Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Shuttle Missions Will Be Monitored From Space 112

Posted by timothy from the big-picture dept.
los furtive writes "According to this news article NASA has made an agreement with the U.S. military so that all future shuttle missions will be monitored by National Imagery and Mapping Agency satellites."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Shuttle Missions Will Be Monitored From Space More

Shuttle Missions Will Be Monitored From Space

Comments Filter:

  • and this will help how? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by trmj ( 579410 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @09:21PM (#5624295) Journal
    Ok, I put that subscription to good use and read the article be being able to post. The only problem is that I still have the same question as I had before I read the article.

    What is this really good for? In the article, they say it's to prevent disasters like the Columbia space shuttle not doing such a great job on re-entry?

    --ok then--

    How will this help prevent disasters like the Columbia space shuttle not doing such a great job on re-entry?

    If you all will remember correctly (or if I didn't pay enough attention and got some misinformation), the Columbia space shuttle had a heat plate problem on the bottom. These plates are made to hold up while being heated to temperatures above that of the surface of the sun. NASA knew that something happened. They were pretty sure one of those plates was damaged.

    They knew and said there was nothing they could do about it while the shuttle was in space.

    If another shuttle gets a plate damaged, and NASA can clearly see it while the shuttle is in space, what will they be able to do? They shuttle doesn't carry enough supplies to keep the people out there until a spare part can be brought out, and even if it did, there virtually no way to fully secure it and make it work.

    So, I ask: What will this do other than waste photograph time? If anybody could elaborate I would appreciate it.
    • I thought they said there was nothing the shuttle crew could have done. If I remember correctly, NASA examined the foam incident and came to the conclusion that it was not harmful and that it was safe to do the re-entry. Surely they would have not done that if it they would have known it was not safe, I also remember a nasa representative saying in some interview that in case of an emergency they can prepare and launch another shuttle in a few weeks to which the existing shuttle crew could move to.
    • Any number of things could have been done. Even with Columbia, knowing there was a disaster in the offing, I'd expect some creativity under pressure, if only sending up Soyuz to take them off.

      And in future, I expect that NASA will have a contingency plan or two availible, with fuel and supplies to implement it.

      John Roth

      • Re:and this will help how? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Soft ( 266615 ) on Sunday March 30, 2003 @05:26AM (#5625521)
        Any number of things could have been done. Even with Columbia, knowing there was a disaster in the offing, I'd expect some creativity under pressure, if only sending up Soyuz to take them off.

        There is a limit to what creativity can do. In this case, the shuttle's orbit was not inclined enough to be reachable by Russian rockets--unless they launched from elsewhere that Baikonur, but their pad in Kourou won't be in service for years.

        One possibility would have been to launch Atlantis a couple of weeks early, but they would have to have known about the seriousness of the damage early in the mission (so that Columbia's crew could conserve power and have resources left to stretch). But this was luck (what if no shuttle was waiting?), and it would still imply to skimp a few safety procedures; gamble, one shuttle and seven crew lost, or two shuttles and nine crew?

        And in future, I expect that NASA will have a contingency plan or two availible, with fuel and supplies to implement it.

        They're speaking of scrapping all shuttle missions not going to the ISS--not that there were many--except the final Hubble servicing. In other words, don't build a safer vehicle, don't take risks, reduce our capabilities...

        • C'mon, you know about the Apollo 13 mission. It's NASA's only instance where there was an emergency they definitely knew about (a crippled spacecraft), and we came through. You just don't think about failing. You do whatever is necessary to make it work.

          Go and talk to the astronauts right now and ask them - if they had been asked, would they be willing to go up on Atlantis to save the Columbia crew?

          I'd bet a lot of money you'd get almost all of them to respond. We could've done it. There's no way you can

    • Re:and this will help how? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ecalkin ( 468811 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @09:34PM (#5624341)
      a *long* time ago (20+ years), when the shuttle was first going up, they had a lot of worries about the tiles. i remember someone stating worry about the 'nauts not have eva suits because they had some sort of 'temporary liquid tile replacement' stuff. an ablative (like the apollo capsules) that would protect a missing tile by burning away (and taking heat with it).

      even if this was myth or no longer viable, it's amazing what kinda tools and solutions you have *if* you don't stick you head in the sand and say 'i don't want to know about it'

      eric

    • Re:and this will help how? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KingFoo ( 175702 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @09:36PM (#5624350) Homepage
      Remember that before Apollo 13, the same might have been said about the chances of the crew's survival if a service module had an explosion, but they worked on the problem, and got the crew home alive. I'd imagine that a shuttle 'could' stay in orbit for quite a while on it's supplies if it really had to. Probably wouldn't be comfortable, but it's better to know.
      • Apollo 13's problem was fixed without an EVA. Columbia's problem was on the outside and couldn't be fixed without an EVA, plus it was configured with a science module in the cargo bay, making EVA more difficult. Also, Apollo 13 was actually two spacecraft in one, since they had the Lunar Module.

        • The point is, with most of their fuel and generating capacity gone, they managed to get back and land safely through a lot of ingenuity and getting some of their equipment to function in a way it was never intended to.

          Compared to burning up or freezing, I'd think 'more difficult' isn't so bad.

    • It is possible that they could have altered the approach to favor the wing with the damage. This would NOT have let them land, but might have gotten them low enough to be able to bail out...
    • Well, if they had some sort of monitoring like this during the disasterous re-entry, they might be able to tell specifically what caused the accident. Instead, they now are working on conjecture and rumor.

    • Re:and this will help how? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by helix400 ( 558178 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @10:20PM (#5624449) Journal
      I've heard two good ways this would help

      #1 - I read somewhere about a plan that may have saved Columbia had they known. It involved Columbia shutting down almost every key system they had, and having the crew relax. The goal is to conserve as much oxygen as possible...stretch out their reserves. During this time, supply rockets with more Oxygen reserves and some CO2 filters would be rushed to Columbia and quickly as possible. Of course, this would be difficult, but I believe the European Space Agency's Aryan 5 (if I spelled that right) was ready to lift off...so that would have been the first to be used for an oxygen shipment. More would follow, allowing Columbia's crew to be sustained in orbit while they figure out some kind of solution.

      #2 - There has been some talk recently of making the cabin be able to eject. If a problem is discovered, they can simply eject the cabin. As for how it gets back to earth, I would assume they just come back via Apollo mission capsule style, with a heat shield and parachute.

      Disclaimer: I couldn't find the news articles for both these links...so what you heard was from my memory. If anyone wants to comment on them, go ahead.
      • #2 - There has been some talk recently of making the cabin be able to eject. If a problem is discovered, they can simply eject the cabin. As for how it gets back to earth, I would assume they just come back via Apollo mission capsule style, with a heat shield and parachute.

        I dont think our shuttle has any sort of ejectable cabin. The russian shuttle that they copied from nasa (dont remember the name) had an ejectable cabin, and a few other nice features, but I do not think nasa has incorporated any of t

        • Ya, there definitely isn't an ejectable cabin now. The article that I read mentioned that its a good idea to implement one, however, it would be very difficult. Some googling did reveal another article that discusses an ejectable cabin idea, its found here. [washingtonpost.com]
          • An ejectable cabin wouldn't help you either, as without shielding, it'd burn up in atmo faster than the damaged Columbia orbiter did. You have to dissipate all that speed/heat on the way down either way.

      • There has been some talk recently of making the cabin be able to eject. If a problem is discovered, they can simply eject the cabin. As for how it gets back to earth, I would assume they just come back via Apollo mission capsule style, with a heat shield and parachute.

        IIRC, NASA considered an F-111-style cabin-ejection system for the Shuttle in the early stages of design. It more than likely got dropped because of the added weight that would be needed for the latching system, an ablative heat shield, e

      • There has been some talk recently of making the cabin be able to eject. If a problem is discovered, they can simply eject the cabin. As for how it gets back to earth, I would assume they just come back via Apollo mission capsule style, with a heat shield and parachute.

        I wonder what the weight difference between putting ablative surfacing under all the tiles as a backup and creating a completely independant ejectable cabin would be.
      • I believe the European Space Agency's Aryan 5 (if I spelled that right) was ready to lift off...

        Not quite, Ariane 5 was still grounded after last October's failure of the first uprated one. There was talk about chancing it anyway for launching Rosetta, since the basic version seemed to be unaffected, but the unusual flight profile was deemed too risky.

        However, shuttle Atlantis was due for launch the following month. They might have tried to race for it.

      • Here is how, possibly (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Here is a scenario that *might* work in the future: once ATV ( ATV [estec.esa.nl] ) becomes available, it could be detached from the space station and sent down to pick up the people from the shuttle. It could then fly back to the space station and deliver the shuttle crew there.

        Doing this would require proper docking equipment on the shuttle, life support equipment on ATV (which, interestingly, is being implemented as far as I understand), and appropriate flight software to allow the docking to take place.
      • the European Space Agency's Aryan 5 (if I spelled that right)
        That's the ESA spacecraft from the alternate universe where the Nazis won WW2. ;)

        (It's "Ariane.")
    • This practice will help avert future shuttle disasters. It may not as you indicate help the potentially future damaged shuttle that they take a picture of by satelite.

      Remember all the activity that has been underway to determine the root cause of the Columbia disaster? A picture wouldn't have necessarily saved the Columbia, but it could provide the needed information to have prevented future catastrophe's. The benefit is long term and possibly immediate if something is found to be fixable in flight

      But

    • They knew and said there was nothing they could do about it while the shuttle was in space.

      If another shuttle gets a plate damaged, and NASA can clearly see it while the shuttle is in space, what will they be able to do? They shuttle doesn't carry enough supplies to keep the people out there until a spare part can be brought out, and even if it did, there virtually no way to fully secure it and make it work.

      They couldn't do anything about the heat plate. BUT, couldn't they have sent an unmanned (or m

      • Also if you could send up fuel for the OMS and have a way of refuling that in flight you might be able to make it to the ISS where it could be secured *and* eventually repaired (EVA vehicles, which the Columbia did not have on board would be necessary). This could even provide valuable problem solving which could be necessary for further, more long distance space travel. (Doing basic work is one thing in space. Major repairs OTOH could be much more challenging.

        • Also if you could send up fuel for the OMS and have a way of refuling that in flight you might be able to make it to the ISS where it could be secured *and* eventually repaired (EVA vehicles, which the Columbia did not have on board would be necessary).

          Not even close, I'm afraid. Changing orbital inclination is expensive; the amount of fuel necessary for the mere 15 that would have been required, according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, is 1.5 to 2 times the mass of the shuttle itself, 120

    • Okay, I know you're just asking an honest question, but there have been a lot of comments along those lines. Frankly, I've had it with this negative attitude that "There's no point in knowing, since we can't fix it". *SO WHAT* if we can't fix it in orbit? Since when has being ignorant of the problem ever fixed anything? If we had done this for Columbia, we might know what the problem is, and fixed it on the other shuttles. Instead, we have an investigation that is going to take months longer, and in the mea
    • when a shuttle enters manual mode, and is being flown by the astronauts, this exterior observance could be critical in helping the shuttle maneuver down to earth safely. i.e. exterior damage is taken, all the pilot sees is a warning, wouldn't it be great if someone on earth could tell him exactly what just happened.
    • So we can KNOW. Really KNOW exactly what the fuck happened, so we can do something to try to fix it before the next launch.

      instead of what we are doing, which is guessing what was happened, and hoping we fixed the right things. If at all.
  • I wonder how this is going to affect NASA getting back on their feet again after the columbia incident

  • So the next time they blow up... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OpenSourced ( 323149 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @09:27PM (#5624321) Journal
    ... they will have better pictures of it. Jesus! That technology is too old. Either do it right and spend a friggin lot on a new shuttle program or forget about the idea of putting people on space for twenty years and see if the economics of space travel have changed. But getting on with the actual shuttle program is IMHO dangerous and serving no purpose.

    • It seems there's at least three reasons they want to rush the shuttle back before fixing it:

      - it's too embarassing to have it and the ISS unused
      - the chinese are about to put guys in orbit
      - the europeans are about to robotically orbit the moon

      Personally I'd prefer to see cooler, cheaper robotic NASA missions - more ambitious robotic mars exploration & robotic exploration of other planets/moons where the possibility of human exploration will probably never exist in my lifetime
      • To the three things you mention (I know you are not defending them) I would answer:

        - it's too embarassing to have it and the ISS unused


        Less embarrassing than having another disaster


        - the chinese are about to put guys in orbit


        They will find the same economics to it than everybody else.


        - the europeans are about to robotically orbit the moon


        Good for them! Let us look at the photos afterwards.

    • They already have the pictures. I received these in email [snopes.com], so they must be true!

  • the future... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Oliver Defacszio ( 550941 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @09:29PM (#5624327)
    2002: "We couldn't have fixed the Space Shuttle Columbia even if cameras on the ISS had shown that there was indeed iron-clad evidence of tile damage."

    2006: "We couldn't have fixed the Space Shuttle Tranquility (sponsored by Nike) even if cameras on the satellite had shown that there was indeed iron-clad evidence of tile damage."

    Now that's progress.

  • Is this a "feel-good" response? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MyNameIsFred ( 543994 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @09:38PM (#5624351)
    Immediately after the accident, NASA officials said that they had considered using NIMA satellites to look at Columbia, but had rejected the idea. Primarily because the previous times they had used the satellites had not provided useful data. They commented on the problems of photographing the black underside of the shuttle in the contrasty light of space. So my question, is this something useful, or is NASA doing it to prove it is doing everything possible?

  • Outer space. (Score:5, Funny)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @09:41PM (#5624361)
    I have a better idea. What they should do is build a space shuttle out of indestructible materials so that even if the thing crashes at the speed of light into a sphere of iron the size of Earth and more dense than the universe before the big bang, it will be the sphere that will break and not the shuttle. And they should use these materials to build space ships the size of the whole planet and fly them around in space. Someone from another galaxy will be looking in their telescope at the planets and they'll see this thing move around and they won't understand what kind of weird orbit that "star" is in. It'll really get them thinking. Then, they'll fly over here to investigate it, find that Earth is rich in natural resources and kill us all in order to take these resources. At least that'll put Saddam out of power.
  • these fotografs will be de-classified and released to NASA, that make these satellites, non-spy satellites.

  • Watching from above (Score:4, Funny)

    by gmuslera ( 3436 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @09:51PM (#5624386) Homepage Journal
    The article title left almost nothing to imagination. Jokes will spread all around, like that the next problem will appear as reported by "Monitor 9 from Outer Space", or if the next mission have an astronaut with religious conviction will say "somebody watch for me up there".

  • They have been watched for some time now. (Score:4, Funny)

    by infonography ( 566403 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @09:53PM (#5624391) Homepage
    The Greys and Gary Seven [scifi.com] have been monitoring our space program for ages.

    We should just ask them for copies of theirs.

  • In related news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @09:57PM (#5624401)
    In related news...

    American Airlines has announced that the regular "Atlanata Shuttle" flights will now be monitored from Atlanta.

    -- Terry

  • God, I miss... (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by PHAEDRU5 ( 213667 )
    ...the 480 RTG.

    God bless all at Langley.

  • Next Gen Shuttle? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by E-Rock-23 ( 470500 )
    So, when is this new shuttle going to be rolled out? I've heard bits and pieces about it for a while now, along with some who say it's a few years off. Anyone have any info? Talk amongst yourselves...

    • So, when is this new shuttle going to be rolled out?

      There isn't any. The only new project in that field is the Orbital SpacePlane, whose primary purpose is to stay docked at the ISS for 7+ crew rescue. A recent tacked-on requirement is that it could be launched on a conventional rocket with people aboard and possibly go beyond Earth orbit, but with virtually no cargo.

      This is interesting, but not a replacement for the shuttle, although it will likely be just as expensive to operate. The current pl

      • There was the X-33, but that project got canned because it went something like 130 million over budget and they kept having trouble with the fuel tanks collapsing when they were being welded in to place.
  • I hope someone can explain this to me.

    Why do we rely solely on a "Black Box" to record flight data in the Space Shuttle and commercial aircraft? It's prone to destruction and tampering.

    Why not also beam encrypted flight data to command central where it can be safely stored no matter what catastrophe? It would also work as a "mirror" so that if the black box or the data in command central were tampered with, the data could be compared in the other (assuming the black box made it). Or beam the data to tw

    • Re:Black Box - Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by HeghmoH ( 13204 ) on Sunday March 30, 2003 @12:35AM (#5624861) Homepage Journal
      They do this with the shuttle. But, while the craft was busy melting and disintegrating, they kind of lost the radio telemetry feed. Due to how the accident worked out, the chaos and destruction cut the radio feed a little earlier than the black box kept working, and understandably the data that only got onto the black box was rather interesting, being right in the middle of said chaos and destruction.

      As for commercial aircraft, I've never heard of an accident investigation being hampered because of destruction/tampering/loss of the black box. The only places you're likely to lose the black box would be in the middle of nowhere where it would also be very impractical to maintain a high-speed radio link to somewhere to store your flight data. Not to mention the cost of setting up flight data recording centers all over the world when their data will not be necessary for 99.9999% of flights.
      • As for commercial aircraft, I've never heard of an accident investigation being hampered because of destruction/tampering/loss of the black box.

        When the A320 crashed at the Farnbourgh airshow, Air France tampered with the boxes and then had a court order taken out to certify the crew as insane when they complained. Unfortunately it turned out that Channel 4 had filmed them with the boxes.

        TWW

  • "Ooh, there's your radar blip going by," or "Hey John, pull up your fly!"

  • space porn? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    does this mean there will be a webcam feed of astronauts doing it in space? maybe if they took jenna jameson to space they could cure some of their budget woes.
  • We can see you mooning Russia

  • There are a couple of posts that have mentioned that NASA has looked into using this info in the past, and found it didn't make a lot of sense.

    What this says to me, is that there is another reason for doing it. When Kennedy (?) created the Space Program, he wanted it to be separate from the millitary so that its findings/mission could be broader than the security/defense mission of the military.

    By using military satellites at all, by making a link, the US begins to blur the distinction between the space
  • Fm: Mission.Control@nasa.gov
    To: STS-134@nasa.gov
    Sb: Shuttle, you have a problem

    Hi guys!

    We have received some alarming pictures of the shuttle from the military. It looks like the edge protection is gone from a wing, there are hundreds of tiles missing from the belly and it looks like some control surfaces have serious holes in them.

    The guys here have started placing bets on which one will get you. Of course, theres nothing that you or we could do about the problems.

    So the question is: Do you want to dis
  • Shuttle Missions Will Be Monitored From Space

    Why don't we just ask the aliens? Everyone knows they're already monitoring all our space flights. ;-)

  • Identifying that there is a problem is important, but so is having a plan for how to deal with it.

    Why doesn't NASA put up some unmaned orbiting life-boats (at extremely high orbits with the ability to be manuevered remotely to lower orbits) with supplies and re-entry capabilities? If there is a problem with the Shuttle, ISS, or whatever, have a life-boat rendevous with the problematic vehicle and all crew transferred.

    In addition, why doesn't NASA have several unmaned rockets filled with supplies ready to
    • You know, that is actually a good idea.

      On practical problem I can see is the size of such a life boat and getting it "up there". Another problem involves the fuel cost of transfer orbits if it isn't in the same orbital plane as the shuttle. (Though, I'd think that if it were "high enough", in theory at least, you might be able to use the gravitational potential to drive the orbital plane change, but I know of no practical way of doing this.)

      Kudos for the out of the box thinking, even if it still appears

  • If it had been identified at the start of the mission that Columbia could not re-enter a rescue mission could have been launched. If the crew knew from the start they would have to stay up there as long as possible then they could have conserved and survived around a month. The next shuttle to go up could have been rushed through it's preparations to launch within that month. The shuttle can launch with a minimum of 2 and can seat a maximum of 9. So the rescue of 7 would be possible. It would be a tric
  • Apparently, pictures of the latest Columbia shuttle disaster were taken by an Israeli satellite. An email [about.com] about this was doing the rounds on the net, but the whole story turned out to be an urban legend. But, do check out the pictures - they are kinda cool! Apparently, they are adapted from Armageddon.
  • Hurry up NASA... We've only got 60 more years until Zefram Cochrane is supposed to invent Warp Drive!

  • Hindsight (Score:2, Informative)

    by overlordhab ( 655593 )
    Strange how emergency procedures are ussually seen as to costly. Then the shit hits the fan and suddenly the budget for emergency procedures are almost more than the original project. I think its great that they can now monitor the shuttles entry. They did not find a lot of it after the crash and (from my point anyway) the best clues as to what happened so far are from amuteur footage. I'm suprised NASA did not have its own video cameras pointing to the shuttle on entry or lift of. On TV you see that one vi

  • The obvious? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Nathan Forget ( 661938 )
    I think some of you may be missing the obvious: the point isn't to prevent future space disasters, that will be done in other ways. The point is to know a lot more about them when they do happen by having as much information as possible.

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close