Latest Columbia News 624
Russia is suspending its space tourist program, for fairly obvious reasons. An NYT story notes that the obsolete but reliable computers driving the shuttle are to be examined as part of the inquiry. But most interestingly, a story in Aviation Week claims that a tracking camera trained on the shuttle detected damage to the wing prior to the breakup.
Does that mean...? (Score:5, Funny)
Expect fianl report in 6 months (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but is one of them Richard Feynman? (Score:5, Insightful)
He had a great deal of trouble, as an official investigator, just being *allowed* to investigate, and of course to release his findings he had to engage in what amounted to guerilla tactics.
The end fate of the Morton-Thiokol engineers who "blew the whistle" must stand as some sort of object lesson in this case as well.
One would hope that steps are being taken to prenvent another go 'round of this shabby and shameful incident in American space history.
KFG
Unfortunately, Feynman died in 1988. (Score:3, Informative)
He was a truly unique individual, and will be missed.
Jon Acheson
Re:Expect fianl report in 6 months (Score:3, Interesting)
I found this [computerworld.com] while jobhunting; it's a rather interesting article on the data collection/transmission path for the shuttle system with some discussion on what steps may be taken to clean up/recover the 'unreliable' 32 seconds of data post-LOS (which sounds like an oxymoron, but LOS in this case [and as described bt Dittemore in various tech briefings] is Loss Of RELIABLE Signal).
Re:Expect fianl report in 6 months (Score:3, Insightful)
To amplify on the irony, these are the same media who said Reagan was dead and that Al Gore won the presidential election.
After a national disaster, I avoid the news media, thus saving myself from the constant "we don't know anything yet, but here are a long line of pundits who are happy to guess with abandon."
Re:Expect fianl report in 6 months (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Expect fianl report in 6 months (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Expect fianl report in 6 months (Score:3, Insightful)
Much more valuable is the data about what led to the incident - and that data had been collected normally. So I must concur that in this case a "black box" would be of no use.
Re:Expect final report in 6 months (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Expect fianl report in 6 months (Score:5, Informative)
That's no longer a problem. Since the TDRS were launched, they can send up to TDRS during the "blackout phase" and have it relayed to Houston. There's no longer any loss of contact.
no black box (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Expect fianl report in 6 months (Score:5, Informative)
1) The black box would have to have a much higher tolerance than airplanes (200k ft traveling at 18kmph).
2) (almost?) all the data that would be recorded by such a black box is already being transmitted to the ground. While the 30 seconds of garble (after voice comm. was lost) can tell more about what happened, it won't tell where the problem started. NASA has FAR more data about what happened than a black box can provide.
In addition, such a black box could only monitor a few systems. In the event of a micrometeorite hit (there is the suggestion this happened), it would not be known until it was too late unless the impact site was being montiored. If a monitored system was hit, then the ground would know about it as well as the pilots.
Re:Expect fianl report in 6 months (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Expect fianl report in 6 months (Score:5, Informative)
From the Shuttle Loss FAQ [io.com]: While there is a flight recorder on board the Shuttles, it's not exactly a "Black Box" as you'd find on a commercial aircraft. Once the power is pulled, all data collection stops. This is not considered a problem as almost all of the valuable data is downlinked anyway. What little the onboard flight recorders may contain that wasn't downlinked may or may not be relevant to the mishap, and the only way to know for sure is to locate a surviving unit on the ground. However, one should probably not hold their breath for one to turn up. As noted by the shuttle program manager during the first press conference, there is no *hardened "Black Box" on board any of the Shuttles. At the same time, it's also worth noting that since commercial hardened "Black Boxes" have had difficulty surviving airplane crashes, surviving reentry without special protection is almost an impossibility.
Re:Expect fianl report in 6 months (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have something flying at Mach 2 after a vertical ascent of only 60-some seconds, no blackbox we can make would survive any longer than radio transmissions captured by warehouse-sized surveilance systems on the ground can. Then, there's all the other surveilance on the ground and in the air by astronomers (pros and amateur) and USAF.
NASA, the same day of the disaster, explained all that in the Q&A session.
The current shuttle design would gain little from a blackbox-like device.
This has to be tough for familes to hear... (Score:5, Insightful)
They died advancing science so we could all live better lives. Let's keep this in mind...
Re:This has to be tough for familes to hear... (Score:5, Interesting)
The moment that I heard the shuttle was lost, I immediately thought of a German by the name of Otto Lilienthal. This man, in the middle 1800s, is known as one of the first aviators. He designed gliders that he used to drop off slopes and glide for many minutes at a time. While in flight, he manuevered himself to actually control the gliders' direction
During the time when people thought flight impossible, his conceptions and his inventions were used by the Wright Brothers and Chanute.
From an article I found: "Lilienthal is not only one of the Father of aviation, he invented piloting, the controlling of aircraft. In any case, he was the first man to have maneuvered in flight, an "heavier than air" machine."
The point of this post (and small history lesson) was his last words. During a glide that he had performed a hundred times, something went wrong, and he plummeted to the earth. The wounds were lethal, but on his deathbed, he uttered the words: "Opfer müssen gebracht werden!", which roughly translates to 'Sacrifices must be made.'
++Om
P.S. To read a little about this man, go to: http://aerostories.free.fr/precurseurs/lilien/pag
Re:This has to be tough for familes to hear... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This has to be tough for familes to hear... (Score:4, Insightful)
This was the last scientific Shuttle mission scheduled until 2008.
Every other scheduled Shuttle flight was dedicated to building the ISS.
The ISS cannot be used for science, because it holds three people, two-and-a-half of whom work full-time to keep the lights on.
The ISS holds can only hold three people because its escape/rescue pod only holds three people.
The ISS escape/rescue mechanism holds three people because NASA cancelled the higher-capacity crew return vehicle it had scheduled.
NASA cancelled this vehicle programme because... (ta-dah!) ...it might replace the Shuttle. And heaven knows, with $500M of pork at stake per launch we can't get rid of the Shuttle! We need the shuttle to build... the ISS!
You want "fantastic PR for science?" For every $500M Shuttle/ISS launch you cancel, fund three $150M Pathfinder-class missions to Mars, the asteroid belt, or nearby comets.
Scrapping the Shuttle/ISS project for scientific missions would result in not just better PR for science ("Look! Pictures from another world that nobody's ever seen before!" versus "Look, another guy in a spacesuit with the Shuttle's rear engines in the background"), but better science, too .
In Orbit Inspections? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how long it would take an astronaut to correctly inspect a shuttle in orbit.
Re:In Orbit Inspections? (Score:5, Interesting)
What would be the point of inspecting the spacecraft in orbit? There is no way they can fix it in orbit, they don't have the food or water to stay up, and NASA can't send a rescue craft. If it was a ISS mission, they might stay up longer, and maybe the russians can bail them out. Columbia certainly wasn't in a position to do that.
So, they inspect, and find out they are fuxored. What do they do? Say goodbye to their families Armegeddon style, and eat some cyanide?
The real way to fix this is to make more infrastrucure for space travel. Have more stations, more ships, more flights. Then, if you have a problem in low orbit, you might have a chance to survive.
[All of this logic STOLEN from Rand Simberg. [interglobal.org]. Please don't sue me!]
Re:In Orbit Inspections? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Space station does have a Soyuz capsule for emergency escape; this could have been used to get three people back to Earth.
It's also possible that the Russians could send up another craft pretty quicky; disposable craft take less preparation to get into orbit.
Re:In Orbit Inspections? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In Orbit Inspections? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the problem is not so much the altitude of the orbit, but its inclination. Columbia probably had enough OMS fuel to get to ISS's orbital altitude, as certainly does the Soyuz (to get "down" to the shuttle) currently docked there. Changing orbital inclination is roughly analogous to spinning up a gyroscope, and then rotating it against the gyroscopic resistance. Making a 20 or 30 degree inclination change at LEO is about as expensive in terms of energy as is the liftoff. Neither STS nor Soyuz has anywhere near the order of magnitude of orbital maneuverability to attempt this.
Of course, there's all the other problems, such as no docking interface, whether both ships could have been configured for EVAs for an external evacuation, and that fact that the Soyuz can only seat two of the shuttle astronauts after the pilot from the ISS.
The long and short of it is that the tolerance for fatal failure in spaceflight is razor thin, and the technical complexities involved would have prevented Bruce Willis, nay, even Tommy Lee Jones [warnerbros.com] from doing anything to save Columbia.
Re:In Orbit Inspections? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No Rescue? (Score:3, Informative)
I do not believe the shuttle can remain in orbit long enough to wait that long.
Re:No Rescue? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In a pinch (Score:3, Informative)
A Progress could not dock with Columbia; no matching docking ring. Which means EVA.
I also doubt one could make Columbia's orbit: the Russian launch complex is much higher in latitude than KSC, and so their orbits have much steeper angles. It would need a lot of fuel to match orbits, and may not carry enough.
You'd need 3 Soyuz to rescue the crew: Soyuz only carry 3 passengers, and there were 7 aboard. You'd probably also have to have pilots in each Soyuz, since you wouldn't have months to write the encounter software.
Anyway, it would take a VERY long time to get 3 Soyuz prepped for launch. And then there's the same pesky orbit thing.
Re:No Rescue? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, it's only speculation that Atlantis could have made it in time; the physical preparations for launch are very time-consuming, even without all the normal safety checks. The Russians could have sent the Progress resupply ship to Columbia, but it's not clear whether the Columbia astronaughts could have opened it and retreived the supplies.
Re:No Rescue? (Score:5, Informative)
As it happens, Atlantis was on the pad already, but it still would've taken nearly a week to launch with minimal crew (pilot and engineer). Columbia had enough food and water to last half a week... although with rationing they may have been able to extend that sufficiently.
Even so, what do you do then? There's no way to "dock" two shuttles and Columbia didn't have jetpack suits onboard, and I don't believe everyone was rated for EVA. You can make a "jump" from one ship to another, but that's trickier than it sounds... fortunately if you do it right and have the supplies on board then only one person has to do it - you can tether the ships together, as long as their orbits are precisely matched and close enough together. The precisely matched bit is the hard part really - it's going to take several hours to transport crew from one shuttle to the other.
It'd probably be an effort on the level of Apollo 13.
Afterwards you have a shuttle in a slowly degrading orbit that's going to do an uncontrolled burn up in the atmosphere -- although perhaps you can set a navigation program to activate after the crew is saved to ensure splashdown in a safe area (like the Pacific ocean). Dunno. Of course, this would have been better than what did occur.
Re:No Rescue? (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that with Apollo 13 they were never looking at sending another Saturn V up to rescue the crew. The things done to save Apollo 13 were done from inside Apollo 13 - this would not have been possible with Columbia if the damage was external as is being speculated since they had no way of getting outside the shuttle.
Re:No Rescue? (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, any reason that Atlantis could bring along the jet-pack spacesuits and then have someone ferry them to Columbia? Sure, they weren't EVA-rated, but they'd have had a hell of an incentive to learn fast. And I've got to believe that a tethered spacewalk -- out, across, in -- is simple enough to be picked up by people already selected for high intelligence.
A rescue would have been thinkable
Re:No Rescue? (Score:5, Interesting)
Back before the proposed space station became the crippled bastardized joke that is the ISS, it was proposed to build a class of "orbital transfer vehicles" which would have lived entirely in space and would be used to ferry things from low orbits to higher ones. Had we had a real space station program, where the station is the hub of an entire orbital infrastructure, then plucking off the astronauts from a doomed Columbia would have been possible.
Then again, if we had a real functioning orbital infrastructure, the Columbia might not have been doomed... it might have been reparable (albeit expensively) in orbit. Indeed, with a real orbital infrastructure, we wouldn't still be flying these 1970s-era jalopies.
Re:Because they didn't plan for it (Score:5, Insightful)
From Nasa's Human Space Flight [nasa.gov] pages:
The nominal maximum crew size is seven. The middeck can be reconfigured by adding three rescue seats in place of the modular stowage and sleeping provisions. The seating capacity will then accommodate the rescue flight crew of three and a maximum rescued crew of seven.
Make sure one other shuttle is always ready to go within a week like Atlantis was
Atlantis wasn't ready to go. It could be pressed into service, but only by eliminating all pre-launch testing. You know, the testing that routinely finds problems in the months prior to launch that have to be fixed and occasionally cause launch delays?
You want a shuttle ready to go everytime? Ok. You just doubled the cost for every launch. Because keeping a shuttle ready is a huge expense. The environment, even inside a building, is not friendly to the components and continual inspection is necessary for some areas... like the tiles.
It seems like a simple thing to rig up some camera or whatever to look around the corners.
It's not a simple thing. They've been trying to design one for ISS and it's problematic. And that's a vehicle that's not designed for reentry.
As long as you have water, and you can recirculate that pretty low tech, if they don't do that already.
Oddly enough, Columbia would have been in good shape here... They were actually testing systems to recycle water from waste. See here [nasa.gov].
I expect something like this to be in place before the shuttles are taken in use again
I don't. Doing so at this stage would kill manned space flight. It's akin to eliminating seafaring exploring from Europe in the 1400s - 1600s because too many people died in the process, and so we won't do any more exploration until the infrastructure is in place to keep them safe. Except that until the exploration has been done it's impossible to put the infrastructure in place.
I'm not saying that a rescue couldn't have occurred - in fact I posited ways it could have been done (based off statements from NASA no less), but also stated the issues that would have been encountered. Nor am I saying that a rescue shouldn't be attempted in a future case.
But, realistically, we don't have the infrastructure yet. If we want to be able to prevent this kind of disaster in the future, then we have to do more missions, build more flight systems (hopefully more cost effective to run than the shuttle fleet), and put more permanent installations into space. But all of this is decades down the road... and trying to fix it the other way around is a nearly certain way to kill manned spaceflight all together.
Re:No Rescue? (Score:3, Insightful)
Over on the sci.space.shuttle newsgroup there's been a flood of posts from space newbies asking what are considered "ridiculous" questions like "why didn't they take a spacewalk to survey the damage" and "why didn't they go to the space station for repairs?" At first glance, these questions are uninformed, but in the larger sense if you consider the vision that was presented to us (I was around then, albeit as a child) the reality we finally got didn't even come close to the grand scope of it all. Basically there were some mighty big plans afoot after Apollo, but they got squashed pretty fast when Nixon taught NASA a significant lesson: Just because one president wants to do something doesn't mean the next president has to sign up for it. Sad, really, but that's the way it goes.
Re:No Rescue? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No Rescue? (Score:3, Insightful)
It takes a great many people, including the astronauts, to launch a shuttle. I know I personally would not want to work launch crew, mission control etc etc if I thought there was a 99% chance that the people in the ship would be incinerated on the launch pad.
Just as you would hold someone in street clothes back from running into a burnng building so you would not launch a shuttle on a moments notice.
Re:Did you take Physics in high school (Score:3, Interesting)
Blockquoth the poster:
Um, travelling that speed relative to the Earth. I am pretty sure that Atlantis, being of essentially the same type as Columbia, could have executed a similar orbital plan. In other words, it would easily have the capability to match orbits. At that point, the relative speeds are zero, making your next point
less relevant that you might want. I think a tether system between the two orbiters would have been (comparatively) simple to set up and operate. It would be risky and daring, but better than leaving seven people to die in space.
Re:In Orbit Inspections? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, there are no handles or other surfaces to which the astronauts could use to manuver efficient on the underside of the shuttle. For inspects to take place these would need to be added.
Adding these handles, requiring astronauts to handle and inspect these tiles may actually introduce more variables and increase the chances of failure upon re-entry. What if a tile is damaged DUE to the inspection?
Space Walks also take a long time, the shuttle may not be that large but to inspect it thuroughly before re-entry would add considerable resource requirements to every launch. They would either have to prepare for more time in space or cut back on the tasks to be performed for each mission. That would get costly no matter which way they go.
I read somewhere that they use ground telescopes to inspect the shuttle as well. But that these inspections are not very good due to poor resolution, shuttle orientation and timing issues.
This has certainly been a tragic loss. We lost 7 great people. We lost a remarkable piece of engineering. And the space agency has suffered a setback none shall forget for some time. But we must remember we call them 'heros' for a reason. These things do happen and are part of the job.
Why not telescopes? (Score:3, Insightful)
With only the launch video for information the analysis was 90% WAG (wild ass guess). At best the analysis would have consisted of: "We think the foam is this big, and since we assume the foam is this big we assume it weighs this much, and since it weighed this much, and it looks like it hit around here, so it shouldn't have caused any serious damage. And plus, it was okay the last few times this happened." If I were in charge of a no fail safe system (the exterior hull of the Shuttle) and I hear that kind of bullshit, the first words out of my mouth would be, "Clean out your desk, you're fired for incompetence." What about possible ice? Why did the foam fall off? Could it have been wet? Did they analyze the retrieved tank's foam? Did they measure the missing foam? What was the weather before launch? There were too many unknowns and more information was needed before a proper analysis could have been done. And ANY pictures would have added a whole dimension to the data available for analysis.
Face it, they bet the shuttle on that WAG. And they lost big. This is an exact repeat of the complacency and lack of paranoia that led to the Challenger disaster. People in charge of spacecraft should be paranoid assholes who insist on things being done as perfectly as humanly possible. And "It was okay the last few times" is not a statement that people like that make.
Re:In Orbit Inspections? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In Orbit Inspections? (Score:3, Informative)
And on top of that, the person answering said that having an astronaut detect a flaw in the vehicle, or do an in-flight repair of the heat shield tiles was currently infeasible. So, it sounds like this sort of thing would require a load of new technology, procedure, and (for lack of a better term) gumption. If only we had the time, money, and world cooperation to make the ISS into something of an emergency shuttle repair station. Stupid worldwide economical slump....
--Mid
They can't do it (Score:5, Informative)
1) They Can't Do It
2) They Can't Fix Anything They Find
First off to fully survey the Shuttle, and its most critical heat protection tiles, you need to go 'over the side'. Now cast your mind back over all the EVA's taken in missions so far, they have all been in the arc of the cargo bay, usually with the assistance of the remote manipulator arm (which wasn't fitted on Columbia as it wasn't needed and the weight budget was better spent on lifitng more science to orbit, which was the whol point) Going 'over the side' of the shuttle means you are out of view of the crew, and its a very dangerous thing to do. In the history of shuttle flights it has never been done, nor are there any procedures to do it as it is considered too dangerous. That is not my opinion, that is the opinion of Ron Dittmore of NASA.
Secondly NASA believe that the wash of the gasses from the EVA system and the likelyhood of impact when attempting the manouever would do MORE damage to the tile system than the damage you were trying to attempt to survey. (Remember the underside of the shuttle is almost totally black, as is space that it hangs again - orienting yourself is going to be astonishing difficult, not accounting for the fact you're in a bulky space suit, the EVA gear and a mutlilayer filter helmet)
Thirdly each area of tile on the shuttle is made of a different combination of material according to the heat environment it is expected to be in, each tile is near enough individual in its shape and size, each tile is shaved to fit the craft at that point, and the tile system as a whole is designed so that minor damage to the surface does not result in the loss of the whole tile, neither does the loss of a single tile result in a loss of vehicle scenario - just localised structural damage. Replaceing the tiles is not possible due to thier uniqueness - and the likely hood of repair is poor as the repair material coming loose may damage further tiles.
Fourthly taking images of the shuttle in orbit has been tried before when they lost the drag chute door. None of the images they got in that incident, taken at great hassle, were of sufficient resolution to add anything at all to thier analysis. Given that there is no way of repairing a damaged tile, why even look for it - what are you going to do if you could see it, which you probably can't. Some people have suggested that it would allow you to fly a 'kinder' profile back into the atmosphere.
Well Ron Dittmore reported they had considered that, trying to think about what if thier analysis of the foam impact was wrong. And the answer is that as a reusable cratf the shuttle already flies the absolute best profile it can on re-entry - it can't be bettered.
NASA considered tile repair and under shuttle EVA's early in the program and concluded that it was near enough impossible and the effort was better spent in making the tiles stronger and more effective, and tracing the causes of debris impact and limiting thier effects.
Effectively NASA decided that the tile system is non repairable in flight, accepted that and instead spent thier effort in making it as good as possible.
Until now that has been good enough - on average each mission has 100 discernable impact points on the tile system and its not had any effect.
Even now, when it looks likely that some abnormal thermal event happened in the left wing, maybe coupled with a drag event, it is by no means certain that the tile system failed. Whilst the evidence seem to suggest this is a strong possibility, to concentrate wholey on that would be to close your mind to other reasons, and for the good of the shuttle program that is not good enough. We need to know exactly what went wrong so we can move on and continue exploring space.
The tile system was a revolutionary step change in heat protection systems, and allowed a radical change in the type of vehical that can reach orbit. In 20 years of flight it has only been improved, not bettered, and its an engineering triumph that Amercia should be proud off.
Flying in space is real and deadly. Between them the US Shuttle System and the Russian Vostock system have had over 100 succesful launches, something of a record for space launch systems, but both have suffered a couple of failures (I forget the exact numbers for Vostock - my apologies)
As a planet we have probably put people into orbit less than a 1000 times - despite doing it for 30+ years its still a very young technology and is not anywhere near routine.
Speaking as one person over here in the UK that watched the dawning of a new age with the launch of Columbia, I hope we are all back up there real soon, pushing the boundaries of science, engineering and knowledge, whatever our nation.
Re:They can't do it (Score:3, Interesting)
The feeling was they'd be just as dead if they brought them down immediately, so they might as well go to the Moon first.
Re:They can't do it (Score:5, Interesting)
Why doesn't NASA consider a protective coating for the ceramic tiles. I hold a MS in Ceramics Engineering and I've held and performed demonstrations with Spaceshuttle tiles. They have a similar consistency to very dense roof insulation (coated in something hard).
Why doesn't Nasa put some sort of protective coating (perhaps aluminum?) over all of the tiles. During reentry, the aluminum would certainly burn away, but the freshly exposed tiles would be undamaged.
For the next flight, NASA would replate the bottom after the tiles are inspected and the shuttle would be ready to go. I feel that this would also prevent a lot of micrometeors and what not that collide with the shuttle during orbit from damaging the tiles.
Re:They can't do it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In Orbit Inspections? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doubtful. The shuttle is not designed for this, nor are the astronauts equipped to do so.
EVAs are limited to 8-9 hours due to oxygen issues. And it takes a long time to move around safely up there... even if you could get to the wing, you'd probably have to turn back around before looking at anything.
Additionally, there are no repair tools available - while some caulk was designed to do tile repair early in the shuttle program, it was determined that it just didn't work well, and there was no reasonable way to apply it anyway.
Just going to take a look could do more damage than good -- knocking a tile off during EVA would be bad. And you can't just add handholds to the exterior since they would impede reentry.
Ground based observatories don't have a very good view - especially since the bottom of the shuttle is oriented away from the surface. There are points where it's not, obviously, and they could certainly roll during orbit to allow observation, but even then ground based observatories don't do a great job of resolving "near" objects, plus the level of detail required is inherently obscured by the atmosphere.
Spaced based observation platforms (spy sats) could be used, but it was ineffective when they tried in 1999 with Discovery. Dunno why.
To be coldly realistic, the cost of the inspections would likely be far greater than the return... something has gone wrong once out of over 100 flights. Add in the pre-Shuttle flights and I believe it goes up to three times out of several hundred, with only one time (Columbia) resulting in loss of life (this is in-space problems relating to reentry only - both Apollo 1 and Challenger were pre-launch issues). It's a horrible tragedy whenever something goes wrong, and we should mourn the loss of the people who died, but throwing in a bunch of regulations and pointless inspections isn't really going to help.
We certainly need to find out what went wrong and try to prevent it in the future though -- I just don't think that orbital inspections will do any good toward this end, at least not until we have a LOT more infrastructure in orbit to deal with the eventuality.
Re:In Orbit Inspections? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fairly Obvious Reasons? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really obvious why they're doing it. The article implies, but doesn't state, that it's because they now need to put cargo where the third, "passenger" seat would go on a Soyuz capsule.
Some people have suggested they're doing it because "space is now unsafe", which makes absolutely no sense.
Re:Fairly Obvious Reasons? (Score:3, Insightful)
sPh
It's not Cargo room, and Soyuz flights aren't .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unmanned Progress Tugs fly resupply missions to ISS, they can carry 2.5 tons of supplies (food, clothes, fuel, water, oxygen, etc).
Soyuz flights were "Taxi Flights" Soyuz capsules have an on-orbit rating of six months. So that means that the Russians need to rotate the Soyuz "Life Boat" at the ISS every six months.
What they do is fly a fresh Soyuz capsule up. Two cosmonauts are necessary for the Taxi Flight, and then that Taxi Crew comes back down on the old Soyuz capsule. They used to fill that third seat through agreements they had with other nations space agencies, and have only recently begun selling them to space tourists.
They're going to kill the Taxi Flights while the Space Shuttle is grounded, and devote them to ISS Crew Rotation.
That means that the next Long-Term ISS Crew will fly up to the station on a Soyuz, and the current crew will return to earth aboard the Soyuz currently docked to the station, and due to be rotated out.
They will continue that pattern until the Shuttle's start flying again, at which point they will resume Crew Rotation duties, and the Soyuz flights will go back to being simple Taxi Flights again, at which point the russians will start selling the third seat again.
Re:Fairly Obvious Reasons? (Score:3, Funny)
I appreciate Ixohoxi taking the time to point out the rational explanation to this disaster. It had nothing to do with tiles, but numbers. The "Real Insight" link in his post directed me to some wonderful info. In fact, it helped me decipher him. His usernumber is 170656. Add these together, and you get 25. Genesis 2:5 clearly states: when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up.
Understanding this "herb" of which God speaks, made me understand that the bible clearly states that Ixohoxi is growing pot in his backyard. Furthermore, the Balognians used Ixohoxi to describe as the collector of fluid used to clean out the whore of balogna's vagina.
You must send this research to 10 other email addresses, or God will drop a space shuttle on you.
Probably about time (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems unlikely that computers were to blame for this, but the kit in the shuttle is pretty old - if we're going to ask people to risk their lives like this we must give them the best kit we can.
I know I was shocked at the loss of the shuttle, and it should remind us of how brave these people are.
Re:Probably about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Probably about time (Score:5, Insightful)
that would be suicide... The older computers running in the shuttles are rock solid, space proven, and reliable. which are very different from anything that intel or AMD makes. the older and slower computers are doing the job fine without baing overloaded or needing to read sensors any faster. Remember, this is flight control computers... I'd rather have a known 99.999999999% uptime processor that was designed in the 80's running my spacecraft or aircraft than any of this unstable junk we use today.
outdated in the articles terms means it's nothing but a comment by an uneducated person trying to get their 15 seconds of fame.
The Software would have a larger potential for blame... I.E. the programmer did not make klaxons go off when sensors give bad readings, or there was any instance of throwing out data.
Until I see a report that states that the current computers on board are running at > 50% capacity and are getting near the overtaxed point then I'll believe it. until then it's fake news.
Some people don't get SW Engineering, do they? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just throwing in a "realtime version of Unix" because it is a "reliable and robust OS" will NOT mean the program running on it is reliable Or robust.
When I was doing my CompSci degree 12 years ago the SW Eng Prof was on sobatical to NASA to write some new code for the attitude jets so it could dock with Russian equipment. There were about 2 or 3 PAGES of code. It took them almost a YEAR to write it and verify that it was error free. And then, when he came back he said they estimated there was still one error for every 10,000 lines of code in the space shuttle program. Not only that, it was the MOST ERROR FREE CODE ON THE PLANET. Translation: More error free than any Unix/Linux OS or program.
And now people want to just throw in a newer chip with a newer OS?! WTF are they thinking? There isn't even any evidence that would make anyone think that the computers were to blame for the accident in the first place! Fix what isn't broken or even related to the accident... Briliant, only a clueless legislator could come up with something that stupid!
As the parent to this post said, the chips are working fine, they are not overloaded, and the program is tried, true and tested. Don't fix what ain't broke!
Obvious? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm glad the airlines don't stop all planes when one crashes.
Seriously, though, I'm almost positive that anyone that signs up to be a space tourist signs some document stating that there is a chance of death, and the russians can't be held liable.
I don't think that its "obvious" they should stop it. Everyone is aware of the dangers of space travel. This isn't the first time an accident has happened in the space program (especially russia's).
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
Did you actually read the article? Or are you just making assumptions based on the synopsis, which on this site are known to be highly inaccurate?
Quote the article: Plans to send tourists into space have been frozen by Russia after the Columbia shuttle disaster left its Soyuz capsules as the only working link between Earth and the International Space Station.
The point is not that space is any more dangerous as a result of the Columbia disaster. Since NASA has put flights on hold, Russia needs to use more room on the Soyuz capsules to pick up the slack. That leaves less rooms for space tourists. As quoted in the article, a Russian space agency spokesman said, "Space tourism is not a priority. State interests must come first, then commercial interests."
I know that many people on Slashdot don't actually read the articles, but it sure helps to clear up a lot of confusion.
I've been expecting this (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, we cut back a ton of spending for some of the most dangerous quests known to man, and then we're shocked when their systems are failing on a thirty-year-old shuttle.
What I would like to see is a new branch of the military take over the space program. Call it Space Force if you want to be cheesy, but at any rate, whenever the military gets involved in programs they get an incredible amount of financing. And for those of you who are concerned that if it becomes military we'll never see it again, think DARPA Net. The military is a great way to get things started, and then let blatant commercialism take a choke hold...
Blame USAF - they compromised the shuttle design (Score:3, Insightful)
The original design that NASA were gunning for was for a vehicle that would come in steeper and then glide over a limited range to its target with two real wings. The advantage being that the vehicle would only be exposed for a short period of time to the heating effect. The shuttle would also land a lot slower with this design.
The USAF needed a longer glide range to operate from Vandenburg, so they could always get back to land, even after a single orbit. They pressed for a delta wing which allowed them to glive for about 2,500 miles. This disadvantge is that the shuttle must fly through reentry (rather than a controlled stall, that NASA wanted). This meant that reentry took a lot longer, with much greater exposure to heat.
Challenger cause NOT unknown, and admin's fault (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly (or suspiciously?), the ethics site's page is down, but the cache is here:Roger Boisjoly on the Challenger Disaster [216.239.57.100]
Shuttle software coders (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone found this really cool article [fastcompany.com] about the group that writes the shuttle software. I've always admired CMM level 5, having spent my entire career at level 1. ;) I wonder if they need more coders.
Re:Shuttle software coders (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate it when clueless journalists say "the computers are old" So what? It's the software that's important and the software is top notch. They seem to imply that a pentium IV would have magically saved Columbia. That just isn't true. It's like saying improved metal detectors would have prevented 9/11.
Unless there is some added function that they could only implement only on newer hardware, I don't see why the shuttles need new computers. Naturally, these jouranlists will never ask "what additional functionality does the shuttle need that the current computers don't provide?" they aren't trying to get at the truth of an issue. they're trying to get people to watch - and the best way to do that is by stirring controversy. All it takes to do that is to say "Look! the comptuers are so old!"
old computers (Score:3, Insightful)
1) They would weigh less. That is probably the most important advantage.
2) They could do more calculations. When trying to compensate for failing parts without going off course, spinning out of control, or overstressing the failing part, additional computation power might be helpful. (I'm guessing that the software may have failed to consider that a part that is not performing upto specifications is likely to have reduced structural integrity.)
Re:old computers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:old computers (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not flaming you here Crow, but I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
1) They would weigh less. That is probably the most important advantage.
how much less would they weigh and how much additional load would it allow the shuttle to carry? I think you'll find that upgrading the computers would let each astronaut take 1 extra pair of socks into orbit. So what?
2) They could do more calculations.
More calculation on what? Once the software has looked at all the data and made a decision, what is there left for it to do with all that processing power?
I'm guessing that the software may have failed to consider that a part that is not performing upto specifications is likely to have reduced structural integrity.)
Let's assume you're correct. Would a more powerful computer magically become sentient and figure that out? No. Using the same software a more powerful computer would make the same wrong decision - it would just make it a lot faster.
Even if the software was upgraded to take into account the structural integrity of the ship, that doesn't necessarily mean a more powerful computer is required. In fact, I'm sure that one of the results of the Columbia investigation will be such changes to the software, and I'm sure that the new software will still run just fine on the current computers.
In short, you haven't made your case.
Re:old computers (Score:4, Informative)
But not the most important requirment. Amongst the most important requirements is that the system should be able to perform all the tasks it needs to, faultlessly and reliably.
The shuttle avionics exist and survive in one of the harshest environments available. The suffer heavy vibration and heavy radiation compared to other avionics such as used in military jets. More modern avionics are less suited to survive either.
Having a lighter faster computer that needs more radiation shielding to ensure reliable operation does not gain you much.
The flight system in the shuttle was fully capable of flying the craft when it was first launched, and until proved otherwise it remains fully capable of doing the job.
Why replace an avionics system that has returned the craft without fault over a hundred times, with one that never has? Do you have any idea the cost and development time of developing 5 multiple redundant intrinsically safe mission computers is likely to be - and is replacing a functioning avionics system at such a cost a good use of budget that could be better spent on science?
They could do more calculations. When trying to compensate
The limiting factor of any avionics system is the response rate of the air frame itself and then the response rate of the mechanical systems themselves - in the shuttle's case the aero surfaces and the thrusters.
The important point of an avionics system is to keep the airframe in the zone of expected operation, you should never allow the airframe to get near the edge of the envelope where you might not be able to command it back in time.
The most important thing here is not the raw commputational power, but rather very accurate sensors so you can detect anomolies as soon as possible, and fast control reactions so you can correct them as quickly as possible. This is true of any closed circuit negative feedback control system that tries to minimise the error between the actual state of the system and the desired state of the system. These are all around us in the traction control systems of cars, the ABS, autopilots on planes. They don't need a lot of computing power, but they do need absolute reliability.
I'm guessing that the software may have failed to consider that a part that is not performing upto specifications is likely to have reduced structural integrity
Software is NOT intelligent, it doesn't make considerations. Engineers and software programmers make considerations. The software will be designed to cope with all the predicted conditions. If the engineers never considered the possibility of a damaged flight surface to be likely, then they wouldn't have required the software to cope with it.
At best you use your knowledge as an engineer and programmer to do your best that should the software experience conditions it was never desing for it does the best it can, but what "best it can" means is a decision of the humans that wrote the software.
Personally if I'm at Mach 20 balanced on a knife edge with plasma at 2300 Celsius a few feet away in a craft that needs reactions and senses far sharper and faster than a humans can every be to keep up this delicate dance on the edge of survivablity - then I don't want that system to go all 'fuzzy logic' on me and make guesses. I want a system that is utterly reliable and predictable, and for my guys on the ground to ask it to fly an utterly predicatble route.
What ever did happen to Columbia to the best of our knowledge the flight control system was within the range of its capability. The system would have been seeing the same readings as mission control could see in the telemetry. It was unusual in that in the final moments it was working harder than it had need to on any other flight, but according to NASA it was well within limits. It was in fact responding to the situation that the aero srufaces may not be giving it the response it needed and started to use the thrusters - an event that had been predicted, accounted for and planned for 30 years earlier when the avionics system was defined.
The avionics on the shuttle are just as capable today as they were when it was launched, if they were not up to the job then Columbia would have not made it back the first time.
Compare air traffic control (Score:3, Informative)
On a similar note, I know of a Fortune 500 corporation that was still running its accounting system on early-60s RCA mainframes in the mid 80s. It wasn't worth it to recreate the software - which worked fine - until financial execs who were starting to put PCs on their desks got too frustrated about not being able to access the data directly.
You can build an airframe requiring extraordinary processing power just to keep it stable in flight - our newest fighters are of the sort. But the shuttle's not. And maybe it shouldn't be - since if it was there'd be no possibility of a human pilot subbing for a down computer. In combat, if the computer's down, the craft's toast anyway.
Thanks! (Score:5, Informative)
We probably won't see the AF images (Score:4, Interesting)
sPh
Re:We probably won't see the AF images (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We probably won't see the AF images (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/Factsheets/35meter.ht
These telescopes (or ones similar to them) are used by the scientific community for published research, so I doubt that their capabilities and locations are secret.
I find it hard to believe that stills from this video will not be included in the final report about the disaster.
Software problems (Score:3, Interesting)
Most likely, software changes could have bought them at most a few more irrelevant seconds, but they certainly should be looking at it in case someday those few seconds aren't so irrelvant.
Obvious reasons (Score:5, Informative)
Obselete Computers (Score:4, Interesting)
There are also good technical reasons why NASA uses "obselete" computers on alot of their spacebound equipment. [kuro5hin.org]
Re:Obsolete Computers (Score:3, Informative)
James Tomayko has written an excellent book entitled "Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience". It appears to be available online - Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience [nasa.gov].
Of particular interest would be Chapter Four: Computers in the Space Shuttle Avionics System [nasa.gov]
Columbia news of my own (Score:5, Interesting)
It turns out that it fell through the roof of a condo complex and totally destroyed the unit owned by a friend of my wife. She believes that if she were in the place at the time, she would have been killed.
They have hired a lawyer and are exploring their options -- most insurance policies don't cover falling objects from space.
Yeah, I know "friend of my wife" is rather FOAFish, and I will try to get more details (and perhaps pictures) if possible.
Contact NASA (Score:4, Informative)
Soyuz safety record (Score:5, Interesting)
Just as a point of comparison: The 1675th Soyuz launch took place recently. There have been only two fatal Soyuz accidents, both over 30 years ago. I don't think the Russians have to apologize in any way for their safety record.
Re:Soyuz safety record (Score:3, Informative)
That would be Soyuz the launch rocket, as opposed to Soyuz the manned spacecraft. The booster is used to launch both manned and unmanned cargo. While there have been no fatalities with the capsule since the '70s, the booster crashed on launch sometime during the last year, and there were fatalities, IIRC.
This guy is an idiot... (Score:4, Interesting)
But at least one expert -- Richard Doherty, a consulting engineer who did research for a member of the commission that investigated the Challenger explosion -- questioned whether the computers onboard the Columbia had all the information they needed. After tiles were damaged on takeoff, Mr. Doherty said, NASA could have sent up a few changes in the software guidance program to adjust for increased drag on the left side of the craft.
The computer did compensate for drag on the left side -- but at some point physics catches up with you -- and it simply burns up. The shuttle basically flys the stall all the way down, it's not like they can "pitch for power - throttle for altitude". This person is an idiot.parachutes (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that the building of winged reentry vehicles is more driven by a desire for Buck Rogers-style space adventures, not good, cost-effective engineering.
Wings are better (Score:3, Informative)
Why this matters:1. More L/D means you can control descent rate better. You can control it somewhat by steering the Soyuz using the attitude control jets, but only to a limited degree. So the Soyuz generates about 8-9 G of acceleration during descent. The Shuttle only generates a comfortable 3-4 G.
2. Equally important: lateral control gives the Shuttle and other lifting bodies significant crosstrack steering capability. This means that precision landing is possible, and also offers far more flexibility for contingency landings. With Soyuz/Apollo style entry, you get a large landing footprint, which is why the Russians land in the relatively empty steppes and the Apollos landed in the ocean.
Those are the options that are available today for hypersonic reentry. Parachutes are only used for the latter portions of the descent (typically subsonic).
The recently mothballed X-38 uses both. For the high-speed reentry, the lifting body is used to control the descent rate and to provide cross-track steering. At landing speeds, the lifting body doesn't have much lift, so a parachute is used.
No need for heroes (Score:5, Insightful)
But then, whether you call it cynicism or realism, we accept a level of failure in all transport systems which is capable of killing people. We allow people to ride bicycles in motorised traffic. We allow manufacturers to build cars that are capable of traveling fast enough that a brake or steering failure can kill not only the occupants but anyone who gets in the way. We allow the construction of ships that break up in heavy seas, of railways where trains can pass red lights and crash. There is no public contract about this: we never actually get a chance to vote on the level of risk we want in our transport systems. What we do is react to disasters, and politicians have to decide based on that reaction whether to take some kind of action.
Sometimes they do, and as a result we have anti-lock brakes, double-hulled ships, crash barriers on freeways and autoroutes, airbags, automatic train protection systems, and a host of other technologies.
The Shuttle crews are unusual, superior human beings. But they should not need to be heroes, any more than someone who gets on a plane in LA to fly to a meeting in Tokyo is a hero.
Because if the exploration of space is ever to become commonplace, we have to get rid of the idea that this is a dangerous enterprise for heroes. We need to follow the same rules that apply to everything else. We need to ask nasty questions like "Why can't tiles be replaced in orbit, since we have had 18 years to think about things like this?" .
A WW1 biplane could keep flying after it had been shot full of holes, yet the Shuttle seems to have a number of extremely fragile technologies failure of any one of which could destroy it on re-entry. If that's so, why haven't we developed a better technology? Is it the mindset that needs to change as much as the design?
It's the tree hugger's fault! ;-) (Score:3, Interesting)
Car nervous systems (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps I am thinking to simply, but if they did not have enough information about the state of the shuttle, isn't it time for more sensors , hense more information. Autombiles now have sensor systems as extensive as the shuttles. How about a rfid transmiter (or induction proven heat resistant equivelent) attached the back of every tile? If 30 thousand dollar cars have nervous systems equivelent to the shuttle (minus a couple of gyroscopes) isn't time for more sensors?
What is the most expensive part on a car the motor? The computer? The transmition? The body? Antilock brakes? Nope it's the wiring harness. Perhaps the shuttle is due for a sensor upgrade. No spacewalk needed.
Pictures suppressed? (Score:3, Interesting)
pictures are not shown to us. In the hours after the accident, we saw all kinds of fuzzy images, such as the still of the insulation hitting the wing, and all sorts of video of the re-entry. So why all of a sudden don't we get to see the film? What's with the guy in California who apparently gave his camera, negatives, prints (I guess it was film?) to some spooks? Why are we supposed to accept a story claiming what "high resolution tracking cameras" captured, when we aren't allowed to see these images for ourselves?
Re:Pictures suppressed? (Score:3, Interesting)
Humane Lie? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, let us suppose that the conclusion of the post-launch analysis of the damage done by the foam chunk was that it was in fact fatal, with absolute certainty; what would you do when you were in a commanding position in Houston?
Would you tell the crew: "Sorry, your spacecraft is broken, we do not see any possibility for repair so you will certainly die during reentry?" I think that would have been absolutely horrible for the astronauts.
I don't know, but "given" the fact that nothing can be done about it anymore in such a situation, I think it would be a realistic option (after consulting silently any other appropriate authorities) to keep them and everybody else ignorant of the imminent disaster and let them have a good flight, let them enjoy it and let them die (almost) happily.
The most serious objection I would see against the latter decision would be of religious nature: for many religions it is very important to prepare for death, say prayers and so on (sorry for my clumsy phrasing, I am not religious myself). In order to respect this, the crew should have gotten a warning somewhat longer before the expected catastrophe.
Well, just a thought.
Can we admit the shuttle is a piece of junk yet? (Score:3, Insightful)
The SR-71 could do mach3.3 (2200mph), and it's titanium skin temp routinely got up to 1000F, well above the melting point of the shuttles aluminum skin. (melting point aluminum 600F, titanium 3000F).
The exhaust outlet temp of the SR71 engines is around 3400F, so we know there are materials available for aircraft manufacture that can take some pretty high heat even when they are taking a pounding.
The SR71 was designed long before the shuttle and flew routinely up until the 1990s without incident.
How about the MIG-25. It can do Mach 3.3 or so also, and its airframe can withstand 25G! I don't know what the design specs were on the shuttle, but I know it never experienced more than 3 G, and I would guess that 10G would rip it apart.
If I were going to slap a spacecraft together, I'd give it the airframe specs of a MIG-25, make it out of titanium, and instead of tiles just bolt on a piece of disposable titanium covered with teflon for a heat shield. It could probably be used a bunch of times too before it had to have a new coating put on it if the teflon coating were thick enough. Heck, there's so many new frying pan materials out there that would probably do 10 times better than teflon too.
Such a spaceship would have weathered what destroyed the shuttle with little more than a tiny dent.
You mean to tell me that with $500 million per FLIGHT (!) that piece of junk was all they could come up with? It was half disintegrated before it ever left the ground. Tiles so delicate you could not touch them? WTF? That's like some kind of sick joke. It's almost like they're making it up. They designed a winged aircraft that is supposed to use aerobraking for reentry and made it out of aluminum instead of titanium?
Hell, I have a whole set of frying pans that are more advanced.
Lots of folks are getting screwed here people: Astronauts and taxpayers to name a few.
Links to Photo & Sensor Schematics (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Troll? (Score:4, Insightful)
And that would be a damn shame if they decide to switch so another OS Just Because The Current One Is Old. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" keeps echoing in my head.
I concur. (Score:5, Insightful)
Spaceflight tends to reward simple and time-tested designs over new and complex. I have read at least one account suggesting that NASA resurrect the Gemini spacecraft for crew transfer to and from the ISS, since it was one of the most reliable spacecraft the US has ever flown.
Shuttle vs. Soyuz (Score:3, Interesting)
1.) The shuttle can't retrieve the vast majority of satellites either. Unless they're in LEO, not destabilized, are designed to be retrieved, and can be refolded to fit in the shuttle bay, NASA has to pass on the job.
A robot "space taxi" of the sort that was supposed to be a complement of the space station in the earlier designs (ion engines powered by micronuke or solar, multiple grasping arms, remote operation from ISS) would do the job better, cost far less, and provide dozens of other useful capabilities. Use the taxi to bring the troublesome unit to ISS, if possible, repair it there, if not, wrap it in a disposable shell and drop it to earth.
2.) Repairs? See above.
3.) Building things in orbit? Again, see above. In addition, small mobile robots would do the job better and faster, work all the time instead of just during the brief intervals that the shuttle is up, and bring the ISS closer to being self-supporting and self-repairing.
4.) Satellite launches? Rockets work just fine for less money. Cheaper per pound, can go direct to more orbits, and are far more flexible.
5.) A soyuz-type craft cannot carry as large a crew. But tell me, so what? Is there some reason that one can't just launch more small ships? Keep in mind, btw, that launch facilities are currently being built in Brazil and Tonga, while Guyana keeps being put in play. Add facilities at the European's sites and we could have launches every week or so, year round.
6.) No, the ISS is merely in orbit *all the time*! Personally, I am nervous at having all of our eggs in the ISS's one basket. But for far less then we're paying now, we could use a disposable launch system to put up two or three Skylab-scale stations in different orbits, connected by a "space tug". By boosting up a small SPS or a few outrigger microreactors, the fuel needs would be minimal and a few tugs could be available at all times, charged and ready to go. Also don't forget that with robot-based missions, time in space just doesn't matter that much. Combine that with the moon's much smaller gravity well, and getting a few tons of moon rock up to the ISS for use as shielding is nowhere near as big a deal as one would think. Just use super-efficient trajectories (who cares? a five month trip is perfectly acceptable to a robot) and the only seriously messy bit is getting down to the moon's surface and back up to space.
People with more time then me have worked out plenty of systems where the robot miner never goes back up again, but just shoots little bits of rock up with a mass driver, where they are intercepted and brought back to the station.
7.) It's true, a Soyuz is not reusable. So? Why does this matter? The shuttle uses an awful lot of disposable gear for a supposedly "reusable" launch system. Frankly, all that I care about is cost, safety, and how much usable mass is left in space when a mission is completed. The shuttle loses on all three.
8.) A Soyuz cannot boost something like spacelab and return it. Again, so? Skylab seems to have done just fine with 1970's technology. With the tens of billions we're spending on shuttle work we could come up with some mighty fine one-time-drop systems for large payloads. In fact, NASA started research years back and has had increasing success with what is basically a huge parafoil that can drop a payload to earth far more gently then the shuttle.
I've said it before and I'm saying it again. The shuttle is a white elephant. It's past time to move on.
Rustin
Wrong Question (Score:5, Interesting)
NASA never had any problems with conventional space capsules during re-entry, and never lost a crew. The Russians have continued to use a well tested, relatively simple spacecraft, which has served them very reliably. Comparing a Soyuz to a Shuttle is like comparing a calculator to a computer, you can do many of the same things on either one, but they are fundamentally different, and designed for different purposes.
The decision to use fragile thermal tiles for the Shuttle is one that has faced much criticism over the years. It is a decision that is at the core of what happened to the Shuttle on re-entry, whatever the reason that some of those tiles were damaged or lost. The vulnerability to tile damage was known, but NASA thought they had managed the potential issues in a way that assured the safety of the Shuttle. It appears they were wrong, and the problems were not controllable in the long term.
The amazing thing to me is the number of missions they flew before these thermal tiles became an issue. I think the thermal tiles are a fatally flawed system, both because of their susceptability to damage in flight, and because they require huge amounts of expensive upkeep between missions. The fact that NASA flew over 100 missions before this kind of problem occurred is a tribute to their dedication. The fact that this system was selected shows that NASA is not perfect.
composites don't shield lightnining well! (Score:3, Informative)
I haven't seen anyone try and connect the "purple streak" [sfgate.com] picture and the break-up, so i'll post my theory references again and hope it gets considered. [netfirms.com]
New image evidence shows damage to the composite section of the wing. [spaceflightnow.com] An increasing reliance on composite materials in aircraft construction creates the potential for additional problems because the composites can allow a connection between lightning and airplane electrical circuits [ufl.edu]The tiles were damaged heavily at launch [cbsnews.com], scratched deeply as in previous incidents. [floridatoday.com]
The roughtiles heated and shed, leaving a trail of debris plasma.
The plasma trailacted as a conduit [bbc.co.uk] for an electrical arc [sfgate.com] from charged particles in the high upper atmosphere,similar to the Ben Franklin kite legend.
A huge bolt travelled along the plasma trail to the left wing where it caused severe damage, enough to cause a cascading failure over subsequent minutes. Blue jets [cnn.com], elves and sprites are large atmospheric electrical phenomena which occur at the altitude the space shuttle was passing thru and were being studied by Ramon in the MEIDEX dust experiment [tau.ac.il].
My,My, Hey, Hey
Re:Carbon-carbon trouble-trouble? (Score:4, Informative)
Omens in the sky! (Score:3, Funny)
Mehercule! And Texas is a tiny place, too, far outside the space shuttle flight path! What were the odds!
If there was ever a sign for a president and his administration to rethink what they're doing, this was it.
Yep, you've pegged it. Jove is angry at the Bush Administration. The proper rite of opening the Doors of Janus was doubtless not properly followed. I suggest a propitial lectisternia.
Hmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, did the guy forget his medication or does stuff like that exist?
Probably both.
According to several sources I consider fairly reliable, humans currently have technology capable of shattering the Earth. I'm not 100% about that; our technology, while enormously more advanced than the current public perception would allow, we're nowhere nearly as advanced as some previous incarntions of humanity, (Atlatian, Lemurian, etc.), and frankly, even to me, shattering the Earth seems like a fairly inconceivable affair.
Mind you, early work by Tesla demonstrated that knowing the correct frequency of an object gave one the power to make it vibrate using sympathetic resonance from a distance, (the basics of radio), and that if you continually pumped energy into that object in a certain way, you could literally shake the object apart. And as one great mind once said. . , "With a lever big enough. .
Though, screwing up in such a way is supposedly what destroyed the planet which we now know of as the Asteroid belt. And that's not from Lee & Kirby.
This stuff only seems far-out to people because everybody has been led to believe in an excruciatingly simple description of reality. When you start to think and look and overcome your programming. .
-Fantastic Lad --None Rival DOOM!