Falling Window Cover Damages Discovery 360
Mz6 writes "At 5:30PM EDT, one of the space shuttle's protective window covers fell and
struck the left Orbital Maneuvering System engine pod on Discovery today. The window cover hit the carrier panel around the OMS pod. NASA is taking a new panel to the launch pad to replace the one hit by the falling cover. NASA is expected to know by 7 PM EDT if the replacement panel will work and whether launch can proceed tomorrow as planned. The window cover in question is from one of the overhead windows. It fell on its own, not when workers were handling it. The cover was found after it had fallen and hit the orbiter. In addition to the carrier panel that workers plan to replace tonight, engineers are looking for any other damage." Update: 07/13 02:03 GMT by T : RmanB17499 points out a CNN story according to which "the launch of the space shuttle Discovery will go ahead as scheduled Wednesday after technicians replaced two protective tiles damaged near the spacecraft's tail Tuesday, a NASA spokeswoman said."
It fell on its own? (Score:4, Insightful)
This ain't no beer run these guys are going on, and it ain't like the hood ornament just decided to liberate itself. Most of the shit on the shuttle is like, important, right?
If I was captain of this upcoming mission, I'd be spam clicking the red alert button right about now. Maybe call in sick. Gotta have some unused vacation time coming to me, right? Use it or lose it!
I never liked the shuttle. A bunch of engineers were tasked with the job of building a reusable space vehicle, so they paint some wings on a rocket, give it a windshield, and call it a space plane. So it can return cargo, so what? Name something they brought down back from space that is worth all of the trouble we've gone through to glide back to Earth rather than parachute.
I'm pretty sure the Pan Am shuttle in 2001 could take off on its own. That was the whole point of the cut scene from the monkey throwing the bone in the air to the space vehicle, as if to say, "Look, no rocket boosters!"
And the only thing that fell off of anything in the movie was Frank.
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:5, Informative)
True, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, true, the Shuttle isn't falling apart at the seams. However, the indication is that the engineers either rushed some of the prep work or failed to set adequate precautions in place. In either case, they may have messed up elsewhere and not said.
If you were up there, knowing that the world's media was focussed on your every twitch, knowing that any delay would finish any chance of you having a future but that any unconfessed and unobserved error on your part would be utterly untracable, would you be willing to take the fall?
Given that kind of pressure, I'm not confident that other accidents haven't happened. All I can do is HOPE they haven't and that NASA will take the time to verify as best they can in the time that they haven't.
Re:True, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting to anything orbit (as opposed to suborbital) is a huge task. Getting a huge, man-rated craft to orbit is a Herculean one. You better believe that almost every one of those engineers has been sacrificing their personal lives to try and make their "baby" as safe as possible. Seriously, talk to a NASA aerospace engineer some time about the craft that they're working on; you'll find people who do things like build a spectrometer for a probe who dote on it more than they do their own children.
There's going to be a lot of missed breaths when that countdown nears zero.
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
Arguably it's the "huge" part that's the problem. For some unfathomable reason, the US decided to man rate a cargo-carrying super-booster. So thousands of little details that would have otherwise not mattered, *do* matter.
The Space Shuttle is a marvel of engineering. But if we're going to man rate the darn thing, let's at least fly it with loads full of people instead of space
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:2)
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:4, Funny)
What color was it? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously though, they are there likely for enviromental protection. The shuttle sits outside for close to a month and in that time, it likely will rain, possibly hail, dust, acid rain, etc.
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:3, Interesting)
As long as there aren't any birds immediately surrounding, I think they're above "seagull flight ceiling" pretty quick.
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:5, Funny)
My thoughts precisely (Score:2)
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why we have this complex, unbelieveably expensive shuttle, I will never know.
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the major reasons it's expensive is due to unethical space contractors who charged up the wazoo, such as the company that your dad worked for.
This is often done after the bidding process is over, and sometimes companies do this after the project is well underway, and hold the project hostage until NASA agrees to the new fees. NASA often didn't have much choice in these sorts of practices, and it was already too late for o
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong. Both stages of the lunar lander used liquid fuel -- hypergolic (self-igniting) propellants. More on that here [nasa.gov].
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:5, Informative)
When the they designed the lunar lander, they had to have something that would work 100% to get off the moon, and they used... a solid fuel rocket.
No, the lunar lander used liquid-fueled engines, powered by nitrogen tetroxide and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, for both the ascent and descent stages.
More information on the lunar module [wikipedia.org] and the fuels it used [astronautix.com] is widely available, as is information on thier development [nasa.gov].
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:3, Informative)
Both the descent and ascent rockets on the Lunar excursion module were powered by liquid propellants - specifically Nitrogen Tetroxide (N204) and Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine ((CH3)2NNH2)
Look here [answers.com] for a cutaway diagram where you can see both the fuel and oxidizer tanks on the LEM.
More about both fuel and oxidizer h [astronautix.com]
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:3, Informative)
NASA did go with a solid fuel rocket. 2 of them, actually. That's what the booster rockets are. SRBs. Solid Rocket Boosters. Once they're lit, there's no way to turn them off.
I saw a program on rocket science, and they indicated that the use of solid fuel is virtually mandatory in order to achieve the fuel energy density required to lift the fuel itself plus a pa
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:2, Interesting)
Umm, money? It's a metric ass-ton cheaper than lighting off anything close to a conventional rocket that will disgard stages that you'll have no chance of recovering. Likewise, the orbiter comes back to you instead of having to hunt for it in the ocean (the largest landing zone on earth) with an aircraft carrier ($$$) or hunt for it in the back yard of some farm
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:2)
Nitpick, I know, but this is STS-114, so no, not "several hundred" missions. The Concorde only had one 1 catastrophic failure over several thousand "missions" and look how well it's... oh wait.
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't have the exact numbers offhand as to how many satellites (let alone tons of waste) the shuttle has returned, but I recall that it was in the range of 30-40 (many of those being experiment satellites whose design was to have them returned - engineering reentry survival into all of them would have cost an utter fortune).
As for "glide back to earth rather than parachute", I think you should ask the crews of Soyuz 23 or Soyuz 18-1 what they think of parachute landings. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that making capsules reusable is a lot harder than spacecraft, because there's almost always some deformation (and/or saltwater corrosion, depending on the landing site) on impact.
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:5, Informative)
In comparison the Saturn V had a lift capacity of 118,000 kg to low Earth orbit vs. 28,800 kg for the Space Shuttle.
I agree the shuttle and Saturn V were made for different purposes, but I do believe if you are strictly dealing with putting stuff in orbit the Saturn had lower cost per kilogram. That comparison isn't really worth much because it ignores the flexibility of the Space Shuttle and its uses beyond just shuttling cargo.
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:2)
No. They drew up an amazing design that was state-of-the-art, entirely reusable, and a great thing.
And then a Republican president--Nixon, IIRC--told them no, build it for half the price.
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:4, Informative)
Best dual-purpsose heavy-lifter and crew transport? Well, yeah.
But it's not a good enough heavy lifter that it replaced rockets. And it's not a good enough crew transport that everyone else is trying to build one.
I've heard that some of the shuttle engineers even balked when told of their budget cuts. They argued--quite rightly--that doing it right the first time would save money over the long run.
If only, if only, if only.
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as crew boosters go why don't you wait until they actually build something for CEV and see how "better" it is, before you start doing your NASA fanboy thing and shouting how great it is. At the moment all NASA has is a massive exercise in bureaucracy called an RFP(Request for Proposal) and Boeing and Lockheed have a couple sets of weak artists conceptions. Lockheed, last I saw. was proposing a mini-me shuttle whic
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:2)
People and fragile scientific projects.
But I agree; the reality of the space plane/truck doesn't work nearly as well as the original concept.
You need a dream (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to dream a little.
If NASA came to me now with the offer to go up in this flight I would go, even if the catch was a 99.999% chance of failure on re-entry. That is the other 6 crew are going to stay on ISS and take the rescue shuttle home, I'm there to push the autopilot button to get it out of the way. (and a .001% chance that I also get to lower the landing gear)
That won't happen of course. Even if they would, I couldn't get there before the launch window closes, even if I drove my car to a
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:5, Insightful)
More FUD.
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:2)
What's wrong with their procedures that allow an 'accident' to happen.
Its like a lie. If you lie to me about something petty, what else are you hiding? It speaks toward your character or in this case the integrity of the processes in place at the station.
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:2)
The window COVER is meant to protect the shuttle window before launch. It's not a exactly a vital component, as it would be removed before launch anyway. It's not "glued on".
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:2)
Temporary or not, the point is it fell and hit something.
If something has enough weight|heft to it it can hit something and cause damage as it falls, it should be secured.
NASA admitted after the fact, that until the foam hit the fan, they never perceived it to be a danger to the shuttle. Considering how many decimal points these guys use in their calculations (not to mention the quality of their software - mind you, this is eight 1/2 years old: They Write the Right Stuff: The right stuff kicks in at [fastcompany.com]
Re:It fell on its own? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's not exaggerate too much here. 1 out of every 56 shuttle launches/landings have ended with the death of the crew and loss of the shuttle. If you had a 1/56 chance of violent death every time you accelerated/braked your car, I think you'd think twice about driving too.
Already fixed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Already fixed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Already fixed (Score:2, Funny)
Hey, be kind to them. (Score:3, Funny)
Curse? (Score:2, Redundant)
What the hell??? Is the shuttle cursed?
FWIW, if the previous window cover fell off on its own, I wouldn't put too much faith in the replacement...
Re: (Score:2)
A sign, maybe? (Score:2, Funny)
Funeral (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Funeral (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Funeral (Score:2)
I'll tell you what would have happened... some astronaut would've said "Well thank god the fucking window cover came off so we can goddamn see what's in front of us. What jacknutted imbecile left it on there in the first place?"
Vulnerable (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Vulnerable (Score:2)
Re:Vulnerable (Score:5, Interesting)
Heat tiles are frequently found to be missing when the shuttle lands. Small minor damage is not uncommon. What brought down columbia was more a case of a golden bb than anything else. (Plus it was a heavy object traveling quite fast)
That said, space is a pretty easy environment to survive in. It's the part where you're burning a few thousand tons of explosives, and slowing down from 20,000mph using the atmosphere that are the dangerous parts.
The damage that occured to the space shuttle here is trivial.
Re:Vulnerable (Score:2)
Re:Vulnerable (Score:2)
A good engineering practice... (Score:2)
In this case, the engineers ensured that whatever components are broken in the shuttle, they will fall of BEFORE the launch.
windows this, windows that (Score:5, Funny)
It Fell off? (Score:2, Interesting)
If it had come off in orbit, we might be going thru the loss of another crew on reentry.
Re:It Fell off? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:FTUA (Score:2)
If that makes my post 'uninformed', then blame the editors, not me.
PS, dont throw stones... ( no, i wont explain that to you. )
Re:FTUA (Score:3, Funny)
Re:FTUA (Score:2)
If God Had Meant Man to Go Into Space (Score:5, Funny)
He would have given us something better than a space shuttle.
Re:If God Had Meant Man to Go Into Space (Score:3, Interesting)
Transportation technology and exploration missions have always started out with rudimentary technology, prone to risk and with lots of fatalities paving the way. Crossing the oceans, crossing the continents, going to the poles, the mountains and the abysses have always been dangerous undertakings, and we've gotten better at it over ti
Re:If God Had Meant Man to Go Into Space (Score:2)
1: small grammatical swipes at religion only makes atheism look even more stupid.
2: He did. Ever hear of the vikings?
Re:If God Had Meant Man to Go Into Space (Score:2)
Re:If God Had Meant Man to Go Into Space (Score:2)
Fallen window ... (Score:2, Interesting)
How NOT to write a headline (Score:2, Interesting)
Cockpit window falls from Discovery, hits engine pod [spaceflightnow.com]...
Is this what you would call "sensationalistic"? Jeez, and I thought the Star was bad.
Seriously? (Score:2)
NASA spends two years to fix the problem of stuff falling off the shuttle during launch and damaging it.
Now, after all that work and money, they've regressed: now not even the forces of launch are needed to cause bits to fall off and smash tiles.
In fact, no force at all is needed to cause the problem. The thing is disintegrating as it sits there.
A bad batch of super glue, perhaps?
Re:Seriously? (Score:2)
Re:Seriously? (Score:2)
Didn't think so. You might look less stupid if you read up a little before your next post.
Re:Seriously? (Score:2)
Re:Seriously? (Score:2)
Hehe, fine, you can make your shuttle with kitchen tiles. What other design optimisations can you offer?
Again with the shuttle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Again with the shuttle? (Score:2)
Burt Ratan doesn't have near the requirements NASA has.
Yeah, he got a guy in space. Now make a reusable launch vehical with the same payload as the Shuttle.
If he can do tat, he will onlt be about 25 years behind NASA.
" If I were an astronaut, that wouldn't exactly inspire confidence in me. "
well, no worry there.
Re:Again with the shuttle? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Again with the shuttle? (Score:2)
Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.
Has sabotage been ruled out?
Or was it due to the wind?
How come this particular problem has not been reported before?
Has the engineering of the cover or it's mounting points changed from previous flights?
I vote no-go until those questions are answered.
slashdot, the AP regurgitator (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is it that virtually everything I read on slashdot, I've already seen on the AP/Reuters wire stories from my paper?
I don't come to slashdot to read news wire stories; back in the very late 90's I came here to read stuff that you couldn't find anywhere else. I certainly don't come here for the insightful commentary (judging from the 20 comments that all say "dude, who cares about the window, what fell off and damaged it?", a number of which have b
Re:slashdot, the AP regurgitator (Score:2)
Slashdot is a glorified blog ran by people more or less at their convienence. When you think of it that way then a prime time news source, t
Re:slashdot, the AP regurgitator (Score:4, Insightful)
The short answer is you've got too much time on your hands.
I put in 12/14 hour days, too often 7 days a week. I'm a quick study and an experienced researcher, but, even with those skills I only manage to stay abreast with news out of /. and the Reg. I read the headlines from a few feeds, but have to steal the time to read the full articles.
You and the others who jump on /. for lagging behind your reading must do not much else but casually surf the web satisfying your whimsy. Alot of us can only find the time to choose one or two sites to keep us informed. Contrary to the /. critics /. does a fine job of keeping me informed about "stuff that matters."
cheers
Re:slashdot, the AP regurgitator (Score:2)
Re:slashdot, the AP regurgitator (Score:2)
They aren't safe enough! (Score:5, Funny)
I hearby propose that NASA create a new covering to cover the existing "window-cover", to ensure that the existing "window-cover" isn't damaged while it's protecting the actual window.
Re:They aren't safe enough! (Score:2, Funny)
The Vomit Comet and protocol (Score:5, Interesting)
What amazed everyone is that one group was not required to pressure-test their pressurized vessel, and a window blew out during one of the flights, sending nice bits of glass all over. Now, how can all of these other (arguably over-specified) aspects of the experiments be so rigidly-controlled (with carefully-worded protocols for everything), and they leave out PRESSURE TESTING GLASS WINDOWS?
Re:The Vomit Comet and protocol (Score:2)
Can we see it fall from 107 angles? (Score:4, Insightful)
Time Warp? (Score:5, Insightful)
posted: 8:21PM
anyone else think that maybe we could've had an update before this hit the front page?
Protective Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, honestly, aren't the shuttle's windows supposed to be fairly durable because of all of the debris in orbit with the shuttle?
Re:Protective Windows (Score:3, Informative)
Here's a head-scratcher... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe it fell of because IT WAS HELD ON WITH TAPE!
Who's in charge over there - Red Green?
Maybe it's just hindsight... (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, NASA's had more than their share of ups and downs, including some several notable tradgedies whichi resulted in loss of li
NASA TV coverage (Score:2)
Also, they said that it was repaired, but the repair left it slightly out of spec. However, engineers reviewed it and certified it for launch.
My impression is that this is nea
Not a big fan of the space shuttle, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Ironic & scary (Score:2, Insightful)
If I was about to be strapped into it my bowels would be loosening right about now...
Re:Ironic & scary (Score:3, Interesting)
In Other News: (Score:3, Funny)
Shuttle commander Eileen Kahlins saw the bird dropping strike the orbiter while talking with the media about her confidence in NASAW's (1) ability to meet tomorrow's launch window. Amid the rain of ceramic tiles and structural members around the podium she was speaking from, she was heard commenting to NASAW director Sean O'Keeth, "I thought you said you fixed that, you a**hole."
A heated arguement ensued, live, on national television, but was cut short when O'Keeth was struck down by a full HWSU (2) container falling from the orbiter. Kahlins immediately left the scene, telling reporters she had some vacation time coming.
(1 NASAW: National Association of Stupid Aerospace Wankers)
(2 HWSU: Human Waste Storage Unit, Solid)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Problem is fixed and they're go for launch (Score:3, Informative)
Reservation Changes (Score:2)
Shuttle Man - The Musical (Score:4, Funny)
They slashed the funds last night pre-flight
Zero hour nine a.m.
And something else will fall off by then
I miss the earth so much I risk my life
The tech is out of date
On such a priceless flight
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
Till NASA comes around again to find
They don't have funds to get my back to home
Oh no no no I'm a shuttle man
Shuttle man, 107 cameras but no rescue mode
ISS ain't the kind of place to sit for weeks
In fact it's cold as hell
And Atlantis might not work if you did
And all this budget I don't understand
It's just my job five days a week
A shuttle man, a shuttle man
And I think it's gonna be a long long time...
Obligatory Armageddon Quote (Score:3, Funny)
"Yeah."
"Did you know we are sitting on 2 million gallons of fuel, a nuclear weapon and a thing with 270,000 loose parts that was built by the lowest bidder. Kinda makes you feel good dont it?"
JKXXMXN
Re:windows crashes, grounds shuttle (Score:2)
Probably modded just-not-funny, but I seriously did start parsing the headline as Failing Windows etc.