Big shuttle repairs not possible

[Khephra]

Space shuttle astronauts will fly next year without the ability to repair in orbit the type of damage that destroyed the Columbia vehicle in February 2003.

Flying foam debris on launch punched a 15-25cm opening in the shuttle's left wing, resulting in catastrophic heating of the airframe on its return to Earth.

The US space agency says no method of repair tested so far could withstand the 1,600C temperature of re-entry.

Nasa's answer to the problem is to stop debris damage occurring at lift-off.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3605424.stm

[Javaman]

1. Have we lost the American spirit??????

Rather than figure something out, they throw their collective hands up and call themselves stumped. Damn, how far NASA has sunk since I was a kid. In 1963 we were barely popping guys into orbit and less than 6 years later we put someone on the moon.
Has that can do spirit just left and gone to an overseas job?
I would think by now, that a flexible form of the heat shield used on the old Apollo capsules would be a good quick fix.
Damn it, space is dangerous and sometimes dangerous measures need to be taken to get the crew home. Did Apollo 13 just give up? Did the PH D's on the ground tell them, "sorry boys but you are going to mummify in space?"
Christ! So what happens the next time something like this happens, who is going to be the one to tell the crew, sorry but we can't help you.
So very embarrassing.

[TrogL]

2. Some things are just plain impossible

The shuttle wings are machined to a mirror-like smoothness using special heavy-duty technology. The slightest imperfection can cause serious problems at the speeds we're talking about.

You can't just glue on a patch like on a model airplane.

[lapfog_1]

6. As a former NASA employee

let me jump in here.

Yes, it's high time that the agency replace the shuttle. The shuttle
was a good prototype, but all of them should be in Space Museums
by now.

Ablative heat shields, like the Apollo capsule, do not make for
reusable vehicles. However, there have been advancements in
thermal protection and a new generation shuttle would not use
the expensive and fragile foam tile technology.

There just isn't money for NASA to do these things anymore.
NASA in the sixties basically had one mission, develop rockets
and lander technology to land a man on the moon. They also had
a budget which is MUCH larger (in constant dollars) than the
current budgets. NASA also attracted the best and brightest
(which is not to say that NASA doesn't now, but it's not the same).

NASA currently has 4 or 5 "main" missions.

The space station and the shuttle. (And the value of either of these
in scientific term is highly questionable).

The planetary probes and robotic landers. These are inexpensive
(relatively) and yield a great deal of scientific understanding.

The Mission to Planet Earth - possibly the most comprehensive
study (via remote sensing) of our own planet. (and this one
is targeted for destruction by the Bush Admin). When you folks
think of "El Nino" or Global warming or ozone hole, NASA was the
agency that researched it.

Aeronautics research - both for safer airlines, safer airports,
better and faster airplanes. NASA has more than paid for it's
entire existence by research into fluid dynamics and the trucking
and car industry (through the fuel savings).

Information technology - NASA was one of the governments prime
tools to develop things like, say, the internet (and yeah, I know
it was originated by ARPA not NASA but NASA did a lot the early
infrastructure building).

So NASA has become very defocused. I, personally, don't think
we have the will to return to manned space flight missions.
Americans want everything to be perfectly safe (at least until
it becomes routine, then it's a so what). Manned space flight
isn't going to be perfectly safe for some time to come, nor
will it become routine (you see, cars were unsafe and still are,
only now we don't make a big deal about car accidents... same
with airplanes). Bush's plan to return to the moon and then
to mars is very flawed, but the real objective is to turn off
all the other missions (especially that global warming science
stuff)

Oh well, I could go on... but now I'm depressed for the day.

[Trajan]

9. The 'Main Mission' of the Space Shuttle , in a GOP administration

Is military ....

You neglected to mention that mission, though I am sure it is an oversight ... It is hardly worthy to be the 'first' to weaponize space: yet that is their ignoble goal ....

I too used to work on manned and unmanned space programs: Space Shuttles OV099, OV102, OV103, OV104 and OV105 in various stages: from Downey crew module and aft fuselage build up, to Palmdale OMDP in the mid 90's .... I dont agree that the Space Shuttle utility is past ...

Let's face it: no matter WHAT vehicle is used: Manned space flight is an inherently dangerous proposition ... There is no real obviation of the dangers ... It takes thrust to boost man and machine beyond escape velocity, and heat dissipation is the primary goal of the re-entry process .... surely: the TPS system is antiquated and overly sensitive to the slightest mishap ... but every system has its drawbacks, and certainly 'new' heat dissipative technologies will have their own weaknesses .... oh well ...

In both boost and re-entry phases, space flight operations tiptoe on the knife's edge: one minute, infintesimal fault; and the whole system explodes, or becomes useless, unflyable, hypersonic plastic .... It is dangerous in the extreme ....

Overall: the call of space flight comes to those who are willing to take the risk of failure ... it is what makes the 'astronaut' a brave human being ....

The notion that a manned space program can be undertaken without risk of catastrophic failure and loss of crew is a false dream ....

Only those who are willing to take those risks should climb aboard, no matter which vehicle is in use ....

Schoolteachers really should not apply ....

Even scientists should be warned off ....

[lapfog_1]

10. Yeah, I forgot the PNAC objective in space

I left NASA before shrubya was selected. So while there was
an occasional military mission, I don't think it was ever THE
priority. Obviously, that could have changed (and given the PNAC
stmts on space, the ultimate high ground, I wouldn't be surprised
at all).

I think we are in agreement about the inherent danger in
manned space missions. As to scientists or whatever applying
for the job of astronaut, I think they have every right to
risk their lives for their own goals. They know the risks, and
it's often much more productive to have a scientist on board
rather than an astronaut. Of course, I am leaning towards ROVs
which are MUCH cheaper to develop and send into space and, with
better AI systems, almost as good as sending a person.

[daleo]

12. Schoolteachers and scientists can have the courage

Granted, they need to be appraised of the real risks involved. The public needs to be informed, too, so that they realize what can happen to schoolteachers and scientists. But I don't think manned space flight should be limited to test pilots. Courage comes in many forms.

[LastDemocratInSC]

13. NASA never wanted the craft to become the beast it is

When the specifications for the space shuttle were being developed the military salivated about what they might be able to do with it. If NASA had been left to their own desires the shuttle would have become a smaller, and possibly safer, vehicle.

The 1,200 mile cross-range landing ability and the maximum landing weight were due, in part, to the military requirement of launching into polar orbit from Vandenberg, grappling a Russian spy satellite into the payload bay, and returning it to Edwards within one orbit before the Russians were aware of what had hit them, thereby denying them of an intelligence asset and giving us one of their crown jewels.

This was not a bad idea. Not knowing, during the 1970s, where detente with the Soviets might lead, one of the jobs of the designers was to consider missions that might become important for military or political purposes. Stealing a spy satellite was one of those missions. So, we ended up with a big ship, in part, for this reason.

Unfortunately, the Air Force botched the construction of SLC-6 at Vandenburg, apparently wiring all of the 3 phase electrical power backwards, or something stupid like that, and the cost of repairing it wasn't worth the effort. I think SLC-6 was eventually used a few years ago to launch something but the big-vision-thing never roared off that pad.

One of NASA's charges is to develop new technologies, so even if the shuttle had been smaller it's likely that the fragile thermal protection system would have been used in any case, and damage to it would have always been an issue. NASA can't even fly the shuttle through clouds during cross-country ferries from Edwards to Kennedy because the water droplets damage the tiles. As someone else on here said ... it was, and remains, a prototype system.

Getting into space is a dangerous business and will always remain so. You've got to absorb a lot of energy, slowly or quickly, to get up there and stay there. Today's hazards are riding in a hydrogen and oxygen bomb - tomorrow's might be sliding along carbon nanotubes fibers - who knows what problems lie ahead?

[MadHound]

3. It is more than time for NASA to come up with the next generation

Of both shuttles and inter-planetary spaceships. We are essentially running on thirty year old tech, and if I remember correctly the newest shuttle in use is actually twenty years old.

We need to step up to the twent-first century in space, and we need to do it now.

[reprobate]

4. Sorry, that takes money. Corporate CEOs need it more than nasa

I think it's time that we all wake up to the fact that the US is no longer the same nation that it was in the 60s. For one thing the people are no longer educated. Repugs have succeeded in all but destroying our school systems, and you can't have a democracy without an educated electorate.

I remember the 60s and I remember that you could have intelligent discussions with people without coming to fisticuffs. No longer possible.

I remember that most people were behind the race to the moon, and on top of that they realized that the invention of new technology resulted in the advance of new consumer goods. Now all you get is 'but we need the money for new fighter planes'.

What happened to america? Basically one word.

Republicans.

[LastDemocratInSC]

15. You make some good points but we are still the same nation ...

... but we have no vision beyond our noses.

Ken Mattingly, the command module pilot on the Apollo 16 mission to the moon, has written that our nation cannot now take on national challenges like Apollo because we cannot build teams that aspire to such missions. His point is that it was the World War II generation that got us to the moon - they knew how to work together selflessly toward a critical national goal because they had done it before.

I agree with you that the educational system is under attack and that the current situation threatens democracy.

[reprobate]

16. Mattingly makes a good point.

We have become a nation of "me first" individualists. And in this case 'individualists' is no longer a nice word. And I tend to agree on the WWII point. Since then there has not been the leadership to bring us together.

[Snow]

5. Hmmm. So if they get in trouble, Bert Rutan will have to rescue them?

on edit: just in case someone doesn't know what I'm talking about...
http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/

[benburch]

8. Funny...

But SS1 is not able to achieve orbit.

[benburch]

7. You know what would make most sense?

1. Restricting the number of crew to the bare minimum even if this will be very stressful for the crew workload.

2. Send maximum consumables aloft no matter the length of the mission planned.

3. Only deploy to orbits that could if necessary rendevous with the ISS.

4. Provide a means to inspect the thermal protection on-orbit and make that the first priority in any shuttle mission.

Then if we have a similar failure caused by anything other than the foam that they are replacing (think of hitting a goose!) the error can be detected, the Shuttle can abort to the ISS, and there will be maximal consumables abailable to permit the use of the ISS/Shuttle as a lifeboat until Soyuz craft can ferry the crew home.

[Boat Guy]

11. Actually...

...several of these were made by the Shuttle Task Force that investigated The Columbia accident. The board recommended that ISS be used as a "lifeboat" in the event a shuttle is unable to de-orbit, and that at least one shuttle be on back-up as a rescue vehicle(although it would take roughly 5 weeks to prep for launch under emergency conditions, but ISS has sufficient consumables for a full complement for this length of time). Also, I believe plans are pending for some sort of an inspection protocol, using either a variation on the Canada Arm, or an independent device similar to the "soccer ball" minisat that was tested some time back.

[LastDemocratInSC]

14. Some comments on your thoughts

"1. Restricting the number of crew to the bare minimum even if this will be very stressful for the crew workload."

I'm sure this is being considered but given that future shuttle missions will be dedicated to launching the heavy loads required to finish the station, and that these are construction missions, and that there are requirements for EVA coordinators inside the shuttle, I don't see how any crew will get below 5 or 6. I think 7 crew members will become a thing of the past, however.


"2 Send maximum consumables aloft no matter the length of the mission planned."

There have always been extra consumables on each flight, of course, and on a few flights these were dipped into during landing delays due to weather. I think the larger issue is the consumables that are not related to the crew - the quantities of hydrogen and oxygen available for the fuel cells are fixed, as are RCS propellants. A certain number of watts are required for each hour on orbit, even with the lights turned off. The crew can ration food and water more efficiently than the shuttle can ration its supplies.


"3. Only deploy to orbits that could if necessary rendevous with the ISS."

This has already been decided and is the primary reason the next Hubble Space Telescope service mission was canceled.


"4. Provide a means to inspect the thermal protection on-orbit and make that the first priority in any shuttle mission."

This has also already been decided but is easier said than done. The shuttle's robotic arm cannot see all of the tile areas without an extension boom. Work continues on this problem.


"Then if we have a similar failure caused by anything other than the foam that they are replacing (think of hitting a goose!) the error can be detected ..."

Sensors are being installed along the leading edges of all the remaining shuttles for this purpose.


"... the Shuttle can abort to the ISS, and there will be maximal consumables abailable to permit the use of the ISS/Shuttle as a lifeboat until Soyuz craft can ferry the crew home."

Again, easier said than done. The problem, again, is the issue of constants vs. variables. The Russians aren't building Soyuz ships for stranded astronauts and we are already in a fight with them for who will pay for those that are still needed for the standard missions. The current environmental control systems on ISS are limited in their capacity - one of those nasty constants we must deal with. If you've ever had 6 long-lost 2nd cousins stop at your home for a few months or so, you know what that means ("I don't have any more damn hotdogs and chips and I'm not going out!").