Falling Window Cover Damages Discovery 360
Mz6 writes "At 5:30PM EDT, one of the space shuttle's protective window covers fell and
struck the left Orbital Maneuvering System engine pod on Discovery today. The window cover hit the carrier panel around the OMS pod. NASA is taking a new panel to the launch pad to replace the one hit by the falling cover. NASA is expected to know by 7 PM EDT if the replacement panel will work and whether launch can proceed tomorrow as planned. The window cover in question is from one of the overhead windows. It fell on its own, not when workers were handling it. The cover was found after it had fallen and hit the orbiter. In addition to the carrier panel that workers plan to replace tonight, engineers are looking for any other damage." Update: 07/13 02:03 GMT by T : RmanB17499 points out a CNN story according to which "the launch of the space shuttle Discovery will go ahead as scheduled Wednesday after technicians replaced two protective tiles damaged near the spacecraft's tail Tuesday, a NASA spokeswoman said."
Already fixed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It Fell off? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong. Both stages of the lunar lander used liquid fuel -- hypergolic (self-igniting) propellants. More on that here [nasa.gov].
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:4, Informative)
Best dual-purpsose heavy-lifter and crew transport? Well, yeah.
But it's not a good enough heavy lifter that it replaced rockets. And it's not a good enough crew transport that everyone else is trying to build one.
I've heard that some of the shuttle engineers even balked when told of their budget cuts. They argued--quite rightly--that doing it right the first time would save money over the long run.
If only, if only, if only.
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:5, Informative)
When the they designed the lunar lander, they had to have something that would work 100% to get off the moon, and they used... a solid fuel rocket.
No, the lunar lander used liquid-fueled engines, powered by nitrogen tetroxide and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, for both the ascent and descent stages.
More information on the lunar module [wikipedia.org] and the fuels it used [astronautix.com] is widely available, as is information on thier development [nasa.gov].
Problem is fixed and they're go for launch (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:5, Informative)
In comparison the Saturn V had a lift capacity of 118,000 kg to low Earth orbit vs. 28,800 kg for the Space Shuttle.
I agree the shuttle and Saturn V were made for different purposes, but I do believe if you are strictly dealing with putting stuff in orbit the Saturn had lower cost per kilogram. That comparison isn't really worth much because it ignores the flexibility of the Space Shuttle and its uses beyond just shuttling cargo.
Re:Protective Windows (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:3, Informative)
Look here [answers.com] for a cutaway diagram where you can see both the fuel and oxidizer tanks on the LEM.
More about both fuel and oxidizer here [astronautix.com]
The need to use o-rings in the SRBs was because of pork-barrelling the contract. The winning contractor (Morton Thiokol) had to fabricate the boosters in sections so they could be shipped by barge, rather than fabricating them in one piece, which would have eliminated the o-ring that failed.Re:It fell on its own? (Score:3, Informative)
NASA did go with a solid fuel rocket. 2 of them, actually. That's what the booster rockets are. SRBs. Solid Rocket Boosters. Once they're lit, there's no way to turn them off.
I saw a program on rocket science, and they indicated that the use of solid fuel is virtually mandatory in order to achieve the fuel energy density required to lift the fuel itself plus a payload into space. Almost every launch program out there relies on solid fuel for at least part of the launch. Those that don't either don't need to reach the higher altitudes, don't weigh much, or are experiments in how to shake the dependence on solid fuel (mainly due to its rather significant drawback of not being able to be turned "off" once lit).