tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (08/29/88)
In article <1988Aug16.040406.5434@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >NASA is studying an internal proposal to launch Columbia unmanned next year >using old SRBs. It would carry one of the DoD satellites scheduled for an >early mission. Some modifications would probably be needed, notably a >braking chute to assist landing. JSC is opposed to the idea because of >the orbiter modifications; Marshall is in favor. The problem is that NASA >has about 13 pre-Challenger SRBs left, containing about 11 million pounds >of oxidizer that cannot be recovered, and the oxidizer shortage is looking >worse and worse. There are several schemes for minor mods to the old SRBs >to increase reliability. Unmanned shuttle flights have been considered >before, and generally rejected due to risks and lack of need. The proposal >is just an idea as yet. An alternative would be to buy more expendables >and shift payloads to them, since they use less ammonium perchlorate, but >NASA does not have the money for that. Excuse me, but are we really supposed to believe that omitting the flight crew makes using the old SRBs an acceptable risk? Challenger is every bit as "dead" as its crew, and we cannot afford to lose another orbiter under any circumstances, whether or not astronauts are killed in flight along with it. (Anyway, rocket accidents can kill people on the ground too.) As I recall, one of the options NASA originally studied was modifying the existing SRB fleet. This was rejected in favor of the redesign for cost and peace-of-mind reasons, BEFORE the perchlorate plant exploded. Why not just admit that the explosion changes the picture, and that SRB modification is now attractive? Toss in every safety mod we can think of and then use them for manned missions, perhaps only in warm weather. Trying to fly Columbia unmanned means tinkering dangerously with a vanishing resource, namely orbiters. Dammit Jim, that thing NEEDS a pilot! :-) -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/30/88)
In article <6137@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >Excuse me, but are we really supposed to believe that omitting the >flight crew makes using the old SRBs an acceptable risk? Rationally, you have a point. Congress is not rational. Losing hardware is troublesome, but it would not be anything like the political disaster that more dead astronauts would be. >Challenger is >every bit as "dead" as its crew, and we cannot afford to lose another >orbiter under any circumstances... Then we'll have to ground the shuttle permanently. There is no way to fly it without risking loss of another orbiter. The NRC report on shuttle frequency put it even more strongly: if the shuttle continues flying, another orbiter *WILL* be lost eventually. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
usenet@nancy.UUCP (Usenet file owner) (08/31/88)
In article <1988Aug29.172104.10823@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Then we'll have to ground the shuttle permanently. There is no way to >fly it without risking loss of another orbiter. The NRC report on >shuttle frequency put it even more strongly: if the shuttle continues >flying, another orbiter *WILL* be lost eventually. Unfortunately, in the wake of the Challenger explosion, no one has done the necessary *political* work to get the message out to the US public and Congress that spaceflight entails risks, and there are reasons for taking these risks. Instead, we've been fed a steady diet of "Safety first!" messages, and the public has been led to believe that there will be no more shuttle accidents. What I fear this means is the next shuttle accident will be the *last* US manned spaceflight, at least for several decades. --Ken Josenhans UUCP:...{uunet,rutgers}!umix!itivax!msudoc!krj (maybe...) BITNET: 13020KRJ@MSU Internet: krj@frith.egr.msu.edu
greg@proxftl.UUCP (Gregory N. Hullender) (09/01/88)
In article <688@nancy.UUCP> krj@frith.UUCP (Ken Josenhans) writes: >What I fear this means is the next >shuttle accident will be the *last* US manned spaceflight, at least for >several decades. Well, my first reaction to that is "why wait? Cancel it now." As I've mentioned before, it makes me sick when I think how much interplanetary data we might have had if we'd been able to launch anything since Voyager, as contrasted to what scientific data we've got from the shuttle, which is exactly zero. -- Greg Hullender uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg 3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer.
mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) (09/01/88)
In article <688@proxftl.UUCP> greg@proxftl.UUCP (Gregory N. Hullender) writes: > > it makes me sick when I think how much interplanetary data >we might have had if we'd been able to launch anything since Voyager, as >contrasted to what scientific data we've got from the shuttle, which is >exactly zero. >-- A curious definition of "zero" to be sure. Obviously the researchers from 3 successful Spacelab missions might disagree. John Scully Power, the oceanographer on board STS-41D would likewise disagree, simply by the fact that he saw structures and currents in the ocean that no one had ever noticed before. If the data return is "zero" why would 3M continue to waste money on their CFES experiments flight after flight. While it remains a trade secret exactly what they're working on, one rumor has it that it may help cure 40% of all arthritis in the country once it is put into production. Hardly a zero in my book. Oh, say, what about that Solar Maximum Satillite? now since that is repaired, and returning data on what might be the greatest sun-spot peak ever, would you classify that as "zero"? Will the Hubble Space Telescope (made for the shuttle and astronaut servicing) return "zero" data?? > Greg Hullender uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg > 3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 > Go back to your dictionary. -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
greg@proxftl.UUCP (Gregory N. Hullender) (09/02/88)
1) What exactly did these "successful" spaceleb missions discover? I think they were just more "space junkets." 2) No one had to be up in space to see ocean currents; satellite pictures would have done as well. 3) What, exactly, is 3M launching on? Can't be the shuttle right now, and it can't be too important if they've tabled it for almost 3 years. 4) My understanding of the Solar Max mission was that it cost a lot more than it would have to simply launch a new one. 5) Hubble has so far returned zero data. There is nothing about a space telescope that intrinsically requires human servicing. Even though some of the items you mention have some merit, the shuttle has been at best irrelevant to them, at worst (and this is the usual case) inimical. I was being generous in giving it a zero. -- Greg Hullender uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg 3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer.
mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) (09/02/88)
In article <691@proxftl.UUCP> greg@proxftl.UUCP (Gregory N. Hullender) writes: > >2) No one had to be up in space to see ocean currents; satellite pictures > would have done as well. We've had oceanographic studies via unmanned satillites, but whether you like it or not, the human eye is vastly more sensitive to some things than any of the cameras ever launched. John Scully-Power was simply able to witness very fine structures never detected in the years and years of earth resource satillite studies. >3) What, exactly, is 3M launching on? Can't be the shuttle right now, > and it can't be too important if they've tabled it for almost 3 years. It's called the Shuttle. The first CFES (Continuous Flow Electrophoresis System) flight was on STS-3, and it has flown on 7 or 8 missions since then. >4) My understanding of the Solar Max mission was that it cost a lot more > than it would have to simply launch a new one. NASA didn't happen to have a warehouse full of spare Solar Max satillites, to launch as needed. They would've had to construct a whole new one practically from scratch, at a cost of at least $150 million. Now double that to include the launch costs, and you end up with about $300 million or more in total costs. Not to mention a minimum of 5 years in construction. Alot of extra time and money when all that was needed to be done was to replace a burned out fuse. >5) Hubble has so far returned zero data. So has Galileo and Magellen. > There is nothing about a space > telescope that intrinsically requires human servicing. Can you say "repair"? If we're going to put up a $billion dollar plus, instrument in space, we damn well better be able to fix the thing if struck by a micro-meteroid, or suffers a system failure. Not to mention refueling it, cleaning the mirror, etc. Also, periodically, scientific packages will be swapped out for new ones. >Even though some of the items you mention have some merit, the shuttle has >been at best irrelevant to them, at worst (and this is the usual case) >inimical. Read the above. >I was being generous in giving it a zero. ^^^^^^^^ Nah, too easy. . . > Greg Hullender uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg > 3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 > > My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer. -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]