backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 17 comment(s) - last by dever.. on Jun 17 at 5:00 PM

Damage done to NASA launch pad  (Source: Fox/NASA)
NASA thinks about its immediate future, with a pending Atlantis launch scheduled for October

After the successful landing of shuttle Discovery over the weekend, NASA now can shift its focus towards a tentative October launch to the Hubble Space Telescope.   The U.S. space agency hopes to launch shuttle Atlantis to Hubble so the crew can make several repairs to the aging space telescope.  

Assuming the mission launches on time, it will be the last visit to Hubble before NASA scrambles to complete construction of the International Space Station before the shuttle is retired in 2010.

Since repairing the Hubble space telescope is much more hazardous than working aboard the ISS, NASA has several contingency plans in place for disaster scenarios it hopes will not arise.  

According to reports obtained by ABC News, the six-man Atlantis crew, if an emergency occurs, would be rescued by another shuttle before Atlantis is possibly sent hurtling towards the Atlantic Ocean.

The Hubble was supposed to be fixed in 2003, but the shuttle Columbia disaster derailed those plans until this year.  Without shuttle Columbia available, there would have been no way for the Atlantis crew to be saved if there was an emergency, NASA officials said.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin spearheaded an 18-month long investigation that weighed the pros and cons of launching such a risky mission.

"The only way to get a rescue capability on the pad is to prepare two shuttles, have them ready to go. The second shuttle will be a normal space station mission shuttle, and we will use it for that if it is not needed for the rescue," Griffin told ABC News.  "We think it won't. We think the odds are only one in 400 that we would need to launch a rescue shuttle."

But before worrying about launching Atlantis, NASA engineers must now examine and fix Launch Pad 39A at the Kennedy Space Center.  During the liftoff in late May, around 5,300 heat-resistant bricks broke and fell from the launch pad's north flame trench.

The damaged area measures 20ft. x 75ft. and repairs will be made before Atlantis launches to try and reduce further damage to the launch pad.  The main company responsible for making the tiles no longer makes the heat-resistant bricks, so NASA will likely have to find a new manufacturer for the launch pad.

NASA believes it can fix the launch pad before early October.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
The wrong stuff...
By maven81 on 6/17/2008 10:21:42 AM , Rating: 5
You know, reading this article, and thinking about the upcoming anniversary of the moon landing it's crystal clear to me why NASA is in the predicament they are in today...
I don't think they have ever, in their entire existence been so risk adverse. This should be a routine repair and upgrade mission. One that they have done not once... not twice, but FOUR TIMES!!! And yet they are so afraid that something might happen, that they are contemplating the use of a second shuttle for a rescue mission? Why hasn't anyone suggested this on the previous Hubble missions then? Did the shuttle fleet age so poorly that they don't even think it's space worthy anymore?
I understand that safety is very important, but frankly with this kind of thinking today's NASA would never have made it to the moon at all.




RE: The wrong stuff...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/17/2008 10:55:42 AM , Rating: 5
You couldn't possibly be more right. But the problem goes even deeper than risk aversion and bureaucratic growth -- NASA lost sight of its goals long ago.

The unmanned science missions are still fairly well on track, but the space shuttle and manned programs are an enormous floundering boondoogle, which exist now primarily just to justify their own existence. How many more Shuttle launches do we need to "test the effects of zero gravity on astronauts"?


RE: The wrong stuff...
By Misty Dingos on 6/17/2008 11:23:17 AM , Rating: 2
Risk aversion goes way beyond NASA. No sitting president or congressman wants to have astronauts die on his watch. It is very easy for them to administratively force reduction in mission risk at NASA. And with the same attitude it is very easy to cut cost at NASA. With little effective advocacy on NASA's part it simple to cut the budget there to prevent embarrassing little mishaps that can only hinder a re-election bid.

Add to this governmental desire for risk-free efforts in space, you have the American public which much of which actively is jaded, ignorant, ambivalent, or hostile toward space efforts. This creates an environment that will simply not nurture any aggressive or even active space exploration effort. What you get is show boat experiments. The Shuttle, cute robots on Mars, pictures of Jupiter and Saturn. You don’t get researchers and engineers trying to build reusable single stage to orbit craft. You don’t get semi-permanent to permanent human habitation of the moon surface.

You get what we got now. Which the risk-free NASA, which deserves to be scrapped. It is time to leave NASA in the ash can of history and start aggressively commercializing space. Because it is going to take lots of money to there and to stay there and capitalists have lots of money. Let’s use their desire to make money to explore space. One of the best ways to ensure our survival as a species is to have other places to live.

Who's with me?


RE: The wrong stuff...
By FITCamaro on 6/17/2008 12:07:29 PM , Rating: 5
I agree that we need to spend more on space flight. But don't agree with getting rid of NASA. What we need is to stop trying to justify to the ignorant Americans who only care about getting their next Welfare check as to why we're spending money on a space program.

We need to get back to the 60s mentality of having a goal and reaching it. Damn the set backs. Anything worthwhile is risky. Astronauts know this. It's their dream to do what they do. And I'm sure they're disgusted when people talk about canning NASA.

NASA has made numerous contributions to the quality of life we have today. If we let them get back to where they used to be, we might get even more.


RE: The wrong stuff...
By Smartless on 6/17/2008 2:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agree. Less self-pity and more direction. Contributions aside, NASA also represents the mentality that made America strong. Right now, its showing what's making us weak.


RE: The wrong stuff...
By dever on 6/17/2008 5:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
However, in the 60's, tax money for space flight at least had the advantage of being tagentially related to the federal government's few legitimate reasons for existence... defense. The cold war was "hot" and we were behind. Having enemy commie satellites peering down lit some fires and kept the public eager to get back ahead.

Today, even greater expenditures for fluffy research that doesn't even pretend to have defensive value can't rally the same support. The call for commercialization is valid.


RE: The wrong stuff...
By maven81 on 6/17/2008 12:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Shuttle, cute robots on Mars, pictures of Jupiter and Saturn.


To be fair, while I think the Shuttle was definitely a failure when it came to it's intended goals (it was supposed to make space travel cheap for one thing), I think it would be wrong to lump the robotic missions in there, as masher rightly pointed out.
For instance while from the public's perspective Voyager, Galileo, and Cassini just provided some pictures of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune they accomplished a massive amount of science as well, increasing our understanding about everything from the solar wind, to weather systems, to how the solar system formed, and made a ton of genuine discoveries in the process.

Also while I agree that nobody wants to have people die on their watch, it doesn't seem to have a major impact on the politicians. I don't remember anyone getting angry specifically at the government after Columbia for example. All the fingers were pointed squarely at NASA.


RE: The wrong stuff...
By Ringold on 6/17/2008 3:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you, but I still think NASA could be saved and transformed in to an agency that does manned exploration work of places that aren't profitable to visit; ie, anything beyond the Moon for the moment. Eventually business will go to Mars, but if NASA can go first and get operating experience that business can learn from, so much the better. While tourists are visiting Mars, NASA can be on the way to the outer planets. Besides, eventually, we'll have to have an official government presence for law enforcement purposes. A few scientists can get along fine, but eventually there will be crime.

I'm worried, though, about the true mercenaries of darkness, the true scumbags, the true impediments to economic growth. Lawyers, of course. :P

Liability suits devastated general aviation in America after various firms got tagged with responsibility for crashes by bleeding-heart juries. For example, vacuum pump manufacturers almost became extinct after I think a governor was killed in the 80s. One failure in space could be devastating to a young industry thats partially powered by good will and lots of hope. General aviation only in recent years has started to recover, though with 100LL and Jet-A so expensive who knows if that'll last.

Short of shooting some lawyers, we need some sort of legislation eventually to put a cap on how much money they can wring out of companies.


RE: The wrong stuff...
By gcouriel on 6/17/2008 11:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
i think you are absolutely correct.

i've been watching the discovery channel series "When We Left The Earth", and realized something very important... NASA progressed at an incredible speed, until they began "justifying" their work. It wasn't until Apollo 14 or 15 that the first scientist went to the moon. why? because travelling to the moon was the goal. not picking up rocks and looking around and seeing what was there. the project was to get to the moon!

Now we have a goal of getting to Mars to study the planet. we can send robots to study the planet. we need to get to Mars to get to Mars. we progressed to the Moon because we didn't want the Russians/Soviets to beat us. Now we have the Chinese, who are threatening to go to the Moon.

My cousin recently received a shirt from the Kennedy Space Center that said "failure is not an option". i quickly joked "that's the old slogan", to which everyone responded: "what's the new one?" My answer:

"Please don't cut my budget!"


RE: The wrong stuff...
By Ratinator on 6/17/2008 12:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with most of what has been said, unfortunately Mars is a completely different can of worms compared to the Moon. The mental risk for a Mars mission totally eclipses that of the moon missions. 6 days in a tin can that you have little room to move in vs 1 year has a dramatic effect on the human psyche. They have to be more cautious for that mission or you can easily end up with ship full of dead crew members because someone lost their marbles along the way.


RE: The wrong stuff...
By Ringold on 6/17/2008 3:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
I know some academic hermits that, asides from a once in a blue moon LAN parties, have virtually had little social contact outside an very small group of people for years as they studiously widdled away at a BS, MS, or PhD.

Sounds to me like NASA needs to get a few good geeks, and send them on their way with a plethora of games and a decent enough pipe back to Earth to download more games -- and porn.

Less former fighter jockies, more rank-and-file geeks. Problem solved.


RE: The wrong stuff...
By maven81 on 6/17/2008 12:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
"When we left the earth" is turning out to be quite an impressive series. And points out exactly what I was talking about previously... When Gemini 6 failed during launch (and could have potentially exploded) the team involved did not throw their hands up in desperation and can all future launches while trying to assign blame. They investigated, and
immediately set out to redo the launch.
Contrast that with the NASA of say the Challenger era, which stopped all launches for what, 3 years?


RE: The wrong stuff...
By kattanna on 6/17/2008 4:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
how about you contrast it with actual deaths.

apollo 1 caught fire on jan 27, 1967 and it wasnt until oct 11 1968, almost 2 full years, until the next manned apollo mission lifted off, apollo 7.


RE: The wrong stuff...
By hellokeith on 6/17/2008 2:13:05 PM , Rating: 2
You guys couldn't be more wrong.

Space flight is tremendously difficult. Keep in mind that only a handful of countries in the world have the resources AND the expertise to achieve reliable intercontinental ballistic missile flight, let alone payload-to-orbit capability. The Shuttle program does extremely well what it was designed to do: medium-heavy payload + astronauts into orbit + reusable craft.

Space flight is tremendously expensive. You don't want to even know how much $ was spent on the Apollo program, and there was harsh severe criticism after only a dozen or so moon flights about the risks, astronaut deaths, and money spent. No Democrat President let alone a Republican President could get away now with the expenditure that Kennedy did then. It costs ALOT of money to maintain the Shuttle program, AND on top of that the per-pound cost of payload, AND on top of that the commitment to the International Space Station which the USA is saddled with.

Space flight is tremendously risky, but the payoff is driving technology. The average consumer takes for granted the proliferation of good and easy communications and travel capabilities. Neither of these industries would be anywhere without the direct and indirect contribution of space flight. Some people are gonna die when millions of pounds of rocket fuel are combined with earthquake-level forces and the vacuum of space, yet you speak out of the other side of your mouth that it is NASA's fault. You created and support this behemoth of a government, why would you expect that beauracracy to be any different at NASA?

NASA does amazing, fantastic work. They are working and living in space. They are controlling robots on different planets. Stop criticizing NASA because you have this pipe dream about the free market making the investment in an extremely difficult, extremely expensive, extremely risky space flight and start appreciating what those guys and gals at NASA do with the small budget they have and the chains politicians burden them with.


RE: The wrong stuff...
By Ringold on 6/17/2008 3:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stop criticizing NASA because you have this pipe dream about the free market making the investment in an extremely difficult, extremely expensive, extremely risky space flight and start appreciating what those guys and gals at NASA do with the small budget they have and the chains politicians burden them with.


Oh come on, get the blinders off and look at whats going on in the fledgling 'NewSpace' industry. They are making those "extremely difficult" investments, however they're reaching milestones at a fraction the cost that NASA has managed. You are aware that Bigelow already has inflatable space station modules in orbit, yes? Bigelow is already practicing construction techniques for a lunar colony based on the same technology, using the desert outside of Vegas in place of lunar regolith.

As long as government or lawyers don't get in the way, business will eventually do it for us.

quote:
Some people are gonna die when millions of pounds of rocket fuel are combined with earthquake-level forces and the vacuum of space, yet you speak out of the other side of your mouth that it is NASA's fault.


I think you've construed peoples complaints the wrong way. Of course people are going to die. The point is, in the 70s, when Apollo 1 killed three astronauts, they immediately got on with business. Today, NASA stops all operations for years and then cowers like a child at the prospect of not having a station to dock to or a rescue shuttle to come save them. It's a cultural problem that doesnt have to exist. That is a common problem with government agencies, but it doesnt have to be that way.


RE: The wrong stuff...
By maven81 on 6/17/2008 3:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're completely missing the point we're trying to make. No one said space flight is easy, or isn't risky and dangerous. But in this line of work, the bigger the risk, the bigger the payoff. It's not the technology that's holding anyone back at this point in time, it's lack of vision.
quote:
The Shuttle program does extremely well what it was designed to do: medium-heavy payload + astronauts into orbit + reusable craft.

One might argue that the Soviet copy of the shuttle was actually better then the original. It could do all of the above, and do it without even needing a crew. But after more then a decade of work, and billions if not trillions spent, they still scrapped it after a couple of flights. Why? because they realized that it wasn't really created for any pressing need, but rather just to show that it could be done. They could not justify maintaining such an expensive launch system so they did the sensible thing, and killed it. And think about it, if the goal is to launch heavy payloads the crew is merely going along for the ride, and the massive weight of the shuttle itself reduced the usable payload mass. If the goal is to send crews into space it's actually much cheaper and easier to use non reusable craft. The shuttle was built to fulfill a need that no one asked for.

quote:
Space flight is tremendously expensive. You don't want to even know how much $ was spent on the Apollo program

You forget that the Apollo program was on the extreme cutting edge, where everything had to be developed from scratch. This is not necessarily the case today. And even then you're talking about an amount that would only pay for 1 year in Iraq.

quote:
No Democrat President let alone a Republican President could get away now with the expenditure that Kennedy did then.

Precisely because there's no objective. Tell people that we need to spend 100 billion on "space" and they will balk. Tell people that we need to spend 100 billion to beat China to the moon and I think you would get a different response.

quote:
Neither of these industries would be anywhere without the direct and indirect contribution of space flight.

Which incidentally does nothing to further NASAs current cause I'm afraid. Don't forget that NASA doesn't build spacecraft, contractors do, the same contractors which also build plenty of other things like plain 'ole aircraft. The same contractors could be working on all sorts of interesting stuff, if you gave them a goal.

quote:
Stop criticizing NASA because you have this pipe dream about the free market making the investment in an extremely difficult, extremely expensive, extremely risky space flight and start appreciating what those guys and gals at NASA do with the small budget they have and the chains politicians burden them with.

I am by no means advocating getting rid of NASA, but you also don't seem to appreciate the free market side of the argument... Not all businesses run from risk, otherwise we would never even have an airline industry, for one thing!


Hubble not dead?
By deeznuts on 6/17/2008 2:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
I thought they were canning the Hubble? Did the plan to cancel Hubble get cancelled itself?




"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki