Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government NASA Space Politics

Shuttle Extension & Heavy Launcher Bill Proposed 134

FleaPlus writes "In light of Congressional resistance to the new plans for NASA (criticized as 'radical') proposed by NASA head Charles Bolden, Sen. Hutchinson (R-TX and ranking member of the Senate committee dealing with NASA) has proposed a compromise bill. Hutchinson's bill calls for postponing the Space Shuttle's retirement until 2015, and instead of wholly canceling Constellation/Ares, it would adapt the more effective portions to a 'government-operated space transportation system,' largely inspired by the DIRECT proposal. NASA would also pursue commercial crew and cargo launches to orbit, although the bill leaves out Charles Bolden's proposal for R&D of 'game-changing' technologies for sustainable and cost-effective space exploration."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Shuttle Extension & Heavy Launcher Bill Proposed

Comments Filter:
  • speaking of NASA (Score:5, Informative)

    by SethJohnson ( 112166 ) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @11:40AM (#31380988) Homepage Journal
    Last night I was visiting with a friend who has worked at NASA for 11 years. He is concerned for his job, etc. Among the things we discussed was astronaut photography. Sometimes an astronaut comes through the program and demands an update to the cameras they're approved to bring into space. The administration is very resistant to these upgrades because of the testing that is involved to approve a new device to bring into space. Something as simple as a dslr camera requires millions of dollars in testing to ensure that the device won't cause problems in vacuum or in zero g, etc. It even goes so far that NASA produces its own battery charger for the camera instead of using the commercial charger that ships with the model.

    Seth
  • by Derosian ( 943622 ) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @12:27PM (#31381224) Homepage Journal
    Obviously NASA has not provided us with anything of value!

    http://www.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions.htm [howstuffworks.com]

    By the way. I just Googled this. Took me all of 3 seconds to find something of value that NASA has provided.
  • Re:speaking of NASA (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ellis D. Tripp ( 755736 ) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @12:35PM (#31381276) Homepage

    Something as simple as a dslr camera requires millions of dollars in testing to ensure that the device won't cause problems in vacuum or in zero g, etc. It even goes so far that NASA produces its own battery charger for the camera instead of using the commercial charger that ships with the model.

    NASA would need to be sure that any lubricants used on the camera's moving parts (yes, even DSLR's have them) will not outgas if exposed to vacuum, or freeze/liquefy when exposed to the wide temperature variations experienced in space. The same would go for components like electrolytic capacitors, batteries, etc, which might rupture and release toxic chemicals when exposed to a vacuum.

    The battery charger most likely needs to be customized in order to make one that can plug into the 28VDC or 400/800 Hz AC power systems typically used on spacecraft.

  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @12:41PM (#31381322) Journal
    She wants to slow DOWN new ones and keep the existing one going.
  • Re:speaking of NASA (Score:5, Informative)

    by cyclone96 ( 129449 ) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @01:06PM (#31381490)

    So what DO you do when the battery charger bursts into flames on orbit?

    I'll reinforce your point here. Knowing something about the fire response strategy on ISS you do the following:

    1) If you actually are lucky enough to witness the charger burst into flames, remove the power from it, hit the fire alarm, put on a mask, and expend a CO2 based fire extinguisher on it. The mask keeps you from asphyxiating yourself with the extinguisher.

    2) If you don't physically see what happens (which is most likely, ISS is big and some modules may go unattended for hours) - the combustion products will trip off a cabin smoke detector in the module. That will stop ventilation inside the module and ring the alarm. In most cases, this will put out a fire in zero g - fires tend to smother themselves without gravity to force convection currents.

    Meanwhile, not having any knowledge other than a smoke alarm from a module, the crew will converge in a safe haven in the vehicle away from the fire. Two (of the 6) may go forward to investigate with masks, fire extinguishers, and a hand held device to detect combustion products (mainly so they know if they are entering a lethal pocket of CO or other gases). Hopefully the module isn't a total fog of combustion products - if it is, the crew is likely to isolate it and leave it. If you don't know what the fire source is (because you can't see it), it may well end up that the entire module ends up getting powered down to ensure an electrical fire isn't being fed. This of course has some pretty serious ramifications as well - shutting down power to a module is not a simple event to reverse (since all the computers, cooling, lights, etc. go down with it). It's likely that collateral damage to a module's systems would happen if that were done.

    Even if you do understand what happened and know it's out, the harmful gases from burning plastic aren't going to just go away on their own, they have to be scrubbed out with deployed fans and special canisters. It would take weeks to clean up.

    Fighting a fire in a closed environment is very different than something you would do in your home. In zero gravity, most of the control is by prevention - don't use flammable materials, stop ventilation on a detected fire so it doesn't spread, don't use things that generate poison air when they burn, etc. Even a minor fire that many of us have encountered at one time or another (smoked electronics, plastic bag on fire, etc.) would be an extremely serious event in space. That's why so much time is spent making sure equipment conforms with fire prevention standards.

  • by A nonymous Coward ( 7548 ) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @02:20PM (#31381940)

    Look at any chart of national debt since WW II and you will find it is Republican presidents who have driven it upwards and Democratic presidents who have lowered it.

    Every president from WW II until Reagan steadily lowered the national debt; Reagan cut taxes but not spending and tripled the national debt. Bush I continued the trend. Clinton lowered national debt. Bush II tripled or quadrupled national debt. Obama has only been in office a year, and has just started his first budget, so for you Republican whiners who blame all the recent debt on Obama, dream on -- it is Bush II's debt hands down.

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Working...