Debris flies off Discovery just after takeoff
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London & Edinburgh
Age: 38
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grounding as in "not letting them take off".... the interesting question is how do you get the crew down if they can't use Discovery or rescue craft Atlantis?
Soyuz better be prepared to do some shuttle service (pardon the pun).
Jordan
Soyuz better be prepared to do some shuttle service (pardon the pun).
Jordan
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Farnborough, Hants
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soyuz is the only option. The only other manned spacecraft in existence is the Chinese one - which is Soyuz inspired but not available at this early stage in its development.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just been watching the video of the Discovery doing a "backflip" to present its bottom surface to the ISS for filming any possible damage.
Thinking back to the grainy pictures of the moon landings and seeing the present images is breathtaking (obviously you have to be interested of course.)
The video was on the Beeb site.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.stm
(click on the link for live video)
Thinking back to the grainy pictures of the moon landings and seeing the present images is breathtaking (obviously you have to be interested of course.)
The video was on the Beeb site.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.stm
(click on the link for live video)
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering after watching Discovery dock with the ISS. If NASA decide that it is too risky to allow the crew to bring it back, is it possible for the orbiter to to be recovered to Earth without a crew on board? One would assume NASA have a back-up plan to get the crew home if it is damaged to the point were safety is compromised.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I'll bet some people are losing a lot of sleep at NASA. I can't imagine bringing the ship back to earth without a person at the controls - after all, it lands like a conventional airplane using it's tiny wings for lift. So if they decide it's not safe to to bring it back they will have to abandon it in space - rather embarrassing after all the hype that went into the launch.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
four_two: The video was on the Beeb site.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.stm
(click on the link for live video)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.stm
(click on the link for live video)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better living through chemistry....
I just bought a (non-flight-rated) Tyvek envelope down at the local post office today. It is some weird stuff that looks like paper but is almost impossible to tear, being made of some sort of plastic fibre.
I suppose they just stick it on some aperture on the Shuttle until it blows off. Even if it hit the vehicle it shouldn't do any harm.
On the other hand, the NASA mindset that has led to two accidents so far does not seem to have changed very significantly. Perhaps if it did then that would mean simply not flying the Shuttle any longer?
Who among us would turn down a chance to go into space, despite the obvious risks?
This whole program was sold on a faulty cost-benefit basis to Ronnie Reagan, much as Star Wars was. There was one seriously simple-minded President, even if he was much loved for being so. It is no particular surprise to the technical-minded that the Space Shuttle has failed to deliver on its over-sold promises. It is just a shame that so many lives have been lost due to foreseeable technical problems. Especially troubling is the failure to put the whole situation out there for due consideration, when a timely stop might have been put to a flawed decision chain. Good CRM it ain't!
I suppose they just stick it on some aperture on the Shuttle until it blows off. Even if it hit the vehicle it shouldn't do any harm.
On the other hand, the NASA mindset that has led to two accidents so far does not seem to have changed very significantly. Perhaps if it did then that would mean simply not flying the Shuttle any longer?
Who among us would turn down a chance to go into space, despite the obvious risks?
This whole program was sold on a faulty cost-benefit basis to Ronnie Reagan, much as Star Wars was. There was one seriously simple-minded President, even if he was much loved for being so. It is no particular surprise to the technical-minded that the Space Shuttle has failed to deliver on its over-sold promises. It is just a shame that so many lives have been lost due to foreseeable technical problems. Especially troubling is the failure to put the whole situation out there for due consideration, when a timely stop might have been put to a flawed decision chain. Good CRM it ain't!
Chuks,
Not sure you are correct in attributing the shuttle's woes to Ronald Reagan - wasn't the first flight in April 1981, some 3 months after he took the presidential oath for the first time?
I'd suggest it must have been 'bought' by the previous administration (or two)...
Rhys.
Not sure you are correct in attributing the shuttle's woes to Ronald Reagan - wasn't the first flight in April 1981, some 3 months after he took the presidential oath for the first time?
I'd suggest it must have been 'bought' by the previous administration (or two)...
Rhys.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: England
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Sacrificial Glove
Much sympathy for NASA and its present predicament with today's re-grounding of the Shuttle. However, NASA has proven deaf to anything NIH (not invented here) and there has been a practical solution available all along. It's called "the Sacrificial Glove". You can read about it at this link below and in its included links.
The page is hurriedly mounted as a reference (for someone else) however it should be clear enough as a concept for protection of the very brittle RCC tiles on the wing's leading edge. They are the Shuttle's real Achilles heel.
I've been going back over the history of the Sacrificial Glove suggestion just to refresh my own mind and extracted (copy/pasted from Pprune Forum) what's at the link below. It's incomplete and only a quick compilation. I remain surprised at their absolute failure not to consider protection (of the brittle RCC tiles). It all now seems to have backfired on them in the worst way. They also seem remiss in that they are not differentiating between the potential catastrophic effect of icy foam on a surface normal to the line of flight (nose, RCC wing leading edges and fin) and a very tangential glancing blow to a slipstreaming ceramic tile surface elsewhere. It is truly chalk and cheese as far as the potential for reproducing a killer blow like Columbia sustained. You will notice in the link below (red highlight) that I raised the question of the threat of ice (and the role it would play in causing ET foam detachment) way back on 18 Feb 03. NASA seems to lurch from hubris to uncertainty to despair without even the traditional protocol of a countdown.
The Sacrificial Glove is a very sound concept, and Dow Corning has already said that they have a suitable RTV (Room Temperature Vulcanizing Silicone) so my advice to NASA would be to investigate it and..........
"Don't give up the ship"
LINK (the Sacrificial Glove)
The page is hurriedly mounted as a reference (for someone else) however it should be clear enough as a concept for protection of the very brittle RCC tiles on the wing's leading edge. They are the Shuttle's real Achilles heel.
I've been going back over the history of the Sacrificial Glove suggestion just to refresh my own mind and extracted (copy/pasted from Pprune Forum) what's at the link below. It's incomplete and only a quick compilation. I remain surprised at their absolute failure not to consider protection (of the brittle RCC tiles). It all now seems to have backfired on them in the worst way. They also seem remiss in that they are not differentiating between the potential catastrophic effect of icy foam on a surface normal to the line of flight (nose, RCC wing leading edges and fin) and a very tangential glancing blow to a slipstreaming ceramic tile surface elsewhere. It is truly chalk and cheese as far as the potential for reproducing a killer blow like Columbia sustained. You will notice in the link below (red highlight) that I raised the question of the threat of ice (and the role it would play in causing ET foam detachment) way back on 18 Feb 03. NASA seems to lurch from hubris to uncertainty to despair without even the traditional protocol of a countdown.
The Sacrificial Glove is a very sound concept, and Dow Corning has already said that they have a suitable RTV (Room Temperature Vulcanizing Silicone) so my advice to NASA would be to investigate it and..........
"Don't give up the ship"
LINK (the Sacrificial Glove)
Last edited by OVERTALK; 29th Jul 2005 at 02:10.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nasa officials have said they now believe at least one shard of protective foam may have hit a wing of the Discovery space shuttle.
But they said they were confident the craft would make a safe return.
?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4726543.stm
But they said they were confident the craft would make a safe return.
?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4726543.stm
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Farnborough, Hants
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Shuttle programme was given the official go-ahead in its final form by the Nixon administration in December 1972. In fact, the announcement was made whilst Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmidt were walking on the moon on the last Apollo mission, Apollo 17.
Reagan is associated with the Shuttle because it made it's first flight in April 1981. shortly after he became president.
Reagan is associated with the Shuttle because it made it's first flight in April 1981. shortly after he became president.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russia ready for shuttle rescue mission if needed
Thu Jul 28, 1:21 PM ET
Russia could send up to three Soyuz rockets to the International Space Station (ISS) between now and February if an evacuation of the ISS crew become necessary due to problems with the US space shuttle Discovery, officials said.
"We are ready to send three pilotable Soyuz capsules to the International Space Station by February 2006 should rescue of the Discovery crew be necessary," Nikolai Sevastyanov, head of the Energiya rocket construction firm that builds the Soyuz, was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying.
"We are hopeful and believe in the shuttle mission. But if our American partners need help, we can be of service," he said.
Alexei Krasnov, head of the training program with the Russian space agency Roskosmos, said separately however that if such an undertaking were necessary the United States would have to bear the costs of the mission, ITAR-TASS said.
The comments from the officials came as experts with the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) were to examine photographs taken of the underside of the space shuttle to look for signs of damage that could compromise its planned return to Earth on August 7.
On-board cameras showed some debris had fallen off the shuttle after liftoff for Earth orbit on Tuesday. A similar incident occurred at the launch of the shuttle Columbia in January 2003, causing that spacecraft to break apart on reentering the Earth's atmosphere.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050728...a_050728172147
Thu Jul 28, 1:21 PM ET
Russia could send up to three Soyuz rockets to the International Space Station (ISS) between now and February if an evacuation of the ISS crew become necessary due to problems with the US space shuttle Discovery, officials said.
"We are ready to send three pilotable Soyuz capsules to the International Space Station by February 2006 should rescue of the Discovery crew be necessary," Nikolai Sevastyanov, head of the Energiya rocket construction firm that builds the Soyuz, was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying.
"We are hopeful and believe in the shuttle mission. But if our American partners need help, we can be of service," he said.
Alexei Krasnov, head of the training program with the Russian space agency Roskosmos, said separately however that if such an undertaking were necessary the United States would have to bear the costs of the mission, ITAR-TASS said.
The comments from the officials came as experts with the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) were to examine photographs taken of the underside of the space shuttle to look for signs of damage that could compromise its planned return to Earth on August 7.
On-board cameras showed some debris had fallen off the shuttle after liftoff for Earth orbit on Tuesday. A similar incident occurred at the launch of the shuttle Columbia in January 2003, causing that spacecraft to break apart on reentering the Earth's atmosphere.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050728...a_050728172147
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks...
I stand corrected. 'Give a dog a bad name...' I guess I conflated the Shuttle and Star Wars. Things got pretty weird there in terms of what science was going to deliver, just because it was 'morning in America.'
The thing is, the Shuttle has never delivered on its promise of cheap, reliable access to Outer Space in the way it was sold to the taxpayers yet it seems to have had a charmed existence in the minds of the public. Curious, that.
The thing is, the Shuttle has never delivered on its promise of cheap, reliable access to Outer Space in the way it was sold to the taxpayers yet it seems to have had a charmed existence in the minds of the public. Curious, that.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Depends at the time!
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does any one find it strange that an astronaut can pick a piece of material from between two shuttle tiles, with relative ease, yet that material not get blown out at low to medium mach speeds while still in the earths atmosphere? I would have thought the static pressure buildup behind the material would have popped its cork... so to speak?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think if I were on board, I would have preferred a dab of glue and stick it back in? Is there not a risk of plasma leaching through the gap? Where is 'Picky Perkins' when you need him? Anyone else notice how much glue there 'wasn't' on the strip??
Anyone else notice how much glue there 'wasn't' on the strip??
