Grounding the shuttle again

[EddieS'04]

Nasa just anounced, they will ground the program again. Missing tile from launch. How do we ever learn and move forward? Iam not un-sympathetic, but some things like this always will have risks.

 

[Richard L]

I agree. There are risk, but they grounded the Shuttle for two years because insulating foam was breaking off the main fuel tank during launch and fatally damaged the last Shuttle. Now after a 2 year delay NASA still has the same problem!



...Rich

 

[Larry Phillips]

The tiles are VERY important. I hope they'll be able to make it back without it. I've heard that they've lost tiles before, but the impact it will make during landing depends on where it came from on the shuttle.

 

[Deleted deleted]

You'd think with the wide variety of sealants available, they could come up with one that could seal up the insulation so that it doesn't break free during the liftoff and flight through the upper atmosphere?

 

[Bill V]

Let's face it--if they'd just add an EE swaybar, all their problems would go away.

 

[EddieS'04]

:lol:..Bill, maybe better shocks!!

 

[Robert Barker]

I think window vents would solve the problem......



Trac N Tennessee

 

[Kevin Palmer]

With all the technology available to those guys you would have to think this was something that could have been solved or at least improved upon dramatically.



It is really to bad it has come to this. The extra money spent has got to be a huge amount. And to still have the same or similar issue is hard to accept.



Safety first. Protect the crew. The shuttle can, and will be replaced. The crew can not. Yes they can get another crew, but try to explain that to the family members and see how well it goes over....

 

[Todd Z]

Didn't this shuttle have an inspection arm that can look over the whole ship so they can do in space repairs???... or am i mistaken??

Todd Z

 

[Paul Maurer 2]

Look at the bright side - the failed fix was only a billion dollars- a small part of the NASA budget...

 

[Eric Pennal]

From what I heard, there aren't any missing tiles - just an insignificant chunk missing from one of them. It's not expected to affect the current mission. I think the grounding is because too much insulation came off the external fuel tank again.



Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Eric -



You are correct. A tile has some insignificant damage. They have returned from orbit with complete tiles missing. The problem for columbia was the leading edge Carbon/Carbon tiles were damaged, and quite a few of them. Had that strike occured anywhere else besides the leading edges we would probably be around STS-125 instead of STS-114 (that's 125th mission versus the 114th mission).



Nearly every flight has had something damage a tile or two. Nearly every flight has seen foam fall off the external tank. Nearly every mission the shuttle is pelted by debis while on orbit (and often time collisions occur in the 10's of thousands of miles per hour, at that speed a grain of sand can do almost as much damage as a high-power rifle). They have comback with severly damaged windows. They have come back with heavily damaged OMS Pods... damage is not new. Look at the number of satillites, debris, even the amount of free hydraulic oil floating around. Any object with any mass to it (even a grain of sand) can be a deadly projectile in space. John Glen's glove.



How many holes current exist that go entirely through a solor panel on the space station? Last I heard there are four. Space is a hostile environment.

 

[TomT]

Remember this is NASA. Everything on that shuttle was built by the lowest bid.

 

[mookie]

It's not that the lowest bid makes an inferior product.



My brother-in-law worked at Martin Marietta as an engineer on the original shuttle arm and told me everything was built to be as light as possible and to 100% of the strength it needs to be; no safety margin. His job was the figure out the strength needed for a particular gear.



Whereas on commercial aviation, I've heard they figure out how strong a part has to be and over-engineer it by 300%. Commercial aircraft are built like tanks (relatively speaking).

 

[Dre L]

When I visited Kennedy I thought I heard that there are a couple/few layers of tiles. They do come off and it it expected, especially during re-entry where the heat and force on them is extreme.



What I am surprised about is that there isn't a ceramic coating they can seal the tiles with to streamline the bottom of the shuttle more. That way as the coating burns off, it at least protects the tiles some more.



I wonder if they have thought of a shield to cover the shuttle during takeoff, like a pan that it sits in, which goes between the shuttle and the tank / boosters, sort of like a shim, or maybe sheilding the tank and boosters with an outer layer which would hold in the insulation.



Unfortunately as said before, the entire nature of the job is a huge risk, and even with all the safeguards they put in place, there is always a chance for tragedy. The shielding could come off under that force and take out a bigger chunk of shuttle. Think about how they grounded this mission because one of FOUR fuel sensors malfunctioned. Imagine having 4 fuel gauges on your Trac. That in itself shows the painstaking attention they pay to safety and redundancy of said safety devices.



I think their best bet is a self-contained craft that didn't need boosters and an external tank, but we're probably not going to see that in our lifetime. Less parts, less problems. People still forget the shuttle can't fly, it's just a glider. With all its weight, that in itself is amazing.



The reality is that these are brave, brave, souls. Their tradition is one of courage, intelligence, skill, and the raw fly by the seat of your pants intestinal fortitude which dictates that if all else should fail, strap yourself down to a rocket and ride that sonuvabench into the sky. I wonder what they pay for life insurance. It's expensive if you smoke, imagine riding a lot of explosives into a vaccum for a living. I'm sure NASA has to have one hell of a benefit program for them.



I think that this profession is one of the few left that everyone in this world looks at with admiration, pride, and respect. You cannot look further than the stars with most people, astronauts look to the next galaxy. I think that is what makes it so sad when a shuttle is lost.



I was one of the kids watching Christa McAuliffe on TV when she went up in the Challenger as the first teacher in space. I still remember everyone in disbelief in the classroom when that one went up. No one thought it would happen again, but after that one everyone really holds their breath everytime one of these launches. I think people finally understood what the spouses of astronauts feel before and during the entire mission until they are safely back home.



Discovery is supposed to have many high resolution cameras on it so that mission control could inspect it. If necessary, once the shuttle docks with the space station, the crew can repair it. Should damage be too extensive, they would hole up in the space station until another shuttle came to get them (I guess with the parts necessary to repair the damaged shuttle as well) and I guess this would go on until they could fix it so it could handle re-entry.



That in itself is a testament to the skill of these crews. They fly, maintain, and repair their craft while carrying out scientific experiments that a bunch of geniuses on the ground couldn't go up there to do for whatever reason.



Too bad they can't lower a cable from the space station and reel them up :lol:

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

The only problem I see with a pan or shield is that it is one more thing that may become a projectile to severly damage the orbiter, and/or damage more times that it protects should it come loose during liftoff.



An encapsulation of somesort does seem like an idea still. Maybe with airbag type materials. Maybe the same systems they used on landing the rovers on mars....

 

[Dre L]

How about a big slingshot?:lol:

 

[Mark B]

Let Burt Rutan take control.

 

[Jeff C]

Of course everyone feels bad when a shuttle is lost. The fact is that it's dangerous. As of right now, they have a 1/50 shot, just looking at history that is, of not coming back. It's a risk they all know and take. I would gladly risk my life to go into space, if even for only once. The problem is people view it as a failure by NASA, not an accident. They make it as safe as possible, but stuff happens. The atmosphere is a tough nut to crack, and if it were easy, we probably wouldn't be here. Nearly all STS missions have reported tile loss, and so far we've had 1 re-entry incident that the public knows about. That's it. I mean, they're sitting on the worlds 2nd largest fire cracker. How safe can it be?

 

[buzz worth]

the shuttle is really a dinasour. designed and built in the 70's, it has outlived it's technology. 80% of it's takeoff weight is the fuel it needs to get to orbit......the money would be better spent on R&D for the next generation of launch vehicle.

of the 5 computers onboard, all of them combined are less powerful than the one you are reading this post on.

it's an amazing machine, but 25 years old and showing it.

I wonder if I can use this computer to launch my desk......hmmmmmm, gotta go



buzz-off