Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

New Problem Could Ground Space Shuttle Fleet 180

Posted by Hemos from the cracking-and-breaking dept.
Ender writes "As if the NASA folks at KSC did not have enough problems to deal with a the moment, (see previous /. article on the engine cracks and the following CNN article on the repairs) a NEW problem has sufaced in the Apollo Era transporter which vehiculates the Shuttles to the launch pads (crawler). They found many cracked bearings in the cylinders that lift the shuttle and its launch platform on the transporter. After this discovery they took a look at the other crawler and it too had quite numerous cracked bearings. No word from NASA yet but these findings may further delay the next Space Shuttle launch which is currently scheduled for NET (no earlier than) Sept 28th and by the same token slow down the assembly of the ISS. Complete articles at SpaceFlightNow and United Press International."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Problem Could Ground Space Shuttle Fleet More

New Problem Could Ground Space Shuttle Fleet

Comments Filter:

  • What I don't understand (Score:4, Interesting)

    by phunhippy ( 86447 ) <zavoidNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday August 14, 2002 @01:35AM (#4068092) Journal
    What I don't understand is how they **JUST** Found these cracks? I mean obviously they all did'nt just appear at once. So do they have any idea how long they have been forming? How many shuttle roll-outs have been done with cracks already? Probably a lot i assume.. It would seem that they could do 1 more roll-out and then replace(get made) all the bearings they need..
    • If you know of a risk, there is no point gambling your mutli-billion dollar craft due to a malfunction. What if the damn thing tips over while the transport is moving?

      Anywho, they probably did know about the cracks beforehand but they weren't dangerous enough to warrant a rehaul; now they are.
    • I blame overcomplexity. They should be slinging folks up there on giant spitballs, or from massive rubber bands. Only two things to go wrong there - you run out of spit, or the band breaks! Simplicity! :D
    • It seems that the cracked bearings were discovered when they overhauled several of the cylinders that level the platform. There is probably no way to inspect the bearings without disassembling the cylinder.
      • *nod* Some of this machinery is so complex that you cannot detect certain types of material failure until and unless you take it apart. Now, above and beyond the fact that you're not just going to take this stuff apart on a whim ("Hey, Frank, I'm bored. Let's go deconstruct a million dollar piece of equipment."), but rather stick to a maintainence schedule, there is the question of just how often this stuff does get checked, as in just what is the maintainence schedule?

        Now, ideally, these parts will not be too terribly difficult to replace, but considering the immense price-tag on one of the shuttles, I don't see this being an easy process in terms of all the tests that will need to be done in order to satisfy the legitimate safety requirements (as well as all the wierd shit that the engineers know need to be done but isn't in the safety regs).

        Kierthos

        • Re:What I don't understand (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Bios_Hakr ( 68586 ) <xptical@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday August 14, 2002 @03:37AM (#4068461)
          I was watching a show about the people behind the scenes at NASA. One of the Shuttle mechanics made the point that there are places inside the Shuttle that require major disassembly just to inspect. He also added that a lot of things in the shuttle were never MEANT to be worked on. The designers just thought the older Shuttles would be retired before the parts wore out.
        • Now, ideally, these parts will not be too terribly difficult to replace...

          I don't know about that... the facility where they were built (by The Marion Power Shovel Company [roadtripamerica.com] of Marion, OH, since bought out by Dresser Industries) has been shut down for quite some time now. Marion Power Shovel appears to still exist, but their website says they work with large mining equipment. Any parts needed for these things may have to be custom machined, which will be a cast-iron bitch (pardon the pun).

          I lived ~10 miles south of Marion when I was growing up and just loved the idea of the 'strong shoulders' for NASA were built nearby. The facility is HUGE [msn.com] (well, in 70's standards.. nowadays it probably doesn't rival many large mfg facilities).
        • Yes, there was a maintenance schedule that was followed that was supposed to stay on top of these bearings given the known rate of failure. Problem is, they all failed at once. Either they've got some strange odds, or there was a defect in manufacture which caused the actual failure rate to exceed the projected failure rate. Gee. That's never happened in a NASA project before. . .
    • Well it's not like they can just call the AAA and pop a wheel off to have a look. That things is kind of big. We had a D8 bulldozer, and never opened some of the heavier stuff (just getting the winch off was a task of herculean proportions). We'd open smaller tractor after about 15 years to put new rings and pistons in, plenty of time for lots of stuff to go wrong.

      Maybe they got pulled up by the local police who put a defect notice on the windscreen? Not like the local sheriff could get them for speeding. ;o)

      Xix.
    • I agree, it makes you wonder how often they check their equipment, this kind of thing takes time. We have a multi-billion dollar piece of equipment and we apparently don't have the money to keep it in top shape. Its worse if they regularly inspect it and just missed this problem repeatedly...

      Thus my problem: I can't decide which politician to believe. I know many of you will say neither, which is generally the right answer, but this is a special case. I've heard that NASA is underfunded from some people and that it's recieving billions of dollars a year from others, which would SEEM to be enough. If they ARE getting enough money, then I'm glad my money is being wasted AND I'm being lied to, if they aren't getting enough money, I'm glad they decided to cut corners by ignoring safety... *sigh* Government...

      AND WHAT ARE THEY DOING SPENDING $600 ON A HAMMER???
      • Most of the work in Shuttle launch preparations and operations is contracted out to the United Space Alliance. Every year there is severe pressure to cut costs on NASA operations and maintenance contracts. These are often written into the contracts as performance goals. The contractor is expected to figure out how to reduce the cost of the contract by a certain percentage every year. This usually means getting rid of employees.
      • AND WHAT ARE THEY DOING SPENDING $600 ON A HAMMER???

        I remember a teacher I had in grade 7 teaching the class about education budgets. What he basically told us is that if you don't spend 100 percent of your budget, the financial types (I don't remember what he called them) would cut your budget next year. I imagine this is still true today, and especially true of NASA.
      • AND WHAT ARE THEY DOING SPENDING $600 ON A HAMMER???

        It's $10 for the hammer, $590 for the paperwork to go with it. And no, I'm not kidding (although the exact numbers may be off).

        A friend of mine who worked at Martin-Marietta (before it merged with Lockheed) told me a story about a case of duct tape. Seems that some govt agency -- either NASA or Air Force, I don't remember the details -- needed to buy some duct tape. Now, government purchasing regulations (at the time, they're a tiny bit more sane now) required that purchases favor American-made goods, from companies that are Equal Opportunity Employers, etc, etc. This required paperwork to prove that the goods are American made, by EOE companies, etc. Let's face it, most hardware stores can't be bothered with that sort of nonsense (this is why Home Depot has refused for years to sell to the feds).

        So this gov't agency gave Martin-Marietta a contract to find an appropriate supplier of duct tape and do the investigation required to fill out the paperwork. Not that big a deal, probably took somebody a few days of phone calls, letters and checking around. But that time and expenses get rolled into the cost of the duct tape -- result, one case of duct tape at about $200 a roll.

        Your government at work, making sure they do what's good for the taxpayer, no matter how much of the taxpayers' money they have to spend to do it.
    • What I don't understand is how they **JUST** Found these cracks?

      No no no...
      They've found the crack, not cracks...FBI delayed launch to search shuttle all over again
    • What is likely happening is that in the downtime they've had time to inspect stuff they don't normally look at. This sort of inspection is very difficult so it doesn't get done much. If they were operating as usual they probably wouldn't have looked at them.
    • you dont just throw things on a mag inspector willy-nilly. you have to disassemble, clean and then place the part in a device that passes huge current at low voltage through it. then you pass a light oil with a flouresent/lightly magnetic dye in it and the dye will collect in the cracks making them easily visible..

      This is the easiest way to check on the shop floor for tiny flaws and cracks... if you want to go further you use more advanced means..

      I'm guessing that they either never did this proceesure to the bearings or the cracks are just starting to form..

      I highly doubt that they completely disassemble the things to do this proceedure after every launch...
    • What I don't understand is how they **JUST** Found these cracks?

      I'm not sure it clears it up, but here [cnn.com] is a story about the 27-year-old who spotted the crack.

      Quoting:
      Barely 10 minutes into the job, he saw it, a crack three-tenths of an inch in one of the liners of the hydrogen-fuel pipe that feeds main engine No. 1. "I couldn't believe what I was seeing," he said.

      He called over the two technicians working with him. Then main propulsion system engineers were summoned. Strait had to show the engineers where the crack was. "They wear glasses," he said, and couldn't find it themselves.
  • ...but perhaps NASA needs help from the Indians?
    • Well, actually they need help from the Russians. After all, only the Russians can re-equip the ISS now. Only the Russians have manned space flight capability at the current time...!

      They must be pissing themselves laughing...!
  • It is interesting to trace NASAs priorities in terms of space travel. Can anyone explain the benefit of the ISS and how it fits into the 'master scheme' of space exploration?

    • Re:Space Talk (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ig0r ( 154739 )
      It helps to have a way for astronauts to not completely atrophy their bodies on long-duration spaceflights. Several methods are being tested now.

      If a crew were sent on a 'short' trip to Mars without any way to keep muscle and bone loss to a minimum, it's likely that they wouldn't be able to tolerate even Mars' reduced (compared to Earth) gravity.

    • Re:Space Talk (Score:2, Informative)

      by willpost ( 449227 )
      The International Space Station represents a global partnership of 16 nations. The goal of the Operations phase of the ISS program is to perform world-class research that benefits the citizens and develops the economies of the member countries. The research includes living in space.

      ISS Experiments [nasa.gov]
      Less than 1 percent of the federal budget goes to NASA

      IMAX ISS Site [imax.com]
      • And said world-class research will never happen now that the habitation module and crew escape vehicle are on the chopping block.

        So the ISS is basically a $20b high-flying resort for a handful of people who are skilled at fixing broken shit...

  • Does this sentence mean what it says, taken from this [spaceflightnow.com]:
    " The crawler-transporters are impressive machines, built on site in the mid 1960s to move Saturn 5 moon rockets from the VAB to the launch pad.", I quess it does, because there's another sentence saying "Apollo-era".

    If yes, are you amazed that it has cracked bearings if it has been sitting in a garage for 40 years? Could it be time ermm.. upgrade?:)
    • But it hasn't been sitting in a garage - they've been using it regularly. That makes it even more amazing that it hasn't broken down yet..
    • The crawlers have been in continuous service for decades, with a short rest in between the last Apollo mission (ASTP) in 1975 and the first Shuttle orbital flight test in 1981.

    • Re:built on site in the mid 1960s ?? (Score:4, Funny)

      by PRickard ( 16563 ) <pr@m[ ]c.com ['s-b' in gap]> on Wednesday August 14, 2002 @01:57AM (#4068183) Homepage

      Ever seen the movie Apollo 13 [amazon.com] ? It shows the crawlers moving equipment into place before launch. Imagine something along the lines of a hundred-ton bulldozer with a rocket sitting on top of it. If you had to replace one of them you'd wait as long as you could, too.

      • Early design bearing troubles in the 1960's (Score:4, Insightful)

        by drsoran ( 979 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2002 @05:46AM (#4068781)
        Imagine something along the lines of a hundred-ton bulldozer with a rocket sitting on top of it.

        After getting to walk around under one aftera visit a few years ago to KSC I can attest to the fact that they're massive vehicles. The treads alone tower over a grown man's head. Imagine something like Sealand on tracks (well, a little smaller). The roadbed consists of Alabama river rock several feet deep that supposedly causes less friction for the treads and gets crushed into dust as the crawler runs over it. It was pretty awkward to walk on the rocks since they're very loosely packed. All-in-all the crawler [nasa.gov] is quite a site to see up close and an amazing engineering marvel.

        Anyway, it looks like the enormous weight was causing issues with early bearings even when they were designing it in the 1960's. This [nasa.gov] explains a bit about that as well.
        • All-in-all the crawler [nasa.gov] is quite a site to see up close and an amazing engineering marvel.

          Doh, before the spelling nazis get on my case, that should be "sight" not "site"... unless I intended it as a pun since it's big enough to be a site. :-)
      • I've seen that thing, it's insanely huge. I believe they said it gets about 1 inch/gallon, and the top speed is like 2 mph, but...

        Put some armor and artillery on top of that bad boy and you've got yourself an Ogre!
    • Upgrade? Right... Apparently NASA isn't aware of the new version that was just released. I think they'll be pleasantly surprised when it only costs them half of their yearly budget...

      Maybe they should turn to the Open Source community for "Crawler" development...?

  • Problem? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Howzer ( 580315 ) <grabshot@NOspAM.hotmail.com> on Wednesday August 14, 2002 @01:44AM (#4068126) Homepage Journal
    Must be a slow news day at NASA.

    From the article: NASA and contractor engineers are troubleshooting cracked bearings ... it is not yet known what, if anything, must be done to resolve the issue.

    My guess, and I should flag here that IANARS, is they'll have to replace those bearings...

    Sigh.

    • My guess, and I should flag here that IANARS, is they'll have to replace those bearings...

      My guess is they're trying to solve the underlying issue, namely what is causing the bearings to crack.

      I suppose if they wanted to apply the average 1st year Comp Sci philosophy of code...compile...code...compile to get things working, we'd have the shuttle in flight already.

      Thankfully they're a bit more exacting than that.

      Sigh. Slashdot used to be so much more than a race to get modded up as funny.

  • Gentlemen, start your whining! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chairboy ( 88841 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2002 @01:45AM (#4068128) Homepage
    I predict the feedback will be filled with the following:

    1. Whining to the effect of 'they JUST found these? All the bearings went bad at once?'

    2. Whining to the effect of 'They're still using 40+ year old crawlers? How dumb!'

    3. Whining to the effect of 'NASA is so stupid, they can't even drive 5 miles, much less fly a million in a shuttle'

    4. A few token 'We should be at moon/mars/jupiter by now, NASA has just fallen by the wayside and is a relic of lost dreams' whines

    5. A few people will get a kick out of saying 'Maybe we should pay the Russians to help us with our space technology?' and 'Can't they fix this by having Natalie P. put grits on the bearings?'

    6. Finally, one or two levelheaded people will say 'This stuff happens, and I'm glad they're catching it now instead of when a shuttle falls off a crawler'.

    Of course, #6 will be basically ignored, and instead a message saying 'If these bearings failed, it would be bad.' will be marked +5 Insightful, +5 Interesting, and +5 Informative, the three I's of insipid posts that bring to mind the sound of a million people saying 'Well, duh....'

  • Damn... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Wednesday August 14, 2002 @01:56AM (#4068178)
    And I was hoping that it was a problem with the shuttle itself. The shuttle is entirely too expensive (half a billion dollars per launch?!?!) for what we get, and it really needs to die so that we can at least get another opportunity to replace it with something more cost effective. Because as long as they can continue to operate the shuttle, they will, no matter the cost -- because it's politically easier.
    • The shuttle is entirely too expensive (half a billion dollars per launch?!?!) for what we get, and it really needs to die so that we can at least get another opportunity to replace it with something more cost effective.

      What is the cost of doing it with throw-away rockets like those of the pre-shuttle era?

      Other technologies are being tested, but they are still *experimental*. Thus, until the newer stuff is found to work and tested further, what do we do *now*? (Besides not launch)

      (Please don't say "open source rockets")
      • Other technologies are being tested, but they are still *experimental*. Thus, until the newer stuff is found to work and tested further, what do we do *now*? (Besides not launch)

        Umm...put one heck of a lot more money into testing and developing the replacement systems so they can be put into use sooner rather than later, and perhaps fund a bunch of different competing systems in case The One Chosen System fails like it has the last few times NASA's tried to come up with a replacement? Even if that means launching less often for now?
        • (* Umm...put one heck of a lot more money into testing and developing the replacement systems so they can be put into use sooner rather than later, and perhaps fund a bunch of different competing systems in case The One Chosen System fails like it has the last few times NASA's tried to come up with a replacement? Even if that means launching less often for now? *)

          This is a solution to *saving* money?

  • Why the incline (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by gone_bush ( 578354 )
    This begs the question: Why is there a 5 degree incline? Get out the pick and shovel and level it off! ;-)

    • Re:Why the incline (Score:4, Informative)

      by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2002 @02:40AM (#4068299) Homepage
      There are big flame pits and channels under the launch platform that allow the hot exhaust gases from the main engines and solid rocket boosters to escape the immediate area of the launch platform. The Florida coast is not a good place to dig big holes in the ground, unless you are trying to create a swamp.

  • Broken record mode: ON (Score:3, Funny)

    by ottffssent ( 18387 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2002 @02:01AM (#4068194)
    I'm too tired (and I gotta pee) to look up numbers, but the space shuttle fleet costs an arm and a leg to maintain. It was designed as the do-anything vehicle and ended up as the do-nothing-well vehicle. Sure it works but like masturbation there are better ways to get it done. At the current price/mass ratio, large space projects like ISS are uneconomical. Before building a space station, NASA should build a better launch facility either here or on the moon. Seeing as it's immeasurably easier and cheaper to build on Earth, I'd recommend starting with a big linear accelerator (think rail gun) here. If memory serves, the price/mass ratio is somewhere between 10 and 1000 times less than using the Shuttle fleet. It shouldn't take too long to recoup costs at that price, especially when one considers that lower price to orbit will mean lots more traffic. The flip side is that much more debris in the popular belts but the cost to send up a garbage collector would be that much less too.

    Where's someone with 10 years and a hundred billion dollars to spend when you need 'em? By my count, 5 people could do it. Hey Bill, want to be a big player in an emerging market? Get your ass moving on a few square miles of solar cells and a linear accelerator.

  • Pics of the Cracked Bearings (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kumba ( 84067 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2002 @02:08AM (#4068217) Homepage
    NASA has to be one of the few agencies to take pictures of most of their activities. They added Pictures of the cracked bearings today to the KSC Media Archive, and they are some ugly cracks.

    Links can be found here:
    KSC-02PD-1166 [nasa.gov]
    KSC-02PD-1167 [nasa.gov]
    KSC-02PD-1168 [nasa.gov]
    KSC-02PD-1169 [nasa.gov]
    KSC-02PD-1170 [nasa.gov]
    KSC-02PD-1171 [nasa.gov]

    --Kumba

  • David Strait finds tiny hairline cracks... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by antdude ( 79039 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2002 @02:14AM (#4068227) Homepage Journal
    I saw this last week or so (I don't remember where exactly), but I did a search and found the story on Space.com [space.com]. Here's what it said:

    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) -- Did a 27-year-old with perfect vision and admitted pickiness help prevent disaster on the space shuttle?

    NASA may never know, but the manager of the shuttle program said inspections will be more thorough from now on.

    The first of 11 tiny hairline cracks that grounded the entire shuttle fleet was spotted by David Strait, a sometime surfer with 20/20 vision who works for United Space Alliance, one of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's contractors.

    Within the space agency there's talk of an award for the systems inspector, who caught the biggest potential hazard at the launch site since an engineer spied a 4-inch (10-centimeter) pin wedged against Discovery's fuel tank during a countdown in 2000.

  • Vhiculates (Score:1, Funny)

    by holdp ( 24965 )
    Vehiculates? Sweet Jesus!, one can only assume that English is not their first language.

  • In other news (Score:3, Funny)

    by guttentag ( 313541 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2002 @02:32AM (#4068276) Journal
    Rumor has it the Bush administration is looking at the possibility of folding NASA and Amtrak into the new Department of Homeland Security. This is part of Mr. Bush's greater effort to make the federal government more like a corporation by consolidating all government organizations that are crippled by cracks in the system [washingtonpost.com] into one, easily-ignorable department.
  • A 40 year old system that's used to transport a 25 year old system is found to be full of worn and cracked parts.

    --sigh--

    When is NASA going to get out of the way of progress and let the people who want to go, go?

  • Vehiculates? (Score:3, Funny)

    by spinlocked ( 462072 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2002 @03:05AM (#4068367)
    ...vehiculates the Shuttles to the launch pads...

    You means 'moves' or perhaps 'transports'?

    You yanks...
  • Driving this baby into the local Halfords (Sears ?for our US readers) and asking them to change the bearings!

  • What, too cool to use the word 'move'?

  • Wake up NASA twerps! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anarchofascist ( 4820 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2002 @04:06AM (#4068543) Homepage Journal
    "... slow down the assembly of the ISS."

    Boring story, no response, who cares, no mention in newspapers, and the fact that the floating tin can currently up there will not get any larger for a few months does not stir the soul.

    Consider the alternative universe I just visited, where a similar slashdot story was just posted but with the final phrase replaced by...
    ...slow down the assembly of IMME, the International Manned Mars Explorer.

    "We just want to get everything right for the big trip," says Mark Shuttleworth, NASA's chief pilot in the twenty-nation effort to reach the red planet in 2010. "We're not pushing NASA or the ESA or anyone else involved in this project. They're working as fast as they can."

    Preparations continue in Baikonur Cosmodrome for the launch of the Martian Factory Base Unit, scheduled for launch later this year. The MFBU will land on Mars in September 2003 and start producing fuel from the Martian soil and atmosphere in preparation for the astronauts' return journey.

    President Taco refused to comment on the delay.

    Oh, and by "NASA twerps" I don't mean everyone at NASA, the vast majority of whom are fine, hardworking geniuses. I just mean the people at the top who made the bizarre space station decision. I mean, the whole purpose of the Space Shuttle (check your history books, friends) was to resupply Skylab, which was an excellent space station. Roomy, simple, and one-piece, it was launched by a Saturn V and took the place of what would, on a moon shot, have been the third stage fuel tank. Then the Space Shuttle turned out to be more complicated to build than first thought, so it didn't make it up in time to rescue the station.

    So, what were the thought processes jumping around the head of the collective imbecile which is the NASA beuracracy? "Shuttle built. Shuttle must go to station. Station dead... Build new station! Brilliant! Champagne and caviar all round."

    I doubt that there was much talk about whether we need a space station or not. It just seemed obvious. Arthur C put one in orbit in 2001, every science fiction book has a couple of them floating around. But ... what is the station for? Skylab was designed to observe the sun, but now we have SOHO, which does a better job. In fact, for any zero-gravity long-term space observation mission I can think of, launching an unmanned instrument package is far preferrable to sending humans.

    "Um. It's for studying the microgravity environment! We can grow crystals. We can observe the effects on the human body." Fair enough, But now the station budget has been cut back to the extent that the station is just good enough to keep people alive inside, as long as those people are 90% dedicated to keeping the station running to keep themselves alive. There is little time left to do the science that is supposedly the reason it's up there.

    Now I'm all depressed. Screw you guys, I'm going back to the alternative universe, and post a message on the alternative slashdot about our mad neighbors in the universe next door.
    • by "NASA twerps" I don't mean everyone at NASA, the vast majority of whom are fine, hardworking geniuses. I just mean the people at the top who made the bizarre space station decision.

      This is (based on the number of posts in this /. thread that make the same mistake) a common misconception.

      NASA is a government agency. "The people at the top", making the big decisions, are Senators and Congressmen. Follow the history of 1) what NASA has proposed doing, and 2) what has actually been funded, and you'll see what I mean.

      NASA consistently proposes projects based on high-quality scientific and engineering studies, but Washington makes the final decisions based on politics.

    • You seem to dislike the International Space Station, and would be in favour of a manned mission to mars instead. All I can ask is why? Going to the moon was a horrible mistake - that money should have been spent on a space station in the first place - and you would like to see this compounded by not having a permanent space presence to instead send a few people to Mars for a few months? This attitude seems to be quite prevalent on Slashdot these days.

      Honestly, I don't understand it. What, honestly, did going to the moon gain us? A huge amount of money was spent and the biggest direct return from it was a few neat photos and moon rocks. And now, what does sending someone to Mars gain us?

      We aren't ready to go to Mars yet. We don't have the technology to make the trip worthwhile. On the other hand, the ISS (if it hadn't been financially castrated by the current administration) does have a huge amount of potential for important microgravity research. If nothing else, it's an important piece of research on how to keep people alive in space for an extended period of time - the kind of thing that would be useful to know before sending a crew through space for a few months to go to Mars.

      When we can go to Mars, then go back every month thereafter should we want to, we're ready to go to Mars. Think about where we'd be with Lunar exploration had the Apolo program been replaced with a program to build a large space station like many of the NASA engineers wanted? By the time we actually got around to going, we'd have the capability to go back regularly without it costing an arm and a leg, and actually get some sort of direct long-term benefit out of it.

      Exploring is all well and good, but trying to get ahead of yourself will ultimately result in failure, exactly like what happened to the moon program.

      • You seem to dislike the International Space Station, and would be in favour of a manned mission to mars instead. All I can ask is why?

        I've a better idea. Get man out of space. We don't get any benefit from a manned program and we end up with a lot of unneccessary costs.

  • If the US is going to take on the role of Sole ISS Taxi, then the US has to have a reliable fleet.

    I am terrified that NASA, under pressure to 'Get it done', is going to start missing key safety issues. I don't think out of laziness or incompetence, but more likely due to Lack of Budget and Pressure from the Political system in DC.

    It is NECESSARY at this time to REPLACE this aging fleet.

    If Space is where the US wants to be, and I certainly hope it is, the program needs a NEW FLEET before we have 7 more dead astronauts.

    Perhaps it's time to get our Russian friends to bring Buran out of mothballs? It may be a 20 year old ship, but it's got Very Low Mileage.

  • If you want to use big words, it's best to use real ones and not make up your own. ;)
  • ...which is currently scheduled for NET (no earlier than) Sept 28th...

    Is Microsoft taking over our acronyms now, too? Where will it stop?
  • A nitpick, but what is the point of using an acronym and then the whole thing in parenthesis because the acronym isn't used by anyone? Why not say the whole thing and forget about the acronym? SPSTM (Seems Pretty Stupid To Me)
  • this old NASA equipment (shuttles, crawler) isn't all it's cracked up to be...

    umm... or maybe it is all cracked up to be.
    • I ran it through an AI experiment, and got this summary:

      "NASA workers found crack stashed in a rocket mover. A worker tasted some and soon lost his bearings, thinking he was the god Apollo."

      Well, so much for my NewsSummaries.com plans.
  • How would you keep a large platform level as the platform moves?

    The original design had a mercury filled tube running around the perimeter of the transport platform. The idea was the mercury would flow to a low spot, trigger a relay and the low spot would rise. The basic idea was fine but it ignored latencies as the mercury flowed around the transport's 500 foot perimeter. They called my cousin in to fix the design after NASA powered the transport up and the platform started oscillating.

    If I recall correctly (and I may not, it's been almost 40 years since he described the problem at the family dinner table), his solution was to discard the mercury tubes and replace them with photocells.

  • I don't know about you, but a 20 year old car is usually pretty busted up. Even a well taken care of one is probably well beyond the point of requiring a complete overhaul in order to get anywhere near the original condition of the vehicle.

    These shuttles and the crawler are about that old if I'm not mistaken and I know these must have been through several overhauls. But, has anyone though of looking into building new equipment? The shuttles are put through horendous stresses at least twice a year. They have to first sit on the ground in one atmosphere of pressure, then be hurtled into space at 10 Gs and then survive against zero pressure (or close to), and then drop back down and land.

    I think we ought to look at some newer technology to get us up there before we start relying on the space elevator [slashdot.org]--if that idea pans out.

  • Let me be the first to say something that many might think is a tad silly...

    After you decide to build something like a space shuttle - the decision process and what to build is another debate entirely - money should not be an object. Let me explain my point:

    When the engineers were told to design this stuff (more the liners on the engines than the transporters) they likely came up with a beautiful design and were told to go back and find ways to make it cost less. Maybe this is OK when you're designing a Bic pen that stops writing half way through a meeting, but not when you're designing rocket engines.

    The answer is to design the systems with total disregard for how much it costs and every regard for doing it right and producing the absolute highest quality machinery that can be built with the best materials known. There is no reason that we can't design rocket engine liners that don't crack -- except that we'd rather not spend the money. Try explaining that to the astronauts that fly engines with cracked liners after a catastrophe.

    Vortran out
    • Ignoring costs is possible if you have a decision process that goes like this - We must do something -> how do we do it? Regardless of the costs, i.e. the Moon shot and nuclear bomb programs - politically motivated.

      Most things aren't worth doing at any cost, that includes putting an astronaut in space.

      A normal decision process is: What benefit are we trying to achieve? How much will it cost to do with an acceptable chance of success? Does the benefit exceed the cost?

      Acceptable chance of success takes into account risks (including life) and necessity.

      NASA has switched from at any cost, as failsafe as possible with best possible materials and technology to as cheap as possible for a good chance of success. Giving it a lot more shots at a given target with a higher chance of success (10 shots at 10 mln a go with 90% chance of success, one shot at 100 mln with 99%, calculate the probability)

      Money is a resource that cannot be ignored. If you can do a lot of things cheaply with good chances of success its better than doing one thing expensively with an excellent chance of success.

      Then again the bearings were designed in the good old days of best possible at any cost. Designs will fail no matter how much money is spent on them.

      Furthermore, pumping more money in will not save lives in the space program, the technology is limited, most problems aren't caused by lack of money.
    • Actually, the liners crack not because they were designed with cheapness in mind, but because they were designed to be as lightweight as possible. In many cases, NASA engineers have thrown costs to the wind to save a few precious pounds.

      Like a Top Fuel dragster, most components are designed to be used only a few times and then replaced, and everything else is shaved down to the bare minimum tolerances for whatever stresses the part may encounter. Many of these components were never designed to have the lifetimes now being thrust upon them (no pun intended) and the fact that they're still even somewhat functional is a tribute to (a) the excellent safety margin NASA usually insists on and (b) the incredible expertise of the engineers who designed it in the first place.

      Sure, they could design parts that last forever -- and the shuttle would weigh twice as much and not be able to carry ANY cargo. Until we make some bigger, better leaps in materials technologies that allow us to make super-strong, super-lightweight materials that'll last forever, space travel is going to remain a somewhat risky, enormously expensive, labor intensive evolution.
    • There's no such thing as designing with total disregard for cost. "Cost" is a short word for "available resources".

      The whole point of engineering is cost -- using the minimum resources to maximum effect. Designing without cost is called "magic".

  • Lack of Funding? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TwistedTR ( 443315 )

    Aren't all the problems being discovered now because of lack of funding? Durning the Clinton era, NASA was raped and thus they lack the people and the money to be looking at things like these. Come on, the crawlers are incredible pieces of machinery, unlike anything in the world. To assume that they could provide 30 years of use and not have problems is absurd.
  • A few of my NASA buddies and I got drunk one night, hotwired the crawlers and spent the evening drag racing them down the tarmac.

    I may have over revved the engine on the first one while shifting from 2nd to 3rd gear at 0.7 miles per hour... I tell you, those suckers are tricky at those speeds...

    Peter
  • Is it me or has NASA forgotten about basic maintenance on their equipment? Whenever we used the tracker loader or hoe we always spent half an hour or so greasing it and checking for damage. Did NASA forget to do this with their workhorses? Hell a farmer spends much of his winter doing maintenance on his equipment. I think NASA needs to remember some of the basics before they fly again.
    • It kills me when news agencies and people jab at NASA for equipment failures and what seem to be "mistakes". When a small problem is found that averts a mission or changes their scheduling it is actually a very good thing -- worlds better then the infancy of the space program. We launch satellites into orbit and send out missions on a regular basis with very few problems.

      Hell, almost everyone forgets that when we were trying to get a man into space that ONE OUT OF EVERY FOUR ROCKETS EXPLODED during take-off. If I remeber correctly the rocket Alan Shepard was supposed to be on exploded during testing and they were crossing their fingers that the one he was to go on wouldn't explode. Rocket explosions killed the USSR in the space race -- they were on track to beat us to the moon. Rocket explosions killes hundreds of people in China as they tried to get into space.

      Space equipment today is much much more reliable then it used to be. Although we should be critical of the government's work, I think we are all too tough on NASA for how risky, finnicky and intolerant sending objects into space is. We should instead be proud that we have not seen a significant catastrophe for a while.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's hard to think of you as the end result of millions of years of evolution.

Close