Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
US Space Shuttle Fleet grounded
PSI-KILLER
Needs help
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/07/27/space.shuttle/index.html[/url]
Sorta interesting after 1 billon dollars of work it still has the same problem. Stupid foam. I think this is a first for Human Space flight, to actually ground a space ship while it is in orbit, has that ever happened before?
Sorta interesting after 1 billon dollars of work it still has the same problem. Stupid foam. I think this is a first for Human Space flight, to actually ground a space ship while it is in orbit, has that ever happened before?
Comments
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bekenn [/i]
[B]Well, so much for the US [i]government-run[/i] manned space program. [/B][/QUOTE]
Quite correct.
[B]Well, so much for the US [i]government-run[/i] manned space program. [/B][/QUOTE]No, bureaucrat and politician run!
I wouldn't wonder if they have more of those in NASA than scientists.
As example astronomical associations member magazine had interesting article about two Finns working in NASA's projects. Other projects is actually NASA's and Germany's space agencys program which has been "privatized" to USRA...
Best part is that NASA has more "accountants", consults and supervisors in project than what USRA has people working in it.
[B]I'm sorry, wasn't the point of the money spent recently to [b]minimize[/b] the amount of foam? Please note that this is vastly different than [b]eliminate[/b]. Last I heard (from NASA itself) was that it was unlikey--if not impossible-- that they would be able to completely remove the possibility of foam insulation from detaching given the design of these craft, and in doing so would strive simply for a reasonable medium of "not as likely to break off as before" or something along those lines? [/B][/QUOTE]
foam & ice and other debris have been falling off the tank, since the shuttle program began, its not as major an issue as the media wants people to think, seriously, Challenger and Columbia were tragic, but to only lose 14 astronauts in what 30 years of shuttle flights, those are pretty good numbers statistically
[B]they dont need to ground it, they need to retire it and bring in something new like they should have 20 years ago:rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]
Damn straight.
[B]foam & ice and other debris have been falling off the tank, since the shuttle program began, its not as major an issue as the media wants people to think, seriously, Challenger and Columbia were tragic, but to only lose 14 astronauts in what 30 years of shuttle flights, those are pretty good numbers statistically [/B][/QUOTE]
Indeed. What bugs me about this is that while this *is* rocket science, the American Public has somehow been convinced that Re-usable = Safe. Just because something can go up and comw down repeatedly almost seems to condone that the craft itself is safer than anything before it. And while that may be relatively true compared to, say, placing a megaton of TNT under a pod and detonating it, it's still in no way, shape or form safe. More so, most of the astronauts I've seen/heard/read talking about the program have openly admitted that they understand the risks, and gladly go up there knowing that they just may come down.
Hell, on top of this, we've only had two disasters in one hundred and thirteen attempts at round trips. 2 out of 113 given that we're trying to put people safely into orbit and get them back safely is rediculously low! You're throwing hundreds of thousands of tons of fuel with a crew attached into space...gah.
[/rant]
That does nothing to change the fact that the shuttle program should have been scrapped for new innovation many, many years ago. Too bad America think killing them Ay-rabs is more important than human discovery.
[B]Near 2% chance of critical failure is not [i]ridiculously[/i] low. It's [i]nicely[/i] low for an exploration mission. [/B][/QUOTE]
It is ridiculously low for exploration missions in a new frontier in the most hazardous environment short of flying into the sun, namely sitting on top of explosions and flying in clouds of plasma. Space travel is really complex and [i]really risky[/i] and only losing 2 missions out of 113 is an incredible achievement. Anyone who thinks overwise is fooling themselves into thinking that what the shuttle and any other space craft achieves is in any way routine.
I have pictures of the space shuttle that I picked up at Kennedy Space Center in the early 80's. I noticed they use to paint the external fuel tank white. I guess that was the orginal spec. Do you think that a thick coat of white paint actually helped to hold the foam in place? It does act as a sealent. I think I read they stopped doing it to save time and money.
Like in old cars here, while surface might look intact there might be nothing solid under paint.
(kaliumchlorid in roads literally eats cars)
[B]foam & ice and other debris have been falling off the tank, since the shuttle program began, its not as major an issue as the media wants people to think, seriously, Challenger and Columbia were tragic, but to only lose 14 astronauts in what 30 years of shuttle flights, those are pretty good numbers statistically [/B][/QUOTE]
EXACTLY what I tell people who like to bitch and moan about that. Both of these accidents could have been avoided but sometimes the odds just catch up. With such a complicated vehicle, ridding on top a huge explosive and ridding down a fireball its incredible to have such a success rate. It is a dangerous mission and all those astronauts understand exactly how dangerous it can be. The problem is while those numbers are low the fleet is down to 3 working shuttles now with no replacement in sight yet.
[B]EXACTLY what I tell people who like to bitch and moan about that. Both of these accidents could have been avoided but sometimes the odds just catch up. With such a complicated vehicle, ridding on top a huge explosive and ridding down a fireball its incredible to have such a success rate. It is a dangerous mission and all those astronauts understand exactly how dangerous it can be. The problem is while those numbers are low the fleet is down to 3 working shuttles now with no replacement in sight yet. [/B][/QUOTE]
if we weren't 5 years away from the shuttle's scheduled end of life.. i'd say its time to turn Enterprize into a launch vehicle, i always thought it was very nice of them to name the first test shuttle Enterprize, however i always thought it was a shame Enterprize never got into space.
Really though, i still say only losing 2 orbiters is pretty good, Look at whats happened since manned space flight began, how many astronauts have we actually lost due to direct problems with a space vehicle, its 17 right (the Challenger 7, Columbia 7 and 3 from the fire on the launch pad with Apollo 1 (grissom, white & chaffe)
they know the risks, and they accept those risks, manned space flight will NEVER be risk free.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters[/url]
Apparently, shuttles and Soyuz vehicles have a pretty similar fatality rate (per number of persons who have flown). Loss of bigger craft like shuttles, taking more lives, is simply remembered more clearly. It has also been more recent.
Luckily the upgraded Soyuz series has not experienced a fatal failure yet -- although close shaves have occurred.
Of notable near misses, Soyuz 18a rolled down a hill, and nearly dropped off a cliff. Soyuz 23 had to be rescued from underwater in a fairly frozen lake.
It is a small wonder that Siberian wolves have *not* managed to taste any cosmonaut.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Entil'Zha [/i]
[B]if we weren't 5 years away from the shuttle's scheduled end of life.. i'd say its time to turn Enterprize into a launch vehicle, i always thought it was very nice of them to name the first test shuttle Enterprize, however i always thought it was a shame Enterprize never got into space.[/B][/QUOTE]
The problem with Enterprise is that, as I recall, it was never designed to fly into space and back; it was an atmospheric test vehicle. It has also been mostly stripped of anything useful to keep the other shuttles flying.
[B]The problem with Enterprise is that, as I recall, it was never designed to fly into space and back; it was an atmospheric test vehicle. It has also been mostly stripped of anything useful to keep the other shuttles flying. [/B][/QUOTE]
You are correct, its a museum piece now, nothing more, and it was just designed as a test vehicle, never designed to go into space, which i always thought was too bad.
[B]It's worth noting that both those near misses you quoted have to do with where the craft landed rather than anything else. :) One of the issues with a balistic reentry is that you have little control over the exact landing spot. A strong wind can change where you end up significantly, even if you follow your planned reentry curve well. You're right about the wolves though. :)
The problem with Enterprise is that, as I recall, it was never designed to fly into space and back; it was an atmospheric test vehicle. It has also been mostly stripped of anything useful to keep the other shuttles flying. [/B][/QUOTE]
That is correct. Enterprise was never equipped for space flight. It was just for testing. It was mainly a test vehicle to determine if it would even be possible for it to land safely unpowered and testing the rocket boosters on the landing pad. Kind of pathetic that a shuttle named Enterprise never made it into space. Trekkies should have been more patient and had their letter writing campaign to call the SECOND (Columbia) shuttle Enterprise instead of the first (which was to be named Constitution).
Enterprise has been stripped down several times and used as a sandbox for engineers to play around with and test stuff. I would guess it is easier to just easier and cheaper to build a new one than to refit the Enterprise. That seems to have been the case with Endeavour which was built as a replacement to Challenger. It also makes you wonder how much more dangerous these shuttles become as more of them are lost. With only 3 now the rotation time between them will be shorter meaning they will be flying more and having less time between missions to be examined and repaired. It will probably mean mission intervals will be far longer even if the fleet is ungrounded again and everything goes back to normal. If one more were to be lost that would make it difficult to have shuttles flight ready. Well, if another one is lost I'm sure that will be the end of the shuttle program anyway.
[B]Sorta a strange observation.
I have pictures of the space shuttle that I picked up at Kennedy Space Center in the early 80's. I noticed they use to paint the external fuel tank white. I guess that was the orginal spec. Do you think that a thick coat of white paint actually helped to hold the foam in place? It does act as a sealent. I think I read they stopped doing it to save time and money. [/B][/QUOTE]
IIRC ~ they stopped using the white paint to reduce the weight of the vehicle. Less pretty paint meant more science payload weight.
Was it a mistake to stop painting? That IS an interesting observation.
[B][url]http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2005/07/shuttle_damage.html[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
What I find interesting about that is how around late 1997, there was a dramatic increase in tile damage, up from the relative plateau existing to as far back as 1989. I'm really curious as to what triggered that.
[B]Was it a mistake to stop painting? That IS an interesting observation. [/B][/QUOTE]
Indeed it is. Anyone mailed Nasa about it yet?
I did but I never even got a response. I don't know if they even read them. You might have top be an Aerospace Engineer with 18 degrees before they read it.
[B]Indeed it is. Anyone mailed Nasa about it yet? [/B][/QUOTE]
If I remember correctly, not painting the tank saves around 180-240ish pounds that they can use for scientific instruments.
For those ppl who would favor scrapping the shuttle you've gotta keep in mind that it would doom the hubble for sure and possibly the ISS as well. That station was designed with shuttles in mind.
[B]If I remember correctly, not painting the tank saves around 180-240ish pounds that they can use for scientific instruments.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, but it is better to get the shuttle up, without the media taking notice of things falling off, than to have the shuttle grounded but with a little more instruments in it..
[B]Yeah, but it is better to get the shuttle up, without the media taking notice of things falling off, than to have the shuttle grounded but with a little more instruments in it.. [/B][/QUOTE]
hahaha... true... perhaps they should add racing stripes to it as well... give cnn something REAL to report on! Good 'ol miles o'brian.
[B]If I remember correctly, not painting the tank saves around 180-240ish pounds that they can use for scientific instruments.
For those ppl who would favor scrapping the shuttle you've gotta keep in mind that it would doom the hubble for sure and possibly the ISS as well. That station was designed with shuttles in mind. [/B][/QUOTE]
Just out of curiousity, are there any further modules for ISS that are under construction, or awaiting delievery?
Jake