Shuttle Delayed Due to Cloudy Skies 208
PunkOfLinux writes "The shuttle won't be coming down until Tuesday, due to a decision by NASA that the weather was not good enough for re-entry. After the first two attempts, at around 4:45 and 6:25 this morning, NASA called off today's landing."
And (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, let's just hope nothing goes wrong with this.
I really wanted to see it land...
Re:And (Score:2, Funny)
Too much second guessing? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are some jobs that are very dangerous.
Can man make a shuttle that is perfect, that will never have a mishap? Does anyone know the statistsics, of how many launches and how many crashes? I am just guessing, but I would think NASA has an over 90% success rate. If that was my college physics class, I would be jumping up and down with joy. It is not like these astronauts took "physics for poets". They studied their topics in great detail, and they know it.
Getting back to my analogy. If the old air force test fighter pilot program had a failure rate over 50%, and NASA is under 10% failure (just a guess), then perhaps what is needed is a new understanding. Congress did not shut down the test pilot program because of accidents, it was considered too important. What is NASA? Eye candy? Do they want to put on a show, where the first injury causes a shut down? Or do they want to explore space, learn, and understand there will be terrible accidents along the way.
There is a great quote NASA should try and understand better. Life is the master teacher. Unfortunatly, it gives the tests first, and the lessons second.
Re:Too much second guessing? (Score:1)
I don't have a reliable source for this, but supposedly there is around a 1 in 200 chance of something going fatally wrong on a shuttle flight. I believe NASA is working on somewhere around 120 space shuttle missions; Challenger and Columbia are the two where the crew has been lost. Those are the only two that I can think of--if they're the only two, then the chances are 1.6% right now of something going wrong.
I would be extremely happy if the astronauts made it down safely, but chances are working against
Re:Too much second guessing? (Score:2)
This mission is STS-114, there were 2 critical failures in 113 missions.
Re:Too much second guessing? (Score:2)
And how many near misses?
Re:Too much second guessing? (Score:4, Insightful)
While they accepted the tests as dangerous - they didn't go out of their way to make them more dangerous. If the weather was bad - the flight didn't take place. If the hydraulic system on the plane was iffy - the flight didn't take place. etc.. etc...
In the flight test business a sucess rate of only 90% would be considered an utter failure. (Even in the 1950's when the crash rate was at it's highest while we were trying to get a handle on jet engines, supersonic flight, new stability problems etc... etc..) Contrary to popular belief Flight Test isn't about flying in the face of risk - it's about calculated acceptance of risk. Killing pilots teaches you nothing and wastes a trained pilot. When it comes to iffy weather and aviation, the tests and lessons were completed decades ago. NASA waved off the landing oppurtunity because those lessons are long learned. ("Landing in iffy weather kills - don't do it if avoidable.")Re:And (Score:2)
I kind of wanted to see if I could see something of it as it re-entered. Here in Texas, it would probably already have passed the glowing heat shield stage before it was in view, but I wanted to try.
Sadly you would've seen nothing this time around (Score:2)
Shoulda gone Canadian (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shoulda gone Canadian (Score:3, Insightful)
not trying to start a flame war here.. But seriously I don't understand how people can not take the fact that when a plane crashes and blows up and EVERYBODY survives it's a good thing...(chalk one up to the engneers who designed the plane so people could get out fast enough) why does the media have to paint such an evil picture on everything?
So NASA waits a day to land.. good for them.. God knows what will happen t
Re:Shoulda gone Canadian (Score:2, Insightful)
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.
Re:Shoulda gone Canadian (Score:5, Funny)
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.
And the second half of the saying is: "and if the 'plane can be used again, it was a GREAT landing."
Mark
Any Landing (Score:2)
"Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing" - Flight Sim Pilot
Re:Shoulda gone Canadian (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to downplay the survival rate of that particular crash, but let's put things into persepctive:
Flight 358 had just touched down and failed to stop before running off the runway and into a ditch at less than 90 MPH.
Columbia was travelling at roughtly 18,000 MPH when the heat basically melted the craft, causing it to disintegrate.
That's a pretty rough comparison. Having said that, how many commercial aircraft have exploded mid-flight and had any survivors? And none of them were going 18,000 MPH!
=Smidge=
Hey, clouds can be dangerous! (Score:2, Insightful)
Time to start sending our engineers to Russia to learn a thing or two about resilent design.
-Eric
Re:Hey, clouds can be dangerous! (Score:2)
Re:Hey, clouds can be dangerous! (Score:2)
You know, like Soyuz or Apollo.
Re:Hey, clouds can be dangerous! (Score:2)
There have been a lot of lessons of the shuttle program beyond debris (and beyond the huge amount of research that's gone on, much of it with general rocketry applications). Here's just a couple:
* - Inline the engines with the center of mass of your craft. The shuttle has a low center of mass due to being side-mounted, but the engines a
Re:Hey, clouds can be dangerous! (Score:2)
Good luck to them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck to them (Score:2)
Although with really crappy service.
Re:Good luck to them (Score:2)
After the seven Russians escaped their tangled sub, I breathed a sign of relief. Hopefully we will all be able to feel the same when the Discovery touches down safely.
I just sincerely hope that there is nothing wrong with the shuttle, as our Russian Friends have offered to bring down our Astronauts if need be. As much as I would like to see the Shuttle land under its own power, who else, who lived through the 80s,
Re:Good luck to them (Score:1, Flamebait)
Better safe than sorry (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Better safe than sorry (Score:2)
No they wouldn't. They've always required clear visibility in order to land the space shuttle.
Re:Better safe than sorry (Score:1)
Rain can damage the tiles. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/P-3/HTML/E
Re:Rain can damage the tiles. (Score:3, Insightful)
Rain usually only happens at altutudes lower than 5km. At that point, the tiles have already fullfilled their purpose, and eventuall cracking/damage shouldnt alter the shuttles ability to land.
Re:Rain can damage the tiles. (Score:1)
Re:Rain can damage the tiles. (Score:2)
Re:Rain can damage the tiles. (Score:2, Interesting)
The Shuttle is a single shot landing...you don't want to try risky weather when you only get one chance...
Re:Rain can damage the tiles. (Score:2)
Re:Rain can damage the tiles. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rain can damage the tiles. (Score:2)
We may be at the top of the food chain (Score:2)
Re:We may be at the top of the food chain (Score:2)
Re:We may be at the top of the food chain (Score:2)
Level of care (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Level of care (Score:2, Informative)
Are they being ultra-careful with this, or is this just normal-careful?
I think they're being ultra-careful. From what I've heard, they would normally land in these conditions.
However, they really don't want to take a chance. Imagine if something did go wrong: the public outcry would be so big that it would virtually mean the end of manned space flight for a very long time, and that's not something NASA wants to risk.
Re:Level of care (Score:2)
Re:Level of care (Score:1, Informative)
Tomorrow they will most likely try to land - either at Kennedy or Edwards but if the weather is bad they will likely scrub again and go for Wednesday. On Wednesday they will land unless it's really bad. Then (this is assuming that Kennedy, Edwards and Mexico are out) there are a number
Re:Level of care (Score:2)
Re:Level of care (Score:2)
As they say, the best is an enemy of the good.
Guess I chose the wrong day (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Guess I chose the wrong day (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Guess I chose the wrong day (Score:3, Funny)
blakespot
Re:Guess I chose the wrong day (Score:2)
(More airplane screenies in that directory for your linking pleasure)
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue [psxnation.com]
They are sh*ting their pants (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They are sh*ting their pants (Score:3, Insightful)
To give an analogy - if I drive around the block rather than make a dangerous turning then I'm a safe and carefull driver - not a coward.
So what do they do now? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So what do they do now? (Score:1)
---
The only thing I hate more than a hypocrite is a person who hates hypocrites.
Generated by SlashdotRndSig [snop.com] via GreaseMonkey [mozdev.org]
Re:So what do they do now? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but I bet they're trying to make something u (Score:5, Funny)
Hopefully, some of those astronauts will make a fuss and get their next ticket for free, or, at the very least NASA will upgrade them to 1st class when (and if) they chose to fly NASA again.
Re:Yeah, but I bet they're trying to make somethin (Score:2)
Why the mission has been so eventuful (Score:5, Interesting)
And that may be exactly the point.
Now, granted, NASA wants a safe mission. But several of these problems may have simply been overlooked in the past because space exploration is inherently dangerous anyway, so some risks are accepable.
There is actual politcal value in a mission that seems plagued with problems. I'm getting the general feeling from the media that it's almost all NASA can do to get this thing up in the air one more time.
If enough people get the same feeling, NASA could seem very justifiable to request mroe money for a shuttle replacement. And maybe that's the real goal of this mission.
that's my conspiracy theory for the day
Re:Why the mission has been so eventuful (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why the mission has been so eventuful (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why the mission has been so eventuful (Score:3, Funny)
A lot of people also don't see the need for taxes, since it doesn't impact their lives in any way that they can see "directly." Fortunately, there are those of us who know better.
(note: not saying the tax system is perfect, just making a general point..)
Attention span (Score:3, Funny)
No. Anyone who has studied the space program will tell you that every single mission is eventful. The difference is that this flight has had more attention. The astronauts on STS-114 can't break wind without getting mentioned on a news report or weblog. Hell, look at Slashdot here, we've had more coverage for this space flight then I think we've had for any other single event, ever.
Why? Because the last shuttle
How long? (Score:1)
Daytime landing preferred. (Score:2)
I'd wager that they'll be landing in California this time.
Re:Daytime landing preferred. (Score:2, Informative)
The reporter phrased his question in a way that made it sound like NASA had intentionally scheduled a night landing to avoid a live televised disaster. What a prick.
Re:How long? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How long? (Score:2)
As such, I wouldn't be surprised that NASA decides to land Discovery at Edwards AFB just after dawn PDT tomorrow morning.
And when they _do_ land... (Score:2)
...the media is going to be all hyped up about how the 'daring' astronauts 'managed' to land despite the 'problem' with the heatshield...
Don't get me wrong, I do think the astronauts are pretty brave, but I also refuse to believe that NASA would let them land if they thought it was remoptly possible that the shuttle would burn up on reentry this time around. The whole freaking mission has been hyped up - now move on and build the CEV [wikipedia.org] please. The shuttle is just too expensive to maintain.
It has always been like this (Score:4, Insightful)
Ofcourse they are more nervous, if they have a disaster, it will be the shuttles last flight, and with no new crew launch vehicle ready, the chance that NASA will loose a big part of its funding is very realistic, because why would they need so much money if they can not bring people and equipment to the spacestation anyway (That is the political question, not mine!!).
Anyway: We can ask the Japanese to build a huge hand http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08
American engineering (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:American engineering (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:American engineering (Score:2)
TV images (Score:2)
And now for the sarcasm version:
And ofcourse, TV images of a shuttle exploding in or above the clouds are totally useless. The networks need a clear view of the sky to be able to get the topratings which only a disaster can give them.
Clouds Delayed Due to Shuttle Landing (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Clouds Delayed Due to Shuttle Landing (Score:3, Insightful)
what are they doing... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:what are they doing... (Score:2)
Need to re-think the Shuttle Program. (Score:2)
Turbulance (Score:1)
The Folks at Edwards Have Their Fingers Crossed (Score:3, Insightful)
I know the people at Edwards AFB [af.mil] are hoping for a divert to their location.
I was stationed at Edwards when STS-111 [wikipedia.org] landed there after several days of bad weather in Florida.
We piled into the shop truck and drove up to the ridge that overlooks the runway and Rodgers dry lake. We parked at an optical tracking station, which was up and running. The camera operator gave us a bearing to the northwest, towards Santa Barbara, to watch for the shuttle.
We knew it was inbound when the camera began tracking. It was just a speck, but within seconds it was overhead and the double sonic boom was impressive even by Edwards' standards, where sonic booms are an almost daily occurance.
It passed overhead and turned once, landing flawlessly on runway 22. From first sighting to touchdown was only fifteen to twenty seconds.
Later that day, after pre-flighting a jet, we drove out to the taxiway to get a closer look at Endeavour [nasa.gov].
We almost made it before Security Forces chased us down and told us to get the heck out of there. In retrospect, we were lucky we didn't spend an hour or two face down on the concrete.
What to do? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can anyone point me to a link that describes what the astronauts do with this extra day in orbit? Considering the expense of getting them there, I find it hard to believe that they just sit around for this extra day picking their nose and farting, but it would seem like all of the experiments would have already been stowed.
Can they make use of this extra day?
On a related note, I'm well aware that the astronauts have plenty of air+power+water+food for this extra day, but how long could they actually stay in orbit before one of those things ran out? Just curious; mostly to know how conservatively these things are planned.
Re:What to do? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What to do? (Score:1)
Re:What to do? (Score:2)
Re:What to do? (Score:2)
(joke)
Lemme make sure I've got this right... (Score:3, Interesting)
The cynic in me agrees: This is a publicity stunt. There's no reason to keep the shuttle up there except that clear skies make better photo-ops.
Re:Lemme make sure I've got this right... (Score:2, Informative)
Bearing in mind that the Shuttle glides in to land, and has no way to go around (ie abort the landing and go around for a second attempt), that means you only have one chance to get it right. So things like cloud cover, wind direction etc will affect the Shuttle much more than they would an aircraft, wh
Re:Lemme make sure I've got this right... (Score:3, Interesting)
The shuttle can trigger lightning on a cloudy day.
This could easily disable electronic devices on-board.
Protecting Space Sys [aero.org]
*SPOILER ALERT* (Score:3, Funny)
Monday August 8th 2005: A cloud is in the sky, NASA decides to postpone landing
Tuesday August 9th 2005: A slight breeze is detected, landing will be pushed back to Wednesday.
Wednesday August 10th 2005: Wind Chill Factor sited as cause for continued delay
Thursday August 11th 2005: A small flock of birds is spotted near the runway, landing cancelled due to safety and environmental protection concerns..
Friday August 12th 2005: Barometric Pressure Non-Optimal, landing postponed.
Saturday August 13th 2005: Humidity levels cause concern, after some deliberation it is announced that Mission Control will again delay the landing to "play it safe".
Sunday August 14th 2005: Another cloud is spotted, landing delayed.
Let's just hope they manage to get perfect weather conditions so they can land the damn thing sometime soon.
Re:*SPOILER ALERT* (Score:2, Insightful)
Thursday August 11th 2005: Crew not responding. Presumed dead from lack of oxygen.
To add insult to injury.... (Score:5, Funny)
Fuel (Score:1)
This Shuttle Mission was Like My Last Vacation (Score:3, Funny)
* I ended up leaving late, because my car was having problems.
* I finally got to where I was going, and my Dad made me look all over the car, to make sure it was still working correctly.
* When I found a problem, he made me fix it.
* When I went inside, my Mom made me take out the garbage.
* On the way back home, traffic was so bad, it prevented me from getting home at a reasonable time.
I'm like an trip in space away from being an astronaut! I think I'm fully trained now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
More accurate headlines please (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More accurate headlines please (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More accurate headlines please (Score:2)
1. The conditions at Kennedy at that moment were "go"
2. The forecast for Kennedy at the time of landing was "go"
3. Because things were unstable, they just didn't have the level of comfort they wanted.
To me, that says "the weather isn't bad, but since this is the Return To Flight mission, we're taking even fewer chances than usual
Proposal (Score:2)
"Shuttle Vista."
Re:I can't wait (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:NASA is afraid of... FLUFFY, FLUFFY CLOUDS !!! (Score:4, Informative)
Here in nearby Daytona Beach, we've been having near-daily thunderstorms. The clouds caused the abort of the landing because, once you do your deorbit burn, Houston can't say "Oh, wait, it's raining now, better turn around and go back into orbit."
Re:NASA? (Score:2, Interesting)
But they're in space? (Score:2)