Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Falling Window Cover Damages Discovery

Comments Filter:
  • Vulnerable (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fembots ( 753724 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @08:24PM (#13049167) Homepage
    If a fallen window cover can damage the space shuttle, isn't it very vulnerable once it's in the Space?
  • It Fell off? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @08:28PM (#13049194) Homepage Journal
    That is a problem by itsself.. this stuff shouldnt 'just fall off'..

    If it had come off in orbit, we might be going thru the loss of another crew on reentry.

  • Fallen window ... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sk999 ( 846068 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @08:32PM (#13049223)
    A falling window knocked out the shuttle? Geez, those things are supposed to keep the cabin pressurized in space, and one just fell out?

    ... oh wait, a window cover.

  • by r_cerq ( 650776 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @08:35PM (#13049248)
    Yeah, and if that same "God" had meant us to cross the oceans 500 years ago, he should have given European powers a couple of jets to avoid scurvy and mutinies out of boredom.

    Transportation technology and exploration missions have always started out with rudimentary technology, prone to risk and with lots of fatalities paving the way. Crossing the oceans, crossing the continents, going to the poles, the mountains and the abysses have always been dangerous undertakings, and we've gotten better at it over time. Space is just another frontier, and another learning curve.
  • by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @08:36PM (#13049254) Journal
    Here's the story I saw.
    Cockpit window falls from Discovery, hits engine pod [spaceflightnow.com]...
    Is this what you would call "sensationalistic"? Jeez, and I thought the Star was bad.
  • Re:Vulnerable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Inominate ( 412637 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @08:37PM (#13049256)
    "Damage" to the space shuttle is common.
    Heat tiles are frequently found to be missing when the shuttle lands. Small minor damage is not uncommon. What brought down columbia was more a case of a golden bb than anything else. (Plus it was a heavy object traveling quite fast)

    That said, space is a pretty easy environment to survive in. It's the part where you're burning a few thousand tons of explosives, and slowing down from 20,000mph using the atmosphere that are the dangerous parts.

    The damage that occured to the space shuttle here is trivial.
  • by Alex P Keaton in da ( 882660 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @08:39PM (#13049269) Homepage
    My dad, now retired, always talks about when they developed the space shuttle. (He was a SR VP of a space and defense contractor who also had a credit reporting business, so figure out which one...) They were trying to get NASA to go with a solid fuel rocket. You light it and it goes. 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.
    Why we have this complex, unbelieveably expensive shuttle, I will never know. Whether it is a car or a space craft, the more parts, the more that can go wrong....
    I hope that they replace this with a more reliable vehicle...
  • by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @08:42PM (#13049288) Homepage Journal
    Name something they brought down back from space that is worth all of the trouble we've gone through to glide back to Earth rather than parachute.

    Umm, money? It's a metric ass-ton cheaper than lighting off anything close to a conventional rocket that will disgard stages that you'll have no chance of recovering. Likewise, the orbiter comes back to you instead of having to hunt for it in the ocean (the largest landing zone on earth) with an aircraft carrier ($$$) or hunt for it in the back yard of some farmers house on land.

    Sure, it's time for an update, but it's also the most successful launch vehical in history with only 2 catastrophic failures over several hundred missions. Knock it all you want, but regardless, it's been a good ride.
  • by gardyloo ( 512791 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @08:48PM (#13049331)
    Some of my colleagues here have flown several times on one of the KC-135s that NASA has used (until it gets replaced relatively soon) for micro-g experiments. The testing that their research equipment had to go through to even be allowed on the flights were really very rigorous. Each aluminum stay had to withstand so much torque, each bolt had to be tightened just so, the electronics had to take such-and-such a shock, tools have to have velcro on them, and the frame had to have so much of the opposite-gender velcro so that things could be anchored, etc.
    What amazed everyone is that one group was not required to pressure-test their pressurized vessel, and a window blew out during one of the flights, sending nice bits of glass all over. Now, how can all of these other (arguably over-specified) aspects of the experiments be so rigidly-controlled (with carefully-worded protocols for everything), and they leave out PRESSURE TESTING GLASS WINDOWS?
  • True, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@yahoGINSBERGo.com minus poet> on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @08:49PM (#13049338) Homepage Journal
    ...it does indicate a slight... negligence on the part of the engineers doing the final prep work. Right about now, I'd be inspecting the shuttle for all the things that the engineers DIDN'T come clean over. (People treading on something fragile, that sort of thing.)


    So, true, the Shuttle isn't falling apart at the seams. However, the indication is that the engineers either rushed some of the prep work or failed to set adequate precautions in place. In either case, they may have messed up elsewhere and not said.


    If you were up there, knowing that the world's media was focussed on your every twitch, knowing that any delay would finish any chance of you having a future but that any unconfessed and unobserved error on your part would be utterly untracable, would you be willing to take the fall?


    Given that kind of pressure, I'm not confident that other accidents haven't happened. All I can do is HOPE they haven't and that NASA will take the time to verify as best they can in the time that they haven't.

  • by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) * on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @08:57PM (#13049400) Homepage Journal
    Why we have this complex, unbelieveably expensive shuttle, I will never know.

    One of the major reasons it's expensive is due to unethical space contractors who charged up the wazoo, such as the company that your dad worked for.

    This is often done after the bidding process is over, and sometimes companies do this after the project is well underway, and hold the project hostage until NASA agrees to the new fees. NASA often didn't have much choice in these sorts of practices, and it was already too late for other companies to bid on the project.

    So, maybe your dad can tell us why so many space and defense contracts are so fucking expensive.

    And yes, I agree that NASA probably could be more cost efficient. But it's not like they're selling cookies-- many free market principles don't really apply when you're doing something massive like building massive space vehicles, and when only 1 or 2 organizations can do it at all.
  • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:12PM (#13049498) Homepage
    In fact, to further that point, I used to work at Rockwell-Collins, which was mandated to use very strict time reporting procedures while I was there. Why? They were caught (thankfully!) after several years pulling one over on the government with the Shuttle contract. Whenever any Rockwell project ran overbudget, they charged the hours to the Shuttle. There were so many people working on the shuttle project that even with all of that "dot the i's and cross the t's" paperwork that NASA is famous for, they still couldn't prove that the company was cheating them for several years. Eventually they got a full audit, Rockwell got punished, etc.
  • by mclaincausey ( 777353 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:14PM (#13049504) Homepage
    could the inclement weather have had something to do with the item falling off? Some pretty stiff winds there...
  • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:20PM (#13049552) Homepage
    Not only that, but so many here seem to have the following stupid notion: that you can just "toss junk out the window" in space, or whatnot. To get junk off of, say, ISS, you have to apply significant delta-V to it. That means, bare minimum, you'd have to develop a rocket system that is safe to operate near ISS, and a way to load your trash/experiments into. Soyuz can't keep up with ISS waste; it's cargo return is minimal.

    I don't have the exact numbers offhand as to how many satellites (let alone tons of waste) the shuttle has returned, but I recall that it was in the range of 30-40 (many of those being experiment satellites whose design was to have them returned - engineering reentry survival into all of them would have cost an utter fortune).

    As for "glide back to earth rather than parachute", I think you should ask the crews of Soyuz 23 or Soyuz 18-1 what they think of parachute landings. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that making capsules reusable is a lot harder than spacecraft, because there's almost always some deformation (and/or saltwater corrosion, depending on the landing site) on impact.
  • by Oriumpor ( 446718 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:24PM (#13049582) Homepage Journal
    It does say much to the integrity of the entire shuttle that something as small as a thin-plastic window cover can damage the shuttle's heat shielding. What if, oh I don't know, a seagull hit the shuttle during liftoff?

  • by cdrudge ( 68377 ) * on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:43PM (#13049714) Homepage
    What are they worried about - falling birds?
    Some engineer spent several hours cleaning the windows with Windex and putting Rain-X on. The last thing they want to do on a million mile roadtrip is to leave with a dirty windshield.

    Seriously though, they are there likely for enviromental protection. The shuttle sits outside for close to a month and in that time, it likely will rain, possibly hail, dust, acid rain, etc.
  • Re:Ironic & scary (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Beolach ( 518512 ) <beolach&juno,com> on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:52PM (#13049751) Homepage Journal
    Actually, while I don't think it's the case here, often things that are designed for high speeds have troubles when standing still. Just one example, the SR-71 Blackbird's fuel tanks expand due to the heat produced by air friction when it's in flight. The way they were designed relies on the fuel tanks expanding - when it lands, its fuel tanks contract as they cool, and often have problems leaking fuel, so the fuel has to be drained ASAP after landing, so it isn't wasted.
  • RFID tags on tiles (Score:2, Interesting)

    by brian0918 ( 638904 ) <brian0918.gmail@com> on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @10:46PM (#13050062)
    Why don't they put RFID tags on all the tiles? A cheap solution, and they'll know the instant one of them is removed or severely damaged.
  • by Mr. Maestro ( 876173 ) * on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @11:17PM (#13050215)
    The guys who ran NASA in the sixties must be rolling over in their graves. They ran a safe ship, to be sure. But they also KNEW that space flight was an dangerous business.
    They accepted this risk because of the rewards of doing things like going to the moon. Now however, where is the reward in seeing a routine shuttle complete it's flight plan?
    Don't get me wrong, I am a big proponet of manned space flight. I think an astronaut, (and the public) were accepting that someone could die attempting to land on the moon.
    But to die attempting to er..um..uhh...The average joe isn't sure what the shuttle is doing besides going up and down. (sometimes)
  • by zippthorne ( 748122 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @11:18PM (#13050219) Journal
    I can remember a couple of holds for "flocks of birds" over the no-fly area and one for moron in a cessna who got too close. FYI they scramble fighters for that kind of thing. I think one actually had to be scrubbed because of a boat in the no-boating area. When I used to go down to see the launches it was about 50/50 whether they would launch that day or not..

    As long as there aren't any birds immediately surrounding, I think they're above "seagull flight ceiling" pretty quick.

The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.

Working...