Rescue Shuttle on Pad for Hubble Mission

Terry Olaes

Terry Olaes

I Used to be the [H] News Guy
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
4,646
Space shuttles Atlantis and Endeavour are both sitting on their launch pads in Cape Canaveral, FL. Atlantis is being prepped for the risky Hubble repair mission set to launch on Monday. Endeavour is to be the rescue shuttle, in the event that Atlantis cannot make it home and the astronauts are stranded at the space telescope. Here’s hoping that the Endeavour stays cold for this mission.

The Hubble mission offers no such safe haven. The telescope and space station are in different orbits, and Atlantis could never get to the space station from Hubble. That's why the Hubble repair mission was canceled in 2004; NASA's boss at the time deemed it too dangerous.
Click to expand...
 
Considering that NASA has to build duotronic memory units from stone knifes and bearskins, they do pretty well. Godspeed Atlantis! PS, this is being covered live on the science channel Monday at 1:30 pm eastern.
 
k96gnome said:
NASA is very bad at it's job IMHO.
Click to expand...

Really? Got any evidence of that smart guy? Considering the things we've learned science-wise and how many missions that have gone without a hitch and in some cases have lasted far longer than their initial timeline, I think it's pretty safe to say you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. :rolleyes:
 
man that would be really cool to see a real dual launch like you see in the movie Armageddon.. but good to see they are thinking safety first on this one.. because this is probably one of the most dangerous repairs they will ever do on a satellite..

the biggest problem nasa has k96gnome is the lack of money.. nasa only accounts for 1% of the entire countries budget every year.. this is why nasa has really been hoping the private sector can get involved with space launches so that it will spread the cost out over many different companies and that they arent relying on an aging fleet of space shuttles to repair and put up all these new satellites every year..

theres so much more then just learning the universe that we have gotten from nasa.. i mean think of all the survival stuff thats been created.. advancements in metal strengthening, light weight materials that can handle 100's times their weight.. eg carbon carbon fiber material thats used on the skin of the shuttle and also used in cars to make them lighter but still as strong as steel.. its an endless list of things that we have gotten from nasa and their scientists.. so to say they are very bad at their job is a bunch of crap.. they can only do so much with what little money they get now since the end of the Apollo missions..
 
I remember when the Shuttle was finally fixed after the Columbia disaster, and NASA said they wouldn't even consider a Hubble repair mission unless the remainder of the Shuttle program went "extremely well".

I guess this means they got it right. Great job, NASA.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
the biggest problem nasa has k96gnome is the lack of money.. nasa only accounts for 1% of the entire countries budget every year..
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree, NASA has a hugely important mission and is underfunded, but the problem with NASA is the bureaucracy that comes with being a part of the government. NASA was large and bloated by design, its spread out all over the country with all kinds of subdivisions to create jobs and prevent future administrations from being able to severely cut it without facing a lot of public pushback. NASA also has crazy hiring requirements in engineering and administrative areas that force them to hire based on government quotas rather than merit, and many NASA positions don't pay as well as the private sector.

NASA is great at research and has some of the finest facilities in the world, but they're relatively inefficient when it comes to building things and putting people in space.
 
Seing that picture, and seing where we are in such a short time, gives me faith in the power of the human spirit and what it can achieve.
 
What's their Plan C?

Maybe I am just weird, but I see all these articles about the "dramatic" rescue they have planned if the first craft gets damaged...but absolutely zero has been said about what happens if the second craft does as well.

Not that I think either getting damaged is likely, but still...
 
Space flight and space travel are inherently risky. You are taking a terrestrial species and putting them in an environment so hostile that nothing short of perfection could cost their lives. NASA does an excellent job in it's processes and protocols. Yes they are also a bureaucracy, but until a private institution dedicated to what NASA has been tasked to do is in place, then NASA is the only solution.
 
Imagine if we had given 50% of what we have spent on war to NASA... I'm not bashing the current wars or anything, I'm just saying: If we funded science for the sake of knowledge as much as we have funded science for the sake of killing people, we'd be fucking golden.
 
markt435 said:
Really? Got any evidence of that smart guy? Considering the things we've learned science-wise and how many missions that have gone without a hitch and in some cases have lasted far longer than their initial timeline, I think it's pretty safe to say you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Could start with them knowing that the O-Rings on the orbiters were bad since 1977 but never fixing them, along with ignoring advice to not launch Challenger but launching anyway and killing the entire crew.

From there you could move to Columbia and how NASA new about "foam shedding" and had tried to fix it multiple times to no avail and continued to launch anyway which led to the Columbia disentegrating on re-entry and killing the entire crew.

NASA has done wonderful things but to act as if they're without fault is silly.
 
Powerage said:
Imagine if we had given 50% of what we have spent on war to NASA... I'm not bashing the current wars or anything, I'm just saying: If we funded science for the sake of knowledge as much as we have funded science for the sake of killing people, we'd be fucking golden.
Click to expand...
Imagine where we'd be if Congressmen would actually give NASA a budget dedicated to only *gasp* NASA projects. NASA often gets bagged upon for the amount of thier budget (which is already not enough IMO) but a gargantuan portion of their annual budget is pork-barrel BS that has absolutely nothing to do with the scope of NASA.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-06-11-nasa-pork_x.htm
 
OpStar said:
Could start with them knowing that the O-Rings on the orbiters were bad since 1977 but never fixing them, along with ignoring advice to not launch Challenger but launching anyway and killing the entire crew.

From there you could move to Columbia and how NASA new about "foam shedding" and had tried to fix it multiple times to no avail and continued to launch anyway which led to the Columbia disentegrating on re-entry and killing the entire crew.

NASA has done wonderful things but to act as if they're without fault is silly.
Click to expand...

because thats how the bloody world works.. we never give a crap about anything until some one dies.. look back at history at everything that has been fixed.. usually some one died before it was..
thats the risk that everyone in nasa takes.. they all know it and live by it.. and its also what happens when you are stuck with an aging fleet of shuttles like nasa has.. yet absolutely no funding to build a new one.. the shuttle was suppose to be retired years ago.. they were never ment to be launched this many times.. the shuttle is a ticking time bomb at this point.. until they can get something better.. there will probably be even more deaths.. the next space craft being constructed wont be finished until 2020-2025.. and that will be a duplicate craft just like apollo to go back to the moon..

sure you can blame nasa for their deaths.. but blaming people usually never works.. all you can do is figure out exactly what it was and redesign it and make it better..
 
DeathFromBelow said:
I don't necessarily disagree, NASA has a hugely important mission and is underfunded, but the problem with NASA is the bureaucracy that comes with being a part of the government. NASA was large and bloated by design, its spread out all over the country with all kinds of subdivisions to create jobs and prevent future administrations from being able to severely cut it without facing a lot of public pushback. NASA also has crazy hiring requirements in engineering and administrative areas that force them to hire based on government quotas rather than merit, and many NASA positions don't pay as well as the private sector.

NASA is great at research and has some of the finest facilities in the world, but they're relatively inefficient when it comes to building things and putting people in space.
Click to expand...

its like anything else with the government.. lowest bidder always wins.. thus you get crappy build hardware/vehicles.. if any of you have seen Armageddon.. they have one of the best quotes in there when they are in the new shuttle getting ready to launch..


sorry for the double post.. hate not being able to edit posts in the news section..
 
OpStar said:
Could start with them knowing that the O-Rings on the orbiters were bad since 1977 but never fixing them, along with ignoring advice to not launch Challenger but launching anyway and killing the entire crew.

From there you could move to Columbia and how NASA new about "foam shedding" and had tried to fix it multiple times to no avail and continued to launch anyway which led to the Columbia disentegrating on re-entry and killing the entire crew.

NASA has done wonderful things but to act as if they're without fault is silly.
Click to expand...

It's much easier to blame someone for not stopping a disaster than it is to praise them for stopping one.

In fact, his is actually one of the most basic problems with society, called "silent evidence". Think of all the times NASA has delayed a mission for safety reasons; almost every Shuttle mission ends up delayed: because the weather isn't perfect, or some fuel cell is acting up, or backup support systems aren't fully operational...the list goes on. Imagine how many times NASA has actually saved a crew's lives by making the call not to launch a mission (a call which costs millions of dollars every time, BTW). Unfortunately, because we never know what could have happened, these very heroic actions are never celebrated and often criticized. On the other hand, when NASA misses a call, it becomes very obvious and people complain.

Epistemologist Nassim Nicholas Taleb puts it this way: imagine if an honorable senator drafted a bill on September 10, 2001, calling for cockpit door locks to be installed on all commercial planes and the immediate grounding of all flights until said modifications could be completed. Would the public praise this senator for preventing a horrible national tragedy? Of course not. The rest of Congress and the American people would quickly dismiss him as a complete idiot for wasting tax dollars and wreaking havoc with the American economy. But then, following the events of 9/11, cries of "why were there no locks on the doors?!" are all you heard.

Before thinking about how many times NASA has "killed a crew" to save money, think of all the times they have lost money to save a crew. 125 shuttle missions and 2 failures so far: a 98.4% success rate. For what can best be described as a controlled explosion, I'd say that's pretty good.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
because thats how the bloody world works.. we never give a crap about anything until some one dies.. look back at history at everything that has been fixed.. usually some one died before it was..
thats the risk that everyone in nasa takes.. they all know it and live by it.. and its also what happens when you are stuck with an aging fleet of shuttles like nasa has.. yet absolutely no funding to build a new one.. the shuttle was suppose to be retired years ago.. they were never ment to be launched this many times.. the shuttle is a ticking time bomb at this point.. until they can get something better.. there will probably be even more deaths.. the next space craft being constructed wont be finished until 2020-2025.. and that will be a duplicate craft just like apollo to go back to the moon..

sure you can blame nasa for their deaths.. but blaming people usually never works.. all you can do is figure out exactly what it was and redesign it and make it better..
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, seeing something fail is often the only way for us to see how it can fail. To look at a freak accident and say we should have done something proactively to stop that is ridiculous; it is simply not possible to understand in advance and account for all the different ways a piece of machinery as complex as the Space Shuttle could fail.

What you can do is add multiple overlapping redundant safety systems such that whatever causes one to fail is not likely to cause the others to fail as well, but there is always that impossible-to-predict scenario in which all safety systems break at once. Remember the Titanic? They called it "unsinkable" because "engine operator goes too fast, lookout loses binoculars, and radio operator ignores warnings while ship approaches giant block of ice at angle which causes rupture of five compartments" is not one of the scenarios they considered during the design phase. I don't necessarily blame them. In this case, the critical mistake was believing too much in one's own predictions of the future and therefore ignoring safety precautions such as lifeboats.

sirmonkey1985 said:
its like anything else with the government.. lowest bidder always wins.. thus you get crappy build hardware/vehicles.. if any of you have seen Armageddon.. they have one of the best quotes in there when they are in the new shuttle getting ready to launch..


sorry for the double post.. hate not being able to edit posts in the news section..
Click to expand...

That's funny: I just got done hearing about no-bid contracts and how the government likes to waste money. Now you're telling me "lowest bidder always wins" and the government are penny-pinchers. Make up your mind: which is it?
 
rayman2k2 said:
:rolleyes:

I'd like to see you do better.
Click to expand...

don't know about him but how about laying off some of the admin staff? I like the NASA mission but in all honesty it runs like most any other government bureaucracy, at one point years ago they almost half as many administrators as engines. I am not sure what its like now but government rarely gets better.

don't misunderstand me, my admiration to the people that make things work, there is just too much of NASA that doesn't.
 
NASA got some nice things behind them, but it's never nice to see something like this fail and people dying in space exploration/travel.
 
Also, does anyone know where i could get a high res version of that shot of the two shuttles?. I would love to have that as my background.
 
LadyMakoFox said:
Wish the gov would kick some cash to NASA for some new shuttles..
Click to expand...

It would be a waste of money, the Shuttle was never anywhere near as cost effective as they believed it would be. They're also limited to low Earth orbit and have a comparatively low payload capacity (~50,000 lbs to low Earth orbit, the Saturn V could carry ~250,000 lbs to LEO).

Standard rockets like the new Ares I and V they're working on are the safest and cheapest way to get into space until we develop a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle (a "spaceplane").
 
How about just bringing enough fuel for the manuevering rockets to make the trip to the space station possible.

How about build 3 new Shuttles right now, full titanium like they were supposed to be originally, so much less foam tiles is required, and a breach wouldn't be fatal if it occured.

Modern electronics instead of 5 286's clunking away, etc, etc.
 
I don't know, something seems odd about all this to me. Risking 2/3rd's of our remaining shuttle fleet for a satellite that we were going to let fall back into re-entry anyway a few years ago? So we're putting lives at risk for a piece of tech we've already deemed disposable?

It just seems to me like there's something more to this story that isn't being reported. What is it Hubble can see that we need to know so badly we'd risk our remaining trans-orbital capability and people's lives for? It just seems too out of the ordinary to just not ask questions like this.
 
moshpit said:
I don't know, something seems odd about all this to me. Risking 2/3rd's of our remaining shuttle fleet for a satellite that we were going to let fall back into re-entry anyway a few years ago? So we're putting lives at risk for a piece of tech we've already deemed disposable?

It just seems to me like there's something more to this story that isn't being reported. What is it Hubble can see that we need to know so badly we'd risk our remaining trans-orbital capability and people's lives for? It just seems too out of the ordinary to just not ask questions like this.
Click to expand...

1. We're not "risking 2/3's of our Shuttle fleet." The Hubble is in an orbit at which the Shuttle can't reach the ISS in an emergency. The second Shuttle is ready to launch just in case. Reading comprehension FTW.

2. The Hubble has been an incredibly valuable research tool, getting time on the telescope is next to impossible because so many people need to use it. A full replacement for the Hubble is still a ways off. The longer it stays up there the better.

xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
How about just bringing enough fuel for the manuevering rockets to make the trip to the space station possible.
Click to expand...
Huh? The Shuttle can't get into orbit without the boosters. The Shuttle's altitude limit is low Earth orbit, up where the ISS and Hubble are.

How about build 3 new Shuttles right now, full titanium like they were supposed to be originally, so much less foam tiles is required, and a breach wouldn't be fatal if it occured.
Click to expand...
The Shuttle was never intended to be full titanium alloy. The problem with the Shuttle is that it piggybacks on the boosters, not the materials its made out of.


The best solution right now is to extend the Shuttle program for an extra year (2 if possible) and try to accelerate the Constellation program to 2012-2013. It might be possible to configure Atlas V or Delta IV rockets for ISS resupply missions after the Shuttle retires if the Ares rockets aren't going to be ready.
 
NASA hopes to follow this schedule in development of the Orion:
2006–2007 — Engineering review of selected design
2009 (TBD) — PA-1 (Pad Abort-1) unmanned pad abort test.[33]
2009 (Sep) — AA-1 (Ascent Abort-1) unmanned ascent abort test (transonic)
2010 (Spring) — PA-2 unmanned pad abort test
2010 (August) — AA-2 unmanned ascent abort test (Max Q)
2011 (February) — AA-3 unmanned ascent abort test (low-altitude tumble test)
2012 (September) — Ares I-Y unmanned ascent abort test (high altitude)
2012 — First unmanned flight of Orion in Earth orbit.[35]
2014 (September) — First manned flight of Orion in Earth orbit.
2015–2018 — First unmanned flight of Altair.
2016–2018 First manned flight of Altair.
2019 First manned lunar landing with Orion/Altair system.
2020 start of planning for Mars missions
2037 Possible date of manned arrival on Mars hinted at by former NASA administrator, Michael Griffin
 
DeathFromBelow said:
1. We're not "risking 2/3's of our Shuttle fleet." The Hubble is in an orbit at which the Shuttle can't reach the ISS in an emergency. The second Shuttle is ready to launch just in case. Reading comprehension FTW.
Click to expand...

Get off your high horse, nobody is impressed. Considering that this is an unprecedented action on NASA's part, your snobbishly rude attitude shows disdain for the danger involved considering the orbit Hubble is in. Maybe YOU need to work on reading comprehension considering the dangers were clearly outlined.

And since you don't keep up with the facts, as I said before, why go to this level of danger that a second shuttle is needed on the pad for a technology that is being replaced by newer and better telescope's by the ESA?

Furthermore, get an attitude check. I was simply pointing out an observation that didn't require your snottiness in your reply.
 
moshpit said:
Get off your high horse, nobody is impressed. Considering that this is an unprecedented action on NASA's part, your snobbishly rude attitude shows disdain for the danger involved considering the orbit Hubble is in. Maybe YOU need to work on reading comprehension considering the dangers were clearly outlined.

And since you don't keep up with the facts, as I said before, why go to this level of danger that a second shuttle is needed on the pad for a technology that is being replaced by newer and better telescope's by the ESA?
Click to expand...

I'm a snob for correcting you? Wow.

The James Webb Space Telescope is not a Hubble replacement (and its not an ESA project either). It only observes in the infrared wavelengths. Go ahead and keep on digging yourself into a hole.

Its not often that I put someone on my ignore list.
 
^I just saw the front page story about the ESA's new scopes. Herschel and Planck are Microwave and Infared telescopes, they deal with different parts of the spectrum than Hubble and are used for other types of research.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
How about just bringing enough fuel for the manuevering rockets to make the trip to the space station possible.
Click to expand...

Feel free to try the maneuver yourself by downloading Orbiter, flying the shuttle up to a 550km orbit height, then trying to dock with the ISS. Suffice to say, the plan NASA has now is the way to go.

How about build 3 new Shuttles right now, full titanium like they were supposed to be originally, so much less foam tiles is required, and a breach wouldn't be fatal if it occured.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're suggesting that a craft made of Titanium could simply re-enter the atmosphere from orbit without worry of burning up. Which alloy would you be thinking of, exactly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top