committee that determines when the Space Shuttles can go back into space, has reported that the only items blocking the Shuttles are issues 'related to tank debris, orbiter hardening and tile repair.' They plan to re-meet in later this month to finalize their decision. However, 'NASA has made clear it intends to resume shuttle flights with the repair capabilities it has in hand without knowing for sure whether they would work in an emergency.' Would you want your children flying a space shuttle that hasn't been properly beta-tested?"
There Anything Left? (Score:2, Interesting)
Heck Yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you see Contact? Remember the scene where Jody Foster sees something outside for the first time and they morph the childs face & voice onto her's as she describes what she is seeing?
I'd risk my life to see that, because I know we won't be living on the moon like I thought we would be in the 80s when I was in Jr. High.
Re:The Only Things? (Score:5, Interesting)
"the shuttle is too dangerous to operate"
Considering that we've only lost about 1 in 50 shuttles, I'd say its an extremely safe machine for what it does. The losses of ships in the early settling of the new world were far greater than 1 in 50. If our ancestors had felt 1 in 50 was too dangerous, the new world would never have been found.
If the shuttle were designed to provide a one way trip to orbit, I'd bet you could find plenty of takers.
want your children flying a space shuttle that ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite Honestly, I would go up in a heart beat. Those shuttles have been tested through and through. Now what is happening is the nit picking over every little detail. I would guess that my 3 year old nissan quest is no where near as safe as that ship is.
Re:The Only Things? (Score:3, Interesting)
On August 10, 1519, the fleet of five ships under Magellan's command left Seville and traveled south from the Guadalquivir River to San Lucar de Barrameda at the mouth of the rivers, where they remained more than five weeks. Spanish authorities were wary of the Portuguese admiral and almost prevented Magellan from sailing, but on September 20, Magellan set sail from Sanlúcar de Barrameda with 270 men.
18 men returned to Seville with the Victoria in 1522
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Magellan#T
Re:The Only Things? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it's the "technical sophistication" that's the problem here. We make this stuff too hard to fly. If you look at this history of the program, the shuttle got it's initial funding because it was thought that it could fly every conceivable mission. That's like saying that you need a car that can carry people, haul dirt, and move cargo. Sorry, but we build different land-based vehicles for different tasks, so why not for space?
Personally, I find it interesting that most of the new designs on the board look like Max Faget's old Mercury design. KISS rocked in those days. If we could fly to the moon on barely more computing power than is in the watch on my wrist, do we really need all this sophistication to get to LEO?
Bahh, put it up and stop being pussies (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sick of this nancy boy, nurse ratchet mentality where there can be no risks in anything and when an accident does happen we have to spread the blame as much as possible. And I'm talking about society in general, not space flight.
The real reason the space program is doomed (Score:3, Interesting)
Manned space missions make plenty of sense from a scientific perspective, if your eventual goal is to put a significant number of people into space (and onto other bodies). But more on that later.
The reason that our space program is doomed is the second half of that statement. Manned space missions never made sense from an ecomonic perspective. That wasn't the point then, and it still isn't now. We're just not in a pissing match with the Soviets anymore, so the whole thing has become substantially less popular.
The point is discovery, knowledge, exploration, figuring out how to hedge our species' bets by getting all of our eggs out of this one fucking handbasket that we're already halfway to hell in.
You may not think that's worth the money, and you're well within your rights to do so. My worry is how many others in America seem to agree with you. Sure, that's democracy, but I can still decry the opinion.
What you might call pragmatism, I call a crying shame. All this civilization and advancement and the best we can do is worry about the fucking coffers.
Re:Spirit of exploration wins out over safety a lo (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There Anything Left? (Score:1, Interesting)
I lose sight of it often, because it's part of my every day life. But, the American public seems to massively support this.
This is galling (Score:1, Interesting)
What about fiberglass shell? (Score:3, Interesting)
Logically, I'd think Ceramic tiles are required considering that "rocks" / meteors are all that are found intact on Earth (from Space). However, the Earthling in me doesn't see a "rock space shuttle" as a practical alternative.
Re:The Only Things? (Score:3, Interesting)
Quite true. On the other hand, when even the budget of one craft design was cut dramatically partway through, how could they have afforded multiple craft designs?
The big problem is that reusable was seen as a big win. Sure, you'd have higher initial costs, but the incremental costs would be small - or so they thought. It was pictured that we could reduce maintenance costs down to very low levels that never materialized. With these "ultra-low cost" launches predicted, but with limited development funds, a "do it all" craft was seen as needed.
The next craft (CEV) won't be a "do-it-all" craft. But there are things that the shuttle does that nothing else does. For example, it is by far the largest dockable craft out there (the DART program will hopefully make automatic docking more of a reality). It also has by far the largest cargo return. Cargo return isn't just for "repair and relaunch", although that has been done, very economically, several times. It's not even about experiment return. It's also about things like junk and trash removal. Again, ongoing research may really help with this - inflatable reentry chutes, cables passing through earth's magnetic field, etc. But for now, the shuttle is the only/only realistic option for these tasks.
Re:I did, and it's still a waste. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlike our moon, the big red dead rock could potentially be a new colony for us. You may not care about that, but I personally enjoy the idea that man kind would no longer risk being completely obliterated by one nuclear war.
Re:The Only Things? (Score:1, Interesting)
That's like saying that automobiles are too dangerous to operate because of all the car crashes. Nobody put a gun to the astronaut's heads and forced them to launch. The people who fly on those things know the risks, and they accept them, or they would stay on the ground. If you think the Shuttle is too dangerous, don't launch in one! But if others are willing to brave it, don't take that away from them, and don't take away the Shuttle's benefits to society because you won't let those poor astronauts risk their own lives. I think the mistake you're making is, it's not up to you whether they risk it. It's up to them.
"assemble the equipment in low earth orbit with robots"
Great idea, get back to us on that when we have the technology AND it's cost effective. Say, 15 or 20 years. In the meantime, we'll work with what we have: people.
Re:Heck Yeah (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, like it or not, you've triggered a story:
When my sister was in Jr. High (which would've been 1979-1982 if I've done the math right), she had this woefully out of date science textbook. It had all kinds of crazy and laughable things in it, but the pinnacle was a little sidebar on space travel, which talked about the challenges man faced and what we had accomplished. The last sentence was intended to inspire students to dream about ever greater achievement and exploration. It read, "Who knows, someday man may even reach the moon."
Hey, well, good to know that education is such a priority that the powers that be are willing to spring for a new set of books every now and then.
Re:Definition of a non-story: (Score:5, Interesting)
It did not. It was an insulator, not a dissipator (and there are much better insulators out there). There is a huge difference. On the skin of your craft, you must radiate the heat away; there is no concievable way that you could simply insulate from the orbital energy that you build up.
Shuttle tiles are still the best thermal radiators in existence. The reason is that they use a ceramic which is a good radiator on its own, and have it be made of fine threads in a very porous style so that it has a huge surface area.
this sentence is missing something
Yeah, I noticed that after I posted. It should have continued "signed off as well".
still only on the first gen of a partially re-usable orbital launcher
Well, it has changed a lot since its original form, but yes. However, look at the development cost of the shuttle in modern dollars. Few military projects have that sort of budget (although a few do...). Then look at how much money the US military gets in comparison to NASA (a very sad fact, in my opinion). It's no real surprise
Re:Taking me with them (Score:2, Interesting)
The cost of going to space is NOT about the metal in the rocket- it is about the humans that support the activity- essentially overheads. Want to get to space cheap? Increase RATE. Overhead growth is small vs launch rate growth. If there was a "there" there in LEO for example then the demand might rise to the point where critical mass production thresholds would be crossed and even the cost of the hardware would collapse. Really rockets are MUCH MUCH simpler than aircraft- mostly they are big tanks with very simple turbomachines driving quite simple engines. Far simpler than a PW4000 engine on a modern jet. Avionics are laughably simple compared to a palm pilot- due to the quest for absolute reliability.
So the POTENTIAL for low cost flight to LEO and beyond is definitely there. We are just a wee bit away from the reality.