Science Lab Installation in ISS 3
Fervent writes "I think most of us don't totally realize what dangerous and costly things our astronauts have to do. Saturday morning the ISS (International Space Station) will be connected to the bus-sized science lab. The mission is so dangerous, that there is only 2 inches on either side of the shuttle doors to maneuver the lab out. So costly that NASA literally couldn't build a spare, so this is only a one shot deal. They either get it right or they go home hanging their heads. CNN has the article on this particularly tricky maneuver."
Nothing to compare it to (Score:1)
Re:Nothing to compare it to (Score:2)
Should I quote Kennedy?
We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because that are hard...
ISS meets Destiny. What about its fate? (Score:2)
<rant>
It is not particularly uncommon in this program. Was there a backup to the Service module which delayed the program two years? (The ICM could have been, sort-of, but was never built.) This led to the first two modules, Zarya and Unity, exceeding their 500-day lifetime in orbit; what would have happened if they had failed?
And what about the space shuttle? More than thirty shuttle flights are required to build the station; at a 1/450 estimated failure rate [flatoday.com], according to the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, there is a 7-odd percent chance of another Challenger before it is completed - and the tight schedule surely is not going to help. If that happens, how does the program survive, with the Russians almost too broke to produce enough Soyuz even for the normal operation of the ISS?
That said, who won't be happy to learn that, according to NASA Watch [nasawatch.com], the Destiny lab's software wasn't even validated before launch? Or that there is a catch-22 with its avionics (computers and stuff need cooling to operate, but they need to be up to start the cooler systems)...
There is another issue: the project also depends on hundreds of hours of EVA (spacewalking), which the US lacks experience at. I don't have a reference handy, but IIRC one of the proposals to replace the space station Freedom program had been dismissed as too risky because it required way too much EVA time, and that was still less than what the ISS needs.
There is always the argument that the space program is indeed risky, but the prize is worth the game. I would agree with this, if the prize was space colonization, or at least common access to space. But this is not what NASA is after; see the jaundiced view they have about the Tito flight to ISS (set up by MirCorp and the Russians). According to the Space Frontier Foundation, " NASA is clueless about how to efficiently and fairly run this facility. They're not interested in anything but their own budget, people and programs. [space-frontier.org]" Space science, then? A manned facility is not really adapted to that (life support systems, people bouncing around, degrade the quality of microgravity) except for studying the effect of weightlessness on the astronauts themselves, which has already been done well enough on Mir.
There is an article from the Economist about the "waste of space [economist.com]" the ISS is.
</rant>
And yet, I crave for more coverage of the ISS operation, more pictures of the beautiful thing they are building up there... I was at my window a few minutes ago as the ISS was passing overhead (cloudy sky, didn't see anything but I tried), and I'm following the EVA thanks to the Spaceflight now live coverage [spaceflightnow.com]. I can't help dreaming about that 2001 double wheel giant station, and what moved me most in recent years was reading old newspapers from around july20th, 1969. Go figure...