backtop

Print 40 comment(s) - last by Fritzr.. on Jul 20 at 5:30 AM

Endeavour launches towards ISS  (Source: Getty Images)
Shuttle Endeavour finally launches into space

NASA finally launched shuttle Endeavour towards the International Space Station, though the celebration was short lived when several pieces of debris from the shuttle's external fuel tank broke off, with at least one piece hitting the shuttle itself.

NASA engineers and astronauts will now closely inspect the shuttle once it arrives at the ISS, as the U.S. space agency no longer takes any chances regarding debris from the external fuel tank.  The seven-man Endeavour crew originally expected to conduct five spacewalks, but another spacewalk could be added once damage to the shuttle is assessed.

Around a dozen pieces of debris fell off the external fuel tank during launch, and the piece that hit the orbiter left three marks on the underside of the shuttle.  A laser scanner will be used to evaluate damage to the shuttle after it docks at the ISS.

“We had some foam loss events,” NASA associate administrator Bill Gerstenmaier said during a press conference after the shuttle's launch.  “There were several losses that occurred.  You can clearly see, on the front part of the orbiter, some white indications where the tiles were dinged.  We don't consider those an issue for us, those are probably coating losses.”

The launch yesterday marked the sixth launch attempt for NASA, with weather causing three delays and a hydrogen leak forcing two delays last month.  Now that the shuttle is in space, it's ferrying the last necessary parts to complete construction on JAXA's space research laboratory.

This marks the 23rd spaceflight for shuttle Endeavour, and it will be retired sometime in 2010 alongside the current fleet's other shuttles.

NASA hopes to complete construction on the ISS before the shuttle fleet is retired next year, with NASA planning to de-orbit the ISS in 2016.  Until the next-generation rocket technology is completed, the U.S. space agency will pay millions to Russia for trips aboard the country's Soyuz space capsules.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Why does the foam keep coming off?
By KingstonU on 7/16/2009 9:01:45 AM , Rating: 2
The foam from the fuel casing has come off and struck the shuttle in 3 or more different launches. Why has this not been fixed? Why do they not increase the strength of this foam or find a different solution that has a higher factor of safety? It boggles my mind that they could let this problem repeat itself.




RE: Why does the foam keep coming off?
By Aeonic on 7/16/2009 9:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
Engineering something else would probably have even more risk than the known risks of the foam. I know they used to paint it white a long time ago, but the weight of the paint was an issue so they stopped and that's why it's brown.

I think it's amazing that it launched so many times with the same foam and it took as long as it did for a tragedy like the Columbia.

Sometimes it just seems like the entire thing is built from styrofoam, chewing gum and duct tape. I mean, I know space travel is hard, but we need better, stronger materials.


RE: Why does the foam keep coming off?
By jawqn8 on 7/16/09, Rating: -1
By guacamojo on 7/16/2009 1:11:03 PM , Rating: 4
Err, the Columbia failure was due to foam hitting the shuttle. Columbia subsequently burned up on re-entry.

You're thinking of Challenger, which exploded during launch due to o-ring failure on one of the SRB's. Hot gases from the SRB hit the external fuel tank, leading to the explosion.


RE: Why does the foam keep coming off?
By ipay on 7/16/2009 3:58:58 PM , Rating: 3
If the Shuttle program had been properly funded and supported by successive US administrations, it would have been able to achieve its stated goals. Instead the money and support went to useless wars and illegal immigrants.

In contrast, the Russians have concentrated their resources on the Soyuz since its inception in 1966, and the payoff is that they now have an extremely economical and (relatively) safe launch vehicle.

And calling the Shuttle a "failure" is laughable at best. It's been over 3 decades since the Shuttle was conceptualised and no other nation - not even Russia - has managed to create a reusable launch vehicle capable of carrying a similar payload. All Shuttle failures have been as a result of human factors (known engineering defect that was ignored in case of Challenger, known debris hazard ignored for Columbia).

There is nothing wrong with the Shuttle, only with the people who are tasked with keeping it flying.


By grath on 7/16/2009 7:43:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
no other nation - not even Russia - has managed to create a reusable launch vehicle capable of carrying a similar payload


Incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)

Not only did the Soviet Union produce their own space shuttle, the Buran, several aspects of its design were superior to the American shuttle. It did only fly once and unmanned, but had the program continued after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I dare say the NASA fleet would have been retired years ago and yesterdays launch of an ISS assembly and crew rotation mission would be performed by a NASA funded Buran mission rather than by Endeavour.


By Solandri on 7/16/2009 2:06:00 PM , Rating: 3
The foam acts as insulation for the liquid hydrogen and oxygen tanks, and the hoses carrying it from external pumps to the tank during fueling (it's always evaporating and escaping as gas, so it constantly needs to be topped off until just before liftoff), and from the tank to the shuttle so it can burn them in the orbiter's 3 main engines (these are at the bottom and relatively problem-free).

If you don't use the foam, the cold temperatures of the fuel cause water in the air to condense on the hoses and tank surfaces, and solidify into ice. And having chunks of ice break off and hitting the shuttle is several thousand times worse than having foam break off and hitting the shuttle. As with most solutions, its impossible to eliminate the problem, so you settle for reducing the problem as much as you can.


By WinstonSmith on 7/16/2009 10:02:03 AM , Rating: 3
Watch this video which is an excellent compilation of external camera shots from shuttle launches:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPQvTgD2quQ

Notice the major vibration of the external tank wall in one part of the compilation. With the super/hypersonic airstream zipping by and the extreme temperature differential between the tank wall and the ambient air, I'm amazed they can keep _any_ foam on that tank.


RE: Why does the foam keep coming off?
By jabber on 7/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why does the foam keep coming off?
By 91TTZ on 7/16/2009 11:29:12 AM , Rating: 4
It's "duct" tape.


RE: Why does the foam keep coming off?
By Davelo on 7/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why does the foam keep coming off?
By 91TTZ on 7/16/2009 12:01:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Duck tape http://duckproducts.com/products/subcategory.asp?C...


From their site:

Back in 1984, our Founder & Former CEO Jack Kahl noticed that customers were extremely devoted to one particular Manco product--duct tape. Almost everyone had a duct tape story to tell, usually praising its remarkable strength and versatility, and they were eager to share their stories with us.

Jack wanted customers to have a champion who represented the helpful, upbeat spirit of duct tape. Noticing that most people referred to the adhesive as "duck" tape, Jack officially renamed our product "Duck Tape" and hired a former Disney artist to create Manco T. Duck, our friendly and helpful ambassador.


RE: Why does the foam keep coming off?
By Samus on 7/16/09, Rating: 0
By 91TTZ on 7/16/2009 1:33:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So to answer your question why does the foam keep coming off, well, because thats just what shit does when its old and beat up like a hooker. Bits fall off.


lol, while your comment was very funny, the tanks are not old. They're disposable, so every tank you see is brand new and being used for the first time. In addition, the design has changed as the program progressed. This is now the 3rd generation tank.


RE: Why does the foam keep coming off?
By bldckstark on 7/16/2009 12:09:34 PM , Rating: 3
The name of that brand is Duck, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still duct tape.


RE: Why does the foam keep coming off?
By Davelo on 7/16/2009 12:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
How do you know it was not "Duck" brand duct tape that Jabber was posting about, eh?

(leave it to geeks to argue about the semantics of duct tape when we have space shuttles falling out of the sky)


By jabber on 7/16/2009 12:40:37 PM , Rating: 3
I do have a roll of "Duck" tape at the moment but I have used many rolls of genral 'Duct' tape.

I didnt think folks would be so anal about it but if I've given someone a reason to post then that makes me happy inside.

I would point out though that I find the generic duct tape to be far better than the Duck brand. YMMV.


RE: Why does the foam keep coming off?
By MrPickins on 7/16/2009 1:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, nobody uses it for air ducts anymore, so that name is somewhat of a misnomer.


By Fritzr on 7/20/2009 5:30:16 AM , Rating: 3
And it is actually not recommended for sealing ducts. The reason usually given is air leakage. Duct tape apparently is not leakproof when used for it's intended purpose :P


RE: Why does the foam keep coming off?
By noirsoft on 7/16/2009 12:26:51 PM , Rating: 3
"duct" tape? Then what am I supposed to use to tape all these ducks back together?


By 91TTZ on 7/16/2009 1:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
Anything but the foam they use on the Shuttle's main tank. That crap chips apart.


By jabber on 7/17/2009 6:13:21 AM , Rating: 1
Wow folks really hate Duck Tape it seems!


RE: Why does the foam keep coming off?
By Alphafox78 on 7/16/2009 12:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
I heard it suddenly became an issue when the EPA started mandating that certian chemicals couldnt be used in the making of the shuttle foam. I cant remember what chemical it was, but now the foam is enviro friendly at the cost of lives and equipment. thanks enviro wackos.


RE: Why does the foam keep coming off?
By Alphafox78 on 7/16/2009 12:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
FREON

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/28/9...

they EPA said no freon so now we have crappy foam. SO DUMB


By Solandri on 7/16/2009 2:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
The foam in the high risk areas is still the old CFC-11 based foam. It's mostly foam inside the tank and in the lower areas where detachments are not so problematic that have been switched to the new CFC-free foam. (The foam inside the tank prevents water and air from liquefying and freezing against the liquid oxygen and hydrogen tanks, thus adding unnecessary weight to the tank.)


By darkfoon on 7/16/2009 5:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
I read that the problem with the foam is they reformulated it several years ago.
It used to be produced using CFCs, or some other non politically-correct chemical. Then a NASA administrator decided that it was bad for the environment and switched to a new foam (perhaps even the same foam, minus the CFCs). This decision and switch-over preceded the Columbia launch.

This makes so much sense. Let's make our infrequent trips to space even more dangerous while trying to look good "saving the planet". </sarcasm>


Heavy lift capacity
By Amiga500 on 7/16/2009 8:35:11 AM , Rating: 3
Quick examination of capabilities

---------------------------------------
Current

Shuttle: 24,400kg (LEO), 3,810 kg (GTO)

Ariane 5 (all variants): 21,000 kg (LEO), 10,500 kg (ETO)

Proton: 21,600 kg (LEO), 6,350 kg (GTO)

---------------------------------------

Historical

Saturn V: 118,800 kg (LEO)

---------------------------------------

Yeah... we're going places in space all right!

Question: Why can Ariane not lift the US's requirements to the ISS? Is it a question of volume and not weight? In which case, will Aries raise the useable payload volume capacity to shuttle levels?

I would also question whether it is not practical to consider a re-designed shuttle (re-designed, not updated), building on the experiences gathered over the past 30 odd years, and building on the improvements in materials, rockets, electronics and design tools on the intervening period.

Especially if it has an automated functionality (a la the Soviet Buran) that carrys large volume payloads or large numbers of commercial sats to orbit like the original shuttle was envisaged to do (before presidential orders intervened).




RE: Heavy lift capacity
By Radnor on 7/16/2009 10:08:54 AM , Rating: 2
I don't want to point the obvious, but...

We should really start thinking real hard about a space elevator. Something that might lift less cargo per travel, but that would make the price per Kg carried a lot cheaper.

While i like the Space Shuttle, i believe it is more a remnant of the cold war. I also disagree with the Ariane 5. We need something truly reusable, cheaper and less noisy.

Mankind needs to learn how to build outside (think space plataform) instead of bringing all the crap from below. Escape velocity will not get any smaller.


RE: Heavy lift capacity
By kattanna on 7/16/2009 10:58:56 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
We should really start thinking real hard about a space elevator


but we haven't stopped laughing yet, so its still at least another 50 years out


RE: Heavy lift capacity
By 91TTZ on 7/16/2009 11:27:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We should really start thinking real hard about a space elevator. Something that might lift less cargo per travel, but that would make the price per Kg carried a lot cheaper.


The materials don't yet exist to make it work.

quote:
While i like the Space Shuttle, i believe it is more a remnant of the cold war. I also disagree with the Ariane 5. We need something truly reusable, cheaper and less noisy.


The problem with making it reusable is that it also means carrying around excess weight. So you end up wasting more material in the form of rocket fuel than you get to reuse/recycle in the form of a used spacecraft. And did you really say "less noisy" when talking about rockets?


RE: Heavy lift capacity
By Radnor on 7/16/2009 12:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
When i mean reusable, i would say anything but using rockets.

About the materials don't existing yet, i believe we should really focus on that. That kind of research would generate so much byproducts that could be used on so many areas.

It would be a big boost to evolution as a whole.


RE: Heavy lift capacity
By guacamojo on 7/16/2009 1:33:24 PM , Rating: 2
Why does it have to be reusable? Is that to support some environmental goal?

What if it's more economical to make one-time vehicles?

Projectile-launch-to-orbit has been proposed as an alternate route to space, and probably wouldn't require materials that don't exist yet. The vehicle might not be reusable, depending on re-entry shielding. But that definitely wouldn't satisfy your earlier request for a low-noise solution. (Something about a hypersonic launch seems noisy to me.)

Or some of the beamed-power solutions sound interesting too. (Ground laser-based propulsion) But those wouldn't necessarily be reusable vehicles either.


RE: Heavy lift capacity
By Solandri on 7/16/2009 1:46:44 PM , Rating: 2
When we say "the materials don't exist yet", it's not an engineering issue. It's a physical limitation. The strongest atomic bonds we know of are covalent bonds. Carbon has some of the strongest since its arrangement of electron orbitals allows it to form 4 covalent bonds with other carbon atoms. In diamonds they are arranged in a 3D lattice resistant to deformation, making it the toughest known material.

Carbon nanotubes are the only material we know of which theoretically have enough strength to form a space elevator tether. The carbon atoms in a nanotube have their bonds arranged in a tube, so fully half of their strength is in the direction we want for a tether. But even that just barely has enough strength for such a tether. If you have the slightest flaw in a nanotube, or it gets scratched while unrolling or nicked by a piece of hail while up in the air, it won't have enough strength and will break.

It's not an issue you can design around by researching. Probably it's going to take an unexpected breakthrough. Someone stumbles upon something you can do to strengthen the covalent bonds between atoms.

Incidentally, the strength of the carbon bonds makes carbon nanotubes makes them very strong and akin to asbestos fibers in terms of how the body reacts to them. They are probably carcinogenic.


RE: Heavy lift capacity
By Radnor on 7/16/2009 3:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yes i understand solandri, but there is many ways to think about it.

We are heading the wrong way on this one, and another ones too. we are not thinking outside the box. Ive read a bit much about it.

You don't need something that strong. It is like achieving light speed. We will never achieve it, but we will "fold" space. There are other dimensions and any decent physics/math can prove you. On paper of course.

If we could have breaktrhoughs on magnetism/superconductivity would be nice, or in quantum physics. We are missing something pretty dearly here. Liek traveling in space. Why don't we use sterling engines to generate power ? Why ? A infinite (almost) heat source and the cold space should do it.

Why do we need to hit the 11.2 Km/s velocity at sea level? Can't we just think of a way to create thrust above a determined ceiling ? Although some of the bringtest persons on the world work on this areas i think (maybe polititians fault here) we are too head first on problems.

Sometimes you just need to think or discuss a bit to find smarter, cheaper alternatives.CPUs/GPUs companies found out pretty quicky that MHz race was impossible to beat. Even lowering the manufacturing processes we haven't going to have CPUs with higher frequencies. We added IMCs,Cores, Went for 64 Bits, Added more expressions, basicaly we increased the IPC (Instructions per Clock) tremenduosly.

Car people found that aswell (well some did). For more power, Addind CC only wasn't enough. Turbos, Superchargers, Direct Injections,Gearboxes, and many others. The engines it self still exist, but they have so many addons that potenciates their power (or maximize the power generation).

Same here. I don't say the concept of rocket to generating thrust is bad. It is a simple one, and probably effective. Why can't we change the fuel and still rely on a controlled explosion for thrust ? Like on cars, we are still living in the last century in this one. Why didn't we thing on other forms of generating thrust, or of taking advantadge of the forces already in place ?

Honestly, and sorry for this rant, to much research money is going for Gadgets, mamary implants, penis enlargements, Marketing tecniques, consumer behavior, weapons development and, many more.

We are evolving fast in some areas. In others we basically didn't evolve. And heavy investment in discovering new materials, would generate results used in some many areas.

But no we all choose to enlarge our penis and bigger boobs, and when we are 80-90 years old we will have them, but we can't remeber what to do with them, because little research is headed to alzheimer. Thats what pisses me.


RE: Heavy lift capacity
By JediJeb on 7/16/2009 6:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
50 years ago there was research started on nuclear propulsion but that was shot down by the anti war and enviro crowd. It could still be used outside the atmosphere though with much effect. One of the most basic ones would be to superheat a heavy metal to the point of making a metal steam then exhausting it from the rocket, and the thrust would be proportional to the velocity and mass of the escaping metal gas. Would be something like a Super Lava Engine in some respects. Top speed is determined by the velocity and thrust is determined by the mass time velocity.


RE: Heavy lift capacity
By guacamojo on 7/16/2009 11:48:56 AM , Rating: 3
I don't believe Ariane 5 is human-rated.

If you wanted an alternate route to the ISS, we could bring back the Delta IV launcher (LEO up to 25,800 kg, GTO up to 10,843 kg) and we'd have a domestic capability, with even higher capacity than the Shuttle.

NASA has commissioned a study whose initial findings are that the Delta IV Heavy could be modified to get the necessary "human-rating" to lift crew to the ISS, and at lower cost than with a new Ares vehicle.

Story in Aviation Week:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_chann...

Initial Summary:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361836main_09%20-%20EELV%2...

As far as Ares lift capability, the Ares V design is intended to carry ~130 tons (118,000 kg) to LEO. That's comparable to Saturn V, but with fewer stages and components, so theoretically higher reliability and lower launch cost.


RE: Heavy lift capacity
By mmatis on 7/16/2009 4:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
Delta IV (and Atlas V) are not man rated either. OSP looked at using those launchers in detail. There were reasons that Program didn't fly. ESAS did a detailed look at a wide variety of options, including EELVs. The selected combination was the best available. Note that a significant driver was the crew white paper asking for no worse than 1 in 1000 LOC to ISS. EELV isn't in that ballpark.


RE: Heavy lift capacity
By hduser on 7/16/2009 12:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
That Saturn V was a beast and it was man rated. Why couldn't we use some variant of that and some more composite materials for light weight?


RE: Heavy lift capacity
By mmatis on 7/16/2009 8:18:13 PM , Rating: 2
Shuttle's primary benefit is that it can also bring back about 24000 kg. None of the others have capability like that. ESA's ATV may eventually get return capability, but they're not there yet. And those other vehicles count orbital transfer propellant against the payload. Shuttle orbital transfer propellant is booked against Shuttle for payload to ISS. You may also have other discrepancies with orbital inclination for payload quoted in the numbers you use. It does make a significant difference.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki