NASA seems way to eager to launch this shuttle. IMHO

[spanone]

Maybe it's just me, but I have the feeling that NASA is fighting for it's life and this shuttle is going to blast off come hell or high water. I wouldn't want to be inside this bugger. Hope all goes well.

[Parche]

1. SPACE

The final frontier....................

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. And they're very nervous about it.

Yesterday NASA said if anything happens with this flight, GAME OVER. No more manned space flights.

[Incitatus]

4. New craft

Isn't there was a new spacefcraft to replace the shuttle under development?

[spanone]

7. I wouldn't want to read this just before lift-off.

~snip~ The decision comes only days after the Return to Flight Task Group headed by Col. Dick Covey, a retired astronaut, said that while the space agency had made many improvements, it had failed to meet three of the 15 safety recommendations made by the Columbia Accident Review Commission.
The space shuttle, it said, was still vulnerable to pieces of foam or ice falling off the external fuel tank at liftoff and the astronauts still have no reliable way of repairing damage to the ship's fragile thermal shielding once in orbit. ~snip~

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1574&dept_id=532240&newsid=14811427&PAG=461&rfi=9

[LastDemocratInSC]

25. A failure in the next 12 days will be the end of the shuttle program ...

... but not the end of manned spaceflight for the United States.

The next step is the "Crew Exploration Vehicle", which is a return to the successful capsule-based designs of the 1960s. There are inherent safety gains in this architecture. More information is available at NASA sites but here is a good summary of the plans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle

[MisterP]

27. and all the unmanned ones have been privatized!

[Bill McBlueState]

34. manned space flight

I hope the best for this mission, but NASA's strength lies elsewhere. Manned flights are good for morale, but there's not much science you can do with them.

[Capn Sunshine]

43. Not much science?

No interest in the human body or weightless manufacturing techniques, just to name two?

[Bill McBlueState]

57. I don't mean to say manned flight is *useless*

Just that something like Hubble has paid off much more scientifically than the ISS, for example, with only a minimal investment of manned missions.

We need a space program to service robotic observatories, or to do sample return missions to the moon, and Mars is a worthwhile target, ultimately. But the science coming out of the orbiting great observatories is amazing, and does not require much from astronauts.

[musette_sf]

3. last time launching a shuttle was politically expedient

but scientifically questionable, was Challenger.

the cold weather kept the o-rings from expanding as they should have. the launch was rushed despite the weather to distract attention from Iran-Contra:

"In January of 1986, the Administration approved a plan proposed by McFarlane employee Michael Ledeen, whereby an intermediary, rather than Israel, would sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages, with proceeds made available to the Contras. At first, the Iranians had refused the weapons from Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian intermediary, when both Oliver North and Ghorbanifar created a 370% markup (WALSH, Lawrence E. "Firewall"). With the marked-up income of $10 million from the $3.7 million before, and the Iranian backed militants capturing new hostages when they released old ones, this was the end of the arms-for-hostages deal. In February, 1,000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran. From May to November, there were additional shipments of miscellaneous weapons and parts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

[ContraBass Black]

29. What?

I have nothing to say that hasn't already been said, so I just give a thundering roar of commendation.

I didn't make that connection. Thank you.

:nuke:

[Bluebear]

5. I'm glad you said it. Reminds me of Challenger.

All the best thoughts to that crew.

[Connie_Corleone]

6. You would think they would've spent that time to build a...

better shuttle. Or get rid of the shuttle all together and build something more advanced.

[LastDemocratInSC]

33. A new shuttle or something more advanced can't be built in 2 years ...

Two and one-half years have passed since the loss of Columbia. That's just a fraction of the time needed to radically improve the current shuttle system or design and build a new series of manned spacecraft.

I have mixed feelings about continuing the shuttle program ... 2 lost crews and spacecraft in 113 losses is not a good track record. On the other hand, it does appear that NASA has done a good job getting ready for this mission. There are safety issues left undone, especially in quantifying and preparing for tile damage from debris from the external tank, but from what I understand it's impossible to ever rule out such damage.

The fact that the shuttle crew can now examine the thermal protection system with video and laser instruments DOES make it less likely that the shuttle would attempt a re-entry with damaged tiles. This fact alone means that this will be the safest mission in history, provided the craft can make it to orbit.

If tile damage is found the crew can remain at the space station while the Endeavour shuttle is prepared for launch. What happens if that rescue mission is needed and doesn't succeed? Who can say.

The first 2 minutes of flight are a very, very, very dangerous time. Until the solid rocket boosters are discarded all bets are off on any flight ... and it's always been this way. Those moments have always made me nervous. It's worth mentioning that those who work on the shuttle at Cape Kennedy never put their mission pins on their hats and shirts until after the solid rocket boosters have separated.

[Liberal In Texas]

8. Spoke to my son last night who works at Mission Control.

He said it's the safest shuttle ever. He seemed confident, even though he's not one of the higher-ups.

[seabeyond]

52. i love this board that there are so many people

we get thought from someone at mission control. that is great. thanks for sharing

[skids]

9. Their PR guy called ABC, apparently...

...I assume, because ABC reported about the potential delay early in the show, and right before signoff, they said "Oh this just in, the shuttle problems are fixed."

[BattyDem]

10. On my local news tonight ...

they reported that a window cover fell from the shuttle and damaged several of the heat shield tiles - but they should have the shuttle repaired in time for the launch.

As we all know, it was falling debris that damaged the heat-shield tiles the last time - and look how that turned out! :-( This thing hasn't even launched yet and pieces are falling off of it already? If I was an astronaut, there is no way in hell that I'd get on the shuttle tomorrow. They obviously have not yet figured out a way to keep the damn parts from falling off! :eyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4677495.stm

[spanone]

11. I saw that story and that's what prompted this post.

That along with the fact that they HAVE NOT fixed the problem of stuff falling off. See my ealier post.

[BattyDem]

16. This is nuts!

They obviously haven't fixed the problem that caused the last disaster - WHY ARE THEY LAUNCHING? I have a really bad feeling about this. :scared:

[Catherine Vincent]

22. Same here.

[Liberal In Texas]

24. Relax. It was a cover over the window, not the window.

The plastic window cover which fell is made of plastic with a foam edge and is taped in place to protect the windows and keep them clean before launch. - BBC

[sakabatou]

28. They're taped?

Taped with what? Scotch?

[Liberal In Texas]

37. Probably not. But it's tape none the less, and it has to have a tack

that will not stick so hard that it won't come off easily when they want it to. And it's sitting in the humid air of Florida, I can see how it may have loosened itself.

[BattyDem]

40. Oh ... so it was never meant to be a permanent part of the shuttle...

How did I miss that? :shrug:

Thanks for pointing that out. I feel much better. :-)

[Connie_Corleone]

13. The really important question is...

WHY did the window cover come off in the first place??

[BattyDem]

18. Exactly!

The damn thing wasn't even moving and something fell off. HOUSTON ... WE HAVE A PROBLEM! :eyes:

[karlrschneider]

30. I'd gladly drive the thing if they'd let me! But then I've flown dozens

of aircraft nobody else wanted to. :D

[LastDemocratInSC]

36. I know this sounds terrible but it's not that bad ...

The engine pods they speak of are on the upper side of the shuttle, to the left and right of the vertical tail. These are the OAMS pods (orbital/attitude manuevering system) that are used to give the orbiter its final push into orbit, make orbital maneuvers, and do the de-orbit firing required to return to earth.

The upper side of the orbiter does not experience the extreme heat that the nose, wings and belly experience. On the first few missions of the Columbia shuttle many tiles popped off from this area during launch and the shuttle still landed safely.

This isn't as bad as it sounds.

[NV Whino]

12. I seem to be out of the loop here

Why are we launching a suttle at all, much less at this particular time? What is the mission?

[PATRICK]

14. Spyware over Iran?

Easy to kick these out the door when the various shuttle flights have come far and few between. That would make this a national security issue, though, of course, Bush has no intention of going to war with Iran.

[Johonny]

23. Doubt it

More low risk ways to put spyware into space. And the neocons war has set back are spyware budgets.

[spanone]

15. They are calling it a 'test' mission. Taking supplies to space station.

[Liberal In Texas]

20. Basically: Resupply the space station (ISS), install a new module

there, practice inspection and repair of the shuttle during a space walk.

[spanone]

17. MSNBC is doing a 'Shuttle' story right now!

n/t

[Johonny]

19. Well

You get the feeling NASA was "frozen" until after the election. The shuttle will never have a zero risk of flight failure and is probably as ready as it ever can be for flight.

[Goldmund]

21. KKKarl to NASA:

"You fly that thing, you hear me? Damaged tiles?? Even better!!!"

[jim3775]

26. You guys are wrong. First off they have fixed the problem...

NASA just had a press conference and fully explained the problem, the panel was easily replaced and a full inspection is underway.

Secondly, about this business about being vulnerable to ice; there was a minimum size requirement to ice "pellets" that could potentially hit the shuttle. The shuttle was deemed safe from hits by pellets larger than this limit, it is impossible to protect against tiny ice flakes which pose little threat of damage. A large part of this mission is focused on inspection and repair of the heat-resistant tiles, they are launching during the day so there is good video to pour over and as soon as the there will be extensive inspections of the shuttle from space by a laser imaging arm (built in Canada btw) and if any damage is found the astronauts will fix the problem with on-board repair kits. And if anything major were to happen the sister-shuttle Atlantis will launch a rescue mission.

And third, about launching spyware; the NSA launched a "classified payload” into space just a few weeks ago there was talk that it was some sort of high-resolution radar satellite.

The good people at NASA have worked for two years on safety; I think we should give them our support. NASA is constantly under attack by the * administration we should be on the side of science.

[Johonny]

31. Science?

NASA is constantly under attack by the * administration we should be on the side of science.


The shuttle has to do with science in what way?

[jim3775]

35. There is plenty of science

The point of this mission is to resupply the ISS, replace a gyroscope, bring back trash and practice tile repair.

Go to page 42 of this PDF for the current running experiments on the shuttle and ISS

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/112555main_exp11_presskit.pdf


If you want to find out more about the completed science go here and click on the previous expeditions

http://www.scipoc.msfc.nasa.gov/payload.html

[Johonny]

39. hmm

None of that is science or fixing my car would be science, filling my frig would be science. What science is done on the ISS? Answer not much. The shuttle and ISS are not very important to space science and never have.

[Liberal In Texas]

42. You obviously haven't done much research on the subject, or you

wouldn't say such silly things.

You probably use about 20 things EVERY DAY that directly or indirectly came about because of the space program, and don't even realize it. There are people walking around now alive who would otherwise be dead because of the manned space program.

If you really wanted to know about what science is being done, you could start with the NASA websites and spend a week or more just reading about what the ISS and the Shuttle programs do and have done over the years.

[Kraklen]

45. I'd say the same to you.

An actual unbiased look at the science performed in the space shuttle shows it to be an utterly ridiculous boondoggle and an insult to real science.

Irregardless of silly putty and Tang.

[Liberal In Texas]

48. Sure. You make statements based on no facts. n/t

For ONE thing, silly putty was invented in 1943.

[Kraklen]

53. Uh huh.

But it's routinely touted as one of those miracle advances given to us by the U.S. space program. Which is my point. The scientific advances of the U.S. space program in general, and the shuttle program in particular, is ridiculously and inexcusably overblown.

[karlrschneider]

47. I don't think "science" means what you think it means...

:eyes:

[Liberal In Texas]

32. Thank you. People need to stop being nervous nellies.

Of course there is some danger, it's an experimental program. But there is also danger in getting into your car and driving to the grocery.

And remember, a there were a lot of crashes during the development of air travel. If we had given up after the first two or three or four, it would still be taking a week to travel to Europe, and several days to travel coast to coast.

Believe me, these people practice and practice and practice some more for these missions. I think we're going to have a fine return to space for the shuttle.

[Pepperbelly]

38. It's always a dangerous proposition but that doesn't mean ...

that it shouldn't be done. The Shuttle disasters have served to enhance my appreciation for not only our current crop of space exploers but to the old school guys in particular. An abundence of physical courage in those folk.

[Kraklen]

41. good people at NASA my ass.

The Space Shuttle doesn't have shit to do with science. Anybody who knows anything about science knows that.

[Liberal In Texas]

44. Where do you get that insane idea from? n/t

[Kraklen]

46. The journals Nature and Science.

... a number of other journals and my own scientific training.

[karlrschneider]

49. Well, watching "Strange days at Holsey High" hardly qualifies as a

scientific curriculum...
:eyes:
(My kids think it's cool in a perverse kind of way...)

[Kraklen]

50. Never heard of it.

Is that a joke I hear going over my head?

[Baclava]

51. The shuttle is a waste of time...

Low-earth orbit is for cowering apes...we should be on Mars by now.

[Liberal In Texas]

54. We might be much further along if congress hadn't cut the budget

about every time they could.

Just think, if we'd put the money the Iraq invasion and war have cost into NASA a decade or so ago there's no telling how much farther along we would be now. Investments in these things help our economy, war does not.

[Kraklen]

55. Yeah, congress is cutting the science budget to pay

... for the shuttle. There have been numerous valid science programs scrapped to pay for that boondoggle.

[Liberal In Texas]

56. One should not have anything to do with the other.

Besides, I've never heard that one science program (like which one?) was cut to give the money to NASA. This sounds like pure supposition for your specious arguments.