NationStates Jolt Archive

A Discovery space shuttle cockpit window cover fell, damaging protective tiles near spacecraft’s tail, NASA officials say.Breaking News on CNN's site.

EDIT: Catchier title. ;)

There was a time when I wanted to be an astronaut. No more.
btw got link?

Breaking News on CNN's site.
Which only goes to butress my argument that everything possible should be done to encourage private enterprise in space ventures. As the shuttle becomes ever more complex, private enterprise is busy finding simple, cost-effective ways into space: http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/

Boo yah for new titles.

Its strange really.

I used to love the space program, and could recite most of the manned missions from Mercury to Gemini, to the Shuttles..

I think, on one hand, space exporation is the most noble of human endeavors.
To leave behind you own world, and seek out others, makes one a pioneer of science, and that...is certainly noble.

But then...

When you think about the billions of dollars that have been sunk into this program, and wonder what could have been done with it to help out the people of this country, or other countries.

Then, you realize that the technology used on these shuttles are nearly 20 years old.

My car is ten years old, and its getting to the point where Im leery of drving it out of town....let alone to space.

Challenger....destroyed...

Columbia...destroyed....

Hmm..

I still think space exploration is noble and vital, but its time to create a more cost effective way of delivering goods to the International Space Station.
If we cant make as sure as we can, that manned missions are as safe as we can make them.....maybe its time to think about WHY we are doing this.

Which only goes to butress my argument that everything possible should be done to encourage private enterprise in space ventures. As the shuttle becomes ever more complex, private enterprise is busy finding simple, cost-effective ways into space: http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/

I have nothing against private enterprise going into space, but there will always be a role for government. Private businesses will only be interested in what is profitable, whereas the government can focus on what is beneficial to mankind whether it is profitable or not.

BTW, private enterprise is already responsible for the space shuttle. The shuttle is built by United Space Alliance, a private limited liability company owned by Lockheed and Boeing (both of which are publically traded corporations in the private sector).

I have nothing against private enterprise going into space, but there will always be a role for government. Private businesses will only be interested in what is profitable, whereas the government can focus on what is beneficial to mankind whether it is profitable or not.

Why do you assume that a government would ever have the interests of mankind at heart. Governments will focus on what is beneficial to them in either a military sense or in a propoganda sense. Mankind as a whole can go swing.

The way NASA is set up, the most scientifically beneficial projects are set aside in favour of popular ones that will get the attention of the average person. Which is why, instead of say, maintaining hubble, which has provided much information about the universe out there and still can if properly maintained, there's talk of man going to Mars, something which will have no scientific benefit other than possibly seeing how people do on such long trips in space...

At least the canadian space agency has ideas pitched to scientists, not politicians... even though it is much lower budget, we get more scientific bang for our buck.

The shuttles that are so old shouldn't be going into space, especially not without intensive checks beforehand. Although if they're retired like the others that have been retired, they will probably become home to small woodland creatures... apparantly the american government cares little for preserving the history of early space exploration for future generations...

Which is why, instead of say, maintaining hubble, which has provided much information about the universe out there and still can if properly maintained, there's talk of man going to Mars, something which will have no scientific benefit other than possibly seeing how people do on such long trips in space...


The goal is to terraform Mars, not just to go there. Getting there is only the first step.

The rest of what you say is just guesswork, and bad guesswork at that. Only a tiny fraction of NASA programs ever make headlines. Thats because most of the programs are of interest to scientists, not laymen.

Well, it isn't if losing a window during takeoff isn't grounds for abort anyway...

(if it was a takeoff situation. I think that it's safe to say that losing a window is grounds for an immediate and emergency abort)

I still think space exploration is noble and vital, but its time to create a more cost effective way of delivering goods to the International Space Station.

Yep, the ESA's doing exactly that. One of the projects currently being worked on is a robotic supply shuttle. It flies up there with a ton or so of food, the people on the station take the food out and put their rubbish in in place, and then the thing makes a steep entry into Earth's atmosphere and burns up. Efficient disposal. Of course, yes, it's not reusable, but... the shuttles are. They're old, outdated, and falling to bits. Half of them have blown up. Sometimes, building spaceships from scratch every time is a good thing - they stay up to date.

(No, there aren't any manned ESA ships. We use Russia for that)

The goal is to terraform Mars, not just to go there. Getting there is only the first step.

The rest of what you say is just guesswork, and bad guesswork at that. Only a tiny fraction of NASA programs ever make headlines. Thats because most of the programs are of interest to scientists, not laymen.
It's not really guesswork. My astronomy prof last semester has worked with NASA in the past and he's worked with the canadian space agency as well, he discussed how the programs are funded in each system. NASA gets its funding running things by congress, politicians, not scientists, the canadian space agency runs things by a panel of scientists who evaluate the scientific value of a project and deceide on the budget for it.

I have nothing against private enterprise going into space, but there will always be a role for government. Private businesses will only be interested in what is profitable, whereas the government can focus on what is beneficial to mankind whether it is profitable or not.

BTW, private enterprise is already responsible for the space shuttle. The shuttle is built by United Space Alliance, a private limited liability company owned by Lockheed and Boeing (both of which are publically traded corporations in the private sector).
This is true, but by being government contractors, they in effect become part of the government. Their motivation is primarily to fulfil their contract, not to make a profit by being interstellar entrepreneurs.

Man, what is it with those frigging tiles and why won't they stay glued to the shuttle?

I just read the other day that when the Soviet Union let their Space Shuttle "Buran" make its computerized maidenflight (and the only one that happened) in 1988, Buran circled Earth 3 times and touched done just fine. After counting their tiles, only 5 were missing. 5 out of how many thousand?

Maybe NASA should ask the Russians what kind of superglue they were using...

And yes, D'oh! indeed...

So, did they put the countdown on hold or what?

It's not really guesswork. My astronomy prof last semester has worked with NASA in the past and he's worked with the canadian space agency as well, he discussed how the programs are funded in each system. NASA gets its funding running things by congress, politicians, not scientists, the canadian space agency runs things by a panel of scientists who evaluate the scientific value of a project and deceide on the budget for it.
[ having trouble believing he's actually saying this ] Ahem. It sounds as if Canada has a better handle on this process than the US does. There! I said it! :D

[ having trouble believing he's actually saying this ] Ahem. It sounds as if Canada has a better handle on this process than the US does. There! I said it! :D
Don't you feel a lot better now that is off yer chest? :p

Which only goes to butress my argument that everything possible should be done to encourage private enterprise in space ventures. As the shuttle becomes ever more complex, private enterprise is busy finding simple, cost-effective ways into space: http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/
As far as I know, nothing stops the private initiative from launching their own spacecraft. Plus, the entire US space program, although government funded, includes a very hefty private component.

Man, what is it with those frigging tiles and why won't they stay glued to the shuttle?

I just read the other day that when the Soviet Union let their Space Shuttle "Buran" make its computerized maidenflight (and the only one that happened) in 1988, Buran circled Earth 3 times and touched done just fine. After counting their tiles, only 5 were missing. 5 out of how many thousand?

Maybe NASA should ask the Russians what kind of superglue they were using...

And yes, D'oh! indeed...

So, did they put the countdown on hold or what?
Damaging tiles and having them fall off are two different things.

Which only goes to butress my argument that everything possible should be done to encourage private enterprise in space ventures. As the shuttle becomes ever more complex, private enterprise is busy finding simple, cost-effective ways into space: http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/

NASA would buy a better vessel from private industry if any existed. Its very unlikely that private industry would even make a model that had no commercial value.

If industry did make a model to replace the shuttle the cost to the government would be nearly identical because it would be a custom job with special maintenance concerns. Besides, NASA has access to technology owned by the US Government and has collaborations with foreign space agencies that private industry would likely not have and be unable to benefit from.

SpaceShipOne, though only a prototype, is built to be a passenger model for future commercial space tourism and faster worldwide travel. NASA is developing its own technology for its own needs since no one else will deliver.

I do wish they'd replace the shuttles though since their age is beginning to show (though I must admit even with that in consideration they have a good record and are doing well).

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html

I really am curious about what the response will be from people when the first private commercial space vessel disintergrates in the atmosphere. It's just the reality of flight that disasters happen and it has nothing to do whether a plane is private or government built. Most (if not ALL) major air carriers and plane makers are private companies but that hasn't stopped design flaws or plane crashes.

All I think SpaceShipOne proved is that the technology is so cheap now, even a private company can do it. Amazing that back in the day, the CPU monitoring the Apollo missions would be idential in power to a 8-bit chip costing around 13 cents in today's world but it cost billions decades ago.

The government will always (and for the sake of science SHOULD) be on the forefront of space technology.

Don't you feel a lot better now that is off yer chest? :p
LOL! Um ... perhaps. :D

NASA would buy a better vessel from private industry if any existed. Its very unlikely that private industry would even make a model that had no commercial value.

If industry did make a model to replace the shuttle the cost to the government would be nearly identical because it would be a custom job with special maintenance concerns. Besides, NASA has access to technology owned by the US Government and has collaborations with foreign space agencies that private industry would likely not have and be unable to benefit from.

SpaceShipOne, though only a prototype, is built to be a passenger model for future commercial space tourism and faster worldwide travel. NASA is developing its own technology for its own needs since no one else will deliver.

I do wish they'd replace the shuttles though since their age is beginning to show (though I must admit even with that in consideration they have a good record and are doing well).

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html

I really am curious about what the response will be from people when the first private commercial space vessel disintergrates in the atmosphere. It's just the reality of flight that disasters happen and it has nothing to do whether a plane is private or government built. Most (if not ALL) major air carriers and plane makers are private companies but that hasn't stopped design flaws or plane crashes.

All I think SpaceShipOne proved is that the technology is so cheap now, even a private company can do it. Amazing that back in the day, the CPU monitoring the Apollo missions would be idential in power to a 8-bit chip costing around 13 cents in today's world but it cost billions decades ago.

The government will always (and for the sake of science SHOULD) be on the forefront of space technology.
Err...the space shuttle has a worse record then the Saturn V/Apollos (21 launches in apollo itself, with a few extra for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project), and about the same as the Soyuz project. Except the shuttles cost quite a bit more.

All I think SpaceShipOne proved is that the technology is so cheap now, even a private company can do it. Amazing that back in the day, the CPU monitoring the Apollo missions would be idential in power to a 8-bit chip costing around 13 cents in today's world but it cost billions decades ago.

Just remember that SpaceShip One's only capability is to get 100 km above the surface with a couple of persons and come back. It can't get into orbit, it can't carry any significant payload. It will be much more costly to do that.

Still a great accomplishment, though.

Damaging tiles and having them fall off are two different things.
Yeah, I know. I just amazed me that NASA has managed it again to damage some tiles...

NASA would buy a better vessel from private industry if any existed. Its very unlikely that private industry would even make a model that had no commercial value.

If industry did make a model to replace the shuttle the cost to the government would be nearly identical because it would be a custom job with special maintenance concerns. Besides, NASA has access to technology owned by the US Government and has collaborations with foreign space agencies that private industry would likely not have and be unable to benefit from.

SpaceShipOne, though only a prototype, is built to be a passenger model for future commercial space tourism and faster worldwide travel. NASA is developing its own technology for its own needs since no one else will deliver.

I do wish they'd replace the shuttles though since their age is beginning to show (though I must admit even with that in consideration they have a good record and are doing well).

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html

I really am curious about what the response will be from people when the first private commercial space vessel disintergrates in the atmosphere. It's just the reality of flight that disasters happen and it has nothing to do whether a plane is private or government built. Most (if not ALL) major air carriers and plane makers are private companies but that hasn't stopped design flaws or plane crashes.

All I think SpaceShipOne proved is that the technology is so cheap now, even a private company can do it. Amazing that back in the day, the CPU monitoring the Apollo missions would be idential in power to a 8-bit chip costing around 13 cents in today's world but it cost billions decades ago.

The government will always (and for the sake of science SHOULD) be on the forefront of space technology.
Good post! There are a number of parallels we can draw between the role of private spacecraft development and the early years of the airline industry. When private companies began to get involved in air flight, they developed a number of things which were later used by the military. Now, although military procurement specifies many of the paramaters for aircraft they purchase, the trend is toward using civilian "off-the-shelf" components insofar as possible. Not only is it cheaper, but the safety standards are often virtually identical.

I suspect the same thing will happen in space flight. Eventually, the military ( and the government in general ) will use off-the-shelf hardware as much as possible.

Don't discount the good old profit motive as motivation to do virtually anything that can be imagined. Right now, we're in the pioneering stage of civilian spacecraft development. When spaceflight becomes relatively routine, things will change radically. Yes, there will be accidents, but there are accidents in virtually every field of human endeavor, including those which have been with us for a long, long time. Just look at the recent recalls in the auto industry; at least they now attempt to rectify the situation before people are killed. :)

Just remember that SpaceShip One's only capability is to get 100 km above the surface with a couple of persons and come back. It can't get into orbit, it can't carry any significant payload. It will be much more costly to do that.

Still a great accomplishment, though.
They're already working on orbital flight and payload capacity. :)

Yeah, I know. I just amazed me that NASA has managed it again to damage some tiles...
Especially something falling out (like a window) that's supposed to withstand the pressure differential between the inside of the craft and the outside...

Especially something falling out (like a window) that's supposed to withstand the pressure differential between the inside of the craft and the outside...
I thought it was a window cover. They take those off before launch.

I thought it was a window cover. They take those off before launch.
That makes a wee bit more sense then a window falling out, I must admit.

It's not really guesswork. My astronomy prof last semester has worked with NASA in the past and he's worked with the canadian space agency as well, he discussed how the programs are funded in each system. NASA gets its funding running things by congress, politicians, not scientists, the canadian space agency runs things by a panel of scientists who evaluate the scientific value of a project and deceide on the budget for it.

Thats not entirely accurate. The government doesnt micromanage NASA, they assign it big chunks of money that it is up to the people at HQ to assign to various projects.