Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

New Shuttle Fuel Tanks Ready 298

Posted by CmdrTaco from the can-run-suv-for-two-hours dept.
confusion writes "NASA has completed the redesigned fuel tanks for the Shuttle scheduled to for launch in May or June of this year. "On the new tank, NASA has reconfigured the struts and fittings where foam was prone to peeling off, and installed heaters to prevent ice from forming. The new tank has cameras that will allow ground workers to monitor for damage as the shuttle ascends.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Shuttle Fuel Tanks Ready More

New Shuttle Fuel Tanks Ready

Comments Filter:

  • Shuttle (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spac3manspiff ( 839454 ) <spac3manspiff@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @11:42AM (#11254403) Journal
    So when are they going to redesign the shuttle though?

    • Re:Shuttle (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      More importantly, how does this affect the Space Shuttle Fuel Tanks measure of energy? My Space Shuttle Fuels Tanks to Burning Libraries of Congress conversion formula is going to be all screwed up now.

    • Re:Shuttle (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Gentlewhisper ( 759800 )
      Is it just me? But it does seem like while nasa did do something to alleviate the causes of a crash, it has done nothing to improve the design/engineering/materials etc used in the shuttle.

      Not very wise isn't it? It's just like the modern drugs we see these days that reduces symptoms but doesn't cure the cause.

      • Re:Shuttle (Score:4, Insightful)

        by RockClimbingFool ( 692426 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @12:02PM (#11254617)
        You improve the design as much as you can up to a certain point. You could design new winshields to withstand impacts from concrete bricks or you could just make sure the shuttle doesn't fly through bricks. I know that sounds extremely oversimplified, but over and over and over again decisions and compromises must be made between capability and the expected environement. If you don't, the vehicle will never get off the ground.

      • Re:Shuttle (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @12:46PM (#11255119) Homepage
        I'll second this. The basic design of the tanks is still the same, which is a problem. The shuttle mounts low on the side of the tanks. This is a Bad Thing(tm), and is generally viewed as such in retrospect. Even on a non-cryogenic fuelled rocket, side-mounting puts you at greater risk for debris impact, especially further down the side you're mounted.

        The shuttle got its budget slashed in development, so I don't blame them. The original shuttle designs were a lot more "sane" - a smaller craft, no SRBs, a titanium frame (i.e., no extreme difficulty in trying to keep the heat down), mounted near the top of the carrier, etc. The list goes on. The original design was really impressive; with what we know now factored in, I'm sure our next major reusable will be great. But we need to stop using this half-developmentally-funded 1st-generation flying experiment. What's wrong with giving Russia an 8 year contract or whatnot for Soyuz use so that they can ramp up production while we work on our next generation craft?

        BTW, before anyone says "Private industry should make it, not NASA!", private industry *does* make spacecraft. Boeing, Lockheed, etc, are prime contractors for NASA, and do most of the work. If you want *small* private industry, well, they first need to actually develop real spacecraft. They're working on it, but they're still far away.

        • Re:Shuttle (Score:3, Informative)

          by alw53 ( 702722 )
          Melting points.

          Aluminum - 660 C
          Titanium - 1660 C

          • Re:Shuttle (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Rei ( 128717 )
            Exactly. And while it's heavier, its increased tensile strength, especially at high temperatures, means you get a greatly improved payload fraction. And since you have a much simpler thermal protection system, maintainance is greatly reduced. And, since titanium doesn't fatigue nearly as badly as aluminum, it'll last longer. The economics of a reusable titanium craft are just beautiful.

            Titanium isn't as costly as it used to be (and if any of the contiuous-process production methods start to come online

            • Re:Shuttle (Score:3, Informative)

              by MouseR ( 3264 )
              My motorcycle's stock titanium pipe (excluding manyfold & tubing) costs 1800 CDN.

              Titanium is still expensive.

        • Re:Shuttle (Score:3, Insightful)

          by FleaPlus ( 6935 )
          But we need to stop using this half-developmentally-funded 1st-generation flying experiment.

          Yup. I really wish that shuttle recovery funds would have been spent instead on making sure that the CEV is the best it can be.

          BTW, before anyone says "Private industry should make it, not NASA!", private industry *does* make spacecraft. Boeing, Lockheed, etc, are prime contractors for NASA, and do most of the work. If you want *small* private industry, well, they first need to actually develop real spacecraft. T

      • Re:Shuttle (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jones948 ( 726106 )
        It's just like the modern drugs we see these days that reduces symptoms but doesn't cure the cause.
        Ah, but where is the money in selling a cure?

    • My last support call at the IBM PC Help Center... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mosel-saar-ruwer ( 732341 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @12:05PM (#11254668)

      The very last call I took at the IBM PC Help Center [which, I gather, is in peril of being relocated from the RTP to the PRC] was with the guy who administered the laptops that the astronauts took on the shuttle. Could only see about 100 of the 300 servers on his network, so we figured it was a networking problem [I was in networking, not laptops], and I spent three hours with him before we finally realized that it was the drivers for the PCMCIA bridge that were killing the ethernet stack. Updated the drivers and la voila - everything worked perfectly.

      ANYWAY, this was early 1997, and he told me that the shuttle was filled with 8-bit processors dating from its design in the 1970s, and it was cheaper for them to have the astronauts carry light weight IBM laptops onboard as a form of an upgrade rather than ripping the beast apart at the seams and upgrading all those 8-bit processors to 32-bits [which I suppose nowadays would be 64-bits].

      Wonder who they'll use for such sensitive equipment now that Big Blue has jumped in bed with Big Red?


      • I spent three hours with him before we finally realized that it was the drivers for the PCMCIA bridge that were killing the ethernet stack.

        In retrospect, this was IBM in early 1997, so it might have been that the drivers for the PCMCIA bridge were killing the token ring stack.

        Anyway, it was just about eight years ago, so be a pal, and cut me some slack...

      • At least the cockpit electronics have been upgraded [nasa.gov] - to 32 bit computers (among others 386) [aviationtoday.com]. I'd guess that that's just the part the pilots/astronauts interact with, the avionics is probably still the old hardware, which was not 8 bit, but something derived from IBM's S/360 line with 32 bit, but only 104k of proper core memory. If you want to know more, I suggest you read at least chapter four of Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience [nasa.gov]

      • The primary computers on the shuttle were, in the beginning, three "hardened" IBM 360 mainframes. The 360 used 8 bit bytes, and 32 bit "words", the smallest addressable unit. That said, Im sure that some of the auxiliary systems use smaller CPUs. As cool as they are, Thinkpads havent ever been used for critical systems. The reason why they use laptops to do word processing and note taking isnt because they cant upgrade their 1970s era electronic word processors, but because their 1970s word processors were

    • Re:Shuttle (Score:2, Insightful)

      by davesplace1 ( 729794 )
      2040 if the money comes through. Looks like we will be flying on Virgin Space first :)

  • They're still not solving the problem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RickyRay ( 73033 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @11:42AM (#11254406)
    The main problem on the antiquated space shuttles is the heat-resistant tiles. They're extremely expensive, and not very good. They're so soft you could problably crush a piece with your hands, which means they're easily damaged during flight (and we've seen the fatal results of that).

    Troy Hurtubise, the Canadian who did the famous bear-proof suit documented in the movie Project grizzly, spent 18 years researching how to make a flameproof material, and finally has it. It's far more heat-resistant than the space shuttle tiles, far more durable, and far cheaper. A friend and I watched him testing it for a military representative last July, and got the whole thing on film (it was so interesting we hope to turn it into a documentary). His material would solve many of the space shuttle safety issues, and do it for cheap (and he has an impact-proof version as well, which provides a cheap way to prevent many of the deaths of soldiers in Iraq; that was the focus of the testing I saw).

    Here's his site:

    http://projecttroy.com.nexx.com/website/

    • Not only that.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @11:46AM (#11254450)
      "Troy Hurtubise, the Canadian who did the famous bear-proof suit documented in the movie Project grizzly, spent 18 years researching how to make a flameproof material, and finally has it."

      Not only that, but if you apply this bearproofing technology to the shuttle program, you are ready to go for the Ursa Major mission.

    • Addendum:

      I ended up actually buying his newest bear-proof suit (newer than the one in the movie). If anybody in the western US is interested in collaborating with me on making it more practical (I'm adding pan/tilt/zoom cameras, linear actuators, etc.), let me know.

      It's not relevant to the Space Shuttle, but definitely could be applicable to things like a Mars mission (not to mention a real-life RoboCop, etc.).

    • Re:They're still not solving the problem (Score:5, Funny)

      by i41Overlord ( 829913 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @11:54AM (#11254537)
      Troy Hurtubise, the Canadian who did the famous bear-proof suit documented in the movie Project grizzly, spent 18 years researching how to make a flameproof material, and finally has it. It's far more heat-resistant than the space shuttle tiles, far more durable, and far cheaper.

      It should be mentioned that not only are his new tiles flameproof, but they're bear-proof as well. This is very beneficial for the shuttle during re-entry, where it has to survive not only the intense heat of re-entry, but the occasional high-altitude bear attack as well.

    • Re:They're still not solving the problem (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @11:55AM (#11254547)
      holy shit you know nothing about the shuttle.

      those tiles are not "crushable" in your hand. i have one here on my desk and after almost 10 years of abuse it has on my besk it still looks quite nice.

      expensiv? yes compared to what is in your oven. Expensive compared to the job they do? nope. they are miuch cheaper than an ablative heat shield.
      they also are VERY good, moron... why do you think they use them? because they work.. the guys at nasa are not idiots.

      I suggest you actually learn about what you are talking about before you make shit up and try to post it as fact.
      • Hear, hear. I remember handling some of the heat tiles back on that Apollo anniversary day about a decade ago when they opened up a bunch of the facilities at KSC to... I guess it was families of NASA employees, I don't remember the details about it.

        Anyway, as I recall, they were anything but soft. Brittle, maybe---I never dropped one, so I can't say for sure---but hard as hell. If memory serves, they're a particular silicate glass formulation.

        One should ask the GP if he can also crush coke bottles w

      • You are correct. The tiles cannot be crushed so easily. However, there is the constant danger of them falling off.
      • I have a tile from Buran, light and tough, I'd not drop it over and over, as it's the only one I have, but it is very far from crushable.

    • Re:They're still not solving the problem (Score:4, Informative)

      by squidguy ( 846256 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @11:59AM (#11254592)
      They're so soft you could problably crush a piece with your hands, which means they're easily damaged during flight (and we've seen the fatal results of that) Errr...it was an impact against the leading edge of the wing -- which is covered by reinforced carbon-carbon -- not the ceramic thermal tiles.
    • Because NASA is controlled by politics, those spaces tiles come from a company on a government contract. And I bet that company heavily supports US congressmen. When contracts go out, its not about who has the better the product, its about which company can shell out the most cash to the policians.

    • Re:They're still not solving the problem (Score:5, Informative)

      by AC-x ( 735297 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @12:36PM (#11255003)
      That's funny, because I seem to remember the most likely theory on the disaster was the foam hit and punctured the leading edge of the wing which is made of reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC), and not the heat resistant tiles (which are designed so a few can be lost during normal flights anyway).
    • In the Challenger accident (1986) there was no problem with the tiles. The main investigator of this accident was no less than Feymnan himself. He traced the problem back to an O-ring (gasket) that became too brittle due to the extreme cold. All of this is described very nicely in part two of his autobiography What Do You Care What Other People Think? [amazon.com].

      Z

    • Re:They're still not solving the problem (Score:4, Informative)

      by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @01:03PM (#11255347) Homepage
      Irrelevant.

      Troy's bear suit uses FSA 333 ("Fire Suppression Agent 333"). Which he blames for the FBI harassing him and instigating his divorce (no, I'm not kidding - he claims that it is the secret to making extraction of Canadian tar sands cheap, and the US government is after it). It is a fire retardant, heat resistant material.

      This is *NOT* what you want on a reentry craft.

      You can't just insulate your way to a safe landing; you have to *dissipate* the heat. That is what the tiles are for; they have a huge surface area, and even non-fibrous ceramics are good at radiating heat. As a consequence, you can stick the titles under a blowtorch for an hour if you wanted, take them out, and a couple second later they'll be completely cool to the touch. They dissipate heat that fast. *That* is what you need for reentry; not some "fire suppression agent".

      The other major in-use option is ablatatives (again, not what troy invented). Albatives "ablate" (i.e., steadily erode off) as they heat up. As they do so, they take the heat that they absorbed with them. There are also other theoretical or in-testing options being looked at

  • So ? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cablepokerface ( 718716 )
    The new tank has cameras that will allow ground workers to monitor for damage as the shuttle ascends

    What are they gonna do about it when it is damaged from the ground?
    • Spare tiles? Soyutz? take your pick.
      • Each Space Shuttle contains more than 34,000 separate tiles [augustana.edu], each specifically cut for its own location... this came up when the last shuttle disaster occured.

        • Re:So ? (Score:3, Informative)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )
          Most of the tiles aren't that important. The shuttle loses tiles on reentry regularly. The last time I talked to somebody at KSC, I believe the number was an average of three per reentry. Of course, that was a decade ago or more, so it may be better now....

          Only a few critical tiles on the leading edge have to be there or you're screwed. All you really have to do is carry exact replacements for those. For the others, you have to lose several tiles before there's a significantly increased risk, and eve

    • Hello, is that Russia? Hi, well we managed to get our men into space ourselves this time, but err... haha, it's quite funny really, we might need a teensy bit of help getting them back!

  • monitor for damage as the shuttle ascends... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by glrotate ( 300695 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @11:43AM (#11254419) Homepage
    And what are they going to do if they see damage, tell the crew to jump out?

    • Well, in a word, Yes! That is the emergency procedure for when the shuttle is at jetliner type altitudes. For instance, see this page [wikipedia.org] under "Abort Modes", or search on "space shuttle escape pole".

      Alternatively, if potentially fatal damage is detected during the ascent stage, the mission can be scrubbed before reentry heating becomes a problem. The shuttle can separate from the boosters and tank early, and touch down at any number of locations around the globe.

    • ...for example, the shuttle could dock with ISS and the crew could take the Soyuz capsule down, rather than attempt a re-entry. They might not know the heat shielding was damaged without the cameras. Although it's still nowhere near the perfect solution (ie, scrap the shuttle).

    • Re:monitor for damage as the shuttle ascends... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Rob Carr ( 780861 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @12:05PM (#11254667) Homepage Journal
      "And what are they going to do if they see damage, tell the crew to jump out?"

      That's one scenario.

      There are multiple abort scenarios if one or more of the main engines cut out. These scenarios can be modified to deal with significant tile damage. The orbiter will not have orbital velocity if one of these aborts were called, and so the tile system will be much less crucial.

      The problem, of course, is that any damage will need to be assessed rapidly. The earlier in the launch an abort can be called, the more options there are.

      Some of the abort scenarios have the shuttle gliding over an ocean and bailing out. There's a pole they would slide along to make sure they clear the orbiter. So, in fact, there are scenarios where the crew would be told to jump out.

      Far better if the shuttle can land at one of the designated landing sites around the globe. Even there, NASA will have fun returning the orbiter to the United States.

      If the abort cannot be called in time, then the shuttle would continue on to the ISS. Docked with the ISS, there would be a chance to a) review how bad the damage is and b) wait until another shuttle or Soyuz could be launched.

      If the shuttle does make it to orbit and is damaged, recovery of the shuttle would be problematic. So far, there is no way to repair the shuttle in orbit.

      The shuttle still needs a human to activate some landing systems, so the shuttle cannot be sent back on a "hope it makes it back, too bad if it doesn't." If I remember correctly, that little design screwup was actually promoted by the astronauts. Job security.

    • And what are they going to do if they see damage, tell the crew to jump out?

      Hey, it's a lot better than what they currently have: study the wreckage and find out when they should've told them to abort.
    • As a matter of fact, if the damage is bad enough, yes.

      One of the myriad design flaws of the shuttle is that if something goes wrong on liftoff that doesn't result in the total destruction of the shuttle, the crew is supposed to get out of their seats, climb down a ladder, and jump out of the craft while it's moving at a few times the speed of sound a few dozen miles off the ground while accelerating at multiple g's.

      Not like the good old days of capsules with escape rockets that could be activated by groun


    • They'll just shut off the rocket engines and jave it come back down.

  • Damage-Cams (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @11:45AM (#11254434)
    "The new tank has cameras that will allow ground workers to monitor for damage as the shuttle ascends."

    Not much of a reassurance to the crew though, are they?

    Ground worker #1: "Looks like she's breakin' apart."
    Ground worker #2: "Mm-hmm."
    Ground worker #1: "We install brakes?"
    Ground worker #2: "Nope."
    Ground worker #1: "Ejection seats?"
    Ground worker #2: "Nope."
    Ground worker #1: "... So, how about them Cubs?"
    • Ground worker #1: "Looks like she's breakin' apart."
      Ground worker #2: "Mm-hmm."
      Ground worker #1: "We install brakes?"
      Ground worker #2: "Nope."
      Ground worker #1: "Ejection seats?"
      Ground worker #2: "Nope."
      Ground worker #1: "... So, how about them Cubs?"

      Ground worker #3: Cubs in '08

  • Sooo (Score:5, Interesting)

    by temojen ( 678985 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @11:45AM (#11254435) Journal
    Are they going to send one of the astronauts on an EVA walkaround inspection before re-entering this time? Truckers check their brakes before a big hill, why don't astronauts check the heat shield?
    • Because truckers are really interested in self-preservation whereas NASA administrators are really interested in putting on a good show whilst crossing their fingers that nothing bad happens.

    • Re:Sooo (Score:2, Insightful)

      by matth1jd ( 823437 )
      This is a good idea, however I have a question.. if they find damage to the heat shield can they repair it during an EVA? Does anyone know if this would be incredibly difficult?

    • Re:Sooo (Score:3, Informative)

      by TrippTDF ( 513419 )
      Sort of... An EVA would be too time consuming and expensive. However, when the shuttle approches the ISS now, it's going to flip 360 degrees so the station cameras can get a clear veiw of the entire shuttle and check for damage. I read it somewhere on the JPL site.

    • Re:Sooo (Score:3, Informative)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
      "Truckers check their brakes before a big hill, why don't astronauts check the heat shield?"

      There's rarely any doubt about the trucker's ability to get back into the cab after doing said walkaround. Going EVA is risky enough in the nice enclosed space of the cargo bay, and using an MMU to go much beyond places with easy handholds has been limited mostly to demonstration runs which themselves have been within line-of-sight of the cargo bay. Leaving the cargo bay to inspect other surfaces of the orbiter,
      • "Truckers check their brakes before a big hill, why don't astronauts check the heat shield?"

        There's rarely any doubt about the trucker's ability to get back into the cab after doing said walkaround.

        The trucker "check" to which the grandparent was referring is a test of the brakes, while in motion, as they near a large down-grade hillside. They don't always perform a stop-and-walk-around, they just run through each of the brake systems and try them out a little. They can feel the response. If the br

    • Re:Sooo (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LaCosaNostradamus ( 630659 )
      Check the heat shield? And then what? "Houston, we have damage." {crackle} "Commander, nice knowing ya. Please refer to your cyanide capsules. It beats suffocating to death. We'll name some high schools after you. Over and out."

  • Real fix, or just bandaid? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Theovon ( 109752 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @11:45AM (#11254443)
    Is it just me, or does this seem more like a patch than a real fix? Rather than realizing that the foam is problematic and designing something that won't come off, they resort to finding ways of preventing the old stuff from coming off. Well, if it works, great, but it just feels unsatisfying.

    Perhaps this is just a case of extending the life of aging spacecraft a little longer for the least expense so that more funds can be routed towards newer technology that doesn't have the same inherent problems. (Perhaps different ones. *g*)
    • NASA is to a real fix as Microsoft is to their 'Service Pack'..

      ..A failure, but marketed better than a video of Paris Hilton
    • Insulation isn't adhesive. The problem wasn't with the foam, which performed perfectly well at its function, but with the attachment of the foam to the tank. Obviously, the answer is to attach the same foam better.

      I mean, they could replace the foam with ceramic tiles, but that wouldn't actually address the problem of insulation falling off at all.
  • Let me guess: they could have done this right from the start and a couple of engineers probably brought it up 10 years ago but were shut up by management?
    Wow im pessimistic today...
  • They've known about this problem for 20+ years. "But we never lost any important tiles." NOW they decide it's time to do something about the chunks of ice. If you needed any more evidence that NASA was a haven of groupthink, bureaucracy, and institutional cowardice, here it is.
  • Now with 20% less explosive decompression!
  • Wake me when we get a launch system that actually goes somewhere.
  • Is the secret. Delta IV has the ability to loft heavy packages as does Ariane-5, Proton, Long March III and whatever the Japanese have ready.

    Of course you need a serviceable profitable launch facility wherever you decided to launch from and whatever you decide to launch with. That's the real driver. NASA would need to develop a launch facility for Delta IV of the type and in the location that they can maximize their dollars income and minimize dollars per Kilogram cost.

    The Russians have a similar problem
  • installed heaters

    So your saying they put heaters....on a fuel tank?

  • In his books, Michael Flynn had a private space company building a light reusable launch vehicle that salvages a pre-destruction MIR. To expand the space station, they paid NASA to up the amount of fuel in the shuttle fuel tanks, giving the shuttle enough fuel to get even the tanks into orbit. The tanks were then pulled out by the private company's vehicles and attached to the MIR.

    Is there any scientific basis for his suggestion, or is it impossible? Can the shuttle tanks be brought into orbit?

Slashdot Top Deals

"It takes all sorts of in & out-door schooling to get adapted to my kind of fooling" - R. Frost

Close