[hip(2)b⟡]

Read this. Space Shuttles are now grounded due to debris falling off the shuttle.

Gee, what a surprise.



We all knew THAT was going to happen, right? But NASA had to rush them back up into space.

So, what, exactly, does it mean that the Space Shuttles are "grounded?"

I mean, it's not as if we were going to be sending another one up in the next few days, right?

And now that one is up in space and now we have yet another problem with debris/insulation falling off and possibly damaging the space shuttle, what next? Leave them up there? How do you get them back if the space shuttles are "grounded?"

[RAILhead]

"We won't be able to fly again," until the hazard is removed, Parsons told reporters in a briefing Wednesday evening.

That's about it.

Maury

[spatterson]

I'm sad that they scrapped the x-plane... really they need to become innovative to be competitive with china and india.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by spatterson

I'm sad that they scrapped the x-plane... really they need to become innovative to be competitive with china and india.

Why not just leave the manned space missions to China and India?

[hip(2)b⟡]

WHY are they saying that the space shuttle is unsafe AFTER they have sent people up into space?



I mean, now are those astronauts doomed up there? Or are they dxoomed to fry on the way back into the atmosphere?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by spatterson

I'm sad that they scrapped the x-plane...

Which time?

[Webscreamer]

Originally Posted by hip(2)b⟡

WHY are they saying that the space shuttle is unsafe AFTER they have sent people up into space?



I mean, now are those astronauts doomed up there? Or are they dxoomed to fry on the way back into the atmosphere?

Well, someone had to be next to test it out.

If they find the damage is too risky after final tests, they will stay at the space-station and a rescue mission will be launched. But the damage that happened has been "normal damage" on past missions... they are just being extremely cautious on this mission since the Columbia mission.

But that said, they are grounding the fleet because of the large piece of foam that flew off the fuel tank that *could have* hit the shuttle and cause a large amount of damage on return.

[Sarc]

my question is, the shuttles have been going up for about what, 2 decades ?
why wasn't the foam a life threatening hazard before ?

[Webscreamer]

Originally Posted by Sarc

my question is, the shuttles have been going up for about what, 2 decades ?
why wasn't the foam a life threatening hazard before ?

Before the Columbia disaster, you can say NASA was pretty lucky nothing happened on previous missions. I bet the shuttles were extremely close to burning up on other missions too. Since Columbia, they are being extra cautious so it doesn't happen again and taking every little thing seriously.

The shuttles are the most complex machine ever made, very large and heavy, and most of all, extremely fragile.

[driven]

The very early missions did'nt have foam. They painted the external tank. (It used to be a white color). The problem was that the paint was lead based and VERY heavy so the fuel costs were much higher to compensate for the weight.

So ... they added foam to prevent the ice build-up on naked metal. That caused the falling foam problem ... and yes they were VERY lucky no damage ever happened before.

My big question now: Why not go back to the paint?

[driven]

Oh yeah ... NASA said that Rescue Missions are grounded too.

To the astronaughts: Better check for holes in the ship before coming home.

[FulcrumPilot]

I wonder if they can fly the shuttle down using remote control or soome kind of automatic pilot. The crew can come back in the good ol soyuz capsule.

[driven]

I hate that we have to keep asking the Russians for a ride.

Also: They tried to copy the US a few years back in an effort to build their own shuttle. It actually flew once.

See:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2815526

and
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/09/23...ossilized.html

edit: (I found a photo of the Russian bird ... striking similarity to the US version)
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/Bur...4ag_buran1.jpg

[Link]

wow weird, wonder how that computer works by itself lol.

[hip(2)b⟡]

I don't care how they get back down. If they have to use the Russians to get back down then fine. Getting back safely is more important than national pride.

[hip(2)b⟡]

Here is the thing: They RUSHED the space shuttle up...pell mell and hell bent...leading everyone to believe that NASA was back on track and in business.

Now NASA is saying that the space shuttles are grounded because they are unsafe.

What a crock of crap, you know?

NASA should be ashamed, truly ashamed, for risking the lives of those astronauts.



Not only should NASA be embarrassed, but as an American I am ashamed. Any feelings of pride I had are erased because it turns out that this entire thing is a sham. Now our astronauts are up there with no way to come back SAFELY.

[driven]

I was actually thinking more of not asking for a ride UP.

Rushed? 2.5 years! Most of the key developments in the Apollo program took place in less time than that. Obviously NASA has moved to a much slower development cycle or they have far less talented people working for them.

Space flight is risky. EVERY flight is a risk of life. Those astronaughts know that! I'm not ashamed, this was a learning experience.

No way of getting home safely? Have you looked at the bottom of the shuttle yet? NASA hasn't. Until we hear otherwise we have to assume the the ship remains flightworthy for re-entry.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by hip(2)b⟡

WHY are they saying that the space shuttle is unsafe AFTER they have sent people up into space?



I mean, now are those astronauts doomed up there? Or are they dxoomed to fry on the way back into the atmosphere?

Not doomed, no, but NASA has the ball rolling to send up STS300 as a rescue shuttle if need be"

While no new space shuttles will fly for the time being, NASA will not stop preparations for the follow-up to Discovery's mission, the STS-121 spaceflight aboard the Atlantis orbiter. Atlantis is already mated to its own external tank-solid rocket booster launch stack, and was slated for a Sept. 9 liftoff before today's foam find. NASA also tapped Atlantis to serve as a rescue ship for the STS-114 crew in the remote chance Discovery were too damage to return home and its astronauts forced to take shelter aboard the space station. That contingency rescue mission is known as STS-300.

"We think the need for an STS-300 is remote at this time," said Wayne Hale, deputy shuttle program manager, during the briefing.

But Parsons said that should it be needed, the decision would be "very difficult."

Maury

[hip(2)b⟡]

I just saw an interview on Today with Michael Griffith and he is brain dead and in denial and continuing to say, "Nothing is wrong." He is the head of NASA administration.

I then flipped over to Good Morning America and they are interviewing an astronaut and he's saying, "Yeah, I'm sure that those guys [astronauts up in space right now] can handle this, but they've got to be saying 'not good.' This doesn't look very good." He said, "Right now the mood of the people at NASA, for the most part, is very somber."

In addition to foam falling off, apparently huge chunks of ice were also falling off along the sides of the space shuttle.

This space shuttle, according to Michael Griffith, is 20 years old.

Gives you something to think about, eh?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by hip(2)b⟡

Now our astronauts are up there with no way to come back SAFELY.

Soyuz!?! They will get back safely if the NASA decides that the Shuttle isn't safe enough anymore!

[driven]

A few problems: There are now 10 people in space. (3 on station + 7 on shuttle). Soyuz holds 3 persons. (4 if two sit on someone's lap). <GRIN>

20 years isn't that old for an aircraft. Many commercial aircraft you fly are that old, and they fly a LOT more.

[hip(2)b⟡]

Yeah, but they aren't escaping the atmosphere at thousands of degrees fahrenheit.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by hip(2)b⟡

I don't care how they get back down. If they have to use the Russians to get back down then fine. Getting back safely is more important than national pride.

Actually, that kind of attitude is exactly why our space program is such crap right now. Nasa is so concerned with safety that they over-committee everything instead of making a design and evolving it.

Commercial aviation is pretty safe today. Do you think it was always that way? Sorry, you can thank the original post office mail pilots for that. Over 30 of the original 40 pilots died developing the techniques, facilities, and knowledge still used today. Congress then passed laws encouraging private companies to take over and eventually become what our airlines are today. That was gov't funded, just like NASA still is. Unfortunately, no one has done anything to promote private and cheap* spaceflight until very recently. 5 years ago I would tell people about the X-prize and they would act like I was smoking crack. "That's what NASA's for." One could argue that NASA, congress, and our citizen's lack of vision have stifled any chance of privatizing spaceflight over the last 2 decades.

The people that go up know and accept the risks. It sucks when a crew dies, but you can't close up shop everytime something doesn't go right. I'd still go even if you told me I had a 50% chance of dying. It would be worth it. You can't learn anything new sitting at home. Someone needs to just get up in front of the American people and say,"Look, this is a new frontier and there are serious risks. Some brave people will probably die, but America is going to lead the world into the space." I hope that in 30-40 years I'll be a pilot for private space craft. That isn't going to happen if we don't take any risks.
Edit* added and cheap

[analogika]

Originally Posted by hip(2)b⟡

I don't care how they get back down. If they have to use the Russians to get back down then fine. Getting back safely is more important than national pride.

Agreed.

[Gator Lager]

sorry but I've read some tech comments that are incorrect so I'll not be a know it all and just post this instead http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...c.html#sts_sys
it's got some good info.

as for what is being said and printed in the press. all I'll say is the issues are being worked. the crew and shuttle are ok.

[Fred_Cokebottle]

It is also very likely that there is really very insignificant chipping on the tiles so no biggie. May be the media is just over reacting now since they are looking too hard for loose foams flying off. Anyways, we will know in the next few days about the damage assessment. My bet is that nothing is wrong with Discovery, although in spite of spending over 1 billion on safety measures I don't think NASA has really solved the original problem, and that is sad.

"In the past, a focus on safety has proved difficult. Shortly after the shuttle's first test flight in 1980 - and then again when the shuttles returned to service the after the Challenger accident in 1986 - the initial vigilance waned. The fact that the fuel tank shed foam during liftoff was normal; divots in the heat shield became ordinary. In fact, the heat-resistant tiles have been damaged an estimated 15,000 times over the shuttles' life span, and 10-inch gashes occur during 1 in 5 flights."


http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0712/p01s01-stss.html

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Fred_Cokebottle

It is also very likely that there is really very insignificant chipping on the tiles so no biggie. May be the media is just over reacting now since they are looking too hard for loose foams flying off.

As far as I understand it there have always been tiles damaged and the current damage is probably not endangering the spacecraft. It's just this time that everybody looks at it so much. However the foam part that fell of the tank was very large (61 to 74 cm according to spiegel.de) and could have damaged the spacecraft seriously would it have hit it.


(picture by spiegel.de)

[Sarc]

Originally Posted by driven

I hate that we have to keep asking the Russians for a ride.
Also: They tried to copy the US a few years back in an effort to build their own shuttle. It actually flew once.
edit: (I found a photo of the Russian bird ... striking similarity to the US version)

Aparently the KGB was very efficient at stealing plans. I read somewhere that the Soviet computers where stolen from IBM. Apart from obvious similarities, they even built them using the imperial system (as oppossed to the metric system, used in Russia), as seen on the blueprints.

[RAILhead]

NASA has been dying for a long time, and I hate that -- but the future is with Burt Rutan of Scaled Composites.

Maury

[budster101]

Private Space Travel, just like that one television show where they built a recoverable rocket out of junk to recover space debris for money... What was the name of that show again? It was weird.

[ghporter]

What the bleep do you mean rushed? It took OVER TWO YEARS to get back into space. That is hardly a rush. In testing it looked like they had the foam problem mostly licked, but in the real deal it turned out that there was still a problem. That problem is localized and focused-not at all like reexamining the entire safety culture of an enormous organization, nor like analyzing what went wrong and how to detect such problems and possibly correct them.

Please also keep in mind that astronauts are NOT FORCED into flying. They are EAGER TO FLY and being up in space is what they've been training and practicing for for years. THEY understood the risks-far better than we can-and decided to go. Nobody is rushing anything, which is why the new restriction has been established. That foam is a major problem, and something needs to be done about it-that's all it's about. Further, it is a very specific, very localized issue and one that may be resolved very quickly.

[wdlove]

Very sad. At least it sounds as though this particular shuttle is alright.

[wolfen]

Here's my go at it...

It would be wonderful if we stopped manned flights for this century and focused our money and brain power on real problems facing our nation. It's astounding the amount of money and attention spent on a 10lb piece of foam (hello?). To think national pride(?), billions of dollars in assets, and 1000's of man hours all hinge on a piece of insulation -- this is a perfect demonstration of where our priorities are.

I hope we stop the madness soon.

[SVass]

NASA is a political organization. Any failure will be blamed on the Administration and/or Congress; therefore, it takes a little courage to authorize a flight. Remember also that the existing Shuttle design predates the Apple II. It is not quite as bad as rework on the B-52 which is still flying. Both parties have opposed spending money on a new design for a space exploration vehicle for decades.

With this recent history (along with debates to make the tax cuts permanent), I agree with those proposing privatization as the ultimate solution. The government should continue funding basic research in the sciences. sam

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by wolfen

Here's my go at it...

It would be wonderful if we stopped manned flights for this century and focused our money and brain power on real problems facing our nation. It's astounding the amount of money and attention spent on a 10lb piece of foam (hello?). To think national pride(?), billions of dollars in assets, and 1000's of man hours all hinge on a piece of insulation -- this is a perfect demonstration of where our priorities are.

I hope we stop the madness soon.

Spoken like someone who has no idea about how much the space program has -- and does -- benefited mankind.

Don't be such a moron.

Maury

[budster101]

I'm inclined to agree with Wolfen. We can find better ways of finding how the Oceans can save our starving and dry areas of the world. Cultivate the sea. Explore our inner space first, there may be greater secrets and saviors locked in the depths of the oceans rather than locked in a vacuum of space...

The space programs could be consolidated into an International Effort possibly, removing the burdens on just singular countries.

I've heard about numerous medications being found in herbals throughout the jungles and rainforests, as well as the ocean life, so while we are doing space walks and experiments in zero gravity spending tons of money, why not do more on earth? Like I mentioned before we should have a base on the moon that could sustain itself for long periods doing such experiments and teraforming, but why not?

Why even bother with Mars or other nonsense? Stay focused and make a base on the moon and then use it as a stepping stone to other planets? No requirement to escape any atmosphere there....

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by wolfen

Here's my go at it...

It would be wonderful if we stopped manned flights for this century and focused our money and brain power on real problems facing our nation. It's astounding the amount of money and attention spent on a 10lb piece of foam (hello?). To think national pride(?), billions of dollars in assets, and 1000's of man hours all hinge on a piece of insulation -- this is a perfect demonstration of where our priorities are.

I hope we stop the madness soon.

1) Once you lose the knowledge of keeping people alive in space, you have to start all over again. That's one of the main reasons why the Russians are so important, they have way more man hours in space from the Mir.
2) You have to keep well trained scientists employed, unless you want some of them to start showing up in North Korea, Pakistan, Iran....and selling their expertise to the highest bidder.
3) Investment in space is a long term investment and it leads to all kinds of advances in the meantime.
4) One day space travel will be a major part of the economy. If we're not in on it, we won't be the ones reaping the benefits.
5) NASA's $15 Billion dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to defense budget, welfare programs, war in Iraq, gov't subsidies...you name it

[budster101]

You have just shown why Space Exploration should be a multi-national event, and not the responsibility of a few nations making headway and therefore grabbing all the technology gained.

That takes care of 1,2, and 3.

4. Space travel as part of the economy. I'd rather explore the ocean... develop it first as it has more to offer than space, not to mention the benefits of Zero Gravity on earth...

5. Don't bring the security of our nation into a discussion when comparing money spent on space exploration... doesn't fly. (Pun intended)

I'll say that our government wasts tons of money. Get rid of the IRS, they spend so much collecting money, we could probably automate this system and save money! Lower Taxes etc... they are a friggin waste of money....

Keep the military up to par! At all cost, but cut the pork.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Spoken like someone who has no idea about how much the space program has -- and does -- benefited mankind.

Don't be such a moron.

Maury

Genius argument. Your powers of persuasion continue to astound.

[driven]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Spoken like someone who has no idea about how much the space program has -- and does -- benefited mankind.

Don't be such a moron.

Maury

Keeping in mind that he is typing his message on a PC who's existence in it's current form is a direct benefit of past manned flight programs. <sigh>

[driven]

I'm not sure why we can't explore the oceans, the forests, uranus *AND* space all at the same time.

I can walk and chew gum simultaneously. Imagine the possibilities!

[budster101]

It would be just as dangerous to keep people alive at severe depths of the ocean as it would space exploration. Why can't we put that NASA / Space technology knowledge to use in the oceans?

Cutlivate them, and learn to desalinate them on large scales to irrigate and help those in places that cannot help themselves....

Why not even teraform the ocean? We build skyscrapers for what? Ego. How about something that would be beneficial to many? Multi-level large scale communities? Everyone loves to go to the beach on vacation, so why not bring the beach to the people? We overpopulate cities and drive prices up on dwellings, but we perpetuate this inefficient way of living? It's idiotic. More are have-nots and less are have's, and I can envision a future that changes the way we all live and breath our lives.

[ghporter]

Space exploration is absolutely essential to KEEPING PEOPLE ON EARTH ALIVE. How can we know what's going on in the oceans without seeing them as a whole? How can we learn how physics works when we can't isolate an experiment from gross gravitational effects? How can we expect to be able to improve life-saving equipment unless we actually build the stuff and test it in the harshest of environments?

It was the U.S. space program that extended my father-in-law's life by at least ten years (advances in medical imaging and diagnostic equipment helped identify a heart defect that, once corrected, immesurably improved his quality of life as well), and helped my father survive a rare and very dangerous heart attack caused by the blockage of an artery on the BACK of his heart. It has made the advances in electronics that have given us the Internet, cell phones, GPS, digital TV, and a host of really useful things possible and practial.

As a society and as a race we NEED space exploration. And manned exploration is essential to really making use of what we learn to step to the next level. This new foam issue is just a glitch-a very serious one, but a glitch nonetheless. They will either come up with a fix for the foam, or a replacement for it, and that will solve the problem. The really troublesome part of the issue is that the testing they did hadn't identified the problem; their experimental procedures did not adequately simulate reality, which means that they didn't really understand what the conditions were in the first place. That will be the more important issue for NASA to investigate.

[budster101]

And nothing would change if the entire world would shoulder the finances of Space Exploration, then we could do more.... is that so wrong? Eveyrone benefits from the technology.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by budster101

And nothing would change if the entire world would shoulder the finances of Space Exploration, then we could do more.... is that so wrong? Eveyrone benefits from the technology.

We agreed to cooperate on both fusion research and the space station. We (the current administration) then cut our spending for both. No one should trust us to keep our word. It is true that basic research funded by NASA has benefitted both civilian and military technology. That is why I said that we should continue with basic space and oceanic research.

A replacement for the Space Shuttle has been needed for decades. At some point, we should build a new vehicle. This might require firing the politicians and hiring some real engineers. sam

[budster101]

Wait just a minute. WE put a ton of money into the Space Station and even completed and paid for parts that RUSSIA was supposed to do on their own....

I'm talking about the World. You know, everyone.

Ditto to firing the politicians and hiring engineers. No wasting money!
I was inspired to watch Apollow 13 again. Great movie.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by hip(2)b⟡

NASA should be ashamed, truly ashamed, for risking the lives of those astronauts.



Not only should NASA be embarrassed, but as an American I am ashamed. Any feelings of pride I had are erased because it turns out that this entire thing is a sham. Now our astronauts are up there with no way to come back SAFELY.

Oh please.. . . . . . . . .


Space travel is about taking risks, and astronauts know this.

If somebody was a whining little, spineless wimp, such as yourself, there would never have been a man on the moon. Space travel will never be 100% safe, and one has to take risks.

[budster101]

Moon? We went? When?

[Luca Rescigno]

I think NASA should try to develop a manned space capsule as safe and efficient as the Soyuz capsule. It's even older than the shuttle or even the Apollo capsule, yes, but at the same time it's had so much flight time that the launches have become routine. The last accident was in 1975, when three cosmonauts died from an air leak during re-entry. As far as I can tell, that's about it for the Soyuz capsule.

I know NASA has touted the "reusable" nature of the space shuttle as a major advantage, but it still costs hundreds of millions of dollars for a single week-long shuttle flight. The shuttle's large payload and the amount of crew space was an advantage too, but there's no reason why experiments can't be carried out on the ISS. As for satellites, they're cheaper to launch on unmanned rockets anyway, and again I don't see why a properly designed space capsule wouldn't be able to do in-flight repairs of satellites.

I think it might be a good idea for NASA to swallow its pride and develop a low-cost, advanced new space capsule to use instead of the space shuttle. The shuttle isn't a bad machine, but it seems like its main advantages have faded away. The capsule would only be to move astronauts to and from the ISS, where they could carry out the experiments that normally would be done on the shuttle. Maybe the new capsule could even hold four or five people to accommodate passengers, unlike the Soyuz.

I don't know, I'm just kind of thinking as I type here. I absolutely think manned spaceflight should continue, but the shuttle may not be the best way of doing it.

[budster101]

And only if we put all that money into a space station on the moon... we could launch guided unmanned payloads and land them remotely on the moon.... teraform the moon.

We can call it. Space Station Zebra....