Space Shuttle One Step Closer To July Launch 92
Mictian writes "The risk to the space shuttle from launch debris, mainly ice falling off the external tank, has been reduced and is now low enough to be considered 'an acceptable risk,' NASA's shuttle engineers and managers concluded in the debris verification meeting held Saturday at Kennedy Space Center. The board recommended a green light for a July launch, which Shuttle Program Manager Bill Parsons accepted. The independent Return to Flight Task Group will hold its final meeting on June 27th to determine if the remaining 3 (out of 15) hurdles to launch are cleared, as mentioned in previous Slashdot coverage."
Re:Successor to the shuttle? (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Veh
More info (Score:4, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4622243.stm/ [bbc.co.uk]
The only major problem NASA faces with regards to the shuttle is its planned retirement date. Put simply, if weather,mechanical and indeed financial conditions permitted the maximum amount of Shuttle launchs the International Space Station would still not be completed.
Re:The risk of ice falling has been reduced! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Successor to the shuttle? (Score:5, Informative)
X-33: Al Gore/Dan Goldin/Lockeed Martin 1996. A reusable space vehicle. Like the shuttle New engine, thermal systems, internal structure, ground processing, guidance, navigation and control. First flight March 1999. X-33 had a liquid hydrogen tank failure in 1999. Forced heavy tank redesign. In 2003 the program was 5 years behind schedule. Funding was stopped and put towards the Space Launch Initiative. (SLI) NASA and Lockheed spent 1 billion + on the project.
X-34: Suborbital technology demonstrator to go 50 miles up at mach 8. Test bed for hight tech/low cost. Reusable fast-rack engine. Fast track engineering failed. Flight test in 1999 failed to happen. By late 2000 it was in a 2 year delay. Eventually program was scrapped.
SLI(space launch initiative): 4.8B thought 2006. Work with industry to develop a privately owned reusable launch vehicle. Basically keep using first generation shuttle while developing second generation craft.
X-37: Reusable technology demonstrator. Test variety of space flight concepts. 2 vehicles would be built. An atmospheric test vehicle and one to be tested in space released from shuttle. Weight requirement failures caused air-force to abandon program. Too heavy now needs atlas V or delta IV. X-37 has wings but NASA now taking capsule approach.
X-43: Scram-jet test. This was successful. Though, capsule approach likely to be used now. One of the few X projects to actually succeed.
X-38: AACRV -- assured crew return vehicle. Basically a lifeboat for ISS. Only goes on way...down to earth. This project did not depend on new technology like many other x projects. Successful drop test of craft in 2000. Many other tests successful. One of the few successful x projects. Not deployed because it was dependent on ISS and could only go one way...down. So, cancelled in 2002.
OSP: Orbital Space Plane. 2003. Carry 4 crew to and from ISS. Shuttle blows up again. NASA mission changed for vehicle that would goto ISS and *beyond* earth orbit.
CEV: being designed. But uses current technology. Designed to goto ISS and to moon. Capsule design
So, there has been much research to a shuttle replacement. Looks like they are going to use existing technologies and get away from 'space/plane' type of designs with questionable technologies.
Re:In the Sixties... (Score:5, Informative)
Now NASA is going with "eh, it seems like an acceptable risk" but you know the folks that say that are thinking "as long as I'm not the one on that shuttle".
I'd like to let everyone know that nobody has this attitude at NASA. The astronauts are not some faceless people we are packing into the orbiter, they are our coworkers, friends, and families.
We eat lunch with these people, we share late nights at labs and in Mission Control with them, we have parties with them, they live next door to us, our kids go to school together. Several of my friends or their spouses are astronauts.
I make decisions at my job that can affect their safety everyday, and I never take it lightly. Just like you would not put your buddy at work into a hazardous situation if you could avoid it (well, spaceflight by definition is hazardous, so let's just say we try to keep the risk as low as humanly possible).
Many years ago I was conducting a training session for a crew member I knew pretty well. During a break, he waved me over to talk with his wife (who just popped in) and a guy in a nice suit, he needed me for something.
It was a NASA attorney. The flight was 4 weeks away, and they needed a witness for his will. It was a very somber moment to hear that being read aloud with his wife there, knowing that he was about to strap himself onto a flying bomb. Of course, the risk to him was just something that was part of the job, just like when he was in the military.
These folks know the risk they are taking (and boy, do they hate it when the press implies that flying is "too dangerous"), willingly accept it, and we all knock ourselves out making sure we do everything we can to keep them safe.
X-33 VentureStar (Score:2, Informative)