Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Space Shuttle Discovery to Launch July 26 161

Posted by Zonk from the make-rocket-go-now! dept.
thhamm writes "According to Space.com: 'NASA will restart the countdown for the space shuttle Discovery Saturday, with plans to launch the orbiter spaceward on July 26 after more than a week of work to pin down a fuel sensor glitch, mission managers said late Wednesday'. In the meantime, technicians will work with grounding wiring associated with the liquid hydrogen engine cutoff sensor system, as well as adjust the configuration of components within Discovery's point sensor box."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Space Shuttle Discovery to Launch July 26 More

Space Shuttle Discovery to Launch July 26

Comments Filter:
  • who needs needless guages... when i was your age we flew to the moon with rubber wings covered in foil! we dont need no stinkin guages...

  • good luck :) (Score:5, Funny)

    by thhamm ( 764787 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @10:54AM (#13124234)
    (HAL 9000 on Discovery): "I am fully operational, and all my circuits are functioning perfectly. I have the highest enthusiasm for this mission."
    • Mission Commander: HAL, open the shuttle cargo bay doors. HAL? HAL!
      HAL 9000: BSOD
      Mission Commander: Damn, I knew we shouldnt have had Microsoft program HAL...
      • It looks like you're launching a rocket. Would you like help?
    • Agreed, good luck. We need some successful manned missions so we can do more interesting stuff than orbit Earth.

      • Re:good luck :) (Score:5, Funny)

        by thhamm ( 764787 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @11:01AM (#13124324)
        And the ISS needs this flight too. badly. (they`ve run out of beer).
        • And the ISS needs this flight too. badly. (they`ve run out of beer).

          Actually, it's vodka. The Russians set the standard on purely practical grounds; a given mass of vodka will last a substantially longer time than the same mass of beer.

          Not only that, but beer-belches cause CO2 levels to rise dangerously in the cramped spaces found on spacecraft. For these reasons, as well as simple deference to the cultural sensibilities of the Russians on international crews, vodka is the beverage of choice for our m

      • We need some successful manned missions so we can do more interesting stuff than orbit Earth.

        1992 [lib.ru] called, no we don't.
    • They should correct the article to say that NASA will attempt to launch the shuttle on the 26th.

      Just before the last launch attempt an interviewee on the CBC pointed out that the probability of any given launch actually occurring on any given launch day is somewhere under 50%. Nothing wrong with that. It's an incredibly complex machine. The redundancy is because you can't stop halfway thru the flight and say "oops. Can we start over again?" or call the AMA, so you don't want any of the thousands of redu

      • They should correct the article to say that NASA will attempt to launch the shuttle on the 26th.

        Well, it says "with plans to launch the orbiter spaceward on July 26", which is about the same to me.

        probability of any given launch actually occurring on any given launch day is somewhere under 50%. Nothing wrong with that. It's an incredibly complex machine.

        I don`t think most people realize just how complex it is. And how many people are involved to get this thing flying. I guess without the Columbia ac

  • What now? (Score:5, Funny)

    by bassgoonist ( 876907 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {ecurb.m.noraa}> on Thursday July 21, 2005 @10:55AM (#13124253) Journal
    This time the check engine light won't turn off...

    • Re:What now? (Score:5, Informative)

      by kzinti ( 9651 ) * on Thursday July 21, 2005 @10:58AM (#13124280) Homepage Journal
      Actually, it's more like the check engine light went on, but by the time you get the car to the mechanic, it's gone off and won't come on again.

      In the shuttle's case, they can't repeat the problem. The theory now is that it only occurs when the tanks are loaded (and thus at cryo temperatures versus ambient).
    • that is the same problem my Volkswagen has...ironic
      • Not really that ironic. Ironic would be if the engineers put the guages from their Volkswagens into the space shuttle, because those were the only guages they were familiar with. Perhaps with a jury-rigged tachometer that measured G-forces instead of 1000s of RPMs.

    • Re:What now? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Xaroth ( 67516 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @11:03AM (#13124348) Homepage
      This time the check engine light won't turn off...

      That's what electrical tape is for: to cover that light so you don't have to look at it any more.

      • Re:What now? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Mark Hood ( 1630 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @11:38AM (#13124745) Homepage
        That's what electrical tape is for: to cover that light so you don't have to look at it any more.

        My father has experience in this matter. He once got a lift in a chinook helicopter and noticed over the pilot's shoulder that about half the warning lights in the cockpit were flashing. Being an engineer, he was concerned that it might be overdue a maintenance cycle, and asked the pilot about them. He replied 'oh, they're all minor, nothing to worry about'.

        On the way back a couple of days later, he realised it was the same helicopter and the same pilot, but this time none of the warnings were flashing. 'So you found time for a service then?' he joked.

        'Oh, I just got sick of the flashing lights, so I unscrewed the bulbs' he replied.

        My father never worked out if he was joking or not...

        Mark

        PS I know it's not rocket science, but it's a great story :)

        • Re:What now? (Score:3, Funny)

          by Zerbey ( 15536 ) *
          Heh... this happened in my old car, check engine light kept coming on. Kept getting it checked, nothing wrong.. in the end I was told a factory way to get it to turn off since it kept coming on every few thousand miles.

          Two weeks later the transmission went.

          Blah.

  • It's amazing how many electrical problems (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wiredog ( 43288 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @10:59AM (#13124295) Journal
    are caused by bad grounds. Always the first thing I check.

    With a DMM, since 480VAC mains power with a bad ground can get your attention.

  • Get Them In The Air (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rk_cr ( 901227 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @11:03AM (#13124353)
    I'm afraid that NASA shuttles will never get in the air again, due to the now incredibly high standards of NASA. The last problem may have been pretty big, but we can't turn off every shuttle launch just because it's not absolutely perfect.

    Believe me, I want the astronauts to survive. But you also have to understand that going into space is dangerous. Things go wrong even in the most tested of scenarios. The astronauts know the risk.
    • More important than the risk to the astronaut's lives is the political risk to NASA. If the nation sees another highly public NASA mission miss its target to the extent that lives are lost, the agency may lose even the support is has now.

      Throughout 40 years of manned space flight, there were no fatalaties. Also during this time was the highest public support of manned space flight. Correlation?

      • Re:Another Risk (Score:3, Informative)

        by antispam_ben ( 591349 )
        Throughout 40 years of manned space flight, there were no fatalaties.

        Which 40 year period was this?

        There was this tragedy in 1967, perhaps not often mentioned since it was an on-pad test and not part of an actual space flight:
        http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollo20 4/ [nasa.gov]
      • Seems to me that 3 astronauts died during a routine test on the launch pad in 1967. This would seem to be an even harder blow to public support, because they never even left the ground. But instead, the lessons learned through their deaths re-energized the space program, and we landed on the moon less than 2 years later.

        I think the current lack of public support has a lot more to do with scientific illiteracy and the negative cultural view of scientists/engineers than it does with Challenger and Columbia.

      • Throughout 40 years of manned space flight, there were no fatalaties.

        Others have mentioned 1967, but seven astronauts were killed in 1986 when the shuttle Challenger exploded. Pioneers in any era die. The only real problem was the media circus after the last shuttle disaster. Space exploration is a dangerous occupation, and the general public has handled setbacks better than the media (and therefore Congress) has.

    • This isn't about "incredibly high standards of NASA." They knew about the fuel sensor problem months ago. They didn't get it fixed.
      Then, during the final checks, they realized, "Hey, if this fuel sensor doesn't work, the ship will blow up," so they scrubbed the mission.
      That's not being "risk-averse" its plain common sense.
      I think the real incompentence here is that they went to the launch stage without fixing a problem they knew about months ago.
    • You're making it sound like they scrubbed the launch because of a broken cupholder or something. We're talking about a fuel sensor here whose malfunction could cause the engines to cut off to early and send the shuttle plunging back to earth from suborbit.

  • The best thing that could happen... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 21, 2005 @11:05AM (#13124369)
    would be for some sort of non-lethal disaster to happen that severely damages/destroys the Shuttle but doesn't kill the crew. Perhaps some accident on the landing, or some sort of problem before launch but where they can get the crew off safely but still destroys the shuttle.

    This way, we can finally get rid of the pork politics blasphemeies known as the Shuttle and the ISS and start investing money into a real, sustainable manned space program, instead of this ridiculous horse and pony show.

    • What makes you think the successor to the Shuttle won't be a pork politics blasphemy?
    • Hear! Hear!

      The shuttle's mission & purpose has been fataly compromised since before it left the drawing board. In an effort to do too many things at once, it became a vehicle that doesn't do anything well. It incorperated some good ideas (SRBs, external fuel tank) but the focus on complete re-usability and quick turnaround for the lander was just wrong-headed. The reliance on the tiles alone, without any ablative shielding, make the craft fragile to the point of being delicate. The fact that we bui

      • Re:The best thing that could happen... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @12:31PM (#13125387) Homepage
        A couple things:

        1) Destroying the shuttle, like the parent hoped for, would be disastrous. Not only would we see NASA cuts, as others have suggested, but there'd be another multiyear downtime in which nothing occurs: Including the development of a replacement vehicle.

        2) The focus on complete re-usability.

        What focus on complete reusability? The external tank is disposable.

        3) The reliance on the tiles alone, without any ablative shielding

        Ablatives are just as problematic for a reusable craft. Ablatives, too, can chip, and have to be reapplied with care and detailed inspection. They're even more problematic around moving parts, btw, than tiles and RCC panels are. Lastly, they weigh more, something that the shuttle simply couldn't afford.

        The shuttle's main problem isn't something that you stated: it is having such a huge reentry vehicle. A huge, *dense* reentry vehicle (dense because it doesn't have big empty voids where large drained fuel tanks would normally be). This means a lot of energy to dissipate over a proportionally small surface area. Even with its low beta entry (it takes almost an hour from the LEO deorbit burn to landing), well, you know how much heat it has to deal with.

        Heat problems don't scale linearly. A material with 500MPa tensile strength at 500 degrees may be down to 200MPa at 600, 40MPa at 700, 4MPa at 800, and molten shortly thereafter. It becomes a *lot* harder the higher the temperatures you have to deal with; your options quickly become quite limited.

        3) tiles alone

        The shuttle's TPS (Thermal Protection System) involves two different types of tiles, reinforced carbon-carbon leading edges, and insulating blankets.

        4) fragile to the point of being delicate

        I doubt you could damage a tile without tools short of throwing it as hard as you can onto a hard surface (in which case, you'd probably just chip it). They're nothing like steel or even aluminum in terms of resistance to damage, but they're not nearly as delicate as people around here pretend, especially given their density. The problem is, when you go hundreds to thousands of meters per second (depending on where you're at in ascent/descent), even raindrops become fierce impactors.

        The biggest problems with the tiles are that they have to be repaired at all. Attaching a tile (or RCC panel, for that matter) to a metal frame, securely so that it won't fall off, when the metal is expanding at a different rate than the tile, is no simple task (it was resolved with the SIP - Strain Isolation Pad). You can't have any significant loose spaces, because at hypersonic speeds cracks tend to funnel in plasma like a blowtorch. The tiles have to endure the large vibrational loads of ascent as well. Consequently, it's a huge task to make sure that they're all A) intact, and B) securely attached.

        5) Why use a vehicle in LEO to launch a satelite

        It's called a stage. Even vehicles that we "launch from the ground" typically use a separate stage to get to GEO. Now, why you'd want to use a *manned* craft for the first few stages is a good question; however, the shuttle usually doesn't deal with such missions, and leaves them to things like Atlas and Delta rockets.
        • The shuttle's TPS (Thermal Protection System) involves two different types of tiles, reinforced carbon-carbon leading edges, and insulating blankets.

          Just to add to Rei's point here, I believe that the Space Shuttle was supposed to use 100% Reinforced Carbon-Carbon protection in the original design. This would have eliminated the "delicate" Silca tiles which have to be custom manufactured if damaged. Without these tiles, the Shuttle turnaround time would be an order of magnatude faster and cheaper.

          (Note t

          • Maybe NASA should just take the government's money, stick in in the bank for the first three years of "development", then actually begin development in earnest after they have the finances in hand.

            Government agencies are not allowed to retain appropriated funds (which makes up NASA's entire budget) past the end of the fiscal year. They cannot bank or invest funds. Agencies like NASA can fund only as much work during a year as they have funds for, which may explain the "cost cutting" you claim.

            • [Government agencies] cannot bank or invest funds.

              Yes, I know. It was a joke. But if NASA were able to do so, it might have prevented many of the problems that happened during development. Congress wanted to "stretch-out" the shuttle development funds across several years to ease the fiscal burnden. The problem is that you can't build half a shuttle, nor can you really do anything about the human resources that are eating up a large amount of the budget. As a result, these measures caused the shuttle to c

              • Yes, I know. It was a joke.

                I've had a few +5 Funnys, and improbabilites may be funny, but impossibilities aren't. Sorry.

                But if NASA were able to do so, it might have prevented many of the problems that happened during development.

                There is a very good reason why federal agencies are not allowed to retain, bank, or invest allocated funds. That money comes from tax revenue. Taking money from taxpayers yearly and then socking it away is tantamount to taxation without justified need. I agree that in a

        • "the shuttle usually doesn't deal with such missions, and leaves them to things like Atlas and Delta rockets."

          Thats true today but NOT when it was designed and sold to everyone. It WAS supposed to launch satelites and did, several at a time, on its early missions. Expendable boosters were to be abandoned. The DOD was arm twisted in to signing on to use it for all its launches, at which point they also dramaticly expanded the requirements and substantially increased the problems the Shuttle would have i
          • It is insane having a space vehicle that you can't launch if there are clouds, let alone rain near the launch pad

            The cloud requirements (of which there are quite a number) aren't about rain; they're mainly about lightning [cmu.edu], which poses a threat to any rocket. The shuttle is, however, like you mentioned, more succeptable to ice/debris impacts because of its side-mounted position (a configuration that we can expect few large spacecraft (especially manned ones) to repeat in the future).
            • "The cloud requirements (of which there are quite a number) aren't about rain; they're mainly about lightning,"

              From the Houston Chronicle [chron.com]

              "The tiles can shatter under finger pressure. In fact, the shuttle cannot be launched in a rainstorm because water droplets smacking into the ship as it hurtles toward orbit can damage the tiles."

              Its somewhat beyond "rainstorm" since the rain doesn't have to hit the ground. I'm pretty sure NASA or Air Force planes fly in to any clouds near the launch trajectory and if
              • The tiles can shatter under finger pressure

                That'd take some incredibly strong fingers. Porous ceramics generally have compressive yield strengths somewhere in the range of 3-30MPa (I'm not sure how the different tiles produced by the shuttle fit into that range, but they'll be somewhere in there). Doing a quick test here, I'd say that my fingers could lift 3kg (i.e., 30 newtons), and under stress could pinch an area no tigher than 2 cm^2. That means that I could pinch with a maximum force of 150kpa - n
                • Dude, I think you are whipping a dead horse. Wasn't argueing that lightning isn't dangerous too and will scrub a launch, but thanks for the lecture. Wind shear in a thunderstorm will violate launch criteria too.

                  But, I'm nearly positive the Shuttle wont launch if there are moisture laden clouds in the area either. You can those with water drops in them bit enough to damage the fragile tiles and slim or no chance of lightning.

                  But, please let this horse rest in peace.

    • Re:The best thing that could happen... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Y-Crate ( 540566 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @11:42AM (#13124801)
      I think a lot of fans of the space program (and NASA employees as well) would love to see all of the Shuttles just fall apart in storage ala the Bluesmobile at the end of The Blues Brothers

      Sadly, that will not happen, and any damage sustained during a flight would give more ammunition to those who believe NASA's funding should be eliminated altogether (or at least the funding for the manned side of things).

      Another accident would simply doom the organization. When Challenger was lost, NASA was allowed some breathing room to rework itself as an organization. When Columbia disintegrated, it was the death knell for the shuttle program much sooner than anyone could have expected or hoped for. Anything else at this point, would likely put the entire organization back another 10 years, if they were even allowed to fly people up again.

      NASA is running on its last chance here. All of the remaining shuttles will be decommissioned in 5 years. Period. The CEV is being worked on at an accelerated pace. No more of the "Yeah, that one part failed during a test and it will take 18 months to fabricate a new one, so everyone involved with the project can sit on their hands while we make this thing" like we had with the previous attempts to remaking the shuttle without really having technology ready to see it through.

      Some would like to argue that private industry could do manned exploration better. I'm sure they could do launches quite nicely, but no company is anywhere close to having an orbital craft. And good luck on finding me a private company that will drop a few billion on pure research for the sake of knowing more about our galaxy.

  • It's about time (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You'd think that something like NASA would know how to wire up their sensors.
    Hey, if that guy can build a mech for $20k and sell it on ebay, imagine what NASA would be like with people like him! The shuttle would acutally get off the ground and not cost millions!

  • Rename it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Winterblink ( 575267 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @11:10AM (#13124420) Homepage
    I think it might be time to rename this shuttle Longhorn
    • I think it might be time to rename this shuttle Longhorn

      I think the space shuttle has a better chance of getting off the ground than longhorn.

      What NASA should do is have the next mission be a tribute to Scotty. Have the launch happen with his spirit of "can do".

      And I can just hear the conversation between the shuttle and ground control.

      Ground Control: You seemed to leak fuel on the way up, we need you to increase speed as you come back in.
      Shuttle: I'm giving it all I can. You don't want me to f

  • A step in the right direction... (Score:5, Funny)

    by d3m057h3n35 ( 695460 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @11:13AM (#13124448)
    with plans to launch the orbiter spaceward on July 26

    I think we all needed that clarified. I can never guess what those wacky people at NASA will think of next!

  • Some thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@ y a hoo.com> on Thursday July 21, 2005 @11:14AM (#13124463) Homepage Journal
    The problem is intermittent, and they think it might be temperature related. Ok, if that theory is correct then it is most likely a damaged/broken wire or a loose connection. In either case, you are going to change the resistance of the wire.


    So, you get readings at some point in time. You then force through a voltage within tolerence limits but definitely higher than normal, to increase the temperature of the wiring. You measure the resistance again. The circuit with the bad wiring will increase in resistance more than the other wires.


    Once you know WHICH line (from end-to-end), the task is easy. You find the mid-point and see which half has the greater resistance, and repeat. Simple binary search.


    Alternatively, you do a full tank test, to recreate the cooling.


    In the meantime, there is supposed to be a shuttle in standby configuration [slashdot.org], in case the astronauts get stuck in space. Is the standby shuttle getting tested as well? If (as could be the case) it is a faulty batch of transistors in one of the components, then the backup shuttle would likely have the same fault. If the main shuttle is to launch on Tuesday, they kinda need to find this out NOW.

    • Is the standby shuttle getting tested as well? If (as could be the case) it is a faulty batch of transistors in one of the components, then the backup shuttle would likely have the same fault.

      Atlantis is attached to the ET that passed the previous Discovery tanking test. Remember the Hydrogen value cycling issue? I don't remember reading about any sensor issues with it. It should be ready to go

  • The Second Round of a Difficult Situation for NASA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ausoleil ( 322752 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @11:14AM (#13124468) Homepage
    There are three possible outcomes to the launch attempt, only one of them is completely positive:

    1. Discovery launches Tuesday during the launch window and has a routine and successful mission. After that, there will be plenty of time to determine the root cause of the sensor issue.

    2. The weather does not co-operate or another tenchnical glitch surfaces, causing Tuesday's attempt to be scrubbed. NASA is hounded in the press for being unable to manage their spacecraft, when in fact they are doing exactly that according to their safety protocols, which have been generally tightened post-Columbia.

    3. Disaster. Unthinkable and possibly the end of an American manned space presence until the Crew Exploration Vehicle is completed and launched in the next decade.

    The Space Shuttle is an aging flying compromise that has been updated as much as possible, and it is what NASA has been given to work with. I almost expect Outcome #2, given their justifiable prudence in halting launches when they are not 100% satisfied that the system is as operationally ready as they can make it. NASA may be criticized for delays, but when seven lives and a multi-billion dollar spacecraft are on the line, not to mention all of their political capital, once can understand why they do what they do.

    Bottom line is that all eyes will be back on the Cape come Tuesday morning. Godspeed Discovery.
    • when in fact they are doing exactly that according to their safety protocols, which have been generally tightened post-Columbia.

      Skimming that, I substituted "Challenger" for Columbia. I'm not sure which "second round" you're referring to, but there've been lots of shuttle launches. All your points made perfect sense before Columbia's breakup.

      Really they'll apply to any NASA launch. Throw in Apollo 11. The same basic pressures applied.

      (Challenger was a real watershed -- the way it went had such a hug

      • I see your point, but in this case "second round" meant this particular flight and it's second launch attempt.

        Having family intimately involved with Apollo, I can attest to the pressures that the ground crews were under. After all, as a child, I saw my father and grandfather disappear at the Cape for weeks at a time as a launch was prepared and executed. Then, after the bird was in flight, they came home and watched on TV like everyone else.

        Anyway, do not underestimate the effect of the Apollo 1 fire on
    • 4. The Americans finally admit that they have become too risk-averse to continue manned space exploration and the program disappears in a poof of bureaucratic red tape. Space shuttles appear on eBay. Top bid is $25.00.
    • NASA may be criticized for delays, but when seven lives and a multi-billion dollar spacecraft are on the line, not to mention all of their political capital, once can understand why they do what they do.

      I would not send the shuttle up. There is risk in all things, but if there is a bad sensor, that is something that should not go wrong. The sensor is doing its job, it is letting the engineers know something is not working.

      The shuttle and space program is one of the only cool things the government doe

      • Actually, IIRC, there are seven other sensors sensing the same thing that disagree with this particular sensor. So, it sounds to me like the sensor is not doing its job.
      • There are four sensors total, three others worked within parameters and reported no problems. On this particular fuel tank there are two sensors, and the other one is not having any intermittent issues.

        Also, it is incorrect to say that the sensor is reporting something "wrong" because obviously, on the ground with no fuel in the tank, it should not be reading as full. It was for a time, and that's indicative of a sensor issue.

        Finally, NASA has been "planning" manned planetary expiditions since the 1960'

  • Hmm. Ground wire... hydrogen tank... (Score:5, Funny)

    by RetiredMidn ( 441788 ) * on Thursday July 21, 2005 @11:18AM (#13124500) Homepage
    I'll watch from a distance, thank you.
  • *kicks feet* Make it go! Make it go! Faster! Faster!
  • I've been wanting to go see a shuttle launch for a while. This one's on a weekend, which makes it possible. However it's a twelve hour drive, and I don't want to drive for 24 hours round trip if it gets called off again.
    • Last time I was in Florida (some time ago, I grant you) I drove 4 hours on three separate occasions to see the launch, only to find out that it had been scrubbed each time.

      Wouldn't it be easier/cheaper to fly instead?
    • Our definitions of "weekend" must differ-- to me Saturday, Sunday (and maybe Friday or Monday) is the weekend. Since July 26th is a Tuesday, you must have a different work week than I.

      Regardless-- I was there last Wednesday, I'll be there next Tuesday as well. I'm driving over from Tampa-- have my KSC Car Placard, Launch Day Visitor Center Tickets, and Bus Tickets to the KSC Lauch Viewing Area. Whoo-Hoo!

      Go Discovery!
    • I've been wanting to go see a shuttle launch for a while. This one's on a weekend, which makes it possible.

      They're starting the countdown on the weekend. The actual launch is on Tuesday.

      That is *way* too long a drive. If you're going, just fly into Orlando and rent a car for the drive to the east coast. I did it last week, [slashdot.org] and round trip airfare from Philly was ~$275 and the rental car was $40. I left my house at about 5:30am and got home again just before midnight, and I only had to take one day off fro
      • Ah, that's the countdown, not the launch. Thanks. Now I don't feel so bad since its not even an option :)
  • 2. Do not eat iSpace Shuttle.
  • "If we can understand that failure and it was a known failure that we expected...then we might very well be willing to go fly with three of four sensors, there's good flight rationale behind it."

    Well, I'd say that sounds more reasonable than the "unexplained anomaly" that they thought was 'acceptable' on a criticality-1 item (I presume).
  • Well hopefully this time it is a success, another setback would be a bad thing on many levels.

    Proper Measuring Units... Check
    Fuel Pump... Check
    Non-cracked Tiles... Check
    Flux Capacitor... ...

  • How did it come to this? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iShaman ( 86503 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @11:33AM (#13124670) Homepage

    For god's sake, how did it come to this, anyway?!? 30 years in and the STS program is still considered an experimental program with experimental vehicles.

    I remember cutting out time magazine stories about Congress funding the space station in 1983! This is probably very simplistic thinking, but we could've taken the money we wasted on ISS in the 80's and designed a much more dependable shuttle fleet where loose wiring didn't mess the whole launch up.

    And we're still talking about a Mars mission?1? Step by step, folks...not all at once.
    • Think globally. NASA is not alone in the world.
      Currently the US doesn't have any good, robust fleet of personal space transport vehicles. But the World (through Russia) has.
      With the demise of Mir, the World was left without a space station. Now the US funded and provided most of it. As effect, the World has a good space station and a good fleet of space transport. The probes to the planets are often launched by common effort of many countries. Man To Mars is another goal which should be achieved by the worl

  • Maybe.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...they can make a small space on board and take Scotty's ashes with them... seems only fitting.

  • Having just finished a test sensor application... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jtheletter ( 686279 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @11:46AM (#13124857)
    I can totally relate to the problems and frustrations of improper (or in my case, disconnected) grounds in a system causing bad readings and being difficult to debug.

    Now what I can't imagine is how many times more difficult that is when true "ground" ends up being over 100 kilometers away!

  • I can only hope and pray that this isn't another example of government administrators scheduling a shuttle flight (ala Challenger), thinking that they know more about the problem than engineers. To a degree, this is also what brought down Columbia. Godspeed, STS-114..
  • Anyone want to guess the impact of a Chinese mission successfully landing on the moon? I wonder if they'd take down the stars and stripes, you know, just for good measure
  • A really, really long dipstick.

  • Have they learned nothing? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by linuxwrangler ( 582055 ) on Thursday July 21, 2005 @12:59PM (#13125754)
    This sounds hauntingly familiar. In the first disaster NASA had simply gotten used to seeing some burn-through on the o-rings to the point that it was "normal", in the second disaster they had seen foam and ice come off the orbiter but nothing bad had happened so far.

    In the third disaster they couldn't find the cause of the fuel sensor problem so they declared that only three were needed and launched anyway.

    Bob Cowell writes an excellent column in Computer magazine. In one column titled "Murphy Was Wrong" he points out that unlike Murphy's Law, things usually go right in spite of a myriad of glitches. In fact, they go right so often that people start ignoring the warning signs. It usually takes a severe or multiple failures to cause an actual catastrophe.

    If something is failing it is failing for a reason. Don't launch till you know the cause and for gods sake don't "solve" the problem by simply rewriting the rules to say that it's OK for a "critical" system to fail.

    As cool as the space exploration and the shuttle are, it may be time to say that the program has utterly failed to meet its goals, will never be able to meet its goals, and that we should cut our losses, take the information we have learned from the shuttle program, and move forward on a replacement.

    Consider that the stated goal for the shuttles was 100 missions each. Unfortunately that's pretty close to the tally for the whole fleet. Oh, and there is that little annoying fact that 40% of the orbiters have crashed killing all aboard.
    • How's that La-Z-Boy treating you? Can I get you another cold one?

    • In the third disaster they couldn't find the cause of the fuel sensor problem so they declared that only three were needed and launched anyway.

      If something is failing it is failing for a reason. Don't launch till you know the cause and for gods sake don't "solve" the problem by simply rewriting the rules to say that it's OK for a "critical" system to fail.

      The problem is - they *do* only need three to launch.

      Prior to Challenger the rule was they needed three. During the safety review afterwards, they

  • Here's my impression of NASA:

    "Come on... SEVEN! Baby needs new funding! The shooter is hot! Come on.... MAKE THE POINT! Ohhhh, loser. Crapped out. Let's try again. Come on... SEVEN!"
  • Wow, a few minutes ago I accidentally remembered that I hadn't heard news about this recently, which worried me a bit since I'd heard that the launch window would end in the end of this month. But now I see NASA's apparently done it, congratulations to them :)

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close