Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space United States Science

NASA Plans Discovery Launch May 15 141

Posted by timothy from the could-it-lift-its-weight-in-$1-bills dept.
Haxx writes "More than two years after losing the space shuttle Columbia and its seven crew, NASA said Friday it has set May 15 as its target date for once again launching shuttles into space." Reader gollum123 writes points out Reuters's version of the story, which says that "May 15 was chosen as the launch date for Discovery and its seven-member crew because of lighting conditions and thermal issues related to the shuttle's launch and docking at the International Space Station."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Plans Discovery Launch May 15 More

NASA Plans Discovery Launch May 15

Comments Filter:
  • What exactly have they done to fix the problems plaguing the original space shuttle?
    • I believe that they have changes both the formulation of the foam on the fuel tank, and also how it is attached? Something like that...
      • The also have the Alexei Leonov standing ready to launch a rescue attempt incase the Discovery has any problems with its computers, or the leading edge of a wing were to strike a black monolith.
      • ya that's basically it really need to design a brand new shuttle, but whatever Basically they replaced some glue that held on foam, that is considered responsible for the last incident

    • Re:What have they done (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 19, 2005 @01:33PM (#11723404)
      They fired all of the engineers and outsourced to India.
    • Thanks for the info everyone :)

      • Re:What have they done (Score:4, Informative)

        by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @02:59PM (#11723929)
        For starters, try:
        http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew s/1107178933995_11?hub=SciTech [www.ctv.ca]

        There's four major changes - 2 of them help spot problems, not fix them:
        1. NASA launches only in daylight, so they have a better chance of photographing any damage that may happen.
        2. The crew has a kit to help inspect the shuttle for damage.

        Two changes actually reduce the risk of an accident:
        1. The crew has a rudamentary repair kit, although NASA admits it's not as good as they had hoped for.
        2. The main tank foam system has been redesigned. The biggest piece that it should be able to shed is supposed to be no bigger than a dinner roll, compared to the suitcase sized piece that hit Colombia.

        What NASA hasn't done: 1. Gone back to a non-foamed tank design. 2. Found more ways to improve the range and scope of the repair kit, or else they haven't paid enough to implement every repair kit tool or patch they thought of.
        • >What NASA hasn't done: 1... 2...

          3. Switched back to capsules and good old fashioned rockets instead of riding to space on the side of an explosion.

          4. Succeeded in designging the "Shuttle Successor" - Failures in this: NASP, DC-X (destroyed, maybe delibrately), X-33, OSP, CRV, ACRV. And those are just the past 15 years - Billions to Lockheed and Boeing for show-nothing "development", and those companies keep killing astronauts.

          I wish Discovery, Cmdr Collins and everyone involved the best of luck.

          Josh
    • Firm believers in the "Everything old is new again" adage, they waited a few years in hopes that the aging fleet would come back around to being the latest and greatest thing again.

    • Re:What have they done (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Pentrant ( 700080 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @01:49PM (#11723503)
      I'm somewhat frightened by the prospects of this and future launches. I have a friend who works at NASA, and he was telling me the other day about the "mandatory changes" list that NASA had implemented; basically, a list of things that had to be finished before the next launch.

      He said that what started as a daunting list started shrinking as items were eliminated or down-played due to budget or time contraints. It started with small things, but as pressure was put on NASA to launch again, bigger and bigger items began taking on secondary or even non-existant importance.

      The bottom line: this shuttle is launching with things that should have been fixed not fixed at all. What's scary to me is that this is the same situation that resulted in both previous shuttle explosions: problems that were known about but downplayed as unimportant. As history tells us, this was hardly the case, resulting in the loss of two shuttles.

      My friend's analysis of the situation fits with some of the studies done on the NASA disasters; NASA should be allowed to do its job without budget or political pressure, for without this they can assure the safety of the people sent into space on their vehicles.

      Unfortunately, this will likely never happen, and even the most brilliant of designs will be rushed out the door or underfunded. Tragic, really.
      • My friend's analysis of the situation fits with some of the studies done on the NASA disasters; NASA should be allowed to do its job without budget or political pressure, for without this they can assure the safety of the people sent into space on their vehicles.

        If NASA cannot do its job under budget pressure, then it cannot do its job as well as private industry would. If it cannot do its job under political pressure, then it is a failure as a public agency, and is unaccountable to the public.
        • "If NASA cannot do its job under budget pressure, then it cannot do its job as well as private industry would."

          Umm... Yeah.. Just like the airline industry, for example. How many billions of dollars have we given them to keep running?

          When private companies face budgetary pressure, they know what to do: lie! "What's that Mr. Ebbers, you say our numbers aren't good enough? Let me 'innovate' some numbers."

          And how would NASA be privatized anyway? The sorts of things it undertakes are not commercial in nature
      • There's no amount of changes that can make the Shuttle a relative safe means of space travel (relative in comparison to the Soyuz or other capsule approaches).

        The shuttle is an inherently crappy space launch vehicle and no amount of to-do lists are going to change the laws of physics.

        So in a sense, it's good that they've had to drop these to-do lists, because more accidents are inevitable.

        What NASA really needs to do is grow a pair and get on with it. Why is 7 people dying such a tragedy? We lose hundr
        • Dude,
          You have some major issues man. Are you try to tell me that many of the SOLDIERS in Iraq had no idea they were signing up for something dangerous? You would have to be a *total idiot* to sign up for the military and not know that you life is at stake. It is part of the job.

          Secondly, it wasn't just that 7 astronauts died - which yes, that is a tradegy in itself. But it is the fact that each launch costs us taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars - and if they aren't going to be safe & secur
          • The National Guard is being used.

            No, they sure as hell didn't sign up to be shipped overseas to get shot at by hostile insurgents.

            http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=3651
            • NO they didn't expect to ever be called on to get shipped over seas to get shot at by hostile insurgents.

              very big difference between not signing up for it and just never expecting that part of the deal to every become real.
              • I don't think getting shipped overseas is part of the National GUARD mandate.

                • Re:What have they done (Score:3, Informative)

                  by tmortn ( 630092 )
                  The Army National Guard begs to differ.

                  The last paragraph is the really pertinant one but the entire selection is from the website.

                  http://www.arng.army.mil/About_Us/

                  "The Army National Guard (ARNG) is one component of The Army (which consists of the Active Army, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserves.) The Army National Guard is composed primarily of traditional Guardsmen -- civilians who serve their country, state and community on a part-time basis (usually one weekend each month and two weeks dur
      • I have a friend who works for the Air Force and he was telling me the other day about the alien masterminds who've secretly run the government since the Truman Administrations and who...
      • Well the choice would be to either continue with Shuttle doing what can be done... which isn't much really. Or to scrap it and redesign.

        Crew escape was never really an option. It has been studied and rejected in every phase of the shuttle program. Pretty much went out the window with the idea of side mounting the shuttle on the gas tank... the reason for side mounting the shuttle is due to the difficulty of maintaining aerodynamic control of a rocket with wings at the front. There is a reason wings are alw
    • What they have done is implemented the recommendations from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) report.

      With respect to the Orbiter itself (aside from management and flight rules), the main changes are the following:

      1) Redesign the insulation foam on the external tank around the area of the bipod struts where the foam detached on STS-107.

      2) Get the makers of the Canadarm (robotic arm) - MDA Space Missions [mdrobotics.ca] - to design and build a second arm that will be used to inspect the underside of the

      • With regards to Number 2 on your list: What exactly is the difference between this new second arm and the one that already existed on the orbiters? I looked at the high-res version of the picture you linked to, and could not see any readily-identifiable difference between one arm and the other. Does this new arm have greater flexibility? Does it telescope in some way the original did not, which allows it to get at the underside of the orbiter to check for damage? I guess what I'm getting at is, what's s
        • Good question. Sorry for not elaborating before.

          The first and original arm has joints (shoulder, elbow, wrist) which allows it to manipulate and move the various pieces of the ISS it installs and other payloads (e.g. HST). But unfortunately, it is not long enough to view the complete underside of the shuttle (it could have seen the damage on the wing of Columbia, but that mission didn't have an arm installed).

          The new arm - which is built from the spare booms from the original one - does not have joints,
    • They've included a sentient 9000-series computer to automagically fix any problems that may crop up.
    • I dunno why NASA is even bothering with the space shuttle anymore, its nearly 24 years old for crying out loud! I think NASA should be focusing more on research and development to get new technologies to accually get us further into the solar system and perhaps beyond into deep space, than bothering with this piece of junk thats clearly not fit to fly. However, good luck to the crew of Discovery.

  • The astronauts will miss... (Score:3, Funny)

    by bc90021 ( 43730 ) * <bc90021&bc90021,net> on Saturday February 19, 2005 @01:32PM (#11723398) Homepage
    Star Wars III: ROTS (Revenge Of The Sith)

    Frankly, I think that being dozens of miles from earth when that comes out mightn't be such a bad thing, actually... ;)

  • Breaking news! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 19, 2005 @01:36PM (#11723420)
    Shuttle launch delayed by software patent infringement!

  • About Time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dipster ( 830908 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @01:38PM (#11723429)
    The sooner we can finish off our commitment to the ISS, the sooner we can focus on the next generation of transports. Ones that are cheaper to operate and can take advantage of all the stuff we've developed in the last 10 years instead of having the astronauts take laptops with them because its cheaper than removing the outdated computers currently in the shuttle.

    • Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by flyingsquid ( 813711 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @02:10PM (#11723641)
      Question: what exactly do we need to transport humans for? They're bulky, they don't like vacuums, they have a low tolerance for temperature extremes, they can only function for about half a day at a time, and they need thousands of pounds of things like space suits, artificial atmospheres, airlocks, sleeping bags, toilets, etc. to function with. Meanwhile, robots don't have these disadvantages, and are becoming increasingly capable of doing anything we might want to do up in space.

      The budget is finite, and it's not even particularly interesting to send humans up on rockets anymore. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone talk about the space station. I mean, people hang out up there (right?) but they aren't doing much more. All the interesting, exciting science/adventuring is being done by robotic probes like the Mars rovers and the Hubble. Can the humans. We've had our day. If people want to go up in space, great, but let's let the space tourism industry take care of that, because the scientific justification for it is rapidly fading.

      • Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Planesdragon ( 210349 ) <slashdot@castles ... .us minus distro> on Saturday February 19, 2005 @02:32PM (#11723767) Homepage Journal
        Meanwhile, robots don't have these disadvantages, and are becoming increasingly capable of doing anything we might want to do up in space.

        No, they're not.

        Skip all of the cultural and boundary-pushing arguments, and just go show me a robot used full-time on Earth to walk around and do science.

        We don't use robots for biology, geology, or archeology, save for when they're absolutely necessary (such as, going to see if it's safe for humans.)

        Robots are used in space because they're cheap and expendable. That's it. If we were to spend 100 trllion on mars exploration, we'd just send a crew over to mars. There's a point where people really are cheaper than interplanetary telepresence.
        • Skip all of the cultural and boundary-pushing arguments, and just go show me a robot used full-time on Earth to walk around and do science.

          We don't use robots for biology, geology, or archeology, save for when they're absolutely necessary (such as, going to see if it's safe for humans.)

          Biology, geology and archeology are done on earth, where it's very cheap to "maintain" humans. Space is no such place. That was one important point that the GP tried to make. You didn't even address that.

          There's an

        • Re:About Time (Score:3, Informative)

          by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
          Uh, robots are cheaper and can do more in space, go farther and longer. The transit time to Mars is about three months at best, three months with NOTHING to do. I don't buy that humans are cheaper for that. For one, a trip to mars is IMO nearly prohibitive risk. Not only is it a long trip, you don't get the convenience of a re-supply ship like they had with Mir, Freedom or Skylab, nor do you get the emergency getaway capsule. Then there are radiation risks, to go outside the Earth's magnetic field that
          • Uh, robots are cheaper and can do more in space, go farther and longer. The transit time to Mars is about three months at best, three months with NOTHING to do.

            Once those humans get there, they will be able to far more each day than any droid-mission we've ever sent.

            It's a question of scale. Sending one probe a year is far beneath the balance point. Sending one probe a week is way, WAY over it.

            Humans are a fancy, high-maintencance, VERY USEFUL computer and machine combination. Beyond a certain point
      • Meanwhile, robots don't have these disadvantages, and are becoming increasingly capable of doing anything we might want to do up in space.

        Except for anything outside of their programming or equipment capabilities. If androids are developed, that's a different story. Until then, the robotic exploration is great and useful, but there are many things we won't be able to find out until actual ugly-bags-of-mostly-water learn how to get around, survive under harsh conditions that would normally kill them, and
      • Humans Fix Problems and Do Stuff that robots cannot.

        If we had only sent robots to the Moon, we'd have accomplished far less.

        • Robots can not set up mirrors, collect rocks, and hit a few golf balls?

        • Re:About Time (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Rich0 ( 548339 )
          For the cost of Apollo they probably could have had a robot walking around every other crater.

          If they only sent as many robots as they sent humans they certainly would have accomplished less.

          No question that a human can do more than a robot, but which gets more science done for a 100 billion dollar budget:

          1. Sending 100 robots to the Earth's moon, 10 robots to every other moon in the solar system, 50 robots to the heliopause, 5 orbiters around every terrestrial planet, 20 proof-of-concept probes testing
      • The reason they man the ISS is because they are studying the science of humans living in space. It is a good field of study since (hopefully) it will be a necessary body of knowledge once we are travelling space frequently.

      • Re:About Time (Score:3, Informative)

        by golgotha007 ( 62687 )
        I can't remember the last time I heard anyone talk about the space station. I mean, people hang out up there (right?) but they aren't doing much more.

        Are you kidding me? We are still studying the long term effects a zero-G environment has on a human body. So far, studies have shown that periods of weightlessness reduce the body's bone mass, cause muscle-wasting, depress the immune system and lead to changes usually associated with aging.

        If we're ever to seriously think about colonizing space or even a
    • If you look at the Boeing CEV web page I think you will find their design is remarkably the same as everything Apollo did 40 years ago. The Crew Control Module is going to be a cramped conical capsule almost exactly like Apollo's from the picture. Their proposed Delta IV booster is going to be exceptionally weak compared to Saturn V or a derivative of the Shuttle stack. Its not clear but I think they are going to have to do two or more launches and dock the pieces in orbit to get them to the Moon and back

    • Ones that are cheaper to operate and can take advantage of all the stuff we've developed in the last 10 years instead of having the astronauts take laptops with them because its cheaper than removing the outdated computers currently in the shuttle.

      The problem with this rant is... The laptops are used for functions that the flight control computers wouldn't be used for anyhow. (Mostly payload control functions, data logging from experiments, email, etc.. etc..)

      That aside, we could replace the flight con

  • Welcome back, STS Discovery... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by helioquake ( 841463 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @01:39PM (#11723437) Journal
    ...and God speed, Commander Eileen and her crew.

  • What about Atlantis? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FuturePastNow ( 836765 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @01:40PM (#11723447)
    The article says that Atlantis is being prepped simultaneously for a possible rescue mission. I doubt it actually be on the other pad when Discovery launches, but how realistic is it for NASA to set up another launch on two weeks' notice?
    • I think the issue has inherently been that they can't get another one up there on two weeks' notice - so they're making sure they have 2 ready to go up so that if one has issues, they can immediately send the other one up. That's why they've got it prepared ahead of time.

    • Re:What about Atlantis? (Score:5, Informative)

      by kalidasa ( 577403 ) * on Saturday February 19, 2005 @01:58PM (#11723563) Journal
      Go to the Return to Flight [nasa.gov] page. Atlantis will be ready for a launch on July 12 [nasa.gov]: that's not an emergency turnaround, but a full-fledged mission. I don't imagine that Discovery will be in a position to act as emergency rescue vehicle for that mission, though, as even July 26 (i.e., 2 weeks after the planned launch date for Atlantis) will be only 2 months after the shuttle's planned landing on May 27. Endeavour is in major modification mode.
    • As was said in an earlier post, Atlantis is being scheduled for it's own mission on July 12, but it will be on the Launch Pad for the Discovery launch to support a resuce mission if required. Even for the Columbia mission, they could have gotten another shuttle ready to fly (all testing, etc.) in 28 days if all testing was done without failures and the minimum required was done. The current plan is to have Atlantis with basic testing done and final turnaround and pre-launch testing should be able to be do
    • The article says that Atlantis is being prepped simultaneously for a possible rescue mission. I doubt it actually be on the other pad when Discovery launches, but how realistic is it for NASA to set up another launch on two weeks' notice?

      One of the original goals with having four shuttles was to do a new mission every two weeks, and so turn around time of each shuttle was supposed to be every eight weeks. They never approached that rate of launches long-term, but they came close a few times. The ill-fate

  • Just not excited anymore (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Platinum Dragon ( 34829 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @01:45PM (#11723480) Journal
    Semi-rhetorical question:

    Why is NASA even bothering with shuttle launches at this point? Shouldn't the Columbia disaster have been taken as a sign that the spaceflight program needed a complete overhaul?

    Sometimes, I wonder if NASA support for other human spaceflight and heavy-lift systems stagnated due to some bizarre political desire to fling the Shuttle into orbit, regardless of the cost. I almost get the sense that bureaucrats are afraid 99% of humanity would forget about outer space, never mind human exploration, if NASA stopped for a few years to put some time and resources into developing something better?
    • > Why is NASA even bothering with shuttle launches at this point?

      Because if they don't, nobody in the world will ever partner with the USA in space again.

      History lesson: In the 80s Europe and Japan were both making steady progress towards building their own manned space program. In the 90s, Russia was undertaking a project to build Mir2. But the USA persuaded all these countries to put their chips in with the US effort and build an international space station.

      If the USA cancels the shuttle (which

      • Let's not forget that Russia did not live up to its own obligations in the project. The US was left holding the bag for $billions.
      • But the USA persuaded all these countries to put their chips in with the US effort and build an international space station.

        And that was a mistake--monoculture, single points of failure, eggs in one basket and all.

        If the USA cancels the shuttle (which is the only possible vehicle with which to finish the space station), the rest of the world will have spent two decades and billions of rubles/yen/euros in vain.

        I have the sick feeling that will happen anyway, continued shuttle missions or not. The more

    • Re:Just not excited anymore (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LighthouseJ ( 453757 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @01:53PM (#11723534)
      So one disaster should cause a national halt on space travel indefinitely? It is a horrible disaster and some very special people didn't have to die, but we have to move on and the astronauts knew that something like that could happen. I think 2 years is a good time to rest, reflect on what happened and try again and show the world we can get back up on our feet and try again. We all get knocked down, but the important thing is that we get back up and try again.
      • So one disaster should cause a national halt on space travel indefinitely?

        This is two disasters now, in a horribly expensive program (far, far more expensive than originally planned) that now goes nowhere other than a space station of currently dubious utility. The space shuttle was supposed to be relatively cheap, reliable, versatile, and used far more frequently than it is now. The shuttle program is showing its age. Note that I didn't call for a halt to all space travel, only that the time be taken

      • So one disaster should cause a national halt on space travel indefinitely? It is a horrible disaster and some very special people didn't have to die,

        Sadly, from a programatic point of view there was nothing special about the Columbia crew. For each and everyone, there's ten more equally trained and capable in Houston and hundreds if not thousands more ready to volunteer and more than capable of replacing them.

        The real disaster is the loss of a virtually irreplacable asset... The Orbiter itself.

    • Right now the Air Force still needs the Shuttle to haul into orbit stuff that won't fit on the Delta or Atlas.

      Did you know that back in the 60's, the first spy satellite (Corona) was disguised as a NASA scientific mission? Well.......

  • Except conducting experiments that require zero gravity, what does astronauts do in space stations? I know its a silly question, but its something I don't know either.
    • They exercise, urinate/defecate in vacuum lavatories, roll around and bump the walls, oh, and experiment unique ways of ingesting bad food in freefall. Do you see why we need the shuttle flights and space stations? ;)

    • Re:What do they do in space stations? (Score:4, Informative)

      by FTL ( 112112 ) * <slashdot&neil,fraser,name> on Saturday February 19, 2005 @02:13PM (#11723665) Homepage
      > Except conducting experiments that require zero gravity, what does astronauts do in space stations?

      First of all, microgravity is an astonishingly useful thing to have when conducting experiments. For instance, imagine how much better one can grow crystals if everything is just floating and one doesn't have a dish to corrupt the crystal formation. Not interested in growing snowflakes? Crystals grown from organic seeds allow one to develop medical cures. So it's not a stetch to say that a microgravity experiment might be what cures AIDS or cancer.

      Second, even if one doesn't care about microgravity, space has another feature: vacuum. Lots and lots of it. The Japanese science module is specifically designed to conduct experiments in the vacuum outside. They've got an exposed pallet and a bunch of waldos.

      For lots more examples, see NASA's ISS science page [nasa.gov].

  • More importantly, are they being efficient about this launch? It is a waste of resources if they launch just to see if they can bring it back in one piece without another crew dying. I hope that they plan to do some important experiments up there. The article didn't say anything about experiments. Also, from now on, all the data collected up there should be transmitted to earth before landing. They lost a large portion when Columbia was lost.

    Personally, why I love space, I don't like NASA. I think th
    • You mean we lost the data on whether ants can build tunnels in zero-G? The Columbia was doing science experiments suggested by grade schoolers, not "important experiments." The scientific output of the shuttle and ISS is about zero. With only two or three astronauts on the ISS, there is only time to keep the ISS running. Nothing else.
    • I want to know who's grand idea it was to NOT transmit the data as soon as it is finalized. Same deal with probes. So what if we have to leave an receiver running and deal with comms lag (although anything beyond mars/venus I understand, but LEO?).
      • In the real world there are limits. Higher data rates require more power for the transmitter. There are a finite number of ground and space based tracking stations. Terrestrial data links have finite bandwidth. Bandwidth and tracking/receiving systems cost serious money. The people needed to operate and maintain this stuff cost money.
    • The method goes back to one of the space program's big successes. The first half of the Apollo project was very much a one step at a time program. We put one mission up with the whole major point just being to test if the CSM could turn around and dock with a LEM style hatch, and get set up in a configuration to go to the next stage of a moon mission, all done with a smaller booster than the Saturn V and never leaving earth's orbit.
      Most of those early Apollo missions were about what's called "space sci
      • We put one mission up with the whole major point just being to test if the CSM could turn around and dock with a LEM style hatch, and get set up in a configuration to go to the next stage of a moon mission, all done with a smaller booster than the Saturn V and never leaving earth's orbit

        Nope. The only Saturn 1-B launches were Apollo 7 and Skylab crew (and possibly Apollo-Soyuz). Apollo 9, which is the mission you're thinking of, was a full Saturn V.

    • You bet they are. From the spaceflight website [nasa.gov]

      1. Return to Flight test mission.
      2. The Multi-Purpose Logistics Module, or MPLM, carries supplies and equipment to the station.
      3. Delivers the External Stowage Platform to the station.
      4. Remove and replace Control Moment Gyro.

      Those are the highlights of the mission. In English: make sure the shuttle works, deliver some food and air, deliver an overdue piece of the space station, and fix a broken gyro. Additionally, they will be testing three tile patch kits to dete

  • So.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by brian0918 ( 638904 ) <[brian0918] [at] [gmail.com]> on Saturday February 19, 2005 @01:56PM (#11723550)
    So, it's alright for them to fly up to the useless space station and do their "experiments", but they can't head over to Hubble and do something useful with taxpayer money?
    • Hubble and do something useful with taxpayer money?

      Kindly show me an emperical benefit of Hubble. We learn a lot, yes, but it's not exactly USEFUL.

      Space travel, OTOH, is an accomplishment.

      (And let's not forget that we may wind up replacing Hubble with a better telescope for cheaper than the repair bill.)
    • Yes to part 1

      No to part 2 (something about being against informal government regs regarding use of taxpayer money :)

  • I am SO going to the launch (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    All my life I've wanted to see a launch in person, and I'm finally going to do it. Started looking at flights to FL last night when I read the date had been set. I'm going stay that entire week, just in case of any delays. Hopefully that will be sufficient time.

  • It looks like (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @02:05PM (#11723618) Homepage
    Nasa has gone Safety bananas. Theres a limit to how safe something can be, and space is inherently very dangerous. The more safe you want it to be (with a clunky, ultra-complicated flawed vehicle) the more money and time you will spend. You will spend money and time exponentially approaching an asymtopte. Funny thing about asymptoptes- you can never really reach them by spending the money.

    You would think Nasa would realize that.

    • Nasa has gone Safety bananas. Theres a limit to how safe something can be, and space is inherently very dangerous. The more safe you want it to be (with a clunky, ultra-complicated flawed vehicle) the more money and time you will spend. You will spend money and time exponentially approaching an asymtopte. Funny thing about asymptoptes- you can never really reach them by spending the money.

      You would think Nasa would realize that.

      I see it as a cost-benefit thing. Of course it's dangerous, there are unknow
    • NASA does realize that. The problem is that Congress does not realize that. In fact, Congress does not seem to realize that space in inherently dangerous and that things always go wrong, nor does Congress seem to realize that safety costs money. Read the reports on both the disasters, and you'll find that engineers were calling for more tests and having them denied because there was no budget for them. The results of the investigations were running those tests.

      At the top, it is Congress that makes the bud

  • The Shuttle: Promise vs. Reality (Score:5, Interesting)

    by windowpain ( 211052 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @02:19PM (#11723691) Journal
    I should probably submit this as a seperate story but I'm too lazy. Here's a quote from a story [digitaljournal.com] at DigitalJournal.com to remind us what NASA originally promised:

    "David Aiken, an associate professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Maryland, worked at the Kennedy Space Center soon after the shuttle program was approved in 1972.

    He believes that in hindsight the reusability aspect of the Space Shuttle was grossly overestimated.

    'Actually the original mission model had 500 missions in ten years for a fleet of five orbiters. Every orbiter was going to fly every two weeks. The idea was that it would land, you would do 160 hours worth of work on it, that's basically two shifts per day five days a week for two weeks - and then you'd be back on the launch pad ready to launch again,' he says. 'Now it's turned out that it doesn't take 160 hours of time to turn it around again, it probably takes more like 3,000 hours of time.'"

    Yeah, yeah, I know all about all of the unknowns that they faced. The pioneers are the ones who get arrows in their chests. But this is ridiculous.

    I remember NASA experts and PR flacks saying so glibly how using expendable rockets was like driving across the country and throwing away the car after every trip.

    Yeah and maybe shooting a gun is like throwing a really tiny knife and leaving it in the target.

    Maybe rocketships aren't like cars. Maybe we would have been way, way better off in terms of cost--and probably human lives--if we had stayed with expendables.
    • At some point, we're going to need reusable vehicles. There's no way you can scale building these massive rocjets for every launch. Imagine if you needed to build new airliners for every flight; even if you had the money, you'd eventually run out of steel and aluminum.

  • Emergency Rescue Options... (Score:4, Informative)

    by LordZardoz ( 155141 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @02:38PM (#11723807)
    Some posts ask about what sort of rescue options Nasa has handy in the event of catastrope.

    Well, Presuming that the bugger does not blow up on launch, this thing is going to the ISS. If they cannot come back down due to a safety issue, they could conceivably stay up there for a while.

    Also, the ISS has a Soyuz for emergency escape. They coould come down on that.

    Or they could have the Russians send another Soyuz up specifically for evacuation purposes.

    Using a Shuttle for a rescue is probably overkill.

    And if the shuttle is destroyed in the same manner as Columbia, well, once your in atmosphere on your way down, your either land in one piece or you land in many pieces.

    END COMMUNICATION

    • Some posts ask about what sort of rescue options Nasa has handy in the event of catastrope.

      Well, Presuming that the bugger does not blow up on launch, this thing is going to the ISS. If they cannot come back down due to a safety issue, they could conceivably stay up there for a while.

      True. Estimates range from 100 days to six months for the amount of time they could stay at the station.

      Also, the ISS has a Soyuz for emergency escape. They coould come down on that.

      Or they could have the Russians send a

    • "Well, Presuming that the bugger does not blow up on launch, this thing is going to the ISS. If they cannot come back down due to a safety issue, they could conceivably stay up there for a while."

      Funny about that. I thought one of the official reasons for the small crew on the ISS was due to the requirement for sufficient escape vessels (Soyuz capsules). If seven additional astronauts can stay on the ISS for a bit without sufficient escape vessels, why isn't the ISS crew larger. I mean, emergency or no, i

  • Been there, done that (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pausanias ( 681077 ) <pausaniasxNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday February 19, 2005 @03:03PM (#11723949)
    I think most in the USA have a "been there, done that" attitude towards our human spaceflight programs. Sure, the space station is supposedly laying the foundation for future manned exploration missions, but right now, all we're essentially doing is a repeat of the 1980s. Weren't they doing 0 gravity experiments back then too? And what do we have to look forward to? Mr. Bush's plans to boldly return where we went 40 years ago? And after that grow some money trees so we can somehow get to mars?

    Unmanned spaceflight has made great strides and clearly had a far, far greater impact on the public's love of space than our boring, so-tired manned spaceflight program. It's time to get creative, or else leave the mission to the robots.

    • I think most in the USA have a "been there, done that" attitude towards our human spaceflight programs. Sure, the space station is supposedly laying the foundation for future manned exploration missions, but right now, all we're essentially doing is a repeat of the 1980s. Weren't they doing 0 gravity experiments back then too?

      Long term human endurance research combined with research into ameliorating the bad stuff? Nope. (The Russians theoretically were, but they were lax on documentation and even laxer

  • lotsa haftas (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jpellino ( 202698 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @03:09PM (#11723986)
    Thsi sounds like they have to get thihngs done at that time under those conditions and they hafta do it RFN... this makes pressure to launch which hasn't been a friend to getting things done right/safe.

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close