Posted on 07/06/2006 7:32:47 AM PDT by The_Victor
The protruding gap filler is located toward the tip of the starboard wing, about five tiles back from the leading edge RCC panels, and is between panels 16 and 17. Difficult location to reach.
EVA1 will probably start with removal of the gap filler.
How much of a threat (if any) to successful reentry is this problem?
shuttle ping
It's not a threat to reentry, but might cause extra scorching of a couple of tiles, which would then have to be replaced for cosmetic reasons.
the gap filler will be removed during the first eva, and does not have an inpact on the reentry, they had to do this on the last flight
None. This probably happened on every shuttle flight, but nobody knew about it. Today it serves the purpose of creating more busy work, a valuable quality in the government industry.
It also serves to make shuttle flights less feasible over time. It's not a terrible ordeal to drive from New York to Los Angeles, for example -- but if you had to stop every 50 miles and make sure the car's body was still intact, you'd probably never bother making the trip.
I hope they have a qualified dentist on board.
"It's not a threat to reentry, but might cause extra scorching of a couple of tiles, which would then have to be replaced for cosmetic reasons."
An EVA seems more dangerous than loose gap filler. Is it just me or does the Shuttle seem like more trouble than it's worth with all the constant "safety" issues?
In itself an EVA to either pound or cut the piece of felt flush with the tiles or to pull it out altogether would not be worth the risk. However, EVAs are among the most productive learning experiences toward our eventual mastery of living in space and would be done on any excuse.
The Shuttle is one of the best examples of a "self licking ice cream cone". Touted as a "reuseable" space vehicle, 40% of the fleet has blown up, and the things have to be massively overhauled after every outing.
After perfecting large payload rockets like the Saturn V in the Apollo program, I don't see why we EVER needed the Shuttle -- we can get everything we could possibly need into space using the big, expendable rockets.
Yes, but what else do we have that can get significant amounts of stuff down from space? I'll admit it's ludicrous that the Shuttle gets used a lot on missions that would be better served with something like a Soyuz, but it does have some unique abilities that should be used when applicable.
When have we ever brought significant amounts of stuff down from space? We don't bring back payloads anymore because the added weight is considered a "risk" during re-entry. Furthermore, at $1B per shuttle launch, it is usually cheaper to build a new payload and launch on an EELV rather than retrieve/repair. New Horizons was sent to Pluto at a total cost of $600 Million, vs. $1 Billion for a shuttle launch. If something major like New Horizons is less than a shuttle launch, imagine the relative cost of a communications satellite, or other terrestrial payload.
Now there's a euphemism just waiting to be used.
Hasn't there been a fair amount of research equipment which sat in zero-G for awhile and was then brought back to Earth for analysis? Not something that's done all the time, but nonetheless it seems like a useful ability to have sometimes.
"protruding gap filler
Now there's a euphemism just waiting to be used."
Is that what the kids are calling it nowadays?
The last one of which I am aware is the LDEF facility in the '80s. It was supposed to stay up for six months, but thanks to Challenger and other delays, was in orbit for five years. Yes, the shuttle was supposed to be able to bring back satellites and such for repair, but it was deemed too costly for all non-Hubble satellites.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.