107 Cameras to Scan Discovery for Damage

neutron_p writes "We already know that NASA has prepared for space shuttle rescue mission if a crisis arises during Discovery's return to flight. NASA wants to avoid any risk, that's why they also installed 107 cameras which will film and photograph the orbiter's first two minutes of ascent from every angle scanning for pieces of insulation foam or ice fall off during the launch and strike the shuttle, the kind of damage that doomed its predecessor Columbia. Cameras will be installed around the launch pad and at distances of 6 to 60 kilometers (some 3.5 to 35 miles) away, as well as on board of two airplanes and on the shuttle itself."

Re:American miles?

[LordSnooty]

The key word is "some", in this case a synonym of "approximately".

Re:American miles?

[busman]

Yes, you are probably right, precision may not be needed,
but conversion between imperial and metric is ;-)

http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.met ric.02/ [cnn.com]

Flashback

[paiute]

One month after 9/11, I was in Logan, waiting to board a full-of-fuel 767 to London. The airport was crowded with uniformed police and troops from about five different organizations. They were packing firepower enough to defend East Boston from invasion by any nation smaller than France. And yet they stayed on the ground and I went into the air. This story gives me the same feeling: No matter how many cameras/guns there are on the ground, if it goes bad in flight, you're still fucked.

I realize there may have been air marshalls on board, still I would have felt better if one of the state troopers had lent me his Glock for the trip.

No, maybe they'll pay attention now

[Anonymous Coward]

This time around, ignoring signs of damage to a shuttle could actually get some NASA fuckwits fired.

Re:If severely damaged..

[cbelt3]

Yes, I'm aware of those basic facts. But it's design methods like this that have made NASA a hidebound organization. There is no flexibility. The direct cost of putting mass in orbit is completely buried in the Bureacracy and Bullsh*t that keeps the people on the ground busy.

Hey, I used to design stuff to NASA specs. I've been there. It's not the cost of the material, it's the cost of the bureacracy. You CAN solve the basic engineering problems associated with increased mass on the ISS. It was originally designed with shuttle parking in mind, at least back when it was conceptualized in the 70's and 80's.

But now that our Congress has saddled NASA with even more stupid rules and regulations, they are less and less likely to be creative with the resources they have. Hence the growth of the 'private' space industry.

Want proof ? Ok, here's my favourite example of rampant bureacracy. I worked for a small company that made satellite subsystems. We met with the lead contractor on this job. We had four engineers on our team. They came with 20 !

Their Thermal effects guy said "OK, we need to review this with your Thermal effects guy. Who is he ?" I raised my hand. And answered his questions.

Their Nuclear effects guy said "OK, we need to disuss Nuclear effects. Who do I talk to". I raised my hand, and gave the right info.

When you talk to NASA, you're talking to a horde of pencil pushers. Creativity is beaten out of these poor guys, and the lead scientists are so busy filling out this report and that that they can't get any real science done.

They need a good space race / space war to put the fire back in their bellies.

Oh, and they need the Germans back too.