Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space Science

Panel Challenges NASA Over Shuttle Safety 266

Posted by CowboyNeal from the salt-in-the-wounds dept.
Uttini writes "NASA skipped some shuttle safety improvements as it tried to meet unrealistic launch dates for the first flight since the Columbia tragedy, some members of an oversight panel said in a scathing critique. Poor leadership also made shuttle Discovery's return to space more complicated, expensive and prolonged than it needed to be."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Panel Challenges NASA Over Shuttle Safety More

Panel Challenges NASA Over Shuttle Safety

Comments Filter:

  • Hey (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PunkOfLinux ( 870955 ) <mewshi@mewshi.com> on Thursday August 18, 2005 @08:47PM (#13352221) Homepage
    They need to keep people thinking that their program is deserving of taxpayers' money. The best way to do that is to launch the shuttle, especially after something like columbia.

    They did what they with what they had; the government keeps cutting nasa funding, and THAT is what lead to columbia -- too little money, too much to do.

    • Re:Hey (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Raelus ( 859126 )
      NASA isn't a magic organization. They can't turn turds into space shuttles in a week. There's really no news here, we knew that NASA was underfunded and overpressured to get this done.

    • Re:Hey (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mr2cents ( 323101 )
      the government keeps cutting nasa funding, and THAT is what lead to columbia -- too little money, too much to do.

      That or the space shuttle is inherrently flawed. Let's scrap the shuttle and make something better, before the next crew dies.

      • Re:Hey (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Vellmont ( 569020 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:16PM (#13352355) Homepage

        That or the space shuttle is inherrently flawed. Let's scrap the shuttle and make something better, before the next crew dies.

        The shuttle may be "flawed" as you put it. Or maybe spaceflight is just dangerous? Do we really have reason to believe the next generation craft is going to be safer? If so, how much safer? Life is risky you know. Hell, we can hardly build a bridge or a skyscraper without SOMEONE dying.

        There is one thing that's not disputed, and that is that the shuttle flights are way too expensive. The shuttle IS set to be scrapped, but we have to complete the space station before that can happen. For the moment the shuttle serves a purpose that can't be quickly replaced.

        I think they should be doing exactly what they are, and that is get the damn ISS built, then scrap the shuttle since it's purpose will have been served.

        • Re:Hey (Score:3, Interesting)

          by s0meguy ( 265470 )
          Try reading this for some provocative reasons why ity's a big waster of time: http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhe re.htm [idlewords.com] "In the thirty years since the last Moon flight, we have succeeded in creating a perfectly self-contained manned space program, in which the Shuttle goes up to save the Space Station (undermanned, incomplete, breaking down, filled with garbage, and dropping at a hundred meters per day), and the Space Station offers the Shuttle a mission and a destination. The Columbia acc

          • Re:Hey (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Vellmont ( 569020 )
            I'm not sure how much science the ISS really is going to produce, but if we're going to do manned space exploration to Mars, we're going to have to tackle long duration space flight. To do that you need a place to study long duration spaceflight. Currently (and for the long term future) the only place to do is the ISS.

            It may not be perfect, but it's what we've got. The shuttle certainly isn't perfect, but it's what we've got right now. It's not like the political climate that produced these imperfect be
            • "To do that you need a place to study long duration spaceflight"

              First problem ISS does very little to progress dealing with radiation exposur which is probably the biggest problem on a Mars mission.

              Second, after a decades on Mir, Skylab or ISS has anyone developed a real solution to zero G issues there. Unless you know something I don't the one big answer is its a good idea to exercise a lot. Not sure that conclusion is worth $160 billion. Russians have already established endurance records long enough t

        • Re:Hey (Score:3, Interesting)

          by FleaPlus ( 6935 )
          The shuttle may be "flawed" as you put it. Or maybe spaceflight is just dangerous? Do we really have reason to believe the next generation craft is going to be safer? If so, how much safer?

          A lot of people tend to assume that space travel is inherently dangerous, but that isn't necessarily true. Just look at the Russian Soyuz, which hasn't had a fatality since 1971.

          The shuttle IS set to be scrapped, but we have to complete the space station before that can happen.

          Why? There's no way that the benefit we'll ge

          • Re:Hey (Score:3, Informative)

            by Vellmont ( 569020 )

            Just look at the Russian Soyuz, which hasn't had a fatality since 1971.

            And the Soyuz program has had about 60 manned launches compared to a little more than 100 shuttle launches. The shuttle has been lost twice, and Soyuz once. Sounds like about the same safety record to me. (which is completely igoring the fact that Soyuz has been redesigned a couple times during that period, so we have even less data on it).

          • Re:Hey (Score:5, Informative)

            by demachina ( 71715 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @11:33PM (#13352947)
            Mike Griffin summed this up pretty well in his congressional testimony [spaceref.com] before he became administrator. Back then he only really supported Shuttle and ISS if Congress would give NASA buckets of money to do it and fast track CEV, and unless they redirect all the money being squandered on Iraq, its unlikely NASA will get buckets of money to do both. Maybe now that he is administrator he has to be more diplomatic and support the Shuttle and ISS more.

            "But the more important question is whether the return to be obtained from the use of ISS to support exploration objectives is worth the money yet to be invested in its completion. The nation, through the NASA budget, plans to allocate $32 B to ISS (including ISS transport) through 2016, and another $28 B to shuttle operations through 2011. This total of $60 B is significantly higher than NASA's current allocation for human lunar return. It is beyond reason to believe that ISS can help to fulfill any objective, or set of objectives, for space exploration that would be worth the $60 B remaining to be invested in the program."

            "Equally important is the delay in pursuing the President's vision. Respecting present budget constraints, we return to the moon in 2020, thus accomplishing in 16 years what it required eight years to achieve in the 1960s. This is not because the task is so much more difficult, or because we are today so much less capable than our predecessors, but because we do not actually begin work on the task until 2011. I do not need to point out to this body the political pitfalls endemic to such a plan."

            "I, and others, have elsewhere advocated that the shuttle should be returned to flight and the ISS brought to completion, if only because the program's two-decade advocacy by the United States and commitment to its international partners should not be cavalierly abandoned. But, if there is no additional money to be allocated to space exploration, this position becomes increasingly difficult to justify. It is worth asking whether our international partners might judge the issue similarly."
          • "If the main concern is keeping the promises we've made to our international partners, I'm fairly certain that we can offer them other things which will cost us far less than completing the ISS with the shuttle."

            Like NASA refraining from referring to the ISS as "The NASA Space Station Project" in press releases?

            That'd be a nice touch, almost respectful of the contribution made by outfits other than NASA...

        • Re:Hey (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Col Bat Guano ( 633857 )
          The shuttle may be "flawed" as you put it. Or maybe spaceflight is just dangerous? Do we really have reason to believe the next generation craft is going to be safer?

          Yes it can be dangerous, just like airflight is dangerous. Airflight is a lot safer and spaceflight can be made similarly safe as well.
          One solution is to simply use Russian rockets for people, and dumb cargo rockets for everything else.


          • Yes it can be dangerous, just like airflight is dangerous. Airflight is a lot safer and spaceflight can be made similarly safe as well.


            And how long did it take to make airflight safe? The first flight took place in a hot air ballon in 1783. It took until 1903 to even get to a primitive airplane from the Wright brothers. With spaceflight, we're not a hell of a long way past the hot air balloon stage.

        • Re:Hey (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Profane MuthaFucka ( 574406 )
          The shuttle IS flawed. The side-by-side configuration is dangerous. Much more dangerous than the shuttle-on-top configuration.

          No amount of money is going to change the fact that anything going wrong with any part of the shuttle is going to cascade and damage something else that is sitting right next to it.

          We don't have to complete the space station either. We can let it fall into the ocean. The world won't end if that happens, and we can get on to REAL exploration instead. Or, we could finish it with differ

          • We don't have to complete the space station either. We can let it fall into the ocean. The world won't end if that happens, and we can get on to REAL exploration instea
            No, the world won't end. But I'd give a very good chance that taxpayer support for Nasa would take a huge nosedive if all the money thrown into the ISS was all for nothing. The same thing is probbably true for other taxpayers in other countries funding the ISS as well.

            No amount of money is going to change the fact that anything going wrong

            • Re:Hey (Score:3, Interesting)

              by demachina ( 71715 )
              "The foam has fallen off on all 200 some flights"

              I think its more like 114 flights.

              Do you work for NASA? They said the same thing and used it to rationalize doing nothing about it until Columbia. They were really panicky about it when they saw tile damage in all the early launches, but hey they landed OK. After a while since they kept getting away with it they made the assumption it was OK. They were wrong. There is a scathing indictment of your attitude by Feynman [fotuva.org].

              Basically NASA was shooting craps wit

      • Re:Hey (Score:3, Interesting)

        by demachina ( 71715 )
        To get people in to space affordably I vote for either Kliper [spacedaily.com] or CRX [transformspace.com].

        The Russians just announced the Kliper launch targets, 2011 first unmanned flight and 2012 first manned flight. It will carry six so if it works its the best bet to actually fully man the ISS. It can't be over 3 people now due to the emergency lifeboat limit which is currently a Soyuz. At a 3 man crew very little research or manufacturing can be done.

        CRX is essentially Burt Rutan's LEO successor to SpaceShipOne in partnership with Trans
        • CRX is essentially Burt Rutan's LEO successor to SpaceShipOne in partnership with Transformational space and under a small contract from NASA.

          Don't you mean the CXV?

          By the way, there's a rather good article over at Wired which talks about the CXV a little. It includes photos and video of their recent full-scale capsule drop test and water landing:

          http://wired.com/news/space/0,2697,68528,00.html?t w=wn_tophead_1 [wired.com]

          There are some additional photos and videos here [transformspace.com].

          • Re:Hey (Score:3, Insightful)

            by demachina ( 71715 )
            "Don't you mean the CXV?"

            Yes, thanks. Acronym fatigue.

            "It includes photos and video of their recent full-scale capsule drop test and water landing:"

            Thats the thing I like about Rutan most. He bends metal and tries stuff instead of producing endless studies, artists conceptions and expendive half hour animations like NASA and its behemoth contractors. If you watch NASA TV they seem to have a penchant for expensive CG videos about how cool it would be if they did all this stuff. They aren't going to actua
            • Thats the thing I like about Rutan most. He bends metal and tries stuff instead of producing endless studies, artists conceptions and expendive half hour animations like NASA and its behemoth contractors. If you watch NASA TV they seem to have a penchant for expensive CG videos about how cool it would be if they did all this stuff. They aren't going to actually get around to bending metal and actually doing it, but aren't our animations cool? I suspect NASA needs to fire everyone who produces these animatio
      • They're working on it. The shuttle already has a set date for retirement, and there are plans for a next-generation vehicle. What do you expect them to do?

        Throw up their hands and say, "Yeah, we know that the last flight was succesful and we have tons of modules for the ISS completed and awaiting launch, but we feel like scrapping the only vehicle capable of installing them and just letting them rust. Gotta make sure that astronauts never die, and the only way to do that is to never fly."
        • They're working on it. The shuttle already has a set date for retirement, and there are plans for a next-generation vehicle. What do you expect them to do?

          Throw up their hands and say, "Yeah, we know that the last flight was succesful and we have tons of modules for the ISS completed and awaiting launch, but we feel like scrapping the only vehicle capable of installing them and just letting them rust. Gotta make sure that astronauts never die, and the only way to do that is to never fly."

          I would expect them
      • You scrap a design when your list of design improvements are incompatible with the present design foundation.

        You don't scrap something then decide on how to make a new one. You'll just end up with the same thing, or something different for no good reason.

    • $1 Billion and No Solution (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Did anyone notice that NASA spent $1 billion to fix the foam problem that caused the destruction of the Columbia shuttle? Yet, after spending $1 billion, the foam problem manifested itself again during the launch of Discovery.

      The failure of Columbia was not a failure of engineering. Successful rocket launches occur often in Japan, Europe, and Florida.

      The failure of Columbia was a failure of management. Managers wanting to show results to their superiors ignored the "grunt" engineers when they warned

      • ROCKET launches. And thats it. We too can launch ROCKETS. The shuttle is NOT a rocket.

        Even the most advanced cargo rockets we have now cannot carry something as large as the shuttle. Let alone people AND cargo.

        Someone else mentioned that russia hasnt had a fatality since 1971, but all the soyuz missions do is launch people (or supplies), they dont launch both, with a nice big arm, and a huge bay for storing large things that simply will not fit anywhere else.

        Get a clue people, the shuttle has no suitabl

      • Did anyone notice that NASA spent $1 billion to fix the foam problem that caused the destruction of the Columbia shuttle? Yet, after spending $1 billion, the foam problem manifested itself again during the launch of Discovery.

        False. The chunk of foam that had everyone concerned came from an area that has not been observed to shed foam since 1982. None of the areas that were fixed shed any foam.

        The failure of Columbia was not a failure of engineering. Successful rocket launches occur often in Japan, Eur

    • Re:Hey (Score:4, Informative)

      by Stonehand ( 71085 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:10PM (#13352335) Homepage
      Cutting NASA funding? No, it's been increasing -- if slowly.

      Graph on budget [wikipedia.org]

      It is true, however, that priorities have been shifting away from the shuttle program.

    • Re:Hey (Score:2, Interesting)

      by toddbu ( 748790 )
      too little money, too much to do

      When a single ISS beam costs $600 million, you gotta ask what they're spending their cash on.

      • Re:Hey (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Monkelectric ( 546685 )
        I doubt you are a engineer, let alone an aerospace engineer. I also doubt a single beam actually cost 600 million. However, whatever it did cost, I have one phrase for you "extreme material constraints".

        • Re:Hey (Score:3, Interesting)

          by toddbu ( 748790 )
          I also doubt a single beam actually cost 600 million.

          http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-02d.html [spacedaily.com]

          I doubt you are a engineer, let alone an aerospace engineer.

          I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I am an engineer. I'm an engineer who believes in redundant systems and simple solutions over "space hardened" systems. There are lots of examples of guys building working systems on shoestring budgets that last well beyond their engineered lifetimes. Check out http://www.hypocrites.com/article2897.html [hypocrites.com] for

    • New tank design? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pin_gween ( 870994 )
      I am not oa rocket scientist but, looking at the present external tank [wikipedia.org]design, it doesn't appear to be vacuum insulated.

      I know it would add weight, but couldn't they have inner chambers to hold the fuel that are separated from the outer wall by a vacuum layer (like a thermos bottle)?

      I think the weight difference would be offset by a safety factor -- namely less ice build up on the foam.
    • They did what they with what they had; the government keeps cutting nasa funding

      That's a common myth, examination of the inflation adjusted figures show that NASA's budget has been flat since Apollo was cancelled.

      Every year they threaten to cut the budget, but they always work it out in the end.

  • Teleporter? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18, 2005 @08:53PM (#13352255)
    All these spacecraft seem like such an awkward and impractical way of transporting things through space. Wouldn't it be much easier to develop teleporter technology like you see in the science fiction shows and just send objects and astronauts to other planets that way?

    You can get all sorts of things over the wireless internet these days, music, movies, all kinds of software. Since dna is just information too, it seems to me that it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to broadcast people and things from one place to another. NASA should get to work on this instead of silly space shuttles.

    • Re:Teleporter? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:01PM (#13352296)
      Something tells me there was a carrier loss when they transmitted your DNA...

    • I can picture this plan in action now:

      "Hey Frank, weren't you supposed to transport Henderson to our base today? So far, all we've got is 200 pounds of chunky salsa, and it isn't even in jars!"

    • Since dna is just information too, it seems to me that it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to broadcast people and things from one place to another.

      Sure. We'll get right on that. How does next Tuesday sound?
      Oh...we'll need a volunteer for the first test. You up for it?

    • Wouldn't it be much easier to develop teleporter technology like you see in the science fiction shows and just send objects and astronauts to other planets that way?

      There are substantial problems with teleporter technology, ESPECIALLY when going from Earth's surface to low Earth orbit - that can create monster problems. I forget what story that was from (I enjoy Niven's hard SF, he takes into consideration a lot of things you might not think of), but I'd rather work on the foam problem than mess with stuff
  • What if that one chunk hadn't fallen off right in view of the camera?

    The return-to-flight mission would have been declared an outstanding success. Regular launches would have resumed. We would be back on track again.

    Now we have to wait another seven months or more because little pieces of crap still keep falling off the fuel tank.

    This is so completely pathetic.

    • Re:What if there had been no foam loss? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by furiousgeorge ( 30912 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:03PM (#13352309)
      >>> What if that one chunk hadn't fallen off
      >>>right in view of the camera?

      Dude.... they are using HUNDREDS of cameras now.

      It didn't fall right in view of '*the* camera'. They just relesed the best view to show what happened.

      >>The return-to-flight mission would have been
      >>declared an outstanding success. Regular
      >>launches would have resumed. We would be back
      >>on track again.

      So if you don't see the problem it doesn't exist? Sounds like you're NASA material!
      • The foam loss was seen by only two cameras: The rocketcam on the external tank and the astronaut's hand-held cameras

        None of the other ground or chase-plane-based cameras would have caught the foam loss at the altitude it ocurred. In addition, there was only one rocketcam on the external tank and so foam loss on the far side of the orbiter, the side that got Columbia, would not have been seen. I also doubt the astronauts were able to see the entire external tank after separation and could easily have misse
    • Part of the foam breakage may be due to the formula change that was made in an attempt to get away from using freon. Even though the EPA granted NASA a specific exemption, the desire to at least appear more 'green' caused them to change the formula used, which has had a number of unexpected side effects, one of which, as I understand it, is that the new foam is far more brittle than the old.
    • What if that one chunk hadn't fallen off right in view of the camera?
      The return-to-flight mission would have been declared an outstanding success. Regular launches would have resumed. We would be back on track again.

      Until the next Shuttle vapourised...

      If I can't see it , it can't hurt me!

  • Routine is not necessarily so great... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thc69 ( 98798 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:01PM (#13352298) Homepage Journal
    If we simply are 100% as perfectly careful as possible, fearing to tread anywhere but our exact previous footsteps, taking forever to inspect and re-inspect, we will never learn how to do it differently.

    It is through our mistakes that we learn. Anybody willing to go up in a space shuttle knows they run a strong risk of death. Personally, I'd be excited to have the chance to risk my life in that noble work. Instead, for the sake of those who love me (okay, and for lack of ability or opportunity), I toil with my daily work, contributing my bit to the economy, so indirectly supporting the space program.
    • If we simply are 100% as perfectly careful as possible, fearing to tread anywhere but our exact previous footsteps, taking forever to inspect and re-inspect, we will never learn how to do it differently.

      Exactly. Back then, people knew the risks, but did the best they could without being overly cautious, and look at the results! They made a couple of high achievements... We're stopping ourselves from proceeding on.

  • Let NASA make up their own minds about risk (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ip_freely_2000 ( 577249 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:05PM (#13352319)

    People seem to forget that space travel is freaking dangerous. The whole concept of a lit rocket attached to your ass is probably never going to be as safe as walking to the store.

    At some point, NASA will do as much as can be reasonably be expected and allow a volunteer to climb in the shuttle and hope for the best.

    People who can, do. People who can't, sit on committees and complain.

    Those people need to get out of the way and let NASA do their job.

    • First off, these people ARE NASA... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@ y a hoo.com> on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:28PM (#13352399) Homepage Journal
      ...and second, NASA stated prior to the mission that (a) the foam problem had been fixed to the point where no large fragments would fall off, and (b) that fragments larger than a certain size could cause a catastrophic disaster.


      In light of that, I can see no reason for NASA's own safety panel to NOT issue these kinds of complaints. That is what they are paid to do - look at what is going wrong and SAY something. They looked, and they spoke.


      Now, as for anyone else - you've a point. Outsiders don't have the information needed to make the kinds of observations needed. Well, to an extent. There were several teams that had offered NASA solutions that would have guaranteed zero foam loss, but received no feedback from NASA. Those teams went public and I can understand that. Again, that's their area of expertise.


      Now, do I think NASA should have chosen those solutions? I don't know. The safety panel didn't mention them, so maybe there were good reasons for declining. On the other hand, as a public organization, NASA might help themselves (and us) a lot by saying WHY those solutions were declined.

    • There's Dumb Risk versus Unavoidable Risk. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mbkennel ( 97636 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:37PM (#13352440)
      Unavoidable risk: a rocket is an enormous explosive just barely controlled by exotic, expensive and difficult technology.

      Avoidable risk: doing stupid things in your design to endanger lives.

      The laws of physics, and many realities of engineering, are exactly the same today as they were in 1960.

      For instance: what is the right place to locate the humans?

      On the very top, because then they are the furthest away from the really dangerous bits. And delicate stuff needed for re-entry can be shielded and be far away from the immensely violent launch and debris and whatever is coming out of the ground and shaken off the rocket.

      Corollary: where do you put the fuel tanks? On the rear end, dummy.

      There's lots of reasons the Saturn V looked like it does. And how it looks like a whole lot of other rockets, except the shuttle. Ain't a coincidence.

      These problems were known and solved, and the shuttle un-solved them.

      Obviously, we need some more Nazi rocket scientists.

      So a plane which can fly back is supposed to be 'cost effective'. But why does it have to be so big? You generally take big fat cargos up and then work on them. So take them in a big fucking can, which sits UNDER your small, human sized space plane which re-enters and holds the people, tools and control bits. You throw away the can. And under the cargo, you put the fat ass rockets.

      You make them as cheap as possible, with metal-wrangling shipbuilding level technology, not ultra-high tech fancy pants stuff. That stuff is use 'once or twice', if it's still OK when you get it back off the ocean. Only the engines are the big monetary per-launch loss, but even now they have big solid rocket boosters which are one-use only.

      They should make a big Saturn V style launcher with cheap ass solids strapped around the bottom for the initial heavy lift, like the Soyuz, then a cheap ass liquid booster module. Then a cargo can, and on top, the orbital and re-entry vehicle.

      And also put that doohickey on the very top like with the Saturn V. What's it for? It's a little escape pod rocket and parachute to get the people the fuck away from the big explosive bits if something really bad happens.

      If the Challenger worked like that, the crew might have been able to walk away, depending on circumstances.
      • "But why does it have to be so big?"

        I know this is rhetorical, but it ended up so big because of DOD requirements to win their approval and participation. They need a big cargo capability AND worse they demanded a 1000+ mile cross range landing capability to launch from Vandenburgh, do 1 polar orbit and land back at Vandenburgh. To do this the Shuttle wings had to be dramatically enlarged, which led to the whole thing getting much bigger. Since the $6 billion launch pad at Vandenburgh was abandoned after

      • So a plane which can fly back is supposed to be 'cost effective'. But why does it have to be so big? You generally take big fat cargos up and then work on them. So take them in a big fucking can, which sits UNDER your small, human sized space plane which re-enters and holds the people, tools and control bits. You throw away the can. And under the cargo, you put the fat ass rockets.

        The shuttle is NOT just a launch vehicle. It is the only vehicle capable of RETURNING a payload from orbit. It is also an orbi

        • It is the only vehicle capable of RETURNING a payload from orbit.

          No.

          It may be the only vehicle capable of returning LARGE payloads from orbit, but the Apollo CM did just fine at returning hundreds of pounds of rocks that it didn't bring up with it in the first place. Soyuz doesn't do too shabby a job either.

          And of the hundred-plus missions Shuttle has flown, how many returned a big payload? Not counting Spacelab missions -- and wouldn't it have made more sense to leave that module up there as part of a sp

      • Re:There's Dumb Risk versus Unavoidable Risk. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @10:46PM (#13352768) Homepage
        I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted. Even though I think re-usable vehicles are the way to go rather than expendables, I agree totally with you that the Shuttle is just Designed Wrong -- and isn't very reusable anyway.

        As for "make a big Saturn V style launcher with cheap ass solids strapped around the bottom for the initial heavy lift", there's no need for the solids. A Saturn V could put the equivalent of four full Shuttle payloads into LEO (Low Earth Orbit) in one shot, or a complete Shuttle Orbiter. Or, for that matter, Skylab. Or a fully fueled S-IVB stage, LM, and CSM, all set for a trip to the Moon. That thing (the SV) had 7.5 million pounds of liftoff thrust, the Shuttle has about 5.

        The original plan was only for Shuttle to replace medium-lift launchers, retaining the Delta at the low end and Saturn V at the high end. NASA quickly scrapped that plan (along with the Saturn V stacking capability in the VAB and the Saturn V launch towers) when they realized that the existance of a working manned and heavy lift capability (Apollo-Saturn) meant it would be politically easy to cancel Shuttle if (when) that hit budget overruns.
      • "If the Challenger worked like that, the crew might have been able to walk away, depending on circumstances."

        I just love the way that, in order to 'escape' from a space shuttle, you'd have to do *something* like:

        0. Ensure that your t-shirt is on straight.

        1. Unbuckle from your seat.

        2. Get out of your seat and 'walk' down the aisle being careful to mind the other escapees.

        3. Go to the hatch, open it and clamber out.

        Contrasting to the Soyuz where you do something like:

        0. Ensure that your space suit helmet is p
    • People who can, do. People who can't, sit on committees and complain.

      ...and posture.

      It would be refreshing for an oversight committee's report, just once, to make affirmative use of the phrase, "acceptable risk".

    • I agree there is inherent danger in sitting atop an absurd amount of rocket fuel. But we should not just accept space travel is dangerous.
      It will be dangerous for the first explorers, but when (and I mean when) space travel gets big, you are going to need failure rates much much less than 2 out of every 114 flights.
      Progress towards safety is justified. The real question is, we landed on the moon a LONG time ago. Why haven't we come up with a safer solution by now?
  • Didn't the new Nasa chief fire like 50 people? Most of them were just paper pushers and beacracy creators but my guess is the poor leadership group could be part of the group that got outcasted when Okeefe left.

    Nasa is a mess

  • *Grumble* (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Y-Crate ( 540566 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:15PM (#13352351)
    To think, the inherent problems with the shuttle have finally snowballed to the point where launching is next-to-impossible now that they are finally trying to hurry up and get something done (ISS).

    Kinda makes you even angrier about the countless, 600 million dollar "We're growing some more fucking crystals, dammit" missions we've had for the past 20 years. Talk about time wasted. Let's not even get started on how the constant redesigns of the ISS have left it borderline useless (and how the costs of the redesigns and the station we have now equal the cost of the original proposal)

  • Old vehicles are trouble no matter what type! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GecKo213 ( 890491 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:18PM (#13352361) Homepage

    How many of you drive old cars, trucks, vans, or SUV's that say they are a joy to drive and run like the day they were brand new? No one would say that. Why NASA is using a shuttle that is 20 years old is beyond me. When I was 16 my parents gave me the old family '81 Datsun 310. I was grateful and even a bit excited to have it. I even thought I was "the man" because I had a car and most of my friends didn't, but it was a 13 year old car by the time I got it and had plenty of quirks. It had more than 300K miles on it when I got it. It ran pretty well and didn't cause me any major malfunctions, (Other than a clutch) but as soon as I could afford it I got a newer car! The car made it a year or two for my brother before giving up. I think it finally died in '97 with well over 400K miles on it. Those Damn shuttles have TONS more miles on them than that stupid car. Plus they are in a tad more hostile condition than the local freeways and roads. It baffles me that they are still willing to send astronauts up in them? Beyond that, I'm just as perplexed by the fact that there are astronauts blinded by the "I'm going to be in a text book one day" mentality that they are willing to ride up in the damn thing! Just plain stupidity if you asked me. It's time to produce something new with new seals, gaskets, and gap filler, and maybe a satelite dish. (Weather shouldn't affect their picture up there being so close to the satelites themselves.) If they plan on putting a man on Mars they've got a long way to go with those shitty shuttles they're still nursing along.

    I mean, how many of you would really rather be sitting at say a 20 year old computer right now versus the one you're on reading /. on at this moment? I mean c'mon, be honest with yourself!



    -- My Rant is now over, we'll return you to your regularly scheduled blah.
    • It's this way with many government vehicles. Both the military and NASA have very high reliability requirements (with good reason). This makes the initial cost very very expensive, but they get a lot more use out of it. Cars aren't designed to last 20 years. It seems like the shuttle can handle it. Old age didn't bring down Columbia.
    • "How many of you drive old cars, trucks, vans, or SUV's that say they are a joy to drive and run like the day they were brand new? No one would say that."

      I have a friend with a Model-T Ford who says exactly that. In fact it was his first car.
  • NASA skipped some shuttle safety improvements as it tried to meet unrealistic launch dates for the first flight since the Columbia tragedy, some members of an oversight panel said in a scathing critique.

    Oh, so they should have taken longer, right? And been more thorough?

    Poor leadership also made shuttle Discovery's return to space more complicated, expensive and prolonged than it needed to be."

    Oh, so they did too much and spent too much money and it should have taken less time, right?

    I'm confused -- it se

  • Is environmentally-friendly foam flawed? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by geoffrobinson ( 109879 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:52PM (#13352503) Homepage
    I keep hearing that if they used environmentally unfriendly foam (CFC's I would suppose). Does anyone know the veracity of this or shed any light on the situation with the foam?
    • It's a pretty minor factor, actually. They saw some foam shedding (popcorning) with the old foam, and didn't think anything of it.

      Anyway, apparently the hand-applied foam -- in the areas where we've seen big chunks coming off -- still uses the old CFC formula. The enviro-friendly foam is only used in the automated application on the large smooth areas of the tank.

  • Can the Shuttle Fly Itself? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by THotze ( 5028 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:56PM (#13352523) Homepage
    Alright, I've got a question that I haven't seen addressed, at all, anywhere.

    We've spent God knows how many hundreds of millions of dollars trying to make the shuttle safe enough for human spaceflight. Maybe that just isn't going to happen. Not with the shuttle, not with the fact that we're looking at band-aids and not limb replacement solutions here.

    So, what would it take to make the shuttle run on autopilot? Rockets fly to space all the time, Russian Progress vehicles even dock with the space station, although I'm not sure if they do it alone or via teleoperation.

    Either way, why not invest a certain amount of money in an autopilot (or teleoperation) system so the shuttle could fly up, dock with the station, and then could be entered by ISS crew who could use the shuttle's robotic arm, etc., to set up the next component of the station. If manpower's an issue (and with 2 on board the station, it probably is) you could do it when there was a crew change and there were more people at the station, or you could really, really hurry with the CEV and wait until you could have enough people at the station to do the job.

    Or, for that matter, you could just HOLD on station construction until the CEV was ready and you could squeeze enough people into the station to make this work.

    This would solve the main issue: that the shuttle isn't safe for humans due primarily to reentry problems. In the future, you could even have the CEV dock with an in-space, unmanned shuttle and complete shuttle missions, such as a Hubble servicing mission, then undock, let the shuttle make its way home (or, in an unfortunate, but no longer life-threatening event, crash) and the CEV, with crew, would return to earth safely (as I can't recall a SINGLE EVENT where a capsule has burned up and people have died in reentry.)

    Anybody know why this hasn't been suggested, at all? I think it may be cheaper and faster, certainly if we'd done this after the Columbia disaster, but even fi its not, it allows us to keep on using the shuttle for YEARS relatively cheaply.

    Tim
    • Well the Russian Shuttle Bruan [wikipedia.org] can already do that.

      Check thy wiki, foo!

    • See this article: http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/columbiastory 2N1124AFTERSHUT.htm [floridatoday.com] It says exactly that. I haven't heard any more recently though.
    • I'm not criticizing the overall message (except that I think the proper response is a complete replacement), but I do have a couple comments:

      or, in an unfortunate, but no longer life-threatening event, crash

      It'd still be life-threatening to people on the ground. Not much, and not any more than a manned entry, but there would be a tiny risk.

      I can't recall a SINGLE EVENT where a capsule has burned up and people have died in reentry

      The Soviets had a capsule decompression on reentry. Not burning up, but the thr
    • The one obstacle I seem to remember, and Feynman [fotuva.org] refers to is the Shuttle computers are short on memory. One of the main roles of the humans on board is about 4 times a mission to load the next part of the mission in to the computers from tape, punch a button and make it go.

      Now maybe you could load one profile in for launch and then the ISS crew could load another to reenter. If the mission has to abort before it docks with the ISS you would need to insure the computers have the program for the abort and
  • All the Shuttle needs to fix all that is to write a new constitution. They've got a week to fix their budget, timeline and technical problems [thismodernworld.org]. No sweat - America's rooting for you!

  • Anything with tits or wheels (Score:4, Funny)

    by HermanAB ( 661181 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @10:00PM (#13352540)
    sooner or later gives you shit... ;-)

  • My dream job... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ingolfke ( 515826 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @10:43PM (#13352750) Journal
    is to sit on a panel and bitch and complain and nitpick and attack people who actually do work.

  • Just Go Back to the Pre-1999 foam formula (Score:3, Informative)

    by DumbSwede ( 521261 ) <slashdotbin@hotmail.com> on Thursday August 18, 2005 @11:05PM (#13352831) Homepage Journal
    It was the switch to foam that isn't manufactured with freon in 1999 that led to the Columbia tragedy. NASA knew that the new foam shed more than the old foam but ignored the problem.

    So what the hell have they been doing for the last 2 1/2 years? They're still using the non-freon based foam for environmental reasons even though they have an EPA exclusion to use freon. They should have just gone back to the old foam formula and been back up to flight status in 6 to 12 months. As it is they essentially did nothing to improve the problem in 2 1/2 years because for some reason I can't fathom they won't go back the formula they know works, but instead slap on a bunch of other remediation fixes that didn't work.

    Seriously someone should loose their job over this, someone high up that should have known to go back to the old formula which they've know since 1999 worked better.

    Am I missing something? It would seem like a no brainer to go back to the freon formula. Especially since they fleet is on the fast track to be retired anyway -- then no more freon anyway.

    • It was the switch to foam that isn't manufactured with freon in 1999 that led to the Columbia tragedy. NASA knew that the new foam shed more than the old foam but ignored the problem
      Please, do a little research.
      Learn the difference between BX-250 and BX-265. Discover for yourself what foam compound was used for ET-93.
      Here. Maybe this will help... [nasa.gov]
      • So why do so many News sites report exactly what I am saying? here is the Google News I used

        http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=freon+ s huttle+foam+nasa&btnG=Search+News [google.com]

        From the first site returned (and similar to several others)
        http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAD09 .htm [spiked-online.com]

        ...If we are not prepared to take bold, calculated risks, this brings hazards of its own. For example, the detachment of a lump of insulation foam that imperilled Discovery's latest mission has been con

        • Re:As A Matter Of Fact I Did Google (Score:4, Insightful)

          by virtual_mps ( 62997 ) on Friday August 19, 2005 @08:02AM (#13354174)
          So why do so many News sites report exactly what I am saying?

          1. Because most "news sites" simply regurgitate (or flat-out copy) stories from other "news sites". The amount of real investigative journalism is approaching zero; rumor and hearsay become self-perpetuating.

          2. Because there is a major ideological incentive for environmental controls to be "the cause" of the Columbia disaster. There is a large consumer population that is eager to hear confirmation of what they already knew--that the big bad EPA causes more problems than it solves. Providing that population with the product they're looking for sells more papers and leads to a satisfied "told you so" and a happy consumer.

  • Well, What Do We Need? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nate nice ( 672391 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @11:22PM (#13352900) Journal
    Many is the excuse that NASA simply isn't getting enough money. They need passionate scientists that can construct the program as something taxpayers are interested in and demanding more support. It doesn't start with money, it starts with a vision.

  • In soviet russia. (Score:3, Funny)

    by miffo.swe ( 547642 ) <daniel@hedblom.gmail@com> on Friday August 19, 2005 @04:52AM (#13353826) Homepage Journal
    It must be pretty irritating for NASA to watch the reds sending their old heap of scrap up into space without a glitch since 1971. The Souyz is like an old truck while the shuttle is like a Ferrari, great tech but very delicate and error prone.

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close