STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

RobertDyck · 2005-07-31 13:30:59

They guy at KBKhA who I contacted is a business manager. He isn't political, he just wants to sell product. You're the one bringing politics into it. And if you believe a product built a few years ago can't be restored to production, then I'm glad you don't manage a manufacturing facility. Your repeated efforts to claim Russian equipment is dead simply incites the political types to say something like "they could send Soyuz to the Moon for $100 million". I haven't seen any such announcement, but since you mention it I'll look for it. But the point is, if you don't like this sort of thing at your moment of weakness, then don't slam the Russians. Your repeated criticism is just asking for it.

Don't forget, Buran and Energia didn't die in 1988 or 1993. Buran flew once on November 15, 1988. Yeltsin cancelled Buran on June 30, 1993, due to end of America's SDI, end of the cold war. The project manager was part of the 1991 coup attempt, and was in prison. A big part of it was SLC-6 at Vandenberg as a Shuttle launch site for polar missions was mothballed. The Air Force ordered it on May 13, 1988, it was placed on mothball status September 20, 1989. But you keep forgetting that the Russian military kept Buran ready to fly on 3 days notice until it was handed over to Kazahkstan on January 1, 2000. That's why the orbiter was maintained, one Energia was fully assembled on the transporter and stored in the vehicle assembly building, modules for 2 more Energia vehicles were in the building, and manufacturing facilities were mothballed, not dismantled.

No, Shuttle-Z was not designed by the 90-day report, it was the first design by Robert Zubrin's partner David Baker. He later redesigned Shuttle-Z into Ares, but that was deliberately optimized to throw heavy cargo directly into interplanetary trajectory.

You also keep ignoring the fact that a long duration life support system must be tested in LEO before it is deployed on the Moon or Mars. That means some LEO space station is a critical part of VSE. Completing ISS is the cheapest way to get a station operational. Your repeated attempts to kick the legs out from ISS are just kicking the legs out from VSE. Get it through your head, they aren't competing, VSE is dependant on ISS.

So you want to build the DRV3 vehicle using self-aggregating technology. That means placing expendable OMS/RCS thrusters on each module as well as radar and guidance systems. Ah hah; that's what Russia used to build Salyut 7, Mir, and their side of ISS.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-31 14:31:00

"You're the one bringing politics into it... but the point is, if you don't like this sort of thing at your moment of weakness, then don't slam the Russians."

You're kidding, right? Favor with the politicans makes NASA's rockets go just as surely as rocket fuel does... Anyway, I am livid with the thankless Russians for intentionally (don't even think about attributing it to coincidence) trying to kick NASA when they're down with this sort of thing. It is a malicious ploy against us, and the Russian company you cite was until recently an arm of the state.

"the Russian military kept Buran ready to fly on 3 days notice until it was handed over to Kazahkstan on January 1, 2000"

Yeah, whatever. Their throughly untested, untried, impractical spaceplane (the flight computers imparticularly) and pad just sat there for years at the knife-edge of flight when it takes NASA two weeks minimum. Good ol' fashioned propoganda. Oh yes! And don't forget, that just because Energia sat in a hanger does not mean they had preserved the engine assembly line... Those nine RD-0120s you cite would have been enough to fly those leftover Energias.

"Shuttle-Z was... by Robert Zubrin's partner David Baker."

Friend of crazy Bob Zubrin? That makes it even worse! It doesn't change my opinion one bit that Shuttle-Z is practical, especially if it was just casually drafted.

"Get it through your head, they aren't competing, VSE is dependant on ISS."

I am going to get emphatic here again, this is plain bald-faced completly untrue!!! A horrible, terrible farse, based completly outside the realm of reason and reality! You must be joking! This is the statement of a totally irrational ISS cheerleader...

...So let me get this crystal clear:

The cost keeping the ISS running until ~2015, fifty to sixty billion dollars... $60,000,000,000... enough money to actually DO NASA DRM or even MarsDirect - TWICE - so that... we can test the refrigerator sized life support machine? Do you have any idea how patently absurd that sounds? That is your justification? Thats IT?

For the sake of getting off this planet before we all die, just build the prototype HAB and put the thing in LEO or on the Moon! How easy and and simple a solution can you get? I mean come on! How could you possibly, honestly defend that?

"That means placing expendable OMS/RCS thrusters on each module as well as radar and guidance systems"

Thats correct. Each of the three payloads sent to Mars will need the ability to maneuver and operate unmanned anyway, and if the TMI stage is powerd by its own boiloff and only has to hold attitude, which it needs anyway so it can perform the disposal maneuver. LIDAR rather then radar would also make things easier... Anyway, adding such things to Shuttle-C unacceptably limits its carriage ability, adds to its complexity which will raise its development cost/time, which NASA would have to pay up front right now and can't afford.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-07-31 14:35:17

Even though I'm not happy with the whole Shuttle show, its not very reliable, heat shiled tiles are costly, and Shuttle can be dangerous. The ISS has also been badly managed and gone way beyond budget.
However I agree with much of what RobertDyck has been saying on the ISS, station crews are badly needed, ISS science and construction can become very important. It would be silly for the Americans to suddenly dump the ISS project after getting so far not to mention the backlash for other agency groups involved plus the political fallout if the US suddenly does a big U-turn. The USA hasn't done much in long duration space study and other zero-G space science since the discoveries in Solar activity and the great biology experiments done in Skylab.

The ISS has been over-priced and poorly managed but it can still become a wonderful station, they will have new materials science labs, soon to see future space telescopes which had plans to be alongside the ISS design, research into plant growth in Zero-G, ISS could be very important producing far greater results than Skylab's study. People want the ISS finished but they know Shuttle has risks, that is why scientific people have proposed launching modules on rockets like Proton, Shuttle-C/SDLV-d, Delta, Angara, Ariane, STS-derived, Atlas. If Shuttle had flown without any problem we could have just used the STS to bring up solar pannels, a module, nodes and such every months or so but now there is this question on debris.

Palomar · 2005-07-31 16:14:01

Astronauts May Need to Repair Discovery
AP - 56 minutes ago
SPACE CENTER, Houston - A couple of short strips of material dangling from Discovery's belly had NASA scrambling Sunday to determine whether the protrusions might endanger the shuttle during next week's descent and whether the astronauts might need to attempt a repair. The potential trouble has nothing to do with foam or other launch debris — for a change — but rather the accidental slippage of material used to fill the thin gaps between thermal tiles. Flight director Paul Hill said two engineering teams are working "aggressively" on the problem, with heated discussions raging on what to do, if anything.

*Good fricking grief.

::shakes head::

I am -very- worried for them; I mean MORE worried now.

That quote is from Yahoo! news.

--Cindy

srmeaney · 2005-07-31 16:39:04

With the fleet grounded (forever?) and the Discovery in a "We will probably bring it home-just as soon as the tile glue dries" situation, is there any point to not keeping them in space to test manned spaceflight systems such as VASMIR. If all they have to do is launch a Nuclear motor and "strap it on" then why not retask the shuttles for a permanent Space mission?

Rxke · 2005-07-31 16:40:41

Just imagine...

Those dangling thingies were probably there every frigging mission before current one. Only now for the first time they filmed the underside...

And, come to think of it, that's plain scary, flying 20+ years w/o one good inspection *ever* of the craft once in orbit :shock:

Josh Cryer · 2005-07-31 17:39:20

Sensationalism.

Palomar · 2005-07-31 18:00:47

*Okay, you're right; let's go the head/sand route.

(No one called it "sensationalism" when plans for Atlantis were scrubbed and an all-fleet grounding was called for).

Guess we'll find out if this was all sensationalism or not (reputable space-related web sites are reporting this...not the National Enquirer!) eventually, right?

--Cindy

P.S.: This from spaceflightnow.com:

NASA ponders spacewalk repair work on shuttle
Engineers are considering what, if anything, to do about two protruding "gap fillers" on the belly of the space shuttle Discovery that could trigger increased re-entry turbulence and localized, potentially dangerous, heating if they are left as is.

RobertDyck · 2005-07-31 19:28:51

The 3 Energias still had their engines. Strap-on boosters of the Energia on the transporter still had their RD-170 engines, although the extra strap-on boosters were stripped of engines for Sea Launch. The 9 engines at the factory were in addition to the 3 sets (4 engines per set) in the MIK. MIK is Russian for Building of Assembly and Test, their version of a Vehicle Assembly Building. Everything in the MIK when the roof collapsed is now scrap metal.

Buran untested, untried, impractical? Come on! Now who's spouting propaganda? The Buran orbiter was carefully maintained as a counter to the American Shuttle in case America tried to pluck one of their military satellites out of space. The other 2 orbiters, well... Did I mention the one I know about has been left for years outside in the rain and snow, and Kazakh workmen have been hacking off tiles to sell to tourists? The pictures show tiles are curling and the RCC nose cap has patches missing. That one is in bad shape. But the design was extensively tested.

They stored the orbiter in the orbiter processing building, and the core module and boosters on the transporter in the MIK. That is until they wanted the orbiter processing building to stage ISS modules, then they assembled the orbiter on the launch stack. They pressurized the main tanks with air; propellant would be filled only once it was on the launch pad. They used a rail system to transport the vehicle horizontally, and a "grasshopper" erector to lift it to vertical at the launch pad. That permitted faster roll-out without risk of falling over. Boeing now uses that for Delta IV, although they use a truck with tires on a road, and erect it with a crane built into the launch pad. Storing it without propellant in the tanks is quite easy. Just clean it and change the batteries periodically.

RobertDyck · 2005-07-31 19:35:01

Dangly thingies? They used calking strips between heat shield tiles? Uuh, that's not reassuring. I wish they had inspected the orbiter while on-orbit long ago; if not STS-1 then as soon as they had a spacesuit and manoeuvring pack working. I suspect this stuff has been happening all along.

Josh Cryer · 2005-07-31 20:34:41

I suspect this stuff has been happening all along.

It has to have been. That's the point, really. All this scrutiny is is of course healthy for this and future missions (it is science, after all), but the Shuttle is safe. The Shuttle broke because of a serious design change, the foam that is used on the tanks (the first failure, Challenger, occured due to poor management; they knew it would happen, but for political reasons they went ahead with it anyway). If the foam was not changed, we most likely would not have had an incident, and the Shuttle would be going up 4-6 times a year like it was before. The ISS would be nearly completed. And the news media wouldn't have so much to harp over.

Yes, there are kinks. Yes, they're scary. The previous foam undoubtedly caused cracks in the tiles, and caused questionable damage, but it was considered "an acceptable risk" and so on. This is space travel, people. We're talking about the most complicated machine devised by man, here. We're talking about one of the most difficult things to do, that only three nations so far have accomplished and no private industry has accomplished.

I don't think I'm sticking my head in the sand. The last two times I talked to my mom, she went on about how the Shuttle crew were flying corpses (orbiting corpses is more like it). It was disconcerting, because when I read the reports, I don't see NASA saying they're screwed. With each report, NASA is saying, "Well, this is some new data that we haven't quite worked around, but things seem alright." Even the latest report of these dangly bits has words such as "may be a problem" with catches such as "but we've had this happen before quite often."

It is definitely good that they're getting a look at the underside of the orbiter, this should've been done long ago, regularly, especially given the fragility of the tiles.

The "Shuttles are now grounded" talk is to say that they're putting safety above everything else, it doesn't really mean that the Shuttle has somehow magically become less safe than it was before, it means we're trying to get a general understanding of the mechanisms that make it work. After all is said and done, the Shuttle will fly. And hopefully they'll start using the old foam process again, or at least put some netting around the underside of the tank where the tiles are.

clark · 2005-07-31 20:42:28

Hear, hear!

Of course, this is dangerous stuff. It isn't easy. For all intents and purposes, we still don't know what we are doing.

Humanity spent thousands of years becoming practiced in sailing. And still we lose ships to the waters.

So too space. Another turbulent sea we seek to conquer.

It will take time and patience. It will take loss. From our mistakes, we learn.

Which are all reasons why we should return to the Moon first, and be patient in our journey to Mars.

This is something that seems to be generally overlooked by the zealous Mars Direct proponents.

Just my take on things. [shrug]

Josh Cryer · 2005-07-31 21:14:23

You think Mars Direct is crazy? I should talk about my idea for a One Man One Go mission, where you strap yourself into a somewhat sustainable pod no bigger than a bathroom shower stall.

clark · 2005-07-31 21:20:10

Desperation is never pretty.

Let's just send midgets while we are at it.

Josh Cryer · 2005-07-31 21:36:48

At the risk of going off topic, I once rented a room no bigger than most peoples closets (big enough for only a bed, single sized, and a small night table), and I'm not clasterphobic at all. I think I'm one of the few humans in existance who could handle a 6-7 month trip in such tight quarters without significant prior training.

The key is having significant supplies when you get there, otherwise it would be kind of pointless.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-08-01 00:16:52

Now that the flight risks have become fully apparent, and on the eve of the successful return of STS-114, could this be perhaps the most gracefull moment to finally retire the shuttle fleet, along with the ISS?

What's the likelyhood of hearing something like this from Griffin? He's certainly set everything up for it, what with his SDV plans and all. Will he have the guts?

idiom · 2005-08-01 00:45:39

At an academy in Texas, I bunked with five guys in a room slightly bigger than that description for a year. The bunks are stacked three high and are end-end. They pick people to deliberatley clash with your personality. We all graduated friends though, so I also don't buy into the psychology showstopper story.

RobertDyck · 2005-08-01 01:00:58

I saw the "Meet the Press" interview with Mike Griffin. He say "Grounded" was a media term, he simply said Atlantis will not fly until it's safe. He said he expects it to fly within this year.

Josh Cryer · 2005-08-01 01:06:00

It seems my suspicion that the media is hyping it is confirmed by the man himself. I wish I saw that episode of Meet The Press. Feel free to indulge any further about it Robert.

srmeaney · 2005-08-01 01:31:42

I saw the "Meet the Press" interview with Mike Griffin. He say "Grounded" was a media term, he simply said Atlantis will not fly until it's safe. He said he expects it to fly within this year.

Atlantis is a millitary shuttle. They (for reasons of Security) would strap an astronaut to an ICBM and give him a camera to take photos if that is what it took.

Atlantis is the vehicle most likely to be used for even a permanent space mission for testing space propulsion systems by harnessing a rocket deployed system to the Space shuttle (reconfigured as a space vehicle for manned space testflight purposes).

SpaceNut · 2005-08-01 05:55:31

What I find troubling is the heming and hawing over whether they should go take a look to see if a fix is warranted and to preform one. They have the tools to do any fix required and what better chance to test the new materials in actual preformance rather than in some lab only.

The bubbling of the material probably could be controlled if it were heated after it was applied to allow it to setup part way.

Palomar · 2005-08-01 08:02:04

*Don't talk down to us, okay? Most everyone here knows space exploration is dangerous; we're not children who need to be reminded of that.

NASA cannot afford to lose another crew (human lives) and another Shuttle. And especially not on the heels of Columbia.

Spare me the "que sara sara" attitude; it's unwarranted and repulsive.

Some of us -are- concerned about this situation.

And this -isn't- about other missions; it's about Discovery's current mission.

--Cindy

srmeaney · 2005-08-01 10:05:41

And this -isn't- about other missions; it's about Discovery's current mission.

Umm, it is about other missions. One more catastropic shuttle loss and they wont ever go into space again. The ISS will have to make do with robotic assembly systems to finish up and a Russian crew launcher for critical human presence only.

Josh Cryer · 2005-08-01 10:34:21

SpaceNut, they're not really sure if it's expected behavior or not. Common wisdom would suggest that the behavior is fully expected. This is how things are, they just look differently when you actually have a look! We've never before in the history of the STS program have had this level of tile scrutiny. When the launch happend I was absolutely astonished by the sheer number of cameras and telescopes that were pointed at the thing. One of the scopes (which was in a huge observatory, I think it was at least 30+ inches) was so sensitive, that the joystick, and the gimbles controlling the whole observatory, would respond to the pulse of the operator. I thought that was simply amazing.

Cindy, please don't take it the wrong way. I was by no means attempting to have an attitude with my last posts. My experience is that the news tends to sensationalize, and if it comes from my mom, then it probably is being sensationalized pretty dang well. She's a pretty level headed gal, but sometimes she'll drive up some story to this point of disbelief, and I don't think it's her fault, she just watches and reads the news, and pow, she's believing something that isn't exactly on target. Consider the recent Sahara dust storms, it was being played up significantly on the east coast (in Flordia, Alabama, Georgia). People were being told to wear dust masks. Remember when people were crazily duct taping their houses up because of the "terrorists threat"? I think it's awful. And I think it does the actual people who are getting things done, the scientists and engineers, a huge disservice, because it distorts their ability to get things done. They are not saying what the headlines are saying, and they are not saying what some posters in this thread think they are saying. They're being scientific in their approach, and in the end, they will leave things as they are.

Anyone want to take me up on that? No actual repairs will be made? I still got that $100 burning a hole in my pocket... heh.

srmeaney, ISS probably wouldn't be finished, and though I would hate to say it in this context, ending the Shuttle program now would be the best thing for manned space travel.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-01 10:52:05

Yup you are probably right about the behavior and the scientific method that is being used at this time. The amount of what would be the experimental flavor of analysis should be expected from this flight for at least the next few. But at sometime will Nasa lax back into its own self calm and be less intentive to details?

The other side of the coin is not to tax the stations resource with a shuttles extended stay beyound the limits of the shuttles fuel resources. Which is used for internal power thou this shuttle I believe has a power adapter along with it this time as a means to aid in lengthening there stay if need be.

Then again to not make a bad decision to come home with a wounded ship, perhaps taking the extra EVA to examine the tiles might put all of the engineering at ease. It should be down as soon as possible so as to qwell the rumor mill.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2005-07-31 13:30:59

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#202 2005-07-31 14:31:00

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#203 2005-07-31 14:35:17

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#204 2005-07-31 16:14:01

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#205 2005-07-31 16:39:04

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#206 2005-07-31 16:40:41

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#207 2005-07-31 17:39:20

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#208 2005-07-31 18:00:47

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#209 2005-07-31 19:28:51

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#210 2005-07-31 19:35:01

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#211 2005-07-31 20:34:41

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#212 2005-07-31 20:42:28

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#213 2005-07-31 21:14:23

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#214 2005-07-31 21:20:10

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#215 2005-07-31 21:36:48

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#216 2005-08-01 00:16:52

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#217 2005-08-01 00:45:39

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#218 2005-08-01 01:00:58

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#219 2005-08-01 01:06:00

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#220 2005-08-01 01:31:42

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#221 2005-08-01 05:55:31

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#222 2005-08-01 08:02:04

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#223 2005-08-01 10:05:41

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#224 2005-08-01 10:34:21

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#225 2005-08-01 10:52:05

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

Board footer