Crack Found in Shuttle Tank 703
hpulley writes "The shuttle's new fuel tank, supposedly redesigned to be safer, has a crack in it. Pictures were sent to the manufacturer who decided that it is too small to be worrisome. Hmm, what caused the Columbia disaster, pieces of foam?
Meanwhile, there will be a second shuttle on standby, just in case the first one has problems after being hit by foam, etc. If the first shuttle has a design flaw, what's to say the second one isn't afflicted by the same problem? Won't there be a good chance of them stranding the rescue crew in addition to the original crew? If an aircraft crashes and the redesign to fix it crashes, would you send another of the same type to rescue it? Of course not! The ISS is going to be a smelly, scary place with the regular complement and two shuttle crews onboard and no way home but a Russian Soyuz capsule that isn't slated to launch again until September and has seats for just three..."
Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that the tank itself was redesigned, but the whole concept of the shuttle is incredibly outdated.
STS was originally conceived in the 60s, implemented in the 70s, and was launched in the 80s. I turned 24 today. The space shuttle first took off when I was six days old.
From a technology standpoint, I don't use the same computers that were out in 1981. I don't drive a car that was made or designed in 1981. I don't even talk on a phone whose carrier techology was around in 1981.
So why, WHY are we launching people into space with a program older than I am? And of all things, if we're really so keen on going to Mars, why should this of all things be our jumping off point?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like Unix. And we're still using it, too.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like Unix. And we're still using it, too.
That might be the most accurate comparison I've ever read on Slashdot. The thing is, it reads like a troll, but it isn't.
Here are some other thoughts to go with yours:
"Sonds like cars, which still have four wheels and reciprocating engines. And we're still using those too."
"Sounds like the 747, which still has four jet engines. And we're still using that too."
"Sounds like liquor, which still comes in glass bottles. And we're still using that too."
"Sounds like soda, which still comes in cans. And we're still using that too."
You might notice that:
A: All the things we both named have been continuously improved since inception, despite vast advances in the underlying technology.
B: UNIX is the only one unrecognizable in it's current state. (Mac OS X)
C: The Shuttle's concept was not fleshed out properly after it got beyond the design stage. The same is not true of the other designs, which have been forced to compete in competitive markets.
All of my examples (and yours, of UNIX) have done well in the market for over twenty years. The Space Shuttle has not, in my opinion.
I regret that I never got down to Edwards to see the STS land while I lived in California. Odds are it probably won't land there again - unless someone here knows different. The recovery and travel costs are too high for NASA.
Just thought it was worth a comment.
Re:Nice troll! (Score:3, Insightful)
Object orientation did not add any functionality to existing programming, it formalised what had been some existing "best practice" programming styles, and "outlawed" some sloppy programming styles. While clarifying some processes, it also made others more complex. Most competent programmers didn't have too much trouble making the transition.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
The A-10 was designed in the 70's, not the 50's. And it belongs to the Air Force, not the Army.
Note also that we built about 700 A-10's. Not four. Hell, there were more than four prototypes of the A-10. If we'd built shuttles by the hundreds, they wouldn't have this sort of problem either.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, the problem is the shuttle. Or, perhaps, the manned space program, but not the way you mean it. Problem is we approached it as if it was never going to be anything other than a few scientists being lofted, instead of industrializing it.
If we'd built 50 shuttles, we could have a launch every four days (allowing 200 days between launches of each shuttle). We'd be able to put 2400T or thereabouts in orbit every year. Note that 2400T is more about ten times as much as the Mars Mission will require.
Fifteen years of that, with half devoted to the space station, and we'd have a REAL space station - 10000T+, capable of supporting some serious industry and whatever science wants to tag along for the ride.
Plus our moon base (and anyone else's who wants one - a real space station makes it much easier for newcomers to get into the game, as long as they play nice), an asteroid mission or two, maybe a probe to look at a monolith on Europa or some such...
The possibilities are endless...
Four, on the other hand. Essentially worthless - they can't do their design mission, they can't build a decent space station, they can't do much of anything....
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Surely would. Even so, the funding would increase less than linearly as the number of flights increase - because SOME of the overhead isn't per flight, it's per program. So you come ahead with more flights.
Note that I don't consider more funding for manned spaceflight a bad thing.
The shuttle is WAY too complex. It was designed to do everything
Possibly. A truck, by its na
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
You say that as if propellors are less desirable than jet propulsion for aircraft. (Of course, after typing out this long reply, I now see that you and I are largely making the same point, but why waste such a good explanation?) This is true only if we are talking about props powered by internal combustion engines--but the C-130 is powered by turbo-prop engines.
It is really a matter of different strengths and weaknesses. In the case
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Mercury (after the first couple of missions), Gemini, and Apollo all placed their payloads in Earth orbit before they did anything else. Mercury and Gemini never left Earth orbit at all. Apollo, which did of course go to the moon (after leaving EO), required more thrust overall than any other space venture in history, because it had to boost everything necessary for reaching the Moon into EO. The Saturn V was the most powerful booster ever built, period. Even the modern Energiya can't match it.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the summary: Pictures were sent to the manufacturer who decided that it is too small to be worrisome.
I say, tell that to the astronauts who have to sit on top of the goddamn thing.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
"The crack is about the size as a hair on the lens of a camera," NASA spokeswoman Eileen Hawley told reporters at NASA's Johnson Space Center. The crack was located just above the intertank door on the rear of the tank, opposite the orbiter, Hawley said.
It sounds like a small surface defect in the spray on insulation, not in the aluminum tank. Similar defects have probably happened before, but never made the headlines. Most likely the maximum hazard is that they will see a very small amount of ice growth at that site when propellant is loaded. This isn't even a significant threat because the crack is on the opposite side of the tank from the orbiter, so unless you've got some ice that can do fancier flying than Oswald's magic bullet there is no threat to launch.
What brought down Columbia was a large chunk of foam that was hand-applied when the tank was closed out. The hand-application process of the bipod ramp foam tends to leave large voids. That's what popped off and hit the wing. The ramps have been replaced with heaters to avoid ice formation at that location. (Ironically, the foam was put there in the first place to prevent ice from forming on that joint and hitting the orbiter.)
Disclaimer: I work for NASA, but any opinions are my own and haven't been approved by anybody. I'm just trying to inject a little sanity into this discussion...
Re:Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
The existence of newer, better stuff doesn't make older stuff automatically stop working.
Also, I'd be surprised if they really were using all the same computer equipment and software from 1981.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Internally the Shuttle remains largely similar to the original design, with the exception that the avionics continues to be improved. The original systems were "hardened" IBM 360 computers connected to analog displays in the cockpit similar to contemporary airliners like the DC-10. Today the cockpits are being replaced with "all glass" systems and the computers themselves are many times faster. The computers use the HAL/S programming language. In the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project tradition, pro
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Do error messages come in the form of "I am sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.", or what?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Funny)
What you fail to account for is the fact that the poster is actually in the future, reading old slashdot articles (because after the Dupe-wars of 3109 duplicate articles are not allowed to exist, and so old stories are just recylcled to the front page). He then posted a reply to a comment, hoping to spark new heat
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
They have been updated a lot since they first flew.
The Air Force flys Bombers designed in the 40s and built in the 50s. Fighters that where designed in the 60s and built in the 70s. Even the Boeing 747 was first built in the 60s as was the 737. I agree that the shuttle does need to be replaced but it is not the same shuttle that flew in the early 80s
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
What does that say about communism? (Score:3, Interesting)
Russian aerospace, conversely, was designed to Work And Work Well, not to Work And Turn A Profit. So they were Built To Last, not built to be replaced in 10-15 years max.
B-52H fleet (Score:3, Informative)
Just to pick nits: the active B-52 fleet is made up of B-52(H) models, which were built in 1960, making them a few years newer than the B-52(G). The "newer" H models have more efficient and more powerful engines than the G, and had numerous other improvements. The difference between the B-52(H) and B-52(G) is significant. The difference between the B-52(H) and B-52(A
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
All the orbiters are different weights, for another example. As they went, they designed better technologies to acomplish the same goal.
They've been doing avionics upgrades (as discussed above), and had many, many major design changes planned.
Some orbiters have heat resistant blankets instead of tiles to reduce weight and complexity.
Each orbiter was slightly tweaked to perform certain functions.
Due to the station's orbit, any orbiter that was to go to the station had to be modified for weight requirements just to get there.
My personal favorite were the Flyback Boosters. Modified solid rocket boosters designed to fly back to KSC and land like a plane to eliminate refurbishing them after fetching them out of the ocean.
Unfortunately, NASA's budget isn't something they can plan for over a long term period. They have to fight for every penny from congress, and are subject to the President's whims.
When Bush took office, one of his first acts was to scrap two elements of the International Space Station.
How can you plan and budget effectively with things like that happening?
Some of NASA's budget is also diverted over to the 'Save the Russian Space Program' fund. A presidental mandate ensured that we'd be employing Russian rocket scientists so they wouldn't end up going to work for some other country and designing missiles or other weapons.
Other major SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit) designs have been developed (X-33, Delta Clipper) only to be nixed by Congress.
NASA does contract out a great deal of the STS processing; United Space Alliance handles a major portion of Shuttle & Station aspects.
NASA also cannot sell anything. Their charter prevents them from profiting from their research. If NASA could sell some of their technologies (Velcro, Microwaves, UV Sunglasses, Pacemakers, etc...) they'd be amazingly rich.
Unfortunately, they have to give it all away.
Personally, I hope NASA will someday be split into a research organization and an exploration organization. It's trying to do both, and its budget can't really sustain it.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's not. Those both exploded.
As a matter of fact, they both exploded because something seemingly trivial went wrong, something that nobody in a million years would have thought could endanger the orbiter. Something like a tiny crack in the foam on the external fuel tank. All the processing power in the world won't help one iota if sloppy security procedures and pressure to push the launch through cause yet another seemingly trivial thing to go wrong. I just hope NASA knows what it's doing.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
In neither the Challenger nor Columbia losses was the failure something that was completely unanticipated. Both of the fatal problems had been identified as a specific risk and were being worked on and analyzed when the accidents happened.
Inability to conduct reasonable and overriding safety reviews in NASA's operations was a major and legitimate issue, but your claim goes well beyond what the historical record substantiates.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
You're right, it isn't. That one burned up on reentry a couple of years ago. The design, however, is fundamentally the same, modulo a few manufacturing refinements (TPS changes, etc) they came up with in the ones that flew in the mid 80s and beyond (and were all built in the late 70s/early 80s). Even Endeavour, the replacement for Challenger, is in large part made up of "structural spares" made during the original manufacturing run.
Of course they do pretty much tear down and completely overhaul each Orbiter between missions, which is another reason the dang things are so expensive to fly.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Troll)
Guess you don't ever talk on a landline then because the technology in them hasn't changed since Alexander Graham Bell.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Those shuttles are probably finally making it to broken in, from an airframe standpoint. (even if they are approaching the day for that one, last, flight to the Air and Space Museum)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Heh. Won't you be surprised when you find out how old some of the planes are that are making round trips every single day.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hypersonic X-30 cancelled in 1993. [fas.org]
What happened to the X-33. [spaceprojects.com]
Cnn article on the troubles of the X-33 [cnn.com]
aerospike engine for x-33 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Why? (Score:3, Funny)
If you can't properly express your units of measure in standard Libraries on Congress I'll have nothing to do with your argument.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
CIA conspiracy (Score:4, Funny)
It's not a racist joke (Score:3, Informative)
Re:-1 Whiny Liberal (Score:5, Interesting)
Once the boat started rocking uncontrollably after the SJMN published it, they backpedalled furiously and effectively destroyed Webb's career. Webb interviewed after Mercury pulls series from web site. [metroactive.com]
The book Dark Alliance was pretty powerful stuff. Webb committed suicide in December. [metroactive.com]
And of course none of this has anything to do with the space shuttle.
Sour Grapes Anyone. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sour Grapes Anyone. (Score:3, Interesting)
Risk vs Reward (Score:5, Insightful)
It always puzzles me that a country which recruits hundreds of thousands of soldiers and spends hundreds of billions of dollars to go to wars with guaranteed casualties (and not all die in action) are so timid in losing a relatively small percentage of lives/dollars to go to space.
Everything has a risk, if you send those astronauts to do sky diving (or just drive to the supermarket) often enough, some of them will get killed too.
Why can't we allow those who are more than willing to sacrify their lives to go to space to do just that?
I understand that we have the responsibility to maintain certain level of reliability and to minimize risk, but all the safety concerns are slowing things way down. Other countries are catching up fast, maybe their lives are cheap? Or maybe they knew and anticipated the risk of losing lives to achieve something great?
I guess we can't go to the moon now because of the deadly moon dust [slashdot.org], imagine what would have happened if we discovered it before landing on the moon?
Re:Risk vs Reward (Score:2)
Because war is about killing people and spacetravel is not. (although I agree with your point, which has been raised on /. more than once)
Re:Risk vs Reward (Score:5, Insightful)
Soldiers are many, but Astronauts are few.
Public perception is a funny thing... now if we routinely sent thousands or tens of thousands of people to space, the media hype over accidents would subside considerably (on a national level anyway).
A good example there might be the airline industry?
SB
Re:Risk vs Reward (Score:5, Insightful)
So if a soldier sacrifices himself in a war zone to save his buddies from a situation caused by a "stupid engineering/manufacturing mistake" - and it happens somewhat often - what do you consider that?
Do you not consider training for decades and risking your life to further our national goals in space "service to your country"? I'm afraid I can't see your point.
SB (no disrespect to soldiers of any stripe meant)
Re:Risk vs Reward (Score:3, Insightful)
SB
Re:Risk vs Reward (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just plain wrong. Astronauts aren't really much more than passengers in the same way you a
Re:Risk vs Reward (Score:3, Insightful)
The amount of things an astronaut has to do in a mission would blow your mind. their minds are crammed so full of data, theory and procedures, that it takes many months of drilling to get it packed in their.
Re:Risk vs Reward (Score:3, Insightful)
Crazy headline! (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, wasn't one of the first famous astronauts... (Score:2)
Kudos to the DEA (Score:5, Funny)
Two words (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Two words (Score:2)
Re:Two words (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what happens when you build your Space Center in Texas.
Re:Two words (Score:3, Interesting)
Too hard, give up. (Score:4, Funny)
Ooops. Think again (Score:3, Interesting)
****
Exploration and investment are the reasons for a [space] mission like this.
The former -- exploration -- is what NASA and scientists will advertise in front. Why? Because we know so little about comet
Cracks (Score:2)
Crack found?!? (Score:2)
Re:Crack found?!? (Score:5, Funny)
NASA Engineer 2: "WHERE?!"
NASA Engineer: "In the tank, goddammit! We'll get it back in a couple minutes"
Conspiracy (Score:4, Funny)
Objective reporting (Score:4, Insightful)
If the first shuttle has a design flaw, what's to say the second one isn't afflicted by the same problem? Won't there be a good chance of them stranding the rescue crew in addition to the original crew? If an aircraft crashes and the redesign to fix it crashes, would you send another of the same type to rescue it? Of course not!
Whatever the fuck happened to objective reporting? What is this, Fox News?
Re:Objective reporting (Score:4, Funny)
Transcript from tonight's O'Reilly Factor (not really)...
Not too much thought went into that title ... (Score:5, Funny)
"I thought NASA had their funding cut not increased?"
"Does Bush know there's crack on the space shuttle? He would probably want to join in on the action".
"If I would knew there was crack available there, I would have paid more attention on the Cape Canaveral tour"
Re:Not too much thought went into that title ... (Score:2)
The crack in the shuttle...NASA took a page from John DeLorean's book for funding their program. (Not too soon, I hope)
Re:Not too much thought went into that title ... (Score:3, Funny)
"Somewhere out there is someone's secret stash, thinking a space shuttle is where it won't be found."
"Maybe NASA could sell that to increase its funding"
"Suddenly crackheads everywhere will aspire to be astronauts."
"Record number of crackhheads try to stow away on space shuttles"
"Well, as a NASA exec, I'm just releived that didn't find the pot- I mean, pod. Yeah, pod!"
Why are you so scared? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why are you so scared? (Score:3, Funny)
Well, shit, that's what happens every time I change my code....
Sensationalist headline (Score:5, Informative)
fault tolerance (Score:2)
Maybe this is kind of design mentality that is needed in the space program. Not one standby for each part, but a massively redundant system.
Parts weigh something... (Score:2)
I am not that kind of engineer. You may safely ignore me.
Probably Ok (Score:2, Interesting)
Besides that, I still disagree with the official explaination of the Challenger disaster. I don't know if anyone else watched the very interesting piece on the Discovery channel a
Yeah... I know other people are saying this... (Score:3, Funny)
wow, glad hpulley came up with all these q's... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I bet this guy knows what the tolerances for the tanks are intricately... way more than the GUYS WHO DESIGNED IT AND MADE IT FLY FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS.
This whole article reminds me of a little dog jumping up and down saying "hey boss, what if, hey boss what if" and you just want to kick it.
Title is totally misleading (Score:3, Informative)
Cracks and Foam (Score:2)
By this, I think the submitter is insinuating that on another occasion a potential problem which appeared minor turned into a disaster, so certainly the manufacturer is underestimating the risks now. But when I put it like that, it's pretty obvious that the submitter is an idiot.
I hate the shuttle too, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
This kind of pessimism isn't going to help the situation. The fact is, outdated as it is, the shuttle is the only means we have for getting massive equipment to the ISS, which we're obligated to do.
Space flight is risky, and the shuttle is even riskier than it has to be, but we have to finish the job. In this case, that means putting people's lives at risk, even though we know the shuttle is basically a huge mistake. Giving up on the ISS now will leave us out in the cold when the next space race heat
And what if...? (Score:2)
Re: Crack found in Shuttle tank (Score:2, Redundant)
I don't get it. Who would the astronauts be smuggling it to? The ISS? At any rate, hiding it in a fuel tank isn't very original---no wonder they got caught. There was no mention of the size of the bust in the /. summary. I guess I could read the article, but why bother? I'll bet you can fit a lot of crack into a Shuttle tank, though!
Poster Little (Score:2)
How in the world did such a random, flaky, paranoid article get listed anyway???
Feh, I wonder which
Is anyone here familiar with LEFM? (Score:4, Informative)
Cracks (Score:5, Informative)
There is a whole branch of structural engineering called damage tolerance which deals with cracks. The certification process for new airplanes deals with it extensively. For example, we must assume that any airplane can have a .050" crack at any location. Such a crack is assumed to grow, and it might get quite long before it must be found. I'm talking inches in length, sometimes.
Obligatory Futurama reference (Score:3, Funny)
Everyone on Earth, except Fry and Nibbler, suffers from acute and utter stupidity caused by an invasion of enormous brains.
Linda (newscaster): Hi! Today, some bad things happened. One bad thing was, a train go crashed in New Jersey. Wanna see? People won't be late for work, though, because the Governor lady said, "I'm sending in more trains."
Submitter is an alarmist (Score:5, Informative)
First, while it was "pieces of foam" that caused the problem, it was decided that it was most likely a single suitcase-sized piece of foam hitting the leading-edge carbon/carbon that led to the eventual destruction of Columbia. The SOFI (spray-on foam insulation) process has been improved to reduce the number & size of voids in the SOFI. The maximum size of foam expected to fall off now is on the order of 1% of the size of the piece that doomed Columbia. Further, the bipod ramp foam has been eliminated in the redesign. Further, they've developed new techniques to inspect the SOFI so they can detect any anomalies. If they found something, which apparently they have, engineers can assess it and determine its severity. I'm not familiar with the specific issue, but depending on its sign & location, it was apparently deemed to not be a problem. Essentially, NASA is probably inspecting better now, so they are seeing more lumps. It doesn't mean that this isn't the best external tank ever built (it doesn't mean it is, either).
And in general, the whole SOFI system has extremely high visibility at NASA (I don't work there) and beyond (I do work there), and if any engineer thought it could be a safety issue, the launch would be delayed.
Not to mention, the tank wasn't "supposedly" redesigned; it was redesigned. Unless the submitter is suggesting that there was a massive conspiracy to deceive the public into pretending the shuttle tank was redesigned when it wasn't (but apparently not large enough to squelch any whistle-blowers), he should refrain from making those sorts of allegations.
The rest of his comment barely qualifies as idle speculation; the rescue crew is a last-resort, and NASA is not anticipating any problems. The idea of preparing a "rescue" craft was in direct response to Columbia when it was asked what NASA could do if they knew shuttle was doomed. If they detect a problem, NASA will assess and decide to either a) land at Kennedy/ Edwards as planned if there's nominal risk (I'd rate that at 95%), b) land in White Sands with a full crew if there's low to (I'm guessing) medium risk (let's call that 4.9%); c) launch a rescue mission and either ditch shuttle if they're sure it's doomed, or land at White Sands with a minimal crew if the think it might be doomed (I'd say 0.1%).
No, I'm not a rocket scientist. I'm a rocket engineer. And I find it sad that Slashdot chose to post this story when I bet there were other, fact-based submissions written by people more knowledgeable about the subject at hand.
Re:Submitter is an alarmist (Score:4, Informative)
The crack is the width of a human hair, and it is on the side of the tank opposite the orbiter. The article doesn't specify how high up the crack is, but if it's low enough, it poses zero threat to the orbiter.
The shuttle is now being processed for flight. Rolling it onto the pad is not the same thing as launching it. NASA would hold up processing if they believed the defect was so serious they would likely have to replace the tank. NASA has decided to continue processing, but if the engineers later analyze the problem and decide it does pose a threat, NASA still has plenty of oppurtunites to change their course.
The article makes very clear the scope of the problem, and NASA's response to it. Someone probably noticed a discrepancy report identifying the crack in the SOFI. The responsible engineer likely responded by halting processing to get an assessment from engineering. Someone took a quick look at it (or the report already written about it), decided it would be low risk, and made the decision to continue processing. I bet they also asked the engineers to take a closer look at the issue in the very short term future.
What would you do differently? The more I study the real problem, the more hysterical the submission seems.
Real Engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to point out that the level of engineering involved in the design of the shuttle is in a completely different class than any technology you have in your computer or in your car or that you've likely ever have had physical contact with. Cars and computers advance quickly because they are cheap and if they occasionally don't work no one really cares.
Everyone bringing up the age of the space shuttle sounds like morons. Whatever our next orbiter is going to be, the technology will be outdated. It has to be outdated by the time the thing is ready for flight because it has to be proven. You don't use the latest composite materials or computers in building something of this cost (dollar, life, and national pride) because you don't know how they respond to the excessive accelerations, vibrations, and high energy radiation involved.
This is assuming you're building a real vehicle and not a toy to win a prize. And actually, we probably will not see another feat of engineering like the current orbiter because the government doesn't give money to people who know what they're are doing like they use to and the private sector is too lazy and opportunistic to engineer it right.
Re:Real Engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
The Apollo program achieved all of its goals in allowing for frequent human missions to space and the moon. The Space Shuttle has failed in most of its design goals; if you don't recall, the program was designed to put a shuttle in to orbit 10 times a year for 10 years each ferrying inhabitants and materials to a space station. Each shuttle was supposed to last for 100 flights and there were 5 shuttles, the math show then that there should have been 500 shuttle flights between 1981 and today. To date I think there have been 103; that's pathetic.
The space station the shuttle was to shuttle to and from a space station, itself a joke. Over budget, less than half the designed volume, less than 1/5 the designed occupancy, the science it produces is negligible and could (for the most part) be performed via robotics.
NASA screwed the pooch on these programs. Am I playing monday morning quarterback? Sure, but these were NASA's top priority missions. They had the greatest visibility, funding and brain-trust. Why have a partially re-usable space shuttle that has to be dismantled, inspected and refurbished after each flight. How is this any better than mostly expendable vehicles? The space shuttle is not a product of engineers, it's a product of politicians and special interests.
Who do I blame? The politicians. The elected ones and the middle and upper management in NASA. If NASA was properly/well funded and the managers just let the engineers do what they do, things would likely be very much better off.
A Crack found. (Score:3, Funny)
A computer program to disable the CD-copy protection on one of the software applications onboard the shuttle has been found hidden in one of the external fuel tanks. Mr.Astrau Naut, Spokesperson for NASA said "We are not sure how it got there, but it's only a CD-crack for Office XP, so it's nothing to worry about. It's not like we violated the SCO license or anything.That could have had serious implications." It is thought that the crack was hidden in the tank to be implemented at a later stage on one of the laptops onboard.NASA shuttle crew delayed the launch to search for other cracks and key-generators in the shuttle.
A small inscription stating that "All your base are belong to us" have been found on the belly of the shuttle."We don't think it is a terrorist act" Pres. G.W Bush was quoted as saying when asked about it on the golf course.
Troll. (Score:5, Insightful)
The hairline crack is on the side of the tank opposite the shuttle. No one is sending astronauts to their death, this article is looking for a flame war.
Even if one fails, the second is likely to be fine (Score:5, Interesting)
However, if they're willing to have a second shuttle on standby, their excuse for not doing a Hubble servicing mission (too dangerous, can't go to ISS) is complete bullshit. But everyone has known that ever since it was revealed that they made that decision without bothering to actually do a risk analysis.
Can we mark this story as "-1 Troll"? (Score:3, Informative)
Oh no, what if someone breaks a nail?
Another Reason Not to Trust Slashdot Staff (Score:3, Informative)
Do people at
Re:Crack? (Score:2)
I'd bet at least half the people that read slashdot thought the same thing (present company included).
Re:Crack? (Score:2)
ugh. moan.
Re:Crack? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got 113 missions. One blew up in flight, one blew up on landing. So 111 successes and 2 failures.
Please won't someone ask the astronauts if they consider those odds a fair risk to take for a flight into space?
Gee, do you think that astronauts might actually be AWARE that you know, blasting into space on a large rocket, might just be dangerous? Do you think they might have figured that little risk into their choice of career?
I really hate people like the submitter who think that they know how to better measure the risk than those actually involved in space operations.
No balls on this one (Score:4, Funny)
remember back when astronauts had balls?
Yeah, but this commander doesn't have one:
Go Cmdr. Collins! [spaceflightnow.com]
Re:Was that bird shot down. . ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you really believe in all these alternative theories (who shot JFK, who killed 3,000 people in the World Trade Center [kuro5hin.org], did aliens crash in Roswell [slashdot.org], did an energy beam [slashdot.org] knock down the shuttle- y'know, b/c foam at 22-23 mph [slashdot.org] couldn't do it-, etc.), or do you just post them for fun to see the reaction of the community?
Either way, I think it's brilliant.