More on Columbia 518
RodeoBoy writes "It seems that regardless of what NASA and Boeing wants the public to believe there are still questions about damage to the shuttle's left wing. Some Boeing engineers have raised concerns that proper analysis of the damage was not done at the time, due to changes and cutbacks in Boeing. It is also coming out that more than one chunk of foam might have hit and damaged the wing. With Boeing having some financial troubles and NASA under public scrutiny again, what is the future of the space shuttle program..."
The future? Just like the past should be... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The future? Just like the past should be... (Score:2, Insightful)
NASA is a monopolistic government agency which self evaluates, self polices and has little in the way of market pressures to deal with in order to continue to exist.
It makes a difference.
KFG
Re:The future? Just like the past should be... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The future? Just like the past should be... (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly up to this point what they have accomplished would have been simply impossible otherwise. It would be like asking some ancient Egyptians to get together and build a pyramid in their back yard.
However, even a cursory examination of the history of the whole shuttle project will reveal it to be a purely political affair.
Apollo and its forbears may have had politics as their genesis, but then, at least for a time, the politics dictated that the politicians get the hell out of the way and let the engineers get the job done.
That time has long since passed, whether public perception has caught up with the times or not.
KFG
Re:Retarded logic (Score:5, Interesting)
So let's face it, NASA is unable to do real space exploration and instead is running an unreliable shuttle service to an incredibly expensive 7.5 man-hr/wk research facility. We have to make a choice. We can either continue to pour money down this hole or we can scrap it altogether and reset our priorities to fit whatever money we want to spend on truly worthwhile projects.
Re:Retarded logic (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Retarded logic (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's my proposal: shut down NASA altogether, then take all the money we were using to fund it, and send it to Russia instead. Obviously, they'll make far more effective use of the money than we will.
X-38? or maybe X-33? (Score:4, Insightful)
Government programs did not make the first aircraft, automobiles, locomotives, steamships (or sailing ships for that matter). Why should the first true spacecraft be any different? It does not take any more fuel to get a pound into orbit than it takes to fly a pound from the US to Australia. (yeah, airliners don't carry oxidizer - but bear with me).
The SSTO (X-whatever) that got funded and then killed was a damnable con job. It would be like Curtis Aviation promising to build a supersonic jumbo jet capable of flying 12,000 km at MACH 6 without refueling.
In 1908.
NASA does not "get" the idea of manned spaceflight. They "get" 20,000 jobs to keep some 20 year old experimental spacecraft flying at a cost of about 1 billion dollars per flight. Experimental spacecraft that were designed by political committes ten years earlier. Experimental spacecraft that the designers promised would be orders of magnitude cheaper to operate than the Saturn V (1970 cost to launch a Saturn was around 100 million). An experimental spacecraft that would be re-uasable. Well the solid fuel boosters cost more to recover and refurbish than paying for new ones each time. And the Orbiter itself has a tendency to be pretty well rebuilt between flights. (Maintenance and upgrades)
We still need the orbital equivalent of the Wright Flyer. Then data from that design can be used in developing newer, better designs. What is not needed is "the most complicated machine ever built" (NASA's favorite way of describing the Shuttle)
But don't fret about Mankind's destiny among the stars - there are other countries besides the US that have space programs. Once the US government realizes that lack of a real space program with cheap access to space means condemning the USA to a role in international affairs somewhat less prestigious than what France now enjoys, there will be a new Space Race - one that won't be looking to an organization whose greatest claim to fame now is that they once sent some powdered orange drink to the Moon. (Ok, I know that Tang never made it to the Moon, but hte makers of Tang claimed it did)
Oh, brother (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, if we just get rid of all their mechanical engineers, I'll bet they could build much more reliable shuttles!
Most notably the shuttle's turn around time and payload size. Both of which were cut way back from the original goals.
Yeah. Bastards. NASA is the only organization that doesn't meet initial estimates. Unlike, say, software companies.
No one else *builds* shuttles, you know? It's a little bit hard to *make* accurate estimates. If they simply underestimated everything, would *that* make you happy?
NASA in my opinion is mishandling our money. This has been my opinion for almost 20 years. Two shuttle accidents just prove my point.
You're cranky because of an accident a *decade*? Hell, Ford would *kill* for that kind of record, and they have a *much* easier task to do.
Ignoring for the moment the lives lost: If this had been a normal rocket we had lost then we would not have lost so much money.
The lives lost are essentially irrelevant. Maybe in a couple of hundred million years of shuttle flights, it'll measure up to some of the *other* things that we've done, like WWII or Vietnam. Why do you think they used only military personnel on the shuttle for years and years?
As for being a normal rocket and cost -- sure, it would have cost less. OTOH, the cost *per flight* would have been higher, because the vehicle wouldn't be reusable. There's a *reason* they built the shuttle, laddie buck.
If the shuttle flights were occurring more often then it would have been comparable with loosing say an airliner. Annoying but within expectations. The number of flights would pay for a shuttle loss quicker, maybe enough to be factored into the costs. As it is we have lost a very expensive craft used for very rare missions. 5-6 launches a year is a sorry waste of my tax money for a system designed as if it was running 50 times a year.
Had you been less ignorant about what you were talking about, you'd be aware that the reason shuttle flights were cut so far back from original design parameters is *because* NASA had their funding cut so much since the moon landings.
This is pork barrel spending at it worst hiding behind science and patriotism.
Yeah! We could *obviously* put the money into pursuits *far* more productive for the human race, like blowing up Iraqis! Are you stupid?
Re:Oh, brother (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, no. The shuttle costs $500M per flight and is reusable. Soyuz costs $10M per flight (they charge $20M) and is disposable, and has a superior safety record. Sure, it's a bit smaller and has no coke machine. But it costs 2% of a shuttle flight.
In this case, reusable != cheaper or safer.
Re:Oh, brother (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, brother (Score:5, Insightful)
The Space Shuttle's complexity is a bug, not a feature.
Re:The future? Just like the past should be... (Score:2)
And by the millitary.
Re:The future? Just like the past should be... (Score:4, Insightful)
Development, however, has almost all been by the private sector to compete for contracts. In other words, they develop a product and then try to sell it.
Fokker, Sopwith, Boeing, General Dynamics, SAAB, all private firms that develop most of their products, even the military ones, quite independently.
KFG
Re:The future? Just like the past should be... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but one factor you've left out is that in most cases, the goverment also funds the development and research. Most companies aren't going to risk the capital to develope something the goverment "might" buy. Sure, they might throw some bones at certain projects and programs which have great potential, but in reality, no dough - no show.
Re:The future? Just like the past should be... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The future? Just like the past should be... (Score:5, Interesting)
Jerry Pournelle's Site [jerrypournelle.com] has several interesting articles on the space program. He's a science fiction author (see 'Fallen Angeles') at the Baen Free Library [baen.com] who worked in aerospace for many years, has testified before Congress and given speeches to the Air War College.
Re:The future? Just like the past should be... (Score:3, Informative)
Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't been following this closely, but why would NASA want the public to believe in a non-foam-related cause, rather than a foam-related one?
I'd share your cynicism if they were saying, "It wasn't foam, it was Saddam!" But given a failure, why would the foam collision be worth burying in favor of something else?
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
speculated that NASA is downplaying the debris strike to fend off criticism it might not have done enough to get the astronauts back safely.
There is no possible way NASA could fend off such criticism by just pretending mistake C happened instead of mistake G.
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, something like a random hit of space junk on re-etry would be something they'd have no way to avoid at all - just very bad luck.
It's not too hard to see why NASA would perfer it to be something like the second case.
Re:Say what? (Score:4, Interesting)
It is possible for the astronauts to hand-fly the reentry sequence. Joe Engle [nationalaviation.org] did it on STS-2 (due to incorrect drag parameters for the flight control system). So if a new reentry profile could be designed, it could be used. ALSO, I think the OPS programs that do the actual reentry have numerous parameters that can be modified in orbit.
Heating on the wings is even when the vehicle is banked, eh? The fuselage of the vehicle produces no shielding of the "up" wing when atmospheric density is so low? Not to mention that spending more time at bank means that you descend quicker. THere's also "skip" trajectories like many of the Apollo missions flew (these provide two very short windows of extreme heating, as compared to the "moderate" heating of a normal re-entry)Obviously the re-entry profile that is flown affects the degree of stress the orbiter goes through. Are you saying it's impossible to design a reentry profile with different stress characteristics? I'm not sure what profile/loading on the vehicle is ideal for the damage the shuttle suffered (for we don't even know what that damage is), but thermal, mechanical stress, and aerodynamic simulations could establish that.
Shuttle managers said that if they were willing to skip testing, they could have a shuttle in orbit 2 weeks of having it on the pad. Atlantis's prep was finished. The critical thing is the ability to get rid of CO2. Humans produce -much- less CO2 when at rest. Thinking about stretching mission time by 50-75% is not out of the question. You'd have to do EVA to shuttle people between shuttles.
Opening the door does NOT depressurize the entire space shuttle. The lab that was in the cargo bay had provisions to just depressurize the lab to do an emergenecy EVA. Keep in mind that valuable weight is spent on every shuttle mission to be able to manually close the payload bay doors if they stick open.
THe thing is, all of this stuff I'm describing is extremely hazardous stuff, especially to try and pull off in two weeks without practice ahead of time. But if you know you've got no other choice, and that the vehicle is almost certainly lost-- you might want to try something like this.
Re:Say what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh yes, there is.
On one hand they have a very public evidence - foam or possibly ice - hitting and damaging shuttle's left wing. NASA says they and Boeing analyzed the incident and determined to be not of significant concern that would break up the orbiter. Now these articles, if you read them, bring out more evidence that these analysis were done by mostly inexperienced engineers. Moreover, as one article mentioned, they ignored several of the "worst case scenarios" brought out by the software they used for analysis. All this data is becoming public and directly blames NASA and Boeing for not being careful/accurate/[insert your adjective].
On the other hand, NASA could conclude that the crash was a result of a long-standing defect (structural, mechanical, etc.) that nobody knew about until now.
Now, in the former case, blame directly goes to NASA and Boeing for basically "screwing up". In the latter case, they could market the idea that "look, space travel is dangerous business, you can't see everything coming" and then shift attention to astronauts being heroes and so on. There is a big difference between saving the face, keeping the job and public perception, program funding, etc. not only on NASA's local level, but consider financial, political, and international stage; and on the other hand being directly blamed for the disaster. Also consider public opinion difference between these two scenarios.
Re:Say what? (Score:2, Funny)
Bush on NASA: Saddam must be overthrown
Re:Say what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Check copy of e-mail communications after the foam incident [nasa.gov]
Re:Say what? (Score:3, Insightful)
That the crew and orbiter were lost is sad. I'm sure if the engineers at NASA had a second go at it, they would have done something different, but they don't. They only had the one go at it, based on the data available, and their best guess. And sitting here playing armchair quarterback, after the fact, and before we really know the cause of the accident, is just silly. Blaming the engineers for failing to find a problem, which is only theroetical at this point, is simply horrible, and ignores the complexity of the situation. Personally, I think the best we can do right now is give the investigators the time to figure out what actually happened, and not get in their way.
Re:Say what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Say what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Aerospace is complicated stuff, and engineers will make mistakes and failure chains will occur. The question is whether the process that is in place causes the correct analysis to be attempted (even if the results are faulty) and there are a sufficient level of checks and balances in place.
In the Challenger accident, the process failed. In this case, there may have been bad analysis done by the individual engineers, or there may not have been enough information on the videotape to know (and taking drastic measures based on a guess is in itself dangerous). But as long as we operated on the best knowledge that we had at the time, I don't have a problem with what NASA did post launch.
On the other hand, Richard Feynman's paper on the Challenger accident is very appropriate here. Tiles have been getting damaged for a long time; they were not designed to take damage. Just because you survive a phenomena you don't understand once.. doesn't mean that it's a safe risk to take again. Engineers need to figure out why these things happen, and correct the design. Some steps were taken in the early 90's with the tile adhesive, but were probably not sufficient.
The tiles are a really good ablative shield (the best known, perhaps), but very delicate. And trying to use them on something that is going to experience launch energies is an inherently risky proposition. Managing that risk by adapting to newly observed behavior is the job of the engineering staff at United Space Alliance and NASA. Was it done sufficiently with the tile impact problems? I don't know.
For the same reason they didn't want. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.ht
KFG
Re:Say what? (Score:2)
That explanation doesn't fit all the data they have. They haven't ruled it out yet, which is good because it means they're receptive to other ideas as well.
Personally, I appreciate this method of investigation. Instead of finding a suspect and trying to find evidence that supports it, they're looking at the evidence and trying to find a suspect. The difference here could mean lives down the road.
Hoping for "Freak Accident" (Score:3, Interesting)
Shuttle is and allways was a dangerous overrated toy. It is robbing the public of money that could be better used and taking the lives of men and women that could be doing more useful work then silly tests in space and housesitting a useless spacestation.
If we aren't going to colonize space, the moon, or mars then keep people out of it. Or let those who want to go there PAY for it themselves.
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Say what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Currently, we have evidence of an impact near the wheel well tiles by a large object and a failure of containment near that point during entry. Despite the hopeful analysis by NASA: "It was all foam and it didn't hit any critical tiles, and even if it did, the Crater impact analysis program is wrong and the impact wasn't deeper than the tile and even if it did hit we got hit before and it landed safely so we'll be fine." I haven't seen any change from the same complacency and lack of rigor that influenced the decision to launch the Challenger all those years ago.
That doesn't mean that I think journalists are great at scientific enquiry. However, the heads of NASA don't seem to be terribly scientific either. Here's some choice quotes.
AndBased on WHAT? Whose jumping to conclusions now? It's called bullshitting until you get the results you want. For the record, here's my list of the mistakes I'm aware of in the analysis and conclusions surrounding the launch foam incident. Remember, this analysis was supposed to be the worst case scenario. And they concluded that there was "no substantial risk".
EnkiduEOT
It WAS terrorism! (Score:3, Funny)
Dead right!
The foam is probably made from petrochemicals,
these were refined from crude oil,
probably originating in the middle east,
maybe even from Iraq!
You don't have to be Donald Rumsfield to put two and two together and blame Iraq for this heinous atrocity!!!!!
Either that or the shuttle was shot down by an Al Quaida operated railgun lent to Osama by Saddam and fired from Cuba! (those railguns have long range you know).
Honest.
I don't think it's in danger (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't think it's in danger (Score:2, Interesting)
NASA works to (as I understand it) an even more restrictive version of the above. The probability theory involved is way above my head, so anyone is welcome to chime in and correct any misstatements. d.
Thoughts on the shuttle (Score:4, Informative)
Comments welcome.
please NASA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:please NASA... (Score:2)
The Shuttle really isn't the beast we can do now days, but NASA has been so heavily invested in the program better solutions haven't been looked into as much as they might have been. Even if this is the death-knell for the shuttle program, perhaps in the long run it may be the event that spurs NASA to develop something better.
"wants the public to believe" (Score:5, Insightful)
The media (and Joe Public) on the other hand, think science and space travel are just like Star Trek and that the problem is found and cured by successions of deus ex machina -- Plot Convenience Playhouse. So they pick up on Nasa's early interest in the foam theory, then think they're hiding something when Nasa says "It just doesn't seem to fit. We're not ruling it out, but we're following other leads for now."
The media (and Joe Public) want sensational instant-gratification science, of which this investigation will be anything but.
To the non-scientist, this whole careful, deliberate not-jumping-to-conclusions analysis is mind-numbingly boring. So they read their cultural biases into it and draw stupid conclusions.
You'd think that "nerds" who read Slashdot would know better than to make a sensationalistic statement like "wants the public to believe"... but then again look at some of the "from the
Re:"wants the public to believe" (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously, you haven't read the articles, especially the one where engineers themselves employed by Boeing (before their department's move to Houston) question the methods and interpretations of results that were made by them. Quotes from miami.com article [miami.com]:
"I don't understand how they can run the Crater program and get these results and discount them completely," said Professor Fischbeck.
One scenario, for example, predicted a two-foot-long, seven-inch-wide swath of missing tiles.
"When something like that hits you and your computer program tells you you're all the way through the thermal protection system for that big of an area, you're in big trouble," the thermal systems engineer said.
"We had never seen a chart as bad as that."
If this is indeed true, and Boeing or NASA engineers didn't evaluate the data carefully, or because of lack of experience,
"This was their first flight," said the Boeing thermal systems engineer. "This was the first time they took over."
then most of the blame does go to NASA and their decision makers. Nobody should jump to conclustions, but at the very least, these articles are disturbing.
Sounds like 1986 all over again.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Also sounds like Ford and Firestone..
What I find interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
I can only suppose that during the lift-off most of the work is done by the primary booster and the shuttle is simply 'riding the rocket' without putting too much stress on the damaged wing. However, during the landing the wing was under high stress and that was more important factor in the accident than the temperature alone.
Re:What I find interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What I find interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
On re-entry, the goal is essentially to cause as much friction (and heat) as the system can bear, so as to bleed off speed before hitting the thicker atmosphere.
Re:What I find interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Another way to think of it is that the majority of the acceleration during ascent occurs above any significant atmosphere, however all the potential and kinetic energy of the spacecraft on orbit but be shed somehow on reenty,... mostly as heat.
Don't close the space program yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that the macho space race against the Soviets is over maybe NASA should consider some size and cost-cutting.
Would anyone have a figure how much it would cost to send a space tourist to ISS on a Shuttle? I bet its a lot more than $10 million (allegedly the cost of sending them with a Russian mission).
Shuttle launches cost ~$500m (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that the launches cost SO much that there isn't money for R&D into newer and cheaper solution. With a more rocket-style system like the Russians use, you can keep researching and deploying new technology, because its always a fresh start.
The shuttle is the only vehicle capable of certain things, but at the same time, our manned missions haven't had major technology change in decades. We really need to figure out how to stop treating everything like a nail just because we have a great hammer... A small screwdriver would be better for some things... like screws...
Alex
How heavy is the foam? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How heavy is the foam? (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Cutbacks (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that we'll get to the bottom of this eventually. Given enough time, of course.
However, I must wonder about how much of the shuttle funds were diverted to help fund the ISS...
In any event, the loss of Columbia and its crew should not be a terminating point for manned space exploration; we all have to escape from Earth in the end!
Columbia FAQ (Score:5, Informative)
Excellent work by this guy. No irrational conspiracy theories, no useless speculation, no NASA asskissing.
Sorry if it's a dupe.
Unfortunently... (Score:3, Insightful)
Far as engineers saying something during the flight in emails. Well I could send out lots of emails saying it will blow up every time it goes up. Some day I would be right, but that wouldn't mean I warned them. If an engineer thought differant about the sitution it doesn't mean NASA ignored them and some is at fault. There were others who didn't agree with him. NASA has to make a call, and the might make the wrong one. This wasnt' preventable far as we know. Maybe it will come back to being some pre-flight thing that was done wrong of neglected, then it's differant, but if it's something that went wrong after launch it very well may be no ones fault. Things like challenger were differant. There engineers told officals before launch about the O-rings. Bulk of the engineers knew there was an extremely high chance it would fail on that day. When it blew they didn't even have to ask why it failed, they knew. They just had to investigate to show they were right. That was a preventable accident that was the fault of not listening to engineers.
"What is the future of the space shuttle program?" (Score:2)
It must be terrorists (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It must be terrorists (Score:3, Funny)
Eco-"aware" liberals did, because old, reliable one contains miniscule amount of the stuff that the Holy Ones of Enviromental Protection Order deemed too unsafe to exist. I'm too tired to go find the actual reference but you can dig up on Google news, I'm sure, if you want the details.
-DVK
Best outcome? It's expedited demise (Score:5, Interesting)
For that matter, even lunar missions would be a better use of money than testing the effects of near zero gravity on ants.
Joking about the disaster (Score:2)
Joking about the incompetence of the program that caused the disaster is open season. [lostbrain.com]
Or is it?
tcd004
Why no mention of *ice* in ./ article? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd still sign up for the next flight if I could. (Score:2, Interesting)
Really though. I thought that space exploration was a pretty risky endeavour. NASA tries to be as careful as possible, but they have a limited budget and finite resources. Given the staggering risks involved, I'd say that they are still doing pretty well. This latest explosion will cause a new wave of safety checking which is all good stuff. How many of you wouldn't give you left nut to be on that next shuttle anyways. Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!
No guts, no glory...
What I think we should do (Score:5, Interesting)
What I say is we should do the following
1. Sell the space shuttles to someone else, China?
2. Make NASA a regulator agency, like the FCC of FDA.
3. Privatize the space industry.
This will result in money being spent to do useful things with space travel. People will be able to put up sattelites, space tourism will begin and eventually flourish. Someone might set up a hotel type space station. Or a moon base, or go to mars. All in all it should boost the economy by creating a new industry for people to work in and new companies to work for, as well as making life a hell of a lot more interesting.
Of course there are reasons not to do this, but this is what I want, not necessarily the best idea in the world, or the most realistic one.
Probably Not Insulation (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it pretty insulting when people try to imply that NASA and Boeing are being anything but absolutely forthcoming about information. Sure, it's in their best interest to displace blame, but this isn't the X-Files here. If NASA knows something, they're going to tell the public.
one of the best places for columbia news... (Score:2)
Today for example had interviews with some engineers at USA regarding the Cult of Safety, and a bunch of other things.
They've got a whole ongoing section [chron.com] dedicated to the investigation and how its going.
Hard to damage tiles? (Score:4, Interesting)
The original tiles were very delicate and obscenely hard to attach. New glues were developed, but it still took a long time because they kept breaking. It wouldn't take much to damage it, especially since Columbia was the first operational shuttle of 20 years service, with all the first-generation problems that implies!
Re:Hard to damage tiles? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hard to damage tiles? (Score:3, Informative)
This is all well and good, except that the tiles just got replaced with better ones a few years ago. In fact, most of the shuttle (except the airframe) was replaced. If anything, it's showing all the problems of a first generation overhaul, not of a tried and tested vehicle.
+3 Informative? My ass. How about -1 Go read up on it before posting with bold turned on to emphasize the red herrings you lay down.
The simple fact is that there are a lot of good people working for NASA and that they will try to figure out what went wrong. Contrary to the sensationalist crap that RodeoBoy spewed into Slashdot, each of those articles (to which he linked) pointed out that NASA is being very cautious and is making sure to judge all the evidence and doesn't want anyone (especially the ill-informed public) to start drawing premature conclusions. It would be a great disservice to the crew if we did not learn from this horrible tradgedy. NASA doesn't "want the public to believe" anything. In fact, they want the public to believe nothing. Instead, they'd like to look at the facts and leave unfounded beliefs out of it. Please be kind and give the investigation team a chance to at least bring some good out of this.
Disclaimer: The company I work for has contracts with NASA. I work down the road from Langely Research Center. I am not involved (even indirectly) with the investigation.
Needless agnst (Score:2)
This kind of "us vs them" story indicates all that is wrong with the coverage. It will be methodical analysis, and maybe some luck, that will eventually tell the story. And we might as well get used to the fact that we may NEVER know exactly what happened - only what is probable. That's the real world.
This is what they do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Engineers think 'worse case scenario' all the time. I'm sure if you could read every email sent within NASA in a week you could find people arguing over 1000 design points, mission plans, etc. This is how it works. After the fact, a small subset becomes much more interesting, but that should be taken in context.
Which is not to say that we shouldn't be asking questions.
Time to retire the shuttle (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider first that the shuttle was a massive compromise versus the original proposed designs. If the budget had been infinite, we would have had a better shuttle. If the budgeteers had had more foresight, we might (probably) have had a better shuttle. The shuttle we have now is a big series of compromises that limit its usefulness and safety.
Now consider that the shuttle program has been around since 1981. That's more than half of the time that's passwd since man first walked on the moon! It still seems shiny to some of us (myself included), because it was the only newsmaking bit of space exploration in our youth. However, it's old. It's an old (and limited) design, and we have learned a lot of what to do (or not) on the next go around. It's time to climb the next step of astronautical evolution.
So let's keep them in top shape, fly them as necessary (mostly as ferries to the ISS), while putting as much money as possible into a next-generation space vehicle.
Not to be cruel... (Score:5, Interesting)
but this was a friggin car accident. Seven people died. The car happened to be very very very very very very very expensive.
Like this guy said [slashdot.org]. All this speculation is ridiculous. Let them do what they do.
Flame on.
The shuttle is obsolete. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's simple math and economics. Financially the shuttle program has been a terrible disaster. Now you can't second guess anything and there have been advances in comfort and living conditions in space and such thanks to the shuttle but I'm sure the same kind of things would have been done without it. We've learned things because of the shuttle, it hasn't stopped science, it's just not delivered what it was supposed to have.
I also fear that NASA itself may be out of date and obsolete. Am I the only one who is disgusted by the notion of the beaurocracy? There are all of these emails surfacing. I've worked at IBM and other big places and I get this sick feeling of CYA going on. I can just see the Dilbert-esque rocket scientist sitting at his desk composing the emails to the director about the foam falling off and the other possible causes. "Properly documenting" the risk. I've read Feynman's report on the Challenger disaster and that's one of the issues he pointed out. The administration lives in make believe where the engineers make compromises to do things on time. It's kind of a bummer because there are people that die because of it. I'd like to think that someone will be held accountable, I doubt that anybody other than an administrative warm body will be and at best they'll be fired and get a really high paying job at Boeing, TRW, or Raytheon.
I think it's high time we start looking at splitting NASA up in to 2 or 3 groups and making them compete with each other. Let the beaurocracy die and the science come back, make them write proposals, beg congress and private parties for funding and then hold them accountable for delivery. Let different groups take different approaches. Reward success with continued funding. NASA is cheap, relatively speaking. We can easily fund 3 NASAs. Right now it all rides on the success and failure of one entity with nearly an impossible mission, logisitally speaking. NASA can't even admit that the shuttle program is a failure because then they lose face and funding and there isn't another organization in place to do the science. So science continues to limp and NASA continues to put bandaids on a very expensive wound that has taken more lives than all other space related accidents put together.
And for the record I am appriciative and recognize the hard work and accomplishments of everyone associated with the shuttle program. They have engineered some amazing things and I'm not attacking anybody personally. It's the program as a whole that hasn't delivered what it promised.
Building a new STS the right way. (Score:3, Interesting)
Reformatted to not be a dumbass. (Score:5, Informative)
However there is a way to do this. Right now the STS fleet is grounded, so the immediate concern is how to keep the ISS in orbit and fully manned. Russian President Putin has promised to build more Soyuz space craft to insure ISS is manned and supplied. From what I've found, it cost Russian anywhere from 25 to 50 million bucks to launch a manned Soyuz and a little less for a Progress supply ship.
I would propose that the US discontinue any crew transport missions for the Shuttle to ISS and pay a significant portion of the money needed to keep Soyuz ships flying to ISS instead. If these ships cost 50 million bucks then there is a savings of about 400 million bucks for each transport (the Shuttle cost an estimated 450 million to fly). When the Shuttle is back on in the air, it should ONLY fly construction missions to finish the ISS. The the STS should be retired.
That begs the question, what do we do with 450 mil for each flight that doesn't go? Since there are typically 6 or 7 flights by the Shuttle per year, about half of them are for significant construction of ISS. So we are looking at a savings of nearly 1.5 billion per fiscal year. THAT money should be invested in a completely new Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) space shuttle like the X-33 was meant to be. But that's not all. In order for space travel to become affordable, space vehicles must become more affordable.
Building 5 space shuttles cost the taxpayers between 3 and 5 billion for each one (the Endeavor cost 3 billion because it was built from spare parts). If we could build say 20 or 30 space shuttles, the cost could possibly be cut in half or perhaps more. NASA doesn't need 20 or 30 shuttles, however, if we could get the European Space Agency (ESA), the Russians, the Japanese, Aussies, and even the Koreans to join up with the promise of owning their own shuttles, the cost could be easily be spread out.
You see, the Europeans would get out from under NASA's shadow which they have for so long hated. They wanted to build a ship back in the 80's called the Sanger but they didn't have the money for it. The Europeans don't have the experience of space travel that we or the Russians do but they do have a lot of technology and engineering that they can bring to the table. The Russians are obvious additions because of their experience. What they can't bring to the table in money, they can definitly bring in know how.
The Japanese have always wanted a manned space program but they too don't have the money to foot the bill for all the R&D involved. In addition, their rocket program has suffered many setbacks. The Koreans might look on this as national pride IMO and a chance to play with the big boys. We of course know more about Shuttles than anyone and of course can bring more money to the table.
America would still have its leadership role in the project but would still have to work with members of the development and building team. You see, I no longer see space exploration as an American dream. This is a HUMAN endeavor. We as Americans (or Russians) just happen to be better at it than anyone else. If we build a shuttle or two that can haul cargo and personnel to low Earth orbit in a cost effective manner, we will see more and more people going and that is the goal. Get more up there so we can do more.
NASA has already learned that it needs to get out of the space launching business and get into the Space Exploration and Space Science business. NASA was essentially going to sell the Shuttles to the United Space Alliance and lease them back. The USA was going to maintain the Shuttles and NASA or Air Force pilots were going to fly them. NASA needs to get away from the space monopoly that it has created so that competition can be built. The same thing happened when NASA got out of the satelite launching business after the Challenger disaster.
Getting people to compete and getting a new reliable shuttle with the world behind it will establish a firm foothold in space for the human race. Right now we have had our foot in the door for too long and earlier this month it got jammed. Now it's time to kick open the door and step inside. Once we have a firm foundation in orbit and on the moon, then we can procede to the Planets and the stars.
(I really don't see why 10+ paragraphs worth of stuff would ever be formatted is one giant blob. That this was modded up was incredible -- I know I can't read a 50 sentence blob!)
Re:Building a new STS the right way. (Score:4, Informative)
From the Space FAQ [faqs.org]:
People arguing over shuttle costs on the net are usually arguing from
different assumptions and do not describe their assumptions clearly,
making it impossible to reach agreement. To demonstrate the difficulty,
here are a range of flight cost figures differing by a factor of 35 and
some of the assumptions behind them (all use 1992 constant dollars).
$45 million - marginal cost of adding or removing one flight from
the manifest in a given year.
$414 million - NASA's average cost/flight, assuming planned flight
rates are met and using current fiscal year data only.
$1 billion - operational costs since 1983 spread over the actual
number of flights.
$900 million - $1.35 billion - total (including development) costs
since the inception of the shuttle program, assuming 4 or 8
flights/year and operations ending in 2005 or 2010.
$1.6 billion - total costs through 1992 spread over the actual
number of flights through 1992.
AvWeek is reporting transition to turbulent flow (Score:5, Insightful)
Turbulent flow mixes the air near the surface much more, causing far greater transfer of heat to the Shuttle. There was some 'slumping' of tiles in that previous flight, temperatures reached ~2000 degrees, right at the limit of what the tiles can take.
This happens because Columbia's wing was far less smooth than the other (remaining) orbiters.
If there was significant roughness added by the foam/ice/whatever gouging the wing, that would increase the heating even more.
Another problem they were concerned with was an asymmetric transition to turbulent flow, which would cause the drag on one wing to be higher than the other, yawing the shuttle -- but it seems that there is more than enough control authority in the elevons and RCS system to counteract that if it happens.
thad
What difference does it make? (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if the foam hitting the wing at launch was the cause of the reentry failure, there's nothing they could have done about it, even if they had positively known that was going to cause a catastrophic failure upon reentry.
A similar event occured during Apollo XII, the second manned Moon landing. During launch, the Saturn V rocket was struck by lightning, causing a number of failures which were rapidly corrected. After they were out of the atmosphere, back at Mission Control, they pondered whether or not the lightning strike might have damaged the pyrotechnics that cause the parachute to deploy after reentry (they could hit the "chute deploy" button, but nothing would happen -- the pyros would already be burned out). Just as in the case of the Columbia, to know this information they'd need to have done an unscheduled EVA, and the additional information would have really changed nothing: If they did an about-face and reentered right then, they'd have been just as dead reentering then as they would after a successful Moon landing. So there was really no point even knowing; the knowledge would have changed nothing about the reality of the situation. (Of course, in the case of Apollo XII, the pyros were undamaged and the chutes deployed without incident.)
The point is, even if they positively knew that it was a problem, knowing and then reentering and dying isn't any different from not knowing and then reentering and dying.
Re:What difference does it make? (Score:3, Informative)
That's not true. When Atlantis suffered insulation damage it delayed reentry until nighttime, and spent time beforehand with the damaged wing facing away from the Sun to allow it to cool off. It may have (either it did, or this was proposed as a possibility for Columbia had this been known) also come in at a different angle such that the known good wing took a majority of the reentry heat.
Re:What difference does it make? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, if they had known there would be a problem they could have done something. Atlantis could have launched in a week. They would have to eliminate a lot of normal testing, but better to play the odds that nothing serious would turn up, when you know something serious will happen if you don't. Once the humans are off the shuttle we don't worry about if it survives re-entry or not. Let it come down over the pacific, like Mir did. (easier said than done, but I think doable)
Of course that doesn't mean it would be easy. Atlantis could only carry 2 crew, which would make some tasks more difficult. And a rescue has never been attempted so they would have to figgure out a lot of things on the fly. (Could atlantis' arm be used? - if the arm can even be installed in time) Still it would have been attempted if they really thought it was nessicary.
Oh boy, here comes the conspiracy theory. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the truth is almost never that simple when it comes to accidents involving complex and highly redundant systems. NASA is obviously having a hard time believing a 2 foot, 2 pound piece of foam could bring down such a technologically advanced piece of engineering (and yes, it was technologically advanced - much of Columbia's heat shielding, including the leading edges of the wings, was replaced with state of the art materials in 1999). I am having a hard time believing it too.
Anyone who has ever read a major aircraft disaster report from the NTSB knows that it is almost always a series of highly implausible events that conspire to cause disaster. Any one of these events would be remote; the chances of them coming together in the way they did would be almost impossible (but not completely impossible). This is the way it almost always is. We know that several shuttles - including Columbia - have been hit in their wings by launch debris in the past and suffered no ill effects. Why do we all suddenly want to believe that same debris brought the shuttle down this time? I don't believe it.
I do believe it could be part of the answer, though not the full answer. I believe it's possible (and I'm sure NASA's looking into this, among other things) that the foam hit was the first in a series of problems that compounded upon each other to eventually cause disaster. If it hit in exactly the correct (or incorrect) spot, where a fault already existed, then that's a different story. I know NASA's looking at the procedures used in the Columbia's last overhaul, for example (it's flown only once since then). In that case, the foam hit wouldn't be the cause of the accident - the faulty overhaul of the heat shielding would be. But NASA's looking at a lot of things, and I'm just speculating here, like all the rest of us.
The point is, NASA is an organization of scientists. They wouldn't know how to spin if they tried. They're looking at things analytically and none of their computer models are telling them that the foam by itself could bring the shuttle down. Who are you to argue with them? You'd think on this site, of all places, people would understand that scientists don't go rushing and jumping to conclusions - they examine all the possibilities and analyze everything very methodically. It has nothing to do with what they do or don't "want us to believe". I'm sure if they weren't so focused on their job at hand right now they'd be laughing at what so many of us apparently want to believe, whether or not there's actually any evidence to support our "theory".
Space Exploration...is dangerous! (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether foam caused the catastrophe or something else did, no power on earth was able to save these astronauts once they left the ground. They could not have dropped by the space station and waited for rescue, no docking bay was attached to the shuttle. I cannot see how obfuscation of the facts will help NASA, they want to know what happened so that it doesnt happen again. By downplaying the significance of the foam, which seems the obvious cause to us armchair space directors, they are allowing for all options to be given equal weight in the search for the truth.
Nasa is not hiding (Score:4, Insightful)
Soon after the accident, some people were correcting news casters that this would was not accident, but, like the Challenger, a failure of process. The media has been harking on certain reports that long ago reported the danger of certain tile damage. There are likely many reports on many of the shuttle systems that vulnerable under certain circumstances. Unlike many place, NASA does not hide it's head in the sand. It actively looks for problems and tries to solve them, if necessary. If the process works this makes the space travel safer. When the process does not work, as in Challenger, people die.
I have no doubt that whatever the cause of the accident, some report exists somewhere detailing the scenario. That does not necessarily mean NASA was negligent, just that NASA is thorough. Space travel is dangerous and as much as they might try, the process cannot be made so perfect as to catch and solve every problem. As many people have already said, you solve identify the problem, figure out the best way to solve it, and move on.
I would like to add one personal note. In my experience NASA is very focused on identifying problems, solving problems, and moving on. The step they don't do, and the step that many firms would do well to leave out the process, is the scape goating. It is as waste of time. In some companies in which I have work, fully half the time is spent figuring out how to blame other people for your fuck ups, and then participating in the ensuing punishment. It is inefficient and does nothing to create better products.
And one more thing. Under the the rules of the Clinton administration, all government agencies were required to do al they could to release documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Under the Bush administration, John Ashcroft has request the agencies do all they can NOT to release document requested under the FOIA. The implication of this is that the rapid release of document requested from NASA under the FOIA is totally voluntary. If they wanted to hide thing, Ashcroft has given them permission to do so.
What do you mean, "...Wants us to believe?" (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, the foam is the most obvious candidate for causing the damage. But what if it wasn't? What if it was actually a fuel line that cracked open, began to burn -- hydrazine's value to the space program is that it can burn in a vacuum -- maybe it burned a hole from the inside out, allowing plasma from the rentry to get into the wing. What if it was actually a piece of space debris that struck the shuttle? We almost lost a crew a few years ago when a paint chip almost penetrated through one of the windows.
We just don't know, If they say it was the foam and it was actually something else, then the actual problem will not get fixed, and we will lose more astronauts.
The answers aren't going to come instantly. It is going to take a long time. It can take experts a couple of years to figure out what made an airplane come down, in spite of the fact that usually with a plane crash, the debris is in one small area. The shuttle debris is scattered over several states. The further west a piece is, the more likely it is going to shed light on what happened. The first pieces to come off are the most critical.
The astronauts are well aware that with each launch, they have a 50% to 70% chance of being killed. It's a testiment to how NASA does things that we haven't lost more astronauts. They accept this risk, because the work they do does eventually help everyone else in one way or another. They feel that this is worth the risk, to do what they can to help other people.
Will we stop going to space? Hell no! Even if the government gives up, people won't. How many people have died over the centuries when sailing ships explored the oceans? How many Polynesians sailed away from their home islands to colonize somewhere else, never to see dry land again? We have a pretty good idea how many Spanish galleons were lost in the Carribean. With a crew of upwards of 400, one ship resulted in a lot of lives lost.
None of that stopped us. Losing Challenger didn't stop us. Losing Columbia won't either. But it clearly serves as a terrible wakeup call that we missed something, and a sad reminder that spaceflight is not without risks.
So before you cry 'foul' and 'coverup,' give the people a chance to find out what happened to their friends.
Last -- what if they did know there was a problem? Do you think the crew would have wanted their friends and family knowing? Sitting there for the duration of the mission knowing their loved ones were doomed? I wouldn't want my family going through something like that. I'd rather put on a brave face, do everything I can to finish my work and life in some meaningful fashion, and then face destiny without making them suffer.
Sorry about the sermon...
Re:What do you mean, "...Wants us to believe?" (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you figure your percentages? I am only aware of 13 Astronaut deaths, and one civilian death on the shuttle. So you are saying we have only sent up 26 Astronauts by your figures. Numbers are not for the mathematically challenged, use them with care for they have meaning.
Re:What do you mean, "...Wants us to believe?" (Score:4, Interesting)
First thing is they did not have the docking equipment to dock with another craft (shuttle or otherwise)... and they only had 2 EVA suits onboard...which would have required an almost impossible minimum of 4 EVAs...but assuming that, against all odds, they could do the impossible and get all 7 members safely aboard, you have the logistics problems to consider...
The Soyuz needs 2 ppl (1 if safety is thrown to the wind) to launch...it can only take 3 back with it...which means they would need to put up at least 4 Soyuz capsules to get all 7 back...and this is if they had 4 of them ready to launch...which they don't...
Atlantis could be ready in ~2 weeks if safety checks were thrown out...they'd have to prep the crew (2 man launch crew is the absolute minimum)...and make modifications to carry 9 crew members...
This mission wasn't scheduled to dock with the ISS...so aside from not having the docking kit, it was not aligned correctly...which also means it would not have had enough fuel to get to the ISS...
So, assuming that you didn't lose any astronauts in this amazing feat...you would also have to explain to the American taxpayers why you had to spend billions of dollars, risk many lives, and leave a billion dollar piece of equipment to burn up in orbit because of a "possible" risk...
Also remember that the crew only had enough supplies to last them until the 5th of February (4 days from when it burned up)...the problem was that there are not enough CO2 scrubbing canisters...Now, they only use up a portion of all of the canisters, so if they dug the old ones out of the trash and went to the threshold of pain for each one, they could maybe have made that last for a maximum of 7 days...
I have to stress that I do not agree with the original poster. I think the astronauts knew the risks as well, but I don't think they were somehow going on knowing that they would burn up on reentry...they would have listened to the engineers who were telling them that it didn't prove any significant risk to the success of the mission...while all of the astronauts were extremely smart human beings, they are only trained in what they need to know...they are not going to be second guessing the decisions of the ground crew...
Why are they trying to hide that it was ... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/835531/p
Foam insulation is light and fluffy and reddish-orange. Ice is white and collects quickly on the outside of cryogenic containers, and near the leading edges of aircraft, and can be hard and heavy enough to knock a few ceramic tiles off when moving at supersonic speeds. These are not stupid people in charge of this investigation. So why are they so slow to make this disclosure?
What the US needs (Score:5, Interesting)
What I mean is that we need a smaller, manned spaceplane and a larger, heavy-lift system which can carry the spaceplane as an addition to a medium-size payload.
What I propose is to have a system where 8 SRBs launch two shuttle main tank assemblies. One filled with fuel, with a rocket motor on the ass end. The other can be filled with cargo. Some of the things we need to launch are not so much HEAVY as they are bulky. A good example would be an inflatable habitation module for lunar or ISS use. Not particularly heavy, but it's bulky.
The shuttle spaceplane should be much smaller and lighter. For operations requiring extravehicular manipulation of cargo, the shuttle and heavy lift system could simply dock in orbit. An added benefit could be that we build a spaceplane that can dock with a fuel tank in orbit and head off to the moon. We really should be building there instead of in low earth orbit. There are building materials on the moon, and none in the vacuum of space. The moon doesn't need energy to maintain orbit, and we can safely park a nuclear reactor there without worrying about reentry. That power can be used for excavation. This way we don't have to bring our entire living quarters with us. We can make cement structures on the moon instead. It seems very reasonable to do this instead of all this mars crap.
Check out the animation I did of the sensor data (Score:5, Informative)
My, admittedly amateur, conclusion is that one of the carbon shields located on the front of the wing (right ahead of the wheel well) failed for some reason. Check out the animation page to see why I say this.
scary kind of engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
This just doesn't seem like good engineering. The traditional Apollo/Soyuz reentry vehicles had few if any of those risk factors. Compare what happened to Columbia with what happened to Soyuz 5 [astronautix.com]: the reentry module failed to separate from the service module and entered into the atmosphere backwards. But when the service module had burned off, the reentry module righted itself (just because of its weight distribution--that's what it was designed to do) and Volynov landed and survived. Those reentry vehicles require no electronics and no flight control. The only thing that needs to happen is that the parachutes open some time before the capsule hits the ground. I think I'd have a bit more confidence in something like a Soyuz reentry vehicle than in the shuttle. And they are probably a lot cheaper, too.
I don't remember that Soyuz 5 (Score:3, Insightful)
carried 25 tons of cargo with it into space.
good thinking--the shuttle is even worse, then (Score:5, Interesting)
If you think about it, that means the shuttle is an even worse deal than usually assumed. Lifting mass into orbit is hugely expensive. First, we spend all that money lifting the huge mass of the shuttle itself into space, and then we bring it all back again? Imagine if every shuttle launch had left a carefully designed, multi-purpose transport vehicle and container of the size of the shuttle in space and returned the astronauts via a Soyuz-like capsule--the ISS could have been completed long ago from those vehicles and transport containers.
The more one thinks about it, the more wasteful and bizarre the shuttle program becomes.
cause and effect (Score:3, Interesting)
NASA might not have concluded with mathematical certainty that the fuel tank debris contributed significantly to the ultimate accident, but to continue to suggest another cause at this point certainly seems like a political diversion. People are certainly covering their asses, both individually and collectively.
To say that any human endeavor is devoid of politics and self interest is naive to the point of being dangerous.
But these are not the important questions, the question we should now be asking now is... Does the US Government continue putting billions of dollars into a space ship that catastrophically failed nearly 1 out of 50 times. Problems can be fixed, sure, but aren't we better off just building a different ship? Retire the shuttle fleet, bury our pride and let the Soyuz support the Space station. Spend the next 5 to 8 years building the next generation of ships. Supporters of space exploration should see this as an opportunity to refocus NASA on Space exploration and not on Space Pagentry.
The expected failure (Score:4, Insightful)
Contrast this with the solid rocket booster failure last time. That was an unexpected failure. Solid rocket boosters are proven, reliable components. The only reason they failed in 1986 is that the joints for assembling them into a stack were badly designed.
Privatizing NASA may not be the best move. (Score:3, Insightful)
It can, but it can also backfire. Examine the breakup of AT&T. Several good things came out of it: Better customer service, lower prices, more consumer freedom. But there were also losses. AT&T's entire research division is basically gone. Without it there would have been no C or UNIX.
The problem is that you have to make something profitable before a company will do anything, and generally it has to be profitable within the next three months. Remember, if you are running a company, you are answerable to the stockholders. If they loose money in a quarter, YOU get into trouble.
The problem is that a lot of cool things can't be done in three months, or eve three years. There has to be someone with deep pockets and less immeadate accountability to someone in order to try the financially risky stuff.
Major governments don't have the R&D money to get into space. Companies won't either, and if you privatize it, what you get is a space monopoly that can charge what it wants. It won't violate the antitrust act, because it won't have to. The massive money required to start anything will be sufficient barrier to entry.
What privatization often does is to set up businesses that don't innovate because they don't have the money to innovate. Everything has to go to beating out the other guy. Greater supply for less money is where all the creative energies go.
This will get us cheap sattelites, but very little in the way of scientific advancement or manned space travel, because it ISN'T profitable, and isn't forseen to be profitable in the near future.
Would hubble have gone up were NASA a private entity? Would it have even been built? There is no return on investment. Sure we've learned a lot of cool stuff, but it doesen't make people money tomorrow so it is of little value to a private company. Maybe it would have gone up, but then would the information recieved have been propritary? Only able to be looked at and used if you paid the price? Companies don't do anything out of the goodness of their hearts.
How many journals etc are starting to require fees for access? How many articles have there been about the conflicts between libraries and publishers?
If space travel enters the private sector, I fear that it will become something that doesn't benefit society as a whole, but only those with the money to pay.
No more pure science done in space. If there's immeadate profit you get something done, if there isn't it might get done if you pay them enough to do it.
Such is the problem with pure science. It takes years or even decades before practical results are found, yet most if not all of our technology was based on discoveries made far earlier than the practical application.
Was there an EVA examination, if not why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
If that is the case
I mean, why do we have an ISS? I would say to be able to stay there for some days if reentrance is to dangerous.
Why do we have EVA capabilities? To get out and investigate, I would say.
Obviously even that was to expensive, no person with the knowledge or training was on board, no one went outside and looked how server the space craft was damaged.
Wouldnd it make far more sense to drop one scientist and have an EVA specialist on board, allways? The extra weight for an additional suit can't be that much IMHO
Further more, why is the robotic arm of the cargobay not able to examine the outise with a simple camara, probably thats even easyer
I think the whole responisbility chain is run by idiots. A simple SF author would come up with 20s of scenarios how to react more proper in such a situation than the NASA did
angel'o'sphere
Re:Where is the left wing? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Where is the left wing? It's at NASA! (Score:5, Informative)
How the heck did this ignorant A/C post get modded up to 5? NASA already has a big piece of the left wing, see here [sfgate.com].
What they can learn from it, and what they will admit after they do are different issues, but moding someone up to 5 when they shoot their mouth off as an A/C and claim that something can't happen when it's well known that it already has doesn't make much sense.
Re:Where is the left wing? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Improve and go on until a third accident (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, despite the fact that fourteen lives have so far been lost in two shuttle accidents, it's still a whole lot safer than driving your car on a "lives lost per mile travelled" basis.
There's no way to change the fact that flying into space (even a low earth orbit) is always going to be an activity that carries a degree of risk.
If the astronauts are prepared to take that risk then I don't think some crazy belief that this should be 100%, absolutely, perfectly, flawlessly safe should get in the way.
Ultimately, the choice should belong to those who put their lives on the line. Has anyone (including the media) actually bothered to ask all those NASA astronauts still waiting in the wings whether they'd be prepared to fly the shuttle gain without modifications?
Imagine if we could only drive cars that were proven 100%, absolutely, perfectly, flawlessly safe... the roads would be empty and we'd all be walking from place to place. Even Segway's would be considered "too dangerous" to risk a single human life.
Come on folks, life is risky -- if it wasn't then where would the fun be?
Case in point [aardvark.co.nz]
Re:Why re-entry? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well both are very hard. But the situations around the two are rather differant. The main factors in both are acceleration and air density.
For the launch, the shuttle is starting in the most dense atmosphere. To get into space it has to accelerate up to ~20,000 mph. When it leaves the pad it's going very slow. So the drag of the atmosphere isn't very important. But it does feel it soon into launch. Very soon after launch they have to throttle down the engines and accel slower till they get into thinner atmosphere. Thats where " Challenger is go for throttle up" comes from. From there they are going faster and faster which would increase drag and thus heat on the shuttle. But as they go up there is less atmosphere and thus less drag. So less heat. Thats why you don't heat about heat tiles and stuff going up. and why rockets like Saturn V's dont' have heat tiles.
But when you come back your problems get flipped around. You need to slow down. And very rapidly. The way to do this is by using drag. They are traveling very fast and are getting pulled down by gravity to earth. So garvity is trying to accelerate the shuttle more. But the atmosphere gets thicker as if decends. So there is more and more drag, and more heat. So anything coming back to earth is plowing into the atmosphere and experiancing greater and greater drag. After a point though you have slowed down enough that your not generating extreme temps and are back to a sane speed. This is why the shuttle doesn't look like a fireball when it lands. It's past the point were it's a big fire ball.
Anything that goes from space to the ground will experiance this. It's not that one is harder then the other, they just have differant risks. Re-entry is very simple, as long as you have your angle right and you can take the heat. Launch is simple to as long as you have a solid engine and vehicle. Problem is these aren't so simple. I don't think ether has proven more dangerous. We have lost one going up and one coming down. The russians have almost lost one on launch when it blew up on the pad but they had a escape pod and lived. They have had loss of life on two returns. But the losses were from hard landings (they land on land, not water). So it really wasn't the atmospheres fault.
Apollo 13 was damaged and could have had problems returning but it's heat sheild was undamaged and got lucky. The shuttle is much harder to get back down then a capsule do to it not having a nice small one peice heat sheild, it has a much bigger area and lots of tiles in a none perfect shape, so things like this are much more likely to happen.