eldavojohn writes "An electrical short cause the space shuttle Atlantis to be delayed since a lightning strike to the pad and Tropical Storm Ernesto caused delays. From the article:
'Liftoff was only hours away Wednesday morning when engineers reported a short in one of three fuel cells that supplies electricity for all the on-board systems, including the crew compartment.' It also points out that 'The faulty cell is currently operational even with the short. But after the 2003 Columbia disaster, which killed all seven astronauts, NASA says it has adopted an aggressive, safety-conscious approach to launching.' It causes one to wonder whether pre-Columbia-disaster NASA would have just replaced the fuel cell on the fly without telling anyone — and whether or not that is an ethically sound choice."
Dell has identified a potential issue associated with certain batteries sold with the NASA Shuttle(TM) series. In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and other regulatory agencies, Dell is voluntarily recalling certain Dell-branded batteries with cells manufactured by Sony and offering free replacements for these batteries. Under rare conditions, it is possible for these batteries to overheat, which could pose a risk of fire, explosion, or firey death.
It's not that they didn't fix it. They tried. There's only so much you can do to the ET to fix this problem. This is what happens when you use Cryo fuels. Even with the improvements that were made, when you have the FL humidity freezing on the side of your tank, it has a tendency to work itself into the cracks, expand and then the vibration of launch shakes it loose.
I think NASA has come to the realization that space craft don't need to land like aircraft and that space vehicles need to be designed for launching to and operating in space and not for the landing which is what the shuttle was designed for. Also, modern day astronauts could care less about the space vehicle handling like a airplane (which is what the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts wanted).
Thanks for that info. Between the state of the shuttle program and the state of Slashdot, I didn't know whether this was an old article, a dupe or Yet Another Shuttle Delay.
The moon landing was real, at least in my view... the U.S. had a do anything spirit up through the 1960s with some of that flowing over into the early 70s. Major projects invisioned / started around the late 1950s / 1960s...
* World Trade Center Complex in NYC
* Supersonic Concord
* U.S. Interstate system
* The Internet
* The Space Shuttle
Much of what is holding back progress these days in the U.S. is the lack of will, not technology.
The problem is filling out the paperwork in triplicate. They may have enough time to safely repair the shuttle for launch, thye just don't have the time to do all the paperwork. This is why private space endeavors are they way of the future.
The problem is filling out the paperwork in triplicate. They may have enough time to safely repair the shuttle for launch, thye just don't have the time to do all the paperwork. This is why private space endeavors are they way of the future.
So you would be quite happy with the batteries being replaced with a cheaper alternative which might work almost as well because the savings made will increase share dividends.
Both of those incidents could have happened either to a private or publically owned company - they all boil down to negligence of which there is plenty in both the private and public sector and it doesn't really make your argument one way or the other!
The Hatfield rail crash was a railway accident that occurred on 17 October 2000, at Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK. Although the accident had a low death toll in comparison to other railway incidents in British history, Hatfield's historical significance has become much greater, since it demonstrated many of the flaws present in the mid 1990s privatisation of the British railway system and ultimately triggered its partial renationalisation.
As someone who was a civil servant and now works in the private sector (my job was sold) I have seen both sides of the fence. I'm not saying that the public sector is better, but I know that the private sector has just as many problems and is not a panacea. In very broad brush terms the public sector tends to err on the side of caution, and hence fail to achieve anything, the private sector is so profit driven that it cuts too many corners. I know which attitude I want behind me if I ever fly on the shuttle.
As long as they test it properly after replacement, what's the problem?
One article I saw said the faulty pump is between the payload bay and the heat shield of the spacecraft. You would have to disassemble the whole stack and much of the orbiter to replace one little motor. That might be six months of work and if you think you can get by safely without this motor it may be worth the risk.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday September 08 2006, @06:37AM (#16065202)
CBC radio is saying it's on for today. This is in spite of the fact that the chief safety officer objects. They say they can go with only two fuel cells and don't need the third one. The spokesman I heard said that replacing the fuel cell had its own risks. Could this thing be so complicated that they can never get the whole thing working at the same time?
It's complex system. You often see similar issues with modern jet aircraft. There are so many things than can degrade or fail that it is unusual for 100% of the systems to be working perfectly. You end up making a list of what systems must be working before takeoff. That's also why there are redundant systems. You don't want to be in a situation where you are one failure away from a catastrophe. You don't want to be running on a single fuel cell. With two fuel cells, you can lose one, abort the mission and
"With three fuel cells, you can lose one and safely continue the mission."
No you can't. Every mission that's lost one fuel cell has been brought back early, because they can't risk losing another.
Given how heavy the current payload is, you seriouly don't want to have to bring it back to Earth unless you really, really have to (e.g. an early engine failure during the launch where there's no alternative).
CBC radio is saying it's on for today. This is in spite of the fact that the chief safety officer objects. They say they can go with only two fuel cells and don't need the third one. The spokesman I heard said that replacing the fuel cell had its own risks. Could this thing be so complicated that they can never get the whole thing working at the same time?
From the looks of it, it might be another 24 hours (credit to CNN the bias news source):
The scheduled late-morning liftoff of space shuttle Atlantis
...why, exactly, our country's spaceport is still located in a state known for nothing so much as lightning and storms? I'm silly enough to live in Florida right now too, but I'd be moving even sooner if I had a multimillion dollar vehicle parked in my garage. Everything seems to point to Florida's climate worsening throughout the foreseeable future.
Ha, I'm just kidding. Congress would love to see NASA inoperable so they can go back to spending money on bridges to nowhere (Thanks, Ted Stevens!)
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday September 08 2006, @06:42AM (#16065220)
"why, exactly, our country's spaceport is still located in a state known for nothing so much as lightning and storms?"
Uh...because being as close to the equator as possible has advantagous trajectory characteristics for many important orbits and with a trajectory heading eastward one needs to be on the east coast so as to minimize time over land while still at low altitudes?
why, exactly, our country's spaceport is still located in a state known for nothing so much as lightning and storms?
Ummm because its in the extreme south east of the country. Launches to the north give you a high inclination orbit. Launches further west expose landmass to bits of spacecraft in the event of an abort.
I could suggest that they launch from Cape York [wikipedia.org] but the weather is pretty bad [wikipedia.org] in that general area as well.
The spaceport is located in Florida at least partially for two reasons: (1) the extreme easterly location means that launches in the direction of Earth's rotation are over water, reducing hazards for persons and property on the ground. (2) it's closer than most states on America's mainland to the equator, which makes for more efficient launches (more payload can be lifted into a given orbit).
You save a huge amount of money if you launch from a geographic location that is near the equator, heading east (so you get the benefit of the Earth's rotation, which saves fuel and allows for an increased payload), and is far enough away from people that you don't get bits of rocket landing in residential areas if it all goes wrong. Being near the equator also puts you in a good position for a geostationary orbit.
>a state known for nothing so much as lightning and storms?
And oranges. It's a well kept secret that rocket fuel is actually distilled orange juice. What colour is the shuttle's fuel tank? Orange. To hide the leaks.
..or maybe it's the Goa'uld Ha'tak mothership sitting a couple hundred miles above Port Canaveral preventing the launch. You can fool me Nasa, I watch television.
Dude, get over it. They blew up the Goauld ships two (three?) seasons ago. Colonel (now General) O'Neil used the Ancient Control Chair they found in Antartica. He can control it because he has a special gene. It shoots these really cool yellow drones.
There's very little likelyhood the lightning strike is directly connected to the fuel cell problem.
It's not a "short". Everything isnt a "short". A shorted fuel cell would be totally unusable.
NASA, now or then, can't replace the fuel cell without major trouble-- the whole thing has to be taken back to the assembly building, anything in the cargo bay has to be unloaded, the cargo bay floor has to be taken up-- major hassle. Not something that can be done on the Q.T.
The shuttle has *three* fuel cells, so it's not a major problem if one is acting a teensy bit unusual.
There are plenty of safety issues with *not* launching, parts tend to age quickly when out in the humid Florida sun. It's not clear that delaying launch is a ssafety improvement.
"The shuttle has *three* fuel cells, so it's not a major problem if one is acting a teensy bit unusual."
But if one stops working, then mission rules say they have to return to Earth within a couple of days in case another one stops working. It just seems bizarre to me that the new supposedly 'safety-conscious' NASA is going to fly with a possibly duff fuel cell and possibly duff fuel tank sensors, apparently because 'it's never caused a disaster before'.
If Apollo 12 (and the lighting strike) were to happen under the current safety-focused NASA brass, its likely that NASA would have ordered an immediate abort without even considering what went wrong with the CSM (or failing that, ordered some kind of abort from earth orbit in case something fried)
I've always wondered how things that cost millions and millions can be so shaky. I kind of understand, but it just seems odd that their hardware is so sensitive.
It's just the total complexity of the system. Most successful systems are simple enought hat, at some level, one person (such as Woz) can understand the whole system; and the purts on which that system are well understood and well characterised. In the se of the Shuttle, there too many parts, and too many of the parts are designed for that system alone, for anyone to understand the whole thing.
It's not that it's a "shaky" piece of hardware, per se. It's just there are SO MANY points of failure, and after a few really bad problems, they've learned to be almost overly cautious with every failure.
An electrical supply on the ground goes down, you're fine. You just wait for a new one. An electical supply goes down in space, it's likely you're going to face serious challenges just staying alive.
It causes one to wonder whether pre-Columbia-disaster NASA would have just replaced the fuel cell on the fly without telling anyone -- and whether or not that is an ethically sound choice.
Sorry, but who cares?
Was that a questioning of their historical policies having been ethically sound? Ummm...
Well here goes my positive karma.
The summary asks if it would be ethical to replace the cell or not without telling anybody. Who does the author want them to tell?
The only people who have an ethical need to know the conditions of the shuttle and the risks associated with them are the crew in the shuttle and the ground crew. These people, the crew in particular, are taking the risks and making the decisions. These two groups of people are likely to know anyway, astronauts, especially the flight crew, tend to be technical people, it goes with the job. Read about the boring parts of an astronaut's job, including hundreds of hours getting to know the details of the shuttle and the booster assembly. It is often said Murphy was an aircraft engineer, astronauts know this. Space travel is risky and can be dangerous. From Florida to orbit and back is hell on materials, electronics and mechanics. The decision to go or not go under a set of conditions belongs to the crew on the shuttle and the ground crew.
Any errors in grammar, spelling and tone are due to my uncaffinated state. Getting my breakfast apple and Dew now.
No, it does not cause me to wonder, it causes YOU to wonder. Please leave the passive-voice editorializing out of this... or was this a feeble attempt by an Editor to actually edit?
The shuttle Atlantis is set for liftoff from NASA's Kennedy Space Center at 11:41 a.m. EDT this morning. This "news post" is a little delayed. See NASA Launch Blog [nasa.gov] and NASA Online TV for up-to-date info.
It's not a short in the fuel cell. Its a short in 1 phase of a 3 phase pump motor that supplies coolant to the fuel cell. The pump is currently limping along on 2 phases. If this pump looses another phase, it will be unable to pump and the fuel cell must be shutdown within 9 minutes. With the loss of 1 fuel cell, the mission must be aborted, and shuttle return to earth. Nasa has said in the past that it would be unsafe to retreve the hubble and bring it back to earth because of its weight causing problems du
The poster of the above comment is a friend of mine, aside from being a pre-space shuttle space program junkie and also a big fan of apollo 12, and he explains the above post as this (over IM):
HIM: man, im a fucking dork. ME: how's that? HIM: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=196049 &cid=16065585 [slashdot.org] HIM: gotta read the story HIM: problem is, no one at/. is gonna get it. HIM: basically, like 90 seconds into the apollo 12 flight it was hit by lightning and the entire computer stopped working HIM: the fix was a switch labled SCE, and to flip it to aux to basically power cycle the computer. ME: heh ME: you know your shit. HIM: Apollo 12 is the shit. HIM: its my specialty. HIM: haha HIM: im *that* guy on/. that has a absurd amount of knowedge about one small area of things that are discussed. HIM: and its useless information.
I figured those of us who haven't spent weeks in the Air and Space museum, or read the audio transcripts from all available NASA flights, would want an explanation.
They should make a Star Trek show that is realistic. The crew never fights other species, but instead are constantly doing maintenance work on the ship. The whole show takes place only 200 miles from Earth because that's as far as they can go before something goes wrong.
It can start off with a captains log, but there's a computer error, so he never gets to complete it. Instead he calls IT to fix the problem. While that's going on the viewer is taken to the engine room where there are all sorts of problems.
I see it as a drama/comedy. There could even be a sick bay that is constantly busy, but the doctors have enough time to have love triangles and all sorts of personal drama amongst the already suspensful disasters.
Instead of speculating, ask or look it up. They began to move it back to the building before Ernesto, but reversed course because it would almost certainly mean that they'd miss their launch window. Missing a launch window has serious costs associated with it; the faster the shuttles launch, the cheaper payload delivered by the shuttle is because most of the shuttle costs are constant, not per-launch. As a consequence, it's often worth it to weather the numerous weaker Florida storms, even if it risks th
Fuel Cell Supplier (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fuel Cell Supplier (Score:4, Funny)
Dell has identified a potential issue associated with certain batteries sold with the NASA Shuttle(TM) series. In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and other regulatory agencies, Dell is voluntarily recalling certain Dell-branded batteries with cells manufactured by Sony and offering free replacements for these batteries. Under rare conditions, it is possible for these batteries to overheat, which could pose a risk of fire, explosion, or firey death.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Nasa were smart and paid for onsite maintenance.
If only. (Score:4, Funny)
Great timing there... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great timing there... (Score:5, Informative)
it really pays to check a primary source. like
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/in
Parent
Re:Great timing there... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think NASA has come to the realization that space craft don't need to land like aircraft and that space vehicles need to be designed for launching to and operating in space and not for the landing which is what the shuttle was designed for. Also, modern day astronauts could care less about the space vehicle handling like a airplane (which is what the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts wanted).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Tad unfair (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Major projects invisioned / started around the late 1950s / 1960s...
* World Trade Center Complex in NYC
* Supersonic Concord
* U.S. Interstate system
* The Internet
* The Space Shuttle
Much of what is holding back progress these days in the U.S. is the lack of will, not technology.
Ron
If it's broken ... (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as they test it properly after replacement, what's the problem?
Re:If it's broken ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:If it's broken ... (Score:4, Insightful)
For those who insist that the private sector is always preferable my I remind you what happened to the Herald of Free Enterprise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herald_of_Free_Enterp rise [wikipedia.org] or, for that matter, how much better UK trains are running in the Hatfield area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield_rail_crash [wikipedia.org] since privatisation.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If it's broken ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:If it's broken ... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
One article I saw said the faulty pump is between the payload bay and the heat shield of the spacecraft. You would have to disassemble the whole stack and much of the orbiter to replace one little motor. That might be six months of work and if you think you can get by safely without this motor it may be worth the risk.
On again? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No you can't. Every mission that's lost one fuel cell has been brought back early, because they can't risk losing another.
Given how heavy the current payload is, you seriouly don't want to have to bring it back to Earth unless you really, really have to (e.g. an early engine failure during the launch where there's no alternative).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From the looks of it, it might be another 24 hours (credit to CNN the bias news source):
The scheduled late-morning liftoff of space shuttle Atlantis
Tell me again, Americans... (Score:4, Funny)
Ha, I'm just kidding. Congress would love to see NASA inoperable so they can go back to spending money on bridges to nowhere (Thanks, Ted Stevens!)
Re:Tell me again, Americans... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh...because being as close to the equator as possible has advantagous trajectory characteristics for many important orbits and with a trajectory heading eastward one needs to be on the east coast so as to minimize time over land while still at low altitudes?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm because its in the extreme south east of the country. Launches to the north give you a high inclination orbit. Launches further west expose landmass to bits of spacecraft in the event of an abort.
I could suggest that they launch from Cape York [wikipedia.org] but the weather is pretty bad [wikipedia.org] in that general area as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tell me again, Americans... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Tell me again, Americans... (Score:5, Funny)
And oranges. It's a well kept secret that rocket fuel is actually distilled orange juice. What colour is the shuttle's fuel tank? Orange. To hide the leaks.
Parent
Hmm .... T minus 4 hours pr so (Score:4, Informative)
Good Update: http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/3484 [spacetoday.net]
Countdown ticker: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/in
Weather.. sure.. right (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
oh, the misstatements! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But if one stops working, then mission rules say they have to return to Earth within a couple of days in case another one stops working. It just seems bizarre to me that the new supposedly 'safety-conscious' NASA is going to fly with a possibly duff fuel cell and possibly duff fuel tank sensors, apparently because 'it's never caused a disaster before'.
Dupe!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Apollo 12 (Score:2)
Moo (Score:2)
Can't they just hire Woz to build it for them?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That actually make some sense.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
An electrical supply on the ground goes down, you're fine. You just wait for a new one. An electical supply goes down in space, it's likely you're going to face serious challenges just staying alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:2)
Sorry, but who cares?
Was that a questioning of their historical policies having been ethically sound? Ummm...
Whether or not it is ethical? (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary asks if it would be ethical to replace the cell or not without telling anybody. Who does the author want them to tell? The only people who have an ethical need to know the conditions of the shuttle and the risks associated with them are the crew in the shuttle and the ground crew. These people, the crew in particular, are taking the risks and making the decisions. These two groups of people are likely to know anyway, astronauts, especially the flight crew, tend to be technical people, it goes with the job. Read about the boring parts of an astronaut's job, including hundreds of hours getting to know the details of the shuttle and the booster assembly. It is often said Murphy was an aircraft engineer, astronauts know this. Space travel is risky and can be dangerous. From Florida to orbit and back is hell on materials, electronics and mechanics. The decision to go or not go under a set of conditions belongs to the crew on the shuttle and the ground crew.
Any errors in grammar, spelling and tone are due to my uncaffinated state. Getting my breakfast apple and Dew now.
"It causes one to wonder" (Score:2, Offtopic)
Old news - Shuttle to launch Friday monrning (Score:2, Informative)
Not a short in the fuel cell (Score:2, Informative)
Nasa has said in the past that it would be unsafe to retreve the hubble and bring it back to earth because of its weight causing problems du
Lightning? Phht. I know the fix... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Lightning? Phht. I know the fix... (Score:4, Interesting)
The poster of the above comment is a friend of mine, aside from being a pre-space shuttle space program junkie and also a big fan of apollo 12, and he explains the above post as this (over IM):
I figured those of us who haven't spent weeks in the Air and Space museum, or read the audio transcripts from all available NASA flights, would want an explanation.
~Wx
Parent
Life Will Never Be Like Star Trek (Score:3, Funny)
It can start off with a captains log, but there's a computer error, so he never gets to complete it. Instead he calls IT to fix the problem. While that's going on the viewer is taken to the engine room where there are all sorts of problems.
I see it as a drama/comedy. There could even be a sick bay that is constantly busy, but the doctors have enough time to have love triangles and all sorts of personal drama amongst the already suspensful disasters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)