Discovery's Dangling Gapfiller Removed by Hand 401
Cyclotron_Boy writes "According to the New Scientist and NASA TV, Discovery's gap-fillers were removed successfully by hand by astronaut Steve Robinson earlier today during the eva. They didn't even have to use the forceps or the makeshift hacksaw-blade tool."
PR Stunt (Score:2, Interesting)
From what I understand, this type of thing is normal, and the filler stuff tends to peel out on every flight, and it's basically designed to that.
The whole thing just seems so staged. But if it keeps the shuttle from a-sploding, then good for them, I suppose.
Re:seems disconcerting (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the tiles thermally expand or contract very little compared to the orbiter structure, it is necessary to leave gaps of 25 to 65 mils between them to prevent tile-to-tile contact. Nomex felt material insulation is required in the bottom of the gap between tiles. It is referred to as a filler bar.
Re:Futurama.. (Score:3, Interesting)
It might also be that once it was up safely and the external tank was away (and it's video feed cut out) there wasn't much more to see. On NASA TV (via the web) at that point they went back to covering Jeb and Laura Bush (who i will point out got lots of coverage on NASA TV BEFORE the lauch too). They "tuned out" because there was little left to see.
Re:Seems the prideful route... (Score:1, Interesting)
1., Shuttle load is 7 people. Soyuz capacity is 3 people and on of them must be a russian who knows how to control the capsule. So it would take four extra Soyuz launches to get the entire Shuttle crew back to Earth. That takes a lot of time, there aren't enough ready-made Soyuz units in storage now.
There is also some stupid law in USA that bans NASA from paying to russians, because of Iran animosity. So people would have to collect money in hats on NY streets to have a fund transfer to Russia to finance the bringing back of the seven shuttle astronauts.
Meanwhile they can make their living aboard the ISS by washing dishes and polishing shoes. Female shuttle crew members may pursue another profession as well. Just don't tell Dubya and his christian silent majority about the Three Dolphin Club 8-)
2., Soyuz capsules are not resuable, they are only good for museum display after having been launched and returned to Earth a single time.
3., US Space Shuttle cannot land on full-automatic. At least the two pilots need to be onboard. The landing gear can't be opened remotely. Only the soviet Space Shuttle copycat "Buran" could (and did) fly unmanned, automatically. That was back in 1988 and Buran is no longer flight-worthy.
The sooner danger and death (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry but way more people died travelling to california when america was being explored. We have become so risk averse it is paralyzing us.
It may just be that the best we can hope for is 1/50 blows up. Do we give up space so we can save a few lives when millions die without purpose everyday to allergic reactions, cancer, stupid accidents, animal attacks, religious stupidity, stupid stunts, hazing, beer chugging, etc?
I'm sure many astronauts would accept a higher risk if it meant they could fulfill their purpose and go into space. How terrible it must be to train for many years and then watch all your dreams disappear in a suspended program.
Re:I don't understand.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Bah (Score:2, Interesting)
If it moves and shouldn't use the duct tape. If it doesn't move and should use the WD-40.
Plus if you have a lighter you can make some really cool pyrotechnic displays with only those tools.
If you still needed proof of the lemon, here it is (Score:5, Interesting)
What's so tragically funny here is that, in the book, a NASA rep is quoted as saying "the shuttle isn't a lemon" right after the CAIB report pretty much said NASA was flying a platform that was not only unreasonable unsafe, but also one having such serious design flaws as to be much less safe than necessary. Spaceflight may never be as safe as an airplane ride, but the level of risk associated with the shuttle is just much more than it could've been with a better design.
Disocover magazine had a lengthy article about twenty years ago on how the shuttle was developed, and it was an amazing insight into how so many compromises can add up to a vehicle that is not only hugely different than what was originally invented, but also one that just doesn't do anything really well. The cargo capacity was too small. It can't achieve high orbits. It lands as an unpowered glider with a glide ratio of a brick wall. It has solid boosters that can't be throttled, trimmed, or turned off. There is no practical escape or abort manuver during the most dangerous parts of the flight (launch & re-entry). Worst of all, it's designed in such a fashion that there are an amazing number of "criticality-1" items. If a crit-1 item fails, it will result in "loss of mission, crew, and vehicle." The shuttle system has several thousand crit-1 items. To the average I.T. geek, that's like running a few thousand servers, each holding billions of dollars worth of data, and not having any redundant hard drives, power supplies, or UPS's. In other words, madness.
There isn't a single solitary thing the shuttle does better than the Apollo-era capsules it was supposed to replace. Launch costs for the shuttle were supposed to be 1/10th those of the throwaway boosters, but instead they are more than ten times what the Saturn V cost in adjusted dollars.
So, to sum it up, the shuttle is more expensive, less reliable, less capable, and more dangerous than its predecessor. Yeah, gimme more of that.
The ISS is also a boondoggle for many of the same reasons. Why do we have a shuttle fleet? To build the space station, of course! Why are we building a space station? To give the shuttles somewhere to go, of course! It's a circular argument. No shuttle equals no station, and no station equals no shuttle. No wonder NASA has its head so far up its exhaust nozzles it can't see the shuttle is an amazing failure. To admit failure would be to kill off the two biggest projects the organization has.
As has been said elsewhere here, our technology is just not yet at the point where something like the shuttle is practical. We just don't have the propulsion and materials to do it just yet. What we should be doing instead is using the best practical technologies out there, namely BDB's (Big Dumb Boosters). The aren't sexy, but they work, and they can haul a cubic buttload of cargo into orbit -- or beyond.
Unfortunately, I have the sinking feeling NASA is going to have to kill another seven astronauts before they finally, regrettably put the shuttle to bed. It was a good try, but you have to be able to admit when you are wrong. Build us a modern version of the Saturn V. With modern materials and modern computers, it could be made more cheaply and even more reliable than before, probably with more lift capacity as well. Make it so it does one thing very well. We don't need a Swiss Army knife of a shuttle to get into space, not when you've got much better proven technologies that are already available. NASA can get this right. The big question is, will they?
Re:If you still needed proof of the lemon, here it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Seems the prideful route... (Score:3, Interesting)
The gear and doors are mechanically connected so that if the gear door opens, the gear must come down. If it does not, there are explosives that will force the doors open and the gear down. That's how important it is.
There is no gear retraction mechanism switch because there is no need to be able to raise the gear again and the system would be just dead weight. The gear comes down only in the last seconds before landing.
Re:If you still needed proof of the lemon, here it (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the end of the Cold War many have over estimated how good, the simple reliable Russian system were. They had some good designs, but they have had alot of utter crap.
Re:If you still needed proof of the lemon, here it (Score:4, Interesting)
The SR-71 can maintain Mach 3 (the aircraft can fly Mach 3.3 what limitations in the handbook has yet to be declassified) while the Mig-25 can only fly at 2.83 for limited amounts of time. The SR-71 has a range of 2,900 miles unrefueled, while the Mig-25 has 537 miles in the same conditions. The SR-71 routinely flew at 80,000ft, while the Mig-25 had a maximum service altitude of just over 67,000ft.
How much the Mig-25 actually cost to develop and produce is unknown, just going by the cost per an aircraft is not a accurate measure because the Russian Air Force already ate the cost of the aircraft development, while when you talk about cost per an aircraft in US circles, we talk about total cost of the project divided by the number of aircraft produced. Which is why many aircraft top a billion per an aircraft.
Re:Futurama.. (Score:3, Interesting)
The other thing I was annoyed by was the constant repetition of "dangerous EVA" by the "news" media this morning. "It's dangerous and hazardous and risky, oh my!" Despite the fact that we've never had an EVA accident or injury EVER, and that these guys train for it like Lance Armstrong trains on his bike, it's somehow "risky". Given their frequent flyer miles, I'd say the EVA and fixing this was far less "risky" than my drive into work this morning.
So, the big question is: are NASA higherups telling the PR flacks to "pimp the danger, we need public interest in this shuttle mission so we get more funding?"