backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 52 comment(s) - last by Polynikes.. on Aug 14 at 8:38 PM

Astronaut Clay Anderson out on a spacewalk  (Source: NASA)
Shuttle Endeavour safely reaches the ISS; NASA finds a troubling gouge on the underside of the shuttle

The shuttle Endeavour successfully docked with the International Space Station (ISS) after a two-day journey that started from the Kennedy Space Center. After carefully linking the shuttle to the ISS, both ISS and Endeavour crew members conducted a 90-minute safety leak check before opening hatches to go aboard the ISS.  Five of the seven Endeavour crew members have never been to the ISS.

"Welcome on board," was the greeting the Endeavour crew received from Fyodor Yurchikhin, ISS commander.

The crew is expected to help continue construction on the space station, which NASA wants to complete before the current generation space shuttle is retired in 2010.

Once the crew successfully entered the ISS, NASA discovered a 3-inch-by-3-inch gouge on the underside of the shuttle's heat shield, a problem which may have been caused by ice.  The Wednesday night launch was closely monitored by cameras and radar, and NASA officials noticed what appeared to be a piece of ice deflecting off of the spacecraft during its launch.

A spacewalk may have to be conducted to patch the gouge if it turns out to be too deep to fly with - an initial inspection will be done sometime tomorrow morning.  The shuttle's astronauts will use a robotic arm that has cameras and lasers attached, enabling the crew to measure the depth of the gouge.  

All of the extra precautions involving a shuttle's heat shield are in place after the 2003 shuttle Columbia disaster - Columbia disintegrated while returning to Earth.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
'International' Space Station
By lompocus on 8/12/2007 1:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
Shouldn't this be NASA news updates? I mean I don't like the word 'international' at all but if you want to call it that, at least put up whatever the Russians are doing! :)

Also, it's barely an international space station. More than most of it is built by us, with the exception of the completely ub3r, amazing, Russian life support pod.

And let's face it...The ISS is probably 50% american, 35% Russian, and the last 15% would probably be Canada's solar panel, Japan's solar panel and module, and Europe's modules (have they contributed? This is just an innocent question, I really have no idea on Europe in relation to the ISS).

So, I suggest a name change: NASA/Russia space updates!




RE: 'International' Space Station
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/12/2007 1:14:44 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the Canadarm, I think they attached a special one to the ISS. Too lazy to check Wiki...


By christojojo on 8/12/2007 10:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yep

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadarm

too lazy to write more ; )


RE: 'International' Space Station
By JTKTR on 8/12/2007 1:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
The key you are missing is that it isn't completely finished yet. Many other countries are contributing the best they can and sooner or later it will including a much wider spectrum of parts


RE: 'International' Space Station
By lompocus on 8/12/2007 2:06:14 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the predicted 'retire' date for the ISS is 2019, so I doubt their additions will be very major.

What I mean is, if most of us don't know what anyone has contributed besides our country + US + Russia, then why call it 'international' space news if you're only reporting on 2 (actually, so far 1) country's advancements?

I like the sound of US Space news (since its still quite a while 'till a third country gets up there)


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Aprime on 8/12/2007 2:35:50 AM , Rating: 2
2019? Why are we forking money on something that won't even last 10 years once finished?

Jesus f'ing Christ, let's go to Mars already.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Polynikes on 8/12/2007 2:45:11 AM , Rating: 1
I am utterly convinced that is impossible with current technology. I mean, we could get there, but what after that? Land? This ain't no Ray Bradbury novel.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By omnicronx on 8/12/2007 3:16:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am utterly convinced that is impossible with current technology
me too.. between
1. not a powerfull enough rocket to get us there.
2. radiation
3. livable quarters for over a year.
4. figuring out how to land on the damn thing
5. money
6. this list is getting too long.... i think ill stop now for fear of being bashed..


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Hypernova on 8/12/2007 5:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the only issue is with no5. Apollo has proven that buy burning enough $$$ for a project you can get it done. Boost NASA's funding 20 fold and I'll bet my ass on it that we can get to Mars by 2012.

It all boils down to a rocket big enough and how you are going to pay for it, need bigger launch pad? build one. Want to assemble it in orbit but not enough payload for current shuttle? Build more shuttles etc.

These things are never about technology.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Anonymous Freak on 8/12/2007 9:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
Point by point...

1. No powerful enough rockets. What, Proton (the rocket that boosts the Russian-made ISS components,) isn't powerful enough? To quote "Interplanetary transfer capacity is about 5–6 tonnes (11,000–13,000 lbm)." And that's assuming we launch straight from Earth Surface to Mars surface. There a few different proposals, including some that involve launching the ground station and return vehicle first on a 'low power' approach (takes longer, but less fuel,) possibly over a couple launches, and launching a small 'manned transfer' vehicle on a faster, but more fuel-intensive trajectory after we are sure the ground base and return vehicle is safely there. You could save even more by having the return vehicle stay in Mars orbit, with just a small capsule on the surface to bring back to Mars orbit on the way out.

2. Radiation. Yes, a problem. But raw interplanetary radiation is not a big problem, and a small shielded chamber in the transfer vehicles for solar flares wouldn't be too bad a weight problem.

3. Livable quarters. Again, if you launch the ground base separately from the space vehicles, you could even have have a few different modules.

4. Landing. We have done soft landings before, not just the 'bounce in a ball' landings. And Mars has lower gravity than Earth, yet we've even had a couple prototype rockets that landed vertically on Earth. The big landing worry is if a large sandstorm is going during the landing window. That can be solved by not going straight to landing, but entering orbit first, and giving the crew a chance to pick their own landing time.

5. Money. This is the only real show-stopper.

One major proposal of the type I mention was proposed in the '90's as "Mars Direct". One cost estimate has it costing $55 billion over 10 years. (Or approximately 1/10th the cost so far of the U.S.'s war in Iraq.)


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Polynikes on 8/13/2007 7:44:35 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe, instead of wasting money on exploring space, we could focus on fixing up the planet we currently live on, and maybe spend the money on something that has a more direct positive effect on humanity. Like helping 3rd world countries. 55 billion could buy a lot of food.

Point is, spending money on anything space-related is such a waste when there are far bigger problems to solve. It's like buying a luxury car when your kids are starving.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By stromgald on 8/14/2007 3:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
Please, go spread your ignorance elsewhere. Do some research and actually look at how much is spent on 3rd world countries and the environment vs. NASA's budget. There would be many times more people starving on this planet if it wasn't for the NASA's technological advancements.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By Polynikes on 8/14/2007 8:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
What? You're telling me that all our great SPACE technology has somehow helped the 3rd world? What'd they do, barbecue a pig under the rocket blast and ship it to Sudan? Why is Bono still begging the everyone and their mom for help? Please, educate my poor, ignorant mind.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By omnicronx on 8/12/2007 3:11:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jesus f'ing Christ, let's go to Mars already.

I wonder how long thats going to take, or if thats actually in NASA's radar for the next 40 years. 5-15 mars landings is pretty bad, let alone the radiation issues that would occur.
each astronaut that went to the moon got almost a yearly dose of radiation, it would be fun too see what a year in space would do to you.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By lompocus on 8/12/2007 3:32:23 AM , Rating: 2
That was 40 years ago (exactly, yay for 2k7!).

One of the plans for NASA's new thingy to carry people to mars (not quite land, but we're almost there, 2015-2022) has several meters of water encased around it, which irrc is one of the best insulators against radiation.

The other has a hell of a lot of lead around it, but I heard that was impracticle for who knows why. ne1 here work at nasa??


RE: 'International' Space Station
By grath on 8/12/2007 5:07:33 AM , Rating: 5
We have no business going to Mars any time soon. Theres plenty that needs to be done on the Moon first, and the more practice and experience we get on the Moon, the cheaper, safer, and more capable any eventual Mars mission will be. Conversely, any serious funding and development of a manned Mars program comes at the expense and detriment of a manned lunar program. If NASA goes all out and puts humans on Mars in 2030, we will be buying the rocket fuel for it from the Chinese Moon Base. If they get there first it instantly becomes cheaper to buy from them than develop the capability ourselves.

Ultimately, he who unlocks the resources outside the big gravity well will control the next phase of space exploration/development/colonization.
He who puts a footprint on Mars gets red dirt on his boot, an encyclopedia entry, and can no longer have children.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By masher2 (blog) on 8/12/2007 10:27:01 AM , Rating: 2
Very true Grath. Many years ago, I had a lengthy debate with Bob Zubrin on just this issue. Against my long list of industrial and commercial benefits for a Moon base, his support of a Mars mission boiled down to:

1) Mars is a "planet", whereas the Moon is not.
2) Mars has greater research potential than does the Moon.


RE: 'International' Space Station
By psychmike on 8/12/2007 5:25:10 PM , Rating: 3
With respect, Mr. Zubrin's arguments for going to Mars are a lot more well thought out than that. For those who haven't read it, 'The Case for Mars' offers a point by point rebuttal for those who say that it isn't possible to go to Mars with current technology.

With respect to bypassing the moon, Mr. Zubrin offers many reasons for doing so, not the least of which are: Mars has an atmosphere that offers some protection from solar radiation and Mars has an atmosphere that allows for the comparably easy manufacture of return fuel, air, water, and electricity using relatively well known chemical processes. The fact that NASA is adopting a semi-direct plan that incorporates many of his suggestions speaks well for his ideas.

Mike