The mission for Discovery last week was varied, but to me the most interesting aspect was the amount of inspection — and introspection — done, both on the ground and on orbit. The Shuttle was examined like never before, every square centimeter gazed at, pored over, and, uh, scrutinized under.
I doubt there was much different with the Shuttle on this mission, physically, than with any other mission, but this time we could see what happened. There’s nothing like a good look to let you know what’s going on.
So this look in the mirror, so to speak, taught NASA a lot about what the Shuttle goes through during launch. I also strongly suspect that NASA itself will be looking in the mirror very closely for a while, at least. The new Administrator, Mike Griffin, has an engineering background, has a history of telling it like it is, and he has my very favorite trait of all: he admits it when he doesn’t know something. If only all politicians were so forthright.
So to start off this week, I give you not just a metaphorical gaze in the mirror, but an actual one: this image of astronaut Steve Robinson, who performed a spacewalk on STS 114. While outside the Shuttle, he turned the camera around and snapped this image of himself, with everything dizzyingly reflected in his visor. Click the image to go to the NASA gallery, where you can download a ginormous version of this image (3000 x 2000 pixels).
August 14th, 2005 at 10:30 pm
Except … if I understood the news reports properly, they were prepared to override safety rules to make sure it would launch. So, I’m not so sure they’ve really learned anything.
August 15th, 2005 at 4:02 am
What some should learn is that space flights are not about security so far, they are
about taking risk.
August 15th, 2005 at 4:48 am
There will always be significant risks and they are likely to get worse. Actually, given that Bush wants to go to mars while turning the clock back 500 years on science, the manned mars mission will likely involve a spring loaded catapult the size of nevada.
August 15th, 2005 at 5:57 am
What’s always startled me about space missions and hardware is this: You spend hundreds of millions (or more) researching, developing, testing and deploying a vehicle such as the space shuttle. When things go wrong, it’s hardly ever a suitably big-budget problem. A piece of foam, a tile gap filler — it’s simply mind-boggling how in a situation as delicate as every shuttle flight presents, it’s the little things that can matter most.
I think this flight was still a bit rushed, as NASA went against their own procedures with the flakey fuel sensor problem unsolved. However, I am certainly glad that it finished safely; I think that’s one thing that everyone can agree on.
August 15th, 2005 at 7:06 am
What we, meaning the federal government agencies such as NASA and the military, and not the SF and interested space-faring public, fail to do is keep what works best and advance that technology to its greatest potential!
The Apollo program was a great technological feat and we were accomplishing so much with it–manned lunar missions, Skylab, and it could have evolved into Lunar colonization, Mars exploration and colonization, and space industrial complexes, etc..
But we scrapped it for the Space Shuttle “space truck” fleet. Ok, they are techonological and engineering feats, too!
And, in the 21st Century, the are planning on re-developing another “Apollo” system–the same that Russia and China have developed and are using to their technological and engineering potentials.
Chet
August 15th, 2005 at 8:34 am
I also like the other photo at that site, beneath the self-portrait.
To me, the most beautiful part of these sorts of pictures has always been the thin blue line of atmosphere at the horizon.
(Of course, we know that that photo is fake. Because if it were real, you’d see stars.
)
August 15th, 2005 at 11:03 am
I also liked the second photo, but I was wondering if someone could identify which two land masses are shown?
August 15th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Walter — the second photo is of Gibraltar looking south from off the Eastern coast of Spain. That means that the two land masses would be Europe (Spain) and Africa (Morocco and Algeria).
August 15th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster
Those are SO my new backgroud
August 15th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
Did you recognize that or have other knowledge? I’m been going across Google Earth for a while trying to find that, and by the angle the picture was taken, it would have taken me forever. Thanks!
August 15th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Hey, I agree, those are spectacular photos.
Chet, apparently the launchers for the new CEV and heavy-lift cargo systems will be largely based on shuttle technology. The only slght drawback is that the most reliable engine in the shuttle programme is that of the solid rocket booster (SRB). And this has no throttle, and no “off” switch (remember ’86, when one of Challenger’s SRBs failed, and the other one kept on going?). I’m not sure I’d want to sit on the top of one of those. Still, the new concepts have the cargo / crew on top of the rocket stack, which is a bit easier than having it strapped to the side (no problems with ice or foam striking your orbiter that way and I assume it makes the thing easier to steer).
Anyway, at least some well-know, tried and tested technology will be going into the new vehicles. So they won’t be reinventing the wheel …
August 15th, 2005 at 6:07 pm
From Bob Park’s newsletter:
“WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 29 Jul 05 Washington, DC
1. SHUTTLE: THE SPACE SHUTTLE DOESN’T WORK IT NEVER DID WORK.
Why is everyone afraid to say so? The real problem isn’t foam falling off the fuel tank. The shuttle was sold to Congress as a way to launch things into space more cheaply. On the contrary, it’s the most expensive way to reach space ever conceived. The problems we’re facing now result from the refusal to acknowledge that reality. Initially, anything that went into space, including commercial and military satellites, was required to be launched from the shuttle. With the total cost of the shuttle program at about $150B, the average cost/flight is about $1.3B. The shuttle was strangling space development before the Challenger disaster.
Then it was declared to be a science laboratory, but no field of science has been affected in any way by research that has been conducted on the shuttle or space station. The last scheduled research mission was the final flight of Columbia in 2003. The shuttle’s only mission now is to supply the ISS.”
What are the prevailing opinions on this? Is the US getting bang for their science buck? It seems to me that this talk of manned missions to Mars is crazy, that money could go so much further with unmanned missions.
August 15th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
Are you sure this is real? There are no stars in the picture.
nyuk, nyuk.
August 15th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
That’s one of the coolest space photos I’ve ever seen. Instantly became my desktop
.
August 16th, 2005 at 7:51 am
Walter — It was just a matter of deduction. It was clearly a picture of some narrow straights between two distinct land masses and there aren’t many places on the Earth than might otherwise fit the picture. The only other real canidate I can think of would be the Bosporus, but that looks clearly different. That left Gibraltar.