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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

NASA Prepares Discovery for Launch 129

Posted by Zonk from the up-up-and-away dept.
eggoeater writes "Yahoo! reports that Kennedy Space Center is buzzing with excitement over the likely launch of Space Shuttle Discovery this Spring. It's been just over two years since the Columbia tragedy and the Discovery has been outfitted with many new safety features, including the removal of the foam from the external tank and pressure sensors on the wings that would detect an impact. Quote from launch director Michael D. Leinbach: 'It's all converging on what looks like May 15 to start flying the shuttle again.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Prepares Discovery for Launch More

NASA Prepares Discovery for Launch

Comments Filter:

  • Oh finally! (Score:4, Funny)

    by ForestGrump ( 644805 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @07:53AM (#11651068) Homepage Journal
    They can finally service hubble, instead of letting it fall into the ocean.

    Grump
    no, i'm being sarcastic.

    • Re:Oh finally! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Keamos ( 857162 )
      The problem with servicing the Hubble is that Congress is fucking retarded--they'll get rid of Hubble, saving a tiny bit of money, and then 5 years down the road they'll build another one, for 100x the cost it would've been to just service the Hubble in the first place.
      • Maybe the next Hubble would be built around servicing from a UAV (USV unmanned space vehicle) like device. The USV could have some really small rockets just big enough to dilver the fuel or whatever. The Hubble like device could have mechanisms to grab the other vheicle and ground crews could control the replacement actions or a the robot could do the servicing it's self.

        You are right - building a robot serviceable device would probably cost a 100x but it might just be the right way to go?

      • Re:Oh finally! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Long-EZ ( 755920 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:52AM (#11651232)
        You are laboring under the practical geek perspective. You definitely aren't seeing it from the congressional perspective. Their job is not to do as much science while spending as little money as possible. That would be practical. They're political. Their job is to spend as many tax dollars as possible, in their own districts. So, they make deals. I'll vote for your pork if you vote for my pork. Taxpayers vote for the biggest pork politicians, and the cycle repeats.

        The only cure is to stop voting for more pork, and I don't see that happening. As a nation, we're far too short sighted and self interested.

        So, if congress is the boss because it controls the purse strings, how do you think NASA will behave? Just like any employee, they quickly realize the boss's goal and agenda and make it their own. So, the people who manage NASA are not in the business of cost effective space exploration. In fact, quite the opposite. They're in the business of spending tax dollars in several congressional districts.

        And that's why we need private space exploration and development, and we finally have it. Many companies now see the possibility and they have the vision and motivation to do what NASA couldn't.

        It's sad that NASA did so much in the early years and then the political process ruined it late in the Apollo era. Despite some very bright scientists, engineers and astronauts, they just can't help being a government bureaucracy. Why? As usual, it has everything to do with the movement of little green pieces of paper. Lots of little green pieces of paper.

        • Re:Oh finally! (Score:2, Interesting)

          by endersdouble ( 719120 )
          ....and private companies which have no interest in science at all, but instead are *officially* in pursuit of the bottom line, as compared to congress which at least in principle should want to do science the right way, will do that much more science? I'm not saying private spaceflight is evil; it's just that privitization isn't the solution to everything. Virigin Galactic or the like, frankly, doesn't give a shit what the universe looked like 14 billion years ago, and have even less reason than Congress

          • Re:Oh finally! (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Long-EZ ( 755920 )
            You're right in saying that the successful commercial ventures are not going to have lofty goals. They'll concentrate on the bottom line and compete to offer the best services at the best prices. Where science wins is on the cost end. A university astronomy department can build a satellite to study cosmic microwave background radiation and try to learn about the origin of the universe, but it does them no good if NASA only accepts one external science package a year to fill a payload. It's not likely th
            • The problem with trying to get private enterprise to bring down the cost of entry into space is the huge upfront costs associated with building space ships. If you wanted to send a few million tons of stuff to geosynchronous orbit we might end up with a system that goes something like this.

              Stage 1 standard jet to mach 1 - 3.
              Stage 2 ramjet / scram jet to mach 15.
              Stage 3 rocket to LEO / mach 22.
              Stage 4 ION drive from LEO to geosynchronous orbit.


              At which point the cost of getting to geosynchronous or

              • nobody wants to send that much stuff into orbit.

                It's true that nobody wants to send that much stuff into orbit at the current rate of $35,000 per kilogram [msn.com]. That's the Ariane price (which may halve soon, now that their new heavy lift Ariane 5 has had it's first successful launch). The existing Ariane cost is about 11% of what the shuttle costs to operate ($54M vs. $500M).

                The space launch market is currently soft. There isn't much demand, but not because there isn't much desire, they've simply pric

                • Hmm, 2 basic ideas first is a multi stage craft worth it well mostly that's a design usage but adding a scram jet phase adds a lot of value... The other idea of the size of the market, well I am not saying you cant get 1000 people a year to spend 200k to get to orbit for a few days what I am saying is recouping your cost's for R&D to build something that can get people to orbit for 200K and still leave you with profit is going to happen.

                  Back to the first idea there are basically two problems with us
                  • I agree with your statements about savings that more than offset some added mass, for example, not having to haul a lot of oxygen saves on the direct mass that needs to be accelerated, and saves again because the lowered mass requires less structure. This is all pointing in the direction I was trying to describe, where less is more.

                    What I'd argue against at this step is complexity. With the commercialization of space, we are starting over. The idea is not to develop a lot of great (and expensive) techn

                    • Ok, I understand your perspective that we should avoid complexity and design systems that get better and cheaper over time. The point I disagree with is the idea that boot strapping teck is ever going to get you to a system that uses scramjets. Where I disagree is I think low risk complexity is OK. Which is why I think we should have a goal of "good" target for the mid term vs. avoiding spending a lot on R&D.

                      For now I want to see rockets take up all cargo and have the space shuttle dock with anyth

                    • The point I disagree with is the idea that boot strapping tech is ever going to get you to a system that uses scramjets.

                      The Australians built a nice scramjet. I'd bet they had a reasonably small budget, certainly less than NASA would spend, and maybe in line with what a well funded company would budget. Once there is a small revenue stream from volume space applications such as space tourism, biomedical (drug producing bacteria grow much better in microgravity), and industrial manufacturing in mic

          • You're forgetting about folks in the private sector who wish to pursue space activities for philanthropic reasons, like Elon Musk's plans [spaceref.com] to put an experimental greenhouse on Mars.

            Granted, he's decided to focus instead on reducing launch costs for the time being via SpaceX, but once those launch costs are reduced, I predict we'll see philanthropic space ventures like that appear much more often.
          • no, but they might fund telescopes to help them identify asteroids with high levels of rare raw materials that command a high price here on earth and would be worth sending space-bourne mining after.

            They might also fund a telescope that could be leased out, profitably, to astronomers around the globe. Depending on the quality of the telescope, astronomers can find budget for telescope time.
        • You post is highly unbalanced. I don't know if that's what you meant to portray, but it is how it came across.

          And that's why we need private space exploration and development, and we finally have it. Many companies now see the possibility and they have the vision and motivation to do what NASA couldn't.

          We need both private and public space programs (insomuch as we "need" any space program). Private enterprise does things that are difficult to do under public programs and vice versa.

          Your post also stron

          • Your post is highly unbalanced.

            Hey, so's the author.

            Your post also strongly implies that no good comes from "pork"

            I think pork largely exists for its own reason, and any spinoffs or technological developments that occur are the result of determination at the bottom of the organizational structure, instead of any desire for science at the top of the org chart. Where the big decisions are made, in congress and among their cohorts at the upper echelon of NASA, I think the important part is how mu

      • The problem with servicing the Hubble is that Congress is fucking retarded--they'll get rid of Hubble, saving a tiny bit of money, and then 5 years down the road they'll build another one, for 100x the cost it would've been to just service the Hubble in the first place.

        The problem is a brand-new one actually costs less than a repair, and has greater capabilities:

        http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/ 0 5/2210251 [slashdot.org]

    • Re:Oh finally! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by luvirini ( 753157 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:05AM (#11651099)
      Nope, as NASA has become a bunch of scared old folks basically. Every mission they do has to follow a set of safety standards, among them the fact that the shuttle has to have the option of evacuating to the international space station. Hubble's orbit makes this impossible, thus no direct resque missions.
      • If you were on one of these shuttles, I bet you would welcome safety standarts that keep your ass alive up there if something goes wrong.
        Of course, you can always say that it's unlikely - Which helps you exactly nada if it does.

        • Re:Oh finally! (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          If you were on one of these shuttles, I bet you would welcome safety standarts that keep your ass alive up there if something goes wrong.

          I suspect most astronauts don't personally mind a 1% risk of death per mission. But if there's one more accident then the shuttle program will definitely be over. Congress would probably require NASA to be reorganized, and manned spaceflight put on the back burner.
      • It's always sad to watch a scientific organization becoming increasingly bureaucratic. It won't be NASA that puts a man on Mars.
      • If NASA can robotically attach rocket to the Hubble to bring it down in controlled manner into the Ocean, couldn't it use the same rocket to simply boost the Hubble into an orbit more friendly to a shuttle service mission? The crew of the shuttle can then evacuate to the ISS if needed during the service mission.

        Perhaps the orbit of the ISS is less desireable from scientific standpoint for the Hubble, but it's a whole lot better than a hunk of twisted metal below 10,000 feet of water.

  • Sounds good, but expensive. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @07:55AM (#11651075)
    I'm glad the shuttle program is going back online but with the price of launching a Soyuz being about 1/25th the cost of a shuttle launch, I'm not sure how much we should depend on the shuttle.
    • I'm sure it doesn't matter. Domestic investment is VERY important to the americans, just look at the softwood lumber dispute, or maybe even this beef thing.

      They'll spend whatever it takes, as they always have, to show up the competition. That's how it started, and innovation always comes from competition and need.

    • Re:Sounds good, but expensive. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jokumuu ( 831894 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:09AM (#11651119)
      The Real problem is that while the shuttle was being built (and fought over in budgets) NASA intentionally tried to stop all other forms of space flight to keep the shuttle program alive. The end result was the the shuttle had to fullfill so many missions that it became a "jack of all trades, master of none." So currently US does not have anything approachng Soyuz in capacity as alternative to the shuttle.
      • Yes, everything had to be built to be used in conjunction with the shuttle and then the total number of shuttle fights has been curtailed so much. This has really put many space programs in an impossible situation.

    • Re:Sounds good, but expensive. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Docrates ( 148350 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:23AM (#11651161) Homepage
      A Soyuz doesn't have the cargo capacity that the Shuttle has, which is why ISS construction has been halted and supplies are running tight.

      The real question is if America should continue supporting the construction of the ISS. Circumstantially I think she should, even if the scientific and engineering profit from the program is limited.

      • Re:Sounds good, but expensive. (Score:5, Informative)

        by demachina ( 71715 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @10:27AM (#11651642)
        Here is the proposed Russian replacement for Soyuz called Kliper [spacedaily.com]. Astronautix [astronautix.com] has a little more detail on it. They are planning to show a full size model at the Paris air show in June.

        Its an interesting hybrid of lifting body and capsule, it will reenter like a lifting body but pop a parachute and land with a thud like Soyuz. I think its fairly similar to canceled X vehicle Burt Rutan was developing as the ISS lifeboat.

        It will carry 6 people or 700 Kilo's of cargo. If you hang one of these on the ISS as the emergency vehicle you could raise the manning level to six people and actually do some research on it for a change. The cargo capacity also appears well suited to resupply the ISS, it can carry a lot more than Progress and Soyuz.

        They hope to have it flying by 2010 which just happens to be about when the Shuttle stops flying. They need $10 billion roubles to finish it which sounds like a lot but the exchange rate is 28 roubles to the dollar so that is only $350 million dollars. By contrast NASA is wasting $500 billion on CEV this year alone and they wont get ANYTHING for it other than pretty computer generated images. Building CEV is going to cost at least 36 times as much as Kliper and is scheduled to be 4 years later for its first manned launch, 2010 versus 2014.

        Sure looks to me like Russia is hoping to fill the void the Shuttle is going to leave in 2010 with Kliper and essentially take over the ISS if they get the funding to develop it. Whatever happens the Russians are going to be the ONLY people putting people in to LEO on a regular basis from 2010 to 2014, maybe the Chinese will launch a few people too. NASA ought to be ashamed, very ashamed, again.

        Seems to me like the Europeans or Japanese should jump at helping with the funding for Kliper. Their investment in ISS has been largely destroyed by NASA's failures, most of their modules are sitting on the ground and they may never get the astronauts onboard the ISS needed to do their planned research. For $350 million they could save their ISS investment and in partnership with Russia develop their own manned space program free of the boat anchor that is NASA, Boeing, Lockheed.

        Seems to me like the Chinese could partner with Kliper as well with their new found wealth and jump start their rather slow manned space effort, especially if they get technology sharing in return for cash.

        P.S.

        I submitted the Kliper article when it came out a few days ago and it was rejected. It is real news versus this fluff piece. Hate to break it to you the shuttle has been scheduled to launch in May for a while now, its not news. The breaking news will be if they manage to stay on schedule for a change.

        • Re:Sounds good, but expensive. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by willith ( 218835 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:32AM (#11652024) Homepage
          By contrast NASA is wasting $500 billion on CEV this year alone and they wont get ANYTHING for it other than pretty computer generated images. Building CEV is going to cost at least 36 times as much as Kliper and is scheduled to be 4 years later for its first manned launch, 2010 versus 2014.

          That's because CEV's intended role, as a platform that can be used for interplanetary expeditions, is much broader than Kliper's intended role as a bus to ferry people and cargo to LEO. The competing CEV design teams have a lot more complicated problems to solve, like, how do we keep the crew from being fried by radiation while they're hanging somewhere in the spaces between worlds, and how do we engineer a complex, multi-role vehicle that can launch, go to Mars, send down a lander component to deliver people and cargo, lift back off and rendezvous, and then return those people and cargo to earth?

          You're not just comparing apples to oranges; you're comparing apples to 747s.

          • Re:Sounds good, but expensive. (Score:4, Informative)

            by demachina ( 71715 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @12:17PM (#11652335)
            If you read the article, and I should have mentioned it in my post, the Russians have plans to use Kliper to go to the moon too. I doubt there is really ANY difference in the mission requirements between Kliper and the first iteration of CEV.

            I hate to break it to you, the only reason CEV is so vastly more expensive is because NASA, Boeing and Lockheed are in the loop and of course the wage rates are higher in the U.S. than the U.S.S.R., especially after Boeing and Lockheed slap on their overhead. I assure you NASA, Lockheed and Boeing are experts at wasting money, you need look no further than the Shuttle and the ISS to see that.

            As best I understand it the CEV prototype launches in 2008 wont address ANYTHING involving manned flight, going to the moon or mars. Its going to be a tin can that isn't man rated launched on a more less existing booster, heavy lift versions of Atlas, Delta or Titan and will barely make it to LEO. Not sure the first launches in 2014 with men will do anything but LEO either. Somebody is going to have to build a major new heavy launcher to go back to the moon or do multiple launches (i.e. fuel and a space tug on one, and then the CEV on another).

            Its very much open to doubt if the CEV in its first iterations will address going to the Moon or Mars at all in 2014 either though it remains to be seen what they propose. I think there is at least a chance they will have to develop landers on top of the CEV to go to the moon(and a better booster). I'm skeptical that they are going to land the whole CEV on the moon and blast if off from there. The Apollo strategy was the right one for a lot of reasons. To do the Moon right chances are a several vehicles will be required.

            Its completely delusional to think CEV will be usable at all for going to Mars. The requirements for going to LEO and the Moon are VASTLY different from those for going to Mars. If you use the same vehicle for all three its going to be either complete overkill for LEO and the Moon or woefully inadequate for Mars. The Mars vehicle is going to have to a completely different vehicle and boosters, its going to have to be way bigger or the crew will both run out of supplies and go bonkers trapped for that long in a tiny capsule.

            I wouldn't be surprised if they try to do a shuttle with CEV, and do one size fits all for all three missions, but it will be the same disaster the Shuttle was, heavy and expensive, jack of all trades, master of none.
            • Its completely delusional to think CEV will be usable at all for going to Mars.

              Incorrect. I don't know about LockMart's proposed designs, but Boeing's Constellation project (briefly described near the bottom of this page [boeing.com]) will do just that:
              Consisting of a crew exploration vehicle (CEV) and associated systems, CONSTELLATION will create capability for missions beyond Earth orbit.

              There are even pretty pictures [boeing.com].

              I'm skeptical that they are going to land the whole CEV on the moon and blast if off from the
              • Thats nice and all but I wager they don't build anything past step 4 by 2014 which is what I'm comparing to Kliper for 1/36th the price.

                The Boeing booster is going to end up being the current Titan IV heavy which isn't going to be good enough unless you do multiple launches.

                You'll note the capsule is a pathetic little thing nearly identical to the one Apollo had 40 years ago. In fact the whole lunar plan is just a regurgitation of Apollo, excepting they are missing one key component the Saturn V. I thin
                • You'll note the capsule is a pathetic little thing nearly identical to the one Apollo had 40 years ago. In fact the whole lunar plan is just a regurgitation of Apollo, excepting they are missing one key component the Saturn V

                  A capsule is an extraordinarily efficient way to design anything that you're going to be de-orbiting through earth's atmosphere. Heat spreads evenly over the heat shield, and it's self-righting. By comparison, the shuttle is a monstrously inefficient, draggy beast. For lofting crew
                  • They're not planning for it to fly until 2010, which is two years after the completion of CEV's first spiral.

                    Ugh, I have misspoken. 2008 is not the completion date for Spiral 1; 2008 is the fly-off date for the competing prototypes. Still, it is the first launch date, so my point is the same.
                  • "A capsule is an extraordinarily efficient way to design anything ..."

                    No argument its a good design approach excepting for the fact that its probably TINY inside. Conic capsules have severe size limitations which is probably why Kliper is using a different geometry, they seem to be tapping the benefits of the lifting body but without most of the weight penalties like landing gear.

                    Correct me if I'm wrong but the CEV plan appears to be to spend billions of dollars and 10 years to build a capsule not very di
                  • Let me get this right.

                    We have on file specifications for a capsule design that was built and tested in what.. 5 years... THE FIRST TIME. with less capacity and less knowledge supposedly than we have now? Now it is going to take us 10 years to essentialy re-build it? This is bullshit. If NASA had commited to reviving the Apollo Command capsule after Columbia they probably could be launching one in May instead of the shuttle. There are already plans on the books for alternate arrangements of shuttle stack co
            • One sollution to being stuck in a tiny can for 6months.

              1. vr goggles so that you can simulate a big space ship or landscapes to rest your mind.
              2. bigass plasma screens on the walls to show screen savers add depth, and when working turn into touch screen status/control stuff, ala startrek
              3. arent they working on inflateable space ships, so have all the rooms empty and expand out, and have all the screens/computers slim/thin in the walls, hey, if they can make laptops, then can make thin pcs for the space sh
        • I submitted the Kliper article when it came out a few days ago and it was rejected. It is real news versus this fluff piece.

          Kliper is a pretty cool idea and all, but FYI there was an article on it a couple of months ago: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/ 0 1/1633248&tid=160&tid=99&tid=1 [slashdot.org]

          Of course, it's quite possible your submission had new information not in that. Do you happen to still have your submission text around? You could post it here.
        • According to wikipedia: "President Bush's budget request for Financial Year 2005 includes: "$428 million for Project Constellation ($6.6 billion over five years) to develop a new crew exploration vehicle." Budget for year 2005 has been confirmed by the Congress in November 2004." Where you got that 500 BILLION this year, I dunno. Their budget is barely 16 billion.
      • Perhaps, but the only problem is that 14 or so other countries have signed on and have been funding (granted, not nearly to the same extent) the ISS. And with the exception of the Russians and the Canadians, none of their hardware that has been sitting in the Space Station Processing Facility at Kennedy Space Center has been installed yet.

        The US has discussed not building any more of the ISS after "Core Complete" is done (being the last US module - Node 2), but I don't think that the International partner

    • I'm glad the shuttle program is going back online but with the price of launching a Soyuz being about 1/25th the cost of a shuttle launch, I'm not sure how much we should depend on the shuttle.

      Sure the Soyuz is cheaper. But you get what you pay for.

      Soyuz carries fewer people, had no cargo space, is not re-configurable, cannot support spacewalks, has a quarter of the useful orbital lifetime...

      And it's low price depends on continuing to fly a craft largely unchanged for decades, exploiting infrastructur

      • Soyuz supports spacewalks fine. Soyuz 4 featured a spacewalk, as well as the first transfer of cosmonauts between spacecraft, back in 1969. In fact, the original lunar Soyuz design required spacewalks as part of the mission profile, and the orbital module acts as an airlock, so spacewalks are more convenient than for Gemini or Apollo capsules.

        Soyuz is also exceptionally reconfigurable. The orbital module can be - and has been - modified and replaced without affecting the other modules.

        Soyuz is also an evo

  • Best scientific quote ever (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rbarreira ( 836272 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @07:56AM (#11651080) Homepage
    Several important matters remain unresolved, including what to use for in-flight repair of the thermal tiles, which protect the shuttle's nose and belly from temperatures of more than 2,300 degrees Fahrenheit upon reentry.

    Five methods are being studied, including a giant caulking gun that dispenses pinkish-orange goo.
  • It's all converging on what looks like May 15 to start flying the shuttle again.

    It's spelled frying.

    • Re:Typo (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Dude, that was cold.

  • Lazy reporting (Score:3, Informative)

    by novakreo ( 598689 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:13AM (#11651128) Homepage

    launch fever has begun to rise at America's spaceport

    There's just the one? [wikipedia.org] The Ansari X Prize wasn't that long ago.

    • As far as NASA thinks, the other things are just toys and even worse.. Commercial.
    • There's just the one? The Ansari X Prize wasn't that long ago

      Running a jetty into a pond and launching your piddly motorboad doth not a harbor make, still less a port.

      Cape Canaveral does not engage in interplanetary trade, thus the moniker is a little overblown even in its case.

  • 70s technology (Score:5, Insightful)

    by luvirini ( 753157 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:15AM (#11651136)
    The basic problem of the shuttle come from the fact that it is mostly 70s technology with some glueover.

    Thus the materials are so much heavier than corresponding would be today an so on.

    The Way NASA has been trying to keep this program alive by more clue is likely to end in further embarassments.

    Too bad there is not enough focus to do great things, instead NASA has just become another CYA organisation.

    • Re:70s technology (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jokumuu ( 831894 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:25AM (#11651168)
      Seems to me they lost track of their vision somewhere as organisation. I am not saying there are not dedicated people as such there, there are many, but the organisation itself has lost it's goals.

      • Re:70s technology (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Long-EZ ( 755920 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @09:21AM (#11651336)

        I find it to be amazing that 95% of NASA can be so talented, intelligent and motiated, and the organization can be so completely ruined and its effects minimalized by the 5% who are plugged into the funding and end up calling the shots based on the political process. When the entire organization exists to spend money, the science is often an unintended result, at least from the perspective of the people who are writing the checks and setting policy.

        NASA is now too political to be anything but a festering mound of poot. I feel sorry for the many technical people who are trying to do good work in that environment. I couldn't do it. Hopefully, the best and the brightest will get a good job in the new commercial space ventures that are popping up and can finally have their dreams realized.

        • I find it to be amazing that 95% of NASA can be so talented, intelligent and motiated, and the organization can be so completely ruined and its effects minimalized by the 5% who are plugged into the funding and end up calling the shots based on the political process.

          This sounds like a viable explanation of Microsoft as well. Supposedly, there are lots of very talented people there, which seems at odds with their low-quality software.
          • That's a really good analogy. But, while I can understand that bureaucracy has put NASA in the business of selling pork to congress instead of space exploration and development, I can't see what the financial incentive would be for Microsoft to sell such crappy high priced software. To me, it seems to epitomize the criticisms of US products. There is a lot of focus on fluff like the sodding talking paper clip, and no attention at all to the important stuff like stability and security. How does THAT make
    • Sadly, even using the shuttle as a blueprint for a '21st Century' version wouldn't work, because frankly the space shuttles are horribly designed. Oh sure, they do the job, but they are an inherently bad design for repeated use, for the simple reason the Air Force pilots wanted something which flew like a jet.

      On the other hand, using it as a rough guide would probably be fine. You could lower the weight, lower the cost, increase the capacity, build in more redundancy, and reduce launch cost all at once.

      Ma

    • True, but remember the Russians are mostly using Soyuz which is 1960's technology, so the Shuttle is still ahead from that standpoint.

      That doesn't make the shuttle any good, though. Just high tech the doesn't solve the problems we need solved.

  • including the removal of the foam from the external tank and pressure sensors on the wings that would detect an impact

    Now why would they remove the pressure sensors on the wings? Does that make the shuttle any safer? I don't think so.

  • Big Dumb Boosters (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Peter777 ( 797002 ) <peter.mackenzieNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:28AM (#11651174)

    Anyone remember from 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress', that Heinlein predicts rocket tech will have evolved into something far simpler that what we have today (or back then even)? His summary of space tech for the next couple of hundered years went something like:

    1. Exceedingly basic and unreliable.

    2. Exceedingly complex and expensive.

    3. Basic, reliable and cheap.

    I wonder when no.3 will arrive...http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byte serv.prl/~ota/disk1/1989/8904/8904.PDF [princeton.edu]

    • Well, the material technology is actually currently going forward at great speed, so getting to orbit with some reasonably simple rocket built of very good materials might not be that far off in the future.

    • Re:Big Dumb Boosters (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @09:04AM (#11651274) Homepage Journal
      I think Helnlein got this wrong. A better model would be Airliners.
      1. Is correct.
      2. is right.
      3 Exceedingly complex, expensive, reliable, and efficient.

      Modern jet airliners are not basic or cheap. But they are reliable and efficient. All this talk of going back to Big Dumb Boosters is like saying Lets stick with DC-3s they are so much cheaper and simpler than 777s.

    • I'd say we're entering phase 3 now, as demonstrated by SpaceShipOne. It's simple, cheap, and reliable technology.

      Yes, there is still a long way to go in the development of space with access to all, but we have the barnstorming age of aviation as a very applicable model. Now that free enterprise is involved, progress will be extremely rapid, especially given the fact that space development is an artificially stunted market. Ironically, our NASA mentality kept us from pursuing space. They did great thi

      • I'd say we're entering phase 3 now, as demonstrated by SpaceShipOne. It's simple, cheap, and reliable technology.

        And it has very little to actually getting to space. High altitude aircraft, yes, it was a good step (was, it won't be flown again), and it has some interesting design features, but it falls short of even LEO by a very long way, which is fine, it wasn't intended for getting anywhere close to orbit.

        I think what is more interesting now is inflatable habitats, THEY are basic, cheap and reliable,
        • The SS1 hardware was built specifically to win the Ansari X Prize. The X Prize was designed to kickstart private space development, mostly via the surprisingly lucrative space tourist market. SS1 has everything to do with getting to space. It can easily lift three adults past the 100 km altitude that defines the arbitrary beginning of space. Scaled Composites is at work developing the next generation version that flies a similar mission. It still isn't a low earth orbit, but it is a little higher, a fe
    • Actually, that prediction was in The Rolling Stones, not The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
    • A NASA mentality I never understood is their putting all of their heavy-lift eggs in the Shuttle basket.

      It costs approximately 600 million US dollars to launch a fully-loaded Shuttle. Each Shuttle can haul approximately 28,800 kg into low earth orbit, while a Saturn V stack could lift 118,000 kg into the same LEO. And three out of the four pieces of a Saturn V already exist and are doing nothing but gathering pigeon crap at the Johnson and Kennedy space centers right now. The only remaining section tha

  • OT: Amusing contracted headline (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 12, 2005 @08:42AM (#11651202)

    I opened this story in a new tab (in Firefox), and the title was contracted to "Slashdot | Nasa Prepares Disco...".

  • Excitement? Gimme a break! So this old piece of junk is pushed out of its garage again. As exciting as a 1980 VW Beetle being pushed out of a garage four blocks away. Great for collectors, but not as exciting as something really NEW! Come on, people, when you will stop to get excited over leftovers from the past like the shuttles or new scans [slashdot.org] of images from Apollo missions 30 years ago?!

  • Finally (Score:2, Interesting)

    by EaterOfDog ( 759681 )
    I am glad to see we are making some kind of effort to get our manned space program back online. These massive overreactions to shuttle crashes are a bit ridiculous. I realize some great folks died, but these people were pioneers, and the price of being a pioneer is sometimes your ass. I say we salute them and we get back out there any way we can.
    • how many training missions have crashe F18s or F111s or blackhawks, do we see every single plane grounded? no...

      They keep flying the others because they know the chances are slim for another to crash, but they investigate the crash fast any way.

  • CRV (Score:2, Funny)

    by amightywind ( 691887 )

    I wish the shuttle crews well and I hope the return to flight is successful, but the transition to the Crew Exploration Vehicle is much more important for US space exploration Please NASA, no more meat comets.

  • can the orbiter make it to the moon? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dizee ( 143832 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:44AM (#11652100) Homepage
    i was brimming with pride when i annouced to the other guys at work that nasa was prepping discovery for launch.

    the new guy said, "what?"

    "discovery. you know, the space shuttle?"
    "where is it going? the moon?"
    "uh, no. it's going to the same place it always goes. into orbit. it can't go to the moon!"
    "why not? it's a rocket isn't it?"

    a rocket. :/

    more conversation continued, in which i exclaimed that the orbiter can't make it to the moon and back without shitloads of fuel. but then i began to question that, as i suppose it's possible to fit the cargo bay with additional fuel.

    so, it begs the question, can the orbiter make it to the moon and back? what about landing on the moon? obviously without an atmosphere, the fact that it is winged makes it quite useless as a traditional aircraft.

    comments from aerospace experts?

    -mike
    • Funny you asked. I toured the NASA facility at Michoud TWO DAYS ago where they build the main fuel tanks. The fuel used buy the shuttles main engines is liquified oxygen and liquified hydrogen. At full burn the main engines use over 1600 gallons a second. Although this sounds impressive, the overwhehlming majority of the thrust is provided by the solid fuel rockets strapped on either side. The shuttle's main engines are used primarily to keep the whole craft pointed in the right direction and nudge the vehi
      • 1600 gal/s

        that's insane.

        orbiter: 2250 tons
        fully filled external tank: 830 tons
        fully filled booster: 650 tons
        percentage of thrust provided by boosters: 71

        i think another issue with the boosters is safety. they can't be shut down after ignition. so they light, provide a shitton of trust, and then separate immediately. the exact definition of "booster".

        so, you're looking at a combined weight of 2130 tons just for fuel, fuel housing, and associated feed assemblies. that sucks so much ass. imagine how m
    • Have a play with Orbiter using the shuttle if you're on Windows.

      http://www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/~martins/orbit/orb i t. html

      You'll find it is not that easy to just get the thing into orbit at all. Going to the moon would be even worse.

      The Orbiter manual notes that the shuttle relies on the loss of weight as the fuel burns to make it into orbit. If you have unlimited fuel (that is, it is always full), then you can't make it into orbit apparently.

      Cheers,

      Roger
    • Homer Hickam, ex-NASA and author best known for "October Sky" thinks so.
      His book Back to the Moon [homerhickam.com] has a senario where a shuttle goes into lunar orbit.
      quote "All the events in this book could happen from an engineering standpoint. It is indeed feasible to outfit a shuttle to the moon "
  • The shuttle is old news and old tech and expensive tech.

  • 8 missions left (Score:3, Informative)

    by scotty777 ( 681923 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @01:26PM (#11652849) Journal
    Right now NASA has firm plans [nasa.gov] for eight missions to deliver space station structure. The ISS needs those truss sections and solar cell arrays to become fully functional. Those cargos are too big to fit under the payload shrouds of the other available launchers. I guess that a few modules may be lofted for ISS partners, but after that the shuttle has no mission.

  • Every one screamed and cried when the shuttle blew up.

    Billions spent to see the crews of 2 shuttles dead.

    They were horrible national tradedies in the bold name of science and exploration.

    Yet most people think its just wonderful to spend far more billions murdering 100,000's in Iraq based on a lie. The US found no WMD's and recently gave up the search, happily knowing that most of you now think it was over 'freedom' instead of the constant drone of WMD threats Bush drilled into you before the war.

    Why so

Slashdot Top Deals

/earth: file system full.

Close