Space Shuttle Atlantis Delayed Again 174
eldavojohn writes "An electrical short cause the space shuttle Atlantis to be delayed since a lightning strike to the pad and Tropical Storm Ernesto caused delays. From the article:
'Liftoff was only hours away Wednesday morning when engineers reported a short in one of three fuel cells that supplies electricity for all the on-board systems, including the crew compartment.' It also points out that 'The faulty cell is currently operational even with the short. But after the 2003 Columbia disaster, which killed all seven astronauts, NASA says it has adopted an aggressive, safety-conscious approach to launching.' It causes one to wonder whether pre-Columbia-disaster NASA would have just replaced the fuel cell on the fly without telling anyone — and whether or not that is an ethically sound choice."
Fuel Cell Supplier (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fuel Cell Supplier (Score:4, Funny)
Dell has identified a potential issue associated with certain batteries sold with the NASA Shuttle(TM) series. In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and other regulatory agencies, Dell is voluntarily recalling certain Dell-branded batteries with cells manufactured by Sony and offering free replacements for these batteries. Under rare conditions, it is possible for these batteries to overheat, which could pose a risk of fire, explosion, or firey death.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Nasa were smart and paid for onsite maintenance.
If only. (Score:4, Funny)
Great timing there... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great timing there... (Score:5, Informative)
it really pays to check a primary source. like
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/in
Re:Great timing there... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think NASA has come to the realization that space craft don't need to land like aircraft and that space vehicles need to be designed for launching to and operating in space and not for the landing which is what the shuttle was designed for. Also, modern day astronauts could care less about the space vehicle handling like a airplane (which is what the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts wanted).
Re: (Score:2)
1) Wings add extra weight, of course, but it's not dead weight except on landing as many perceive it to be. Quite the opposite: much of what the wings contain would have to be stored in the body if they didn't exist. They allow one to target a landing site, which is one of the big downsides to Soyuz; Soyuz craft have fallen through frozen
Re: (Score:2)
Now if only they could come to the realization that they don't need to launch them from a Florida swamp, at sea level with plenty of humidity.
NASA could easily come to an arrangement with a friendly country (while there are still some around) and set up launch facilities someplace like the Atacama Desert of Chile [musc.edu], which is closer to the equator (about 10 degrees of latitude closer), higher (about 8K ft), and drie
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Tad unfair (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't. It doesn't appear to me that NASA has learned whatever there was to learn from the previous accidents. Ie, there seems to be a well-established disfunctional life cycle of a NASA disaster now. Lots of irresolute soul-searching immediately after the disaster. A couple years later they finally resolve to start launching again with extremely conservative rules in place. As the number of launches since the last disaster go up and the need to actually launch the backlog grows, the rules get weakened. Ev
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Major projects invisioned / started around the late 1950s / 1960s...
* World Trade Center Complex in NYC
* Supersonic Concord
* U.S. Interstate system
* The Internet
* The Space Shuttle
Much of what is holding back progress these days in the U.S. is the lack of will, not technology.
Ron
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention a lack of common sense, a lack of discretion, and a lack of thinking ability...no wait, that's just the White House, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
This was a British-French Joint Venture, the US of A had nothing to do with it and killed their supersonic passenger jet program off.
If it's broken ... (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as they test it properly after replacement, what's the problem?
Re:If it's broken ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If it's broken ... (Score:4, Insightful)
For those who insist that the private sector is always preferable my I remind you what happened to the Herald of Free Enterprise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herald_of_Free_Enterp rise [wikipedia.org] or, for that matter, how much better UK trains are running in the Hatfield area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield_rail_crash [wikipedia.org] since privatisation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If it's broken ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If it's broken ... (Score:4, Funny)
Your sig (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy (Score:2)
Look at airlines - we might all bitch and complain about the odd late flight, but by and large (especially considering the technology/logistics etc) involved they work/are safe/and cheap(ish).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that nowadays it's hard to have the government have a grip on the whims of the private sector (see the current situation with the American administration being effectively in the hands of the big corporations). While the public sector has no "competition" to drive improvements, it is supposed (at least in theory) to act in the best interests of the public. The private sector provides no such guarantee.
That really is (IMO) what's wrong with capitalism as we know it. In a free market, competi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they can't, provided they take their decisions rationally and only after pondering all the options carefully. In practice, this doesn't happen because they are too susceptible to brainwash by the media
Re: (Score:2)
Not really (Score:2)
The funny thing is, that, by the time, the new orion is operational, we will be going to the moon, but in a ba-330 with crews of 10-20 ppl. All that will
Re: (Score:2)
One article I saw said the faulty pump is between the payload bay and the heat shield of the spacecraft. You would have to disassemble the whole stack and much of the orbiter to replace one little motor. That might be six months of work and if you think you can get by safely without this motor it may be worth the risk.
Re: (Score:2)
On again? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No you can't. Every mission that's lost one fuel cell has been brought back early, because they can't risk losing another.
Given how heavy the current payload is, you seriouly don't want to have to bring it back to Earth unless you really, really have to (e.g. an early engine failure during the launch where there's no alternative).
Re: (Score:2)
No you can't. Every mission that's lost one fuel cell has been brought back early, because they can't risk losing another.
They can't afford to lose *three*. The problem they have to worry about is that the other two fuel cells may fail in the near future for the same reason. I imagine that's why they don't bother with four fuel cells. Otherwise, you'd be able to allow two fuel cells to fail before the mission is compromised.Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From the looks of it, it might be another 24 hours (credit to CNN the bias news source):
The scheduled late-morning liftoff of space shuttle Atlantis
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, I know you ignored that check engine light...
Tell me again, Americans... (Score:4, Funny)
Ha, I'm just kidding. Congress would love to see NASA inoperable so they can go back to spending money on bridges to nowhere (Thanks, Ted Stevens!)
Re:Tell me again, Americans... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh...because being as close to the equator as possible has advantagous trajectory characteristics for many important orbits and with a trajectory heading eastward one needs to be on the east coast so as to minimize time over land while still at low altitudes?
we still have better places than florida (Score:2)
Southern Arizona is damn good. Perhaps you lose a tad with the latitude, but the air is thin (you could launch from well over 5000 feet) and dry. You'll never get worse than a very rare thunderstorm. The air is so dry that ice won't be much of a concern. You fly over isolated desert, which is decent for recovering little shuttle bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. Hawaii isn't much further south than Florida is. And as another sibling pointed out, it's expensive too. The Florida launch site is also attached to a lot of manufacturing. Ie, you only need to ship stuff by rail or around the tip of Florida (for the external tanks from New Orleans) to get it to NASA.
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are even further south than Hawaii. And they're much closer to the existing manufacture base than Hawaii is.Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm because its in the extreme south east of the country. Launches to the north give you a high inclination orbit. Launches further west expose landmass to bits of spacecraft in the event of an abort.
I could suggest that they launch from Cape York [wikipedia.org] but the weather is pretty bad [wikipedia.org] in that general area as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, Congress would allow NASA to launch from a foreign country when pigs fly, but a private company could have more flexibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about Texas, in the area south of San Antonio? It's mostly water to the east (except for Florida, of course) and you can get closer to the equator. The area has problems with tornadoes, but unless I'm mistaken, that can be mitigated by building a reinforced structure along the lines of the current structures in Florida. (We certainly get tornadoes here as well.)
I don't recall hearing much about tornadoes along the gulf coast. Certainly Texas would be a good location, but I guess that back in the day
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tell me again, Americans... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Cape Canaveral is at a latitude of 29N. Vandenberg, the site of the West Coast Space Shuttle l [wikipedia.org]
Re:Tell me again, Americans... (Score:5, Funny)
And oranges. It's a well kept secret that rocket fuel is actually distilled orange juice. What colour is the shuttle's fuel tank? Orange. To hide the leaks.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm .... T minus 4 hours pr so (Score:4, Informative)
Good Update: http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/3484 [spacetoday.net]
Countdown ticker: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/in
Weather.. sure.. right (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When the first two motherships showed up in orbit:
"Perhaps when the warships of your world attack... Surely you have such vessels?""Well, we have a number of... shuttles."
"These shuttles, they are a formidable craft?"
"Oh yeah. Yeah... Bad day."
oh, the misstatements! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But if one stops working, then mission rules say they have to return to Earth within a couple of days in case another one stops working. It just seems bizarre to me that the new supposedly 'safety-conscious' NASA is going to fly with a possibly duff fuel cell and possibly duff fuel tank sensors, apparently because 'it's never caused a disaster before'.
Re: (Score:2)
But if one stops working, then mission rules say they have to return to Earth within a couple of days in case another one stops working. It just seems bizarre to me that the new supposedly 'safety-conscious' NASA is going to fly with a possibly duff fuel cell and possibly duff fuel tank sensors, apparently because 'it's never caused a disaster before'.
But all three have to stop working before it's a problem. And while some people dislike the attitude, "It's never caused a disaster before" is a fair reas
wrong on two of those (Score:2)
They can indeed replace the thing at the pad. They'd initially thought not, but now they think that it would be possible. The device weighs 200 to 300 pounds. I don't know how they expect to be able to get at it. They'd have to get somebody out on a device (bucket? platform? crane?) in the payload bay, somehow get behind the cargo, remo
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen a "short" in one phase that didnt pop the three breakers.
>One part of the 3-phase power is shorted. The motor can still run with 2 phases left.
There's no such thing as "2-phase" power. You lose one phase, you're left with two wires, across which there's a single-phase of sqrt(3) of the voltage. And no, a 3-phase motor can't run with one phase.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't your Mother's refrigerator motor. I bet that NASA has indeed engineered it so that the coolant motor continues to function with one shorted lead.
Re: (Score:2)
misstatements, speak for yourself. (Score:2)
Individual cells in car batteries short out all the time. Sometimes they still work, with reduced capacity or voltage, or they don't work at all. Fuel Cells can and do have the same thing happen.
Parts tend to age and wear faster because of the salt in the humid Florida air, not because of the humidity. Salt water corrodes metal and electronics much
Dupe!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Apollo 12 (Score:2)
Moo (Score:2)
Can't they just hire Woz to build it for them?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That actually make some sense.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
An electrical supply on the ground goes down, you're fine. You just wait for a new one. An electical supply goes down in space, it's likely you're going to face serious challenges just staying alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hazardous environment (vacuum, extreme cold, extreme heat, vibration).
Very little of regular hardware would survive well in such situations.
Re: (Score:2)
But what if the nails were banged in with $200 hammers?
Seriously, why can't a few more dollars fix it? Or are we that incompetent even after forty years?
Who cares? (Score:2)
Sorry, but who cares?
Was that a questioning of their historical policies having been ethically sound? Ummm...
Whether or not it is ethical? (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary asks if it would be ethical to replace the cell or not without telling anybody. Who does the author want them to tell? The only people who have an ethical need to know the conditions of the shuttle and the risks associated with them are the crew in the shuttle and the ground crew. These people, the crew in particular, are taking the risks and making the decisions. These two groups of people are likely to know anyway, astronauts, especially the flight crew, tend to be technical people, it goes with the job. Read about the boring parts of an astronaut's job, including hundreds of hours getting to know the details of the shuttle and the booster assembly. It is often said Murphy was an aircraft engineer, astronauts know this. Space travel is risky and can be dangerous. From Florida to orbit and back is hell on materials, electronics and mechanics. The decision to go or not go under a set of conditions belongs to the crew on the shuttle and the ground crew.
Any errors in grammar, spelling and tone are due to my uncaffinated state. Getting my breakfast apple and Dew now.
Re: (Score:2)
The only people who have an ethical need to know the conditions of the shuttle and the risks associated with them are the crew in the shuttle and the ground crew.
As does the US voter. NASA is a US government agency and as such is beholden to the US public just like every other government agency. So legally (which after all is applied ethics), it should be required to report decisions which materially affect the safety of the Space Shuttle unless that would compromise a legitimate national interest (eg,
"It causes one to wonder" (Score:2, Offtopic)
Old news - Shuttle to launch Friday monrning (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a short in the fuel cell (Score:2, Informative)
Nasa has said in the past that it would be unsafe to retreve the hubble and bring it back to earth because of its weight causing problems du
Mod article down? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That was yesterday..... (Score:2)
Lightning? Phht. I know the fix... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Lightning? Phht. I know the fix... (Score:4, Interesting)
The poster of the above comment is a friend of mine, aside from being a pre-space shuttle space program junkie and also a big fan of apollo 12, and he explains the above post as this (over IM):
I figured those of us who haven't spent weeks in the Air and Space museum, or read the audio transcripts from all available NASA flights, would want an explanation.
~Wx
Re: (Score:2)
The computer didnt need rebooting, it was a problem in some Signal Conditioning Equipment.
They were getting screwy telemetry data downloaded. One of the guys on the ground remembered something similar from a practice run, and suggested this unorthodox maneuver.
Re: (Score:2)
Life Will Never Be Like Star Trek (Score:3, Funny)
It can start off with a captains log, but there's a computer error, so he never gets to complete it. Instead he calls IT to fix the problem. While that's going on the viewer is taken to the engine room where there are all sorts of problems.
I see it as a drama/comedy. There could even be a sick bay that is constantly busy, but the doctors have enough time to have love triangles and all sorts of personal drama amongst the already suspensful disasters.
NASA and the Millennium Falcon (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Memo to Staff (Score:2)
The "snakes on a plane" joke was never really funny and the novelty has definitely worn off.
Re: (Score:2)
<TIRED JOKE>
Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking tired jokes on this motherfucking site!
</TIRED JOKE>
:-D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By comparison, Vandenberg or White Sands have LAND to the East, and much less equatorial boost.
Vandenberg is used mainly for spy satellites, which go into polar orbits, so the boost is no
Re: Falling Boosters (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)