Return to flight slipping

SpaceNut · 2004-11-30 09:58:08

I think Bill's previous though was with regards to not building a SDV if I have that right for what he was meaning.
But you are right also in that most of the time the good workers are the ones let go. Usually the management only looks at the bottom line of pay roll or of benefits package reductions.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-01 07:28:29

Parachute-cleaning no small task Giant machines wash booster chutes for reuse

Parachute facts
Each solid rocket booster has a drogue chute and three main chutes.
Each main ribbon chute is 136 feet across and weighs 2,180 pounds.
Each recovery ship has four deck reels 5.5 feet across for rolling up the parachutes.
The Parachute Reburbishment Facility's washing machine recirculates 30,000 gallons of water.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-07 08:30:33

As noted there has been little progress on some of the issues of returning the shuttles to flight an lots in other areas.
Multiple articles are running today on spacetoday.net,
CBS News/Spaceflight, SPACE.com, Florida Today, Houston Chronicle, Washington Post and many others.
The main issue after foam shedding is of tile repair of which Nasa's engineers are still hoping for a solution.

John Creighton · 2004-12-07 16:12:17

As noted there has been little progress on some of the issues of returning the shuttles to flight an lots in other areas.
Multiple articles are running today on spacetoday.net,
CBS News/Spaceflight, SPACE.com, Florida Today, Houston Chronicle, Washington Post and many others.
The main issue after foam shedding is of tile repair of which Nasa's engineers are still hoping for a solution.

The tile repair sounds pretty cool.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-07 20:13:21

The problem is not so much tile but is more of keeping the air flow smooth such that it does not introduce more heat than would normally be seen by any point that would be repaired. The other part is small cracks or pits though not major can be fixed but larger holes requiring major backing of the inserted material until it hardens on reentry is thou.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-13 06:29:39

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c … 234wna.xml

Shuttle Mile stones for return:

*Orbiter Boom Sensor System (OBSS): MD Robotics in Canada is making steady progress on the shuttle's new OBSS to be used starting with the RTF mission to allow crew to inspect earlier inaccessible areas for damage. The OBSS development schedule earlier looked like it could not support a first flight as early as May 14, but is now coming in line with orbiter schedules, Parsons said. Its shipment to Kennedy for Integration with Discovery is planned for this month.
The unit is a 40-ft. extension to the existing 50-ft. Canadian-built arm designed to position a laser dynamic range sensor and laser camera to view the wing leading edges and complete belly area. At least one of the two laser sensors should make the STS-114 flight. In space, the standard arm will mate with the new extension. The OBSS is also being designed for use by the station's arm to further its reach for orbital wing and belly inspections.
*Kennedy milestones: The three Boeing/Rocketdyne space shuttle main engines to be used on the RTF mission were installed in the orbiter Discovery late last week in Bay 3 of the Kennedy Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF). In the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) the stacking of Discovery's two solid rocket boosters is two-thirds complete on the spacecraft's mobile launcher platform and is expected to be finished this month by United Space Alliance technicians.
*External tank arrival: Discovery's external tank with insulation and other modifications is to be shipped by barge from its Lockheed Martin assembly facility in Michoud, La., by Dec. 31 and arrive here by Jan. 6. It is to be attached to the solid rocket boosters in the VAB by the second week of January. Under the current schedule, Discovery would be mated to the tank in early March and rolled to Launch Pad 39B by mid-March for tests leading to a mid-May liftoff.
The new external tank is being shipped to Kennedy with more work needed to prevent ice buildup on the liquid oxygen feed line bellows near where the oxygen umbilical enters the orbiter belly. The task is to be completed here and involves an engineering issue that has been under test for some time (AW&ST Oct. 4, p. 57).

This one is the safe haven rescue plan:

*Atlantis power-up: While Kennedy is accelerating Discovery processing for the first post-accident mission, it is also moving forward with preparation of Atlantis as the ready backup for retrieval of the STS-114 crew at the ISS within 40 days of Discovery's launch in an extreme emergency.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-13 07:00:53

Well here is some research that would help the shuttles TPS system of tiles.
Scientists Find Atomic Clues to Tougher Ceramics though the use of rare-earth elements.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-16 07:05:25

Ex-engineer fears shuttle loss, Don Nelson urges panel to push crew escape system

The lack of an escape system "will lead to the loss of another crew," said Don Nelson, a 36-year NASA veteran engineer who worked at Johnson Space Center and closely with Marshall Space Flight Center engineers during his career.
Nelson estimates a crew escape system could be placed on NASA's remaining three shuttle orbiters for about $3.8 billion.

Crew escape systems were part of all NASA spacecraft until the space shuttle was designed in the early 1970s. Engineers felt shuttle technology could be made so reliable that an escape system would be useless.
During the original shuttle design, we looked at a crew escape system, but it would have been too heavy. We thought that technology would do the job and make the shuttle orbiter into an airliner.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-16 10:03:31

Impractical, there is no way they can add an escape system without compromising the required payload capacity for ISS componets. I don't think that whimsically low $3.8Bn figure for radical Shuttle modifications is realistic either.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-17 05:29:21

Well since the last official update on the 15 recommendations that had been approve we have up'ed the anti from 5 to 8 as of this news article.
Shuttle return edges closer Panel: NASA has satisfied 8 of 15 recommendations to launch again

The task force, which met this week in Huntsville, Ala., has certified NASA has satisfied eight of the recommendations, though minor work remains on two. Seven still need the panel's blessing.

NASA Makes Progress in Columbia Board Recommendations

Covey and his fellow task group members remained confident they would be able to complete their assessment of NASA's return-to-flight work as early as March 2005. The group plans to make its final report to NASA at least one month before the next shuttle launches.

While this last item is the real sticking point for fly or no fly for the shuttle come this next may or june time frame.
Group Urges Doable Shuttle Repair Method

NASA needs to supply astronauts with a "reasonable, doable and practicable" way to plug space shuttle holes in orbit before resuming launches, an advisory group said Thursday.

You would have thought this question would have been answered already for what size ice chunks would be dangerous to the shuttle.
Nasa Stennis Space Center grows ice for shuttle tests

NASA is simulating conditions typical of space shuttle launch days to see what kinds of ice and frost form on the foam insulation of the super-cooled external tank. Engineers are trying to understand better how much ice can safely accumulate on the tank without becoming a debris hazard.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-17 08:34:40

As I mentioned before, you could add ejection seats. They were installed in Shuttle's first flight, but removed because there's no way for mid-deck passengers to eject. The http://www.astronautix.com/craft/moose.htm]MOOSE stands for Man Out Of Space, Easiest. It was an escape system that permitted bail-out from orbit. It's simple and light weight, it massed 215kg including parachute, spacesuit, and astronaut. I'm not sure which suit they used, but assume an A7L Apollo suit without the OPS backup, that's 135 pounds, 61kg. If you assume an 84kg astronaut (185 pounds) and 61kg suit, that means 70kg for parachute and heat shield/retro-rocket. Russia developed the http://www.zvezda-npp.ru/english/05.htm]K-36RB ejection seat for the Buran space shuttle. It could eject an astronaut upto 30km altitude and Mach 3. http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/News/P … .html]This web page quotes Aviation Week & Space Technology 1991, v134n23, Jun 10, p. 44-48 which says the K-36RB seat was tested at Mach 4. I don't know the mass of K-36RB, but the K-36D used in the MiG-29 and Su-27 are 225kg including parachute. It's a heavy seat, but the seat with MOOSE would mean ejection from any point except thermal and hypersonic phases of atmospheric entry. It would only work for the 4 flight deck seats. It would have limits, but a lot better than some sort of capsule. GCNRevenger is correct, a capsule would make Shuttle unflyable.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-17 09:03:31

NASA isn't going to bother with ejection seats, especially since they would only be practical for the pilot/copilot that have windows to eject through, and since ejection seats wouldn't be very surviveable during the most dangerous times.

Frankly, the MOOSE idea was pretty crazy to begin with. I have low confidance in its reliability even under ideal circumstance, and would be useless during the reentry phase that destroyed Columbia, the second most dangerous phase. Conventional ejection systems are also of, well, "dubious surviveability" during acent. If you get into a spin, or hit with hypersonic air hard enough or debries, then you are history. They wouldn't save your neck in a pad explosion either.

Exchanging the top deck of Shuttle with a seperable reentry capsule, equipped with its own limited power, parachutes, LSS, RCS, OMS, and of course pad escape rockets, is the only worthwhile "escape functionality" to add to Shuttle and this would kill its payload & crew carriage.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-17 10:11:07

The 90kg ACES II seat used in American fighter planes can't handle spin or other extreme manoeuvres, but the 225kg K-36D can. The USAF felt the added weight and restricted rear vision of a K-36D was not worth it. Everything has its price. Columbia flew in 1980 with ejection doors over the pilot and co-pilot seats, but holes could be cut for the other two flight deck seats. There's no way to eject from the mid-deck. A K-36RB seat could have saved 4 of the astronauts of Challenger, but the 3 in the mid-deck were doomed. Yes, to let all astronauts escape at all phases would require replacing the cabin with a separate re-entry capsule. Yes, such a capsule would add so much weight there wouldn't be anything worth mentioning left for cargo. The MOOSE ejection seats would add about 250kg per seat or 1 tonne to the orbiter, and it still wouldn't have saved Columbia.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-17 11:00:10

Making a system to only save "some" of the astronauts is particularly morbid and of questionable ethics... a third "passenger" seat and doors for all five would need to be added to the flight deck (two pilots + 3 ISS crewmen), and it would still only be useful during the early part of the acent phase, which wouldn't be all that surviveable at supersonic speeds anyway. No good for pad abort or reentry phases... not worth the trouble.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-17 14:06:01

Retrofitting an escape unit into the shuttle just feels and seems wrong to me, as well as a waste of time if only certain members of the crew can use it and it would not work in many situations. Get the shuttle flying again and get on with its replacements that can be designed with useable escape units if need be. If we wait for a totally safe shuttle (or manned vessel) we'll be on Earth for a long time.

Graeme

RobertDyck · 2004-12-17 14:48:27

Actually, that's my conclusion as well. The HL-20 was designed with a solid rocket abort motor, and in case it couldn't fly back it had a parachute. Basically the entire orbiter is the escape pod. A good design. If you don't like my idea of mini-MAKS/HL-20 then choose some other clean-sheet design with abort or escape capability. I want to emphasize what can be done so there is no time wasted trying to look for something more. (How do I pass that on to NASA?)

I also want a mission to service Hubble. I feel Shuttle is just fine the way it is, a dedicated mission is enough. But if Congress or NASA management is too panicky to launch Shuttle, then install the ejection seats and restrict the mission to 4 crew. Of course it would be easier to just include the inspection boom attachment to the Arm. Chances of tiles getting knocked off from a critical area from that single flight are pretty slim, but if it happens the astronauts can sit tight until a second shuttle rescues them. Just include an airlock, EMU, MMU, and enough life support for a couple weeks. They'd need the airlock and EMU to service Hubble anyway.

Palomar · 2004-12-17 15:00:22

The lack of an escape system "will lead to the loss of another crew," said Don Nelson, a 36-year NASA veteran engineer who worked at Johnson Space Center and closely with Marshall Space Flight Center engineers during his career.

*Want to bet they still won't heed his warning? Even after the loss of Columbia especially?

Crew escape systems were part of all NASA spacecraft until the space shuttle was designed in the early 1970s. Engineers felt shuttle technology could be made so reliable that an escape system would be useless.

*I'd laugh, if it weren't so sad. Yes, yes...and the Titanic is unsinkable! (Oops) This is outrageous.

During the original shuttle design, we looked at a crew escape system, but it would have been too heavy.

*Interpretation: Too expensive and therefore human lives are expendable. The Great Green God ($) must be appeased! :down:

We thought that technology would do the job and make the shuttle orbiter into an airliner.

*Further comments deferred as they'll surely include expletives.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-17 15:56:43

There is another type of vehicle with proven launch abort capabilities and high reentry safety margins: a capsule. NASA should build a capsule, large enough to seat six for a few days, perhaps with optional "orbital module" capability.

Such a vehicle would be capable of direct reentry at Earth, which skips the need for a "taxi" vehicle entirely. Since you would need to launch fresh fuel and supplies for every Lunar mission, you might as well send up another capsule with them instead of trying to reuse it. Since the ISS is by-and-large worthless, then there is really no need for a dedicated Earth/LEO taxi vehicle at all.

I would be very, very happy if Shuttle were canceld tomorrow... I think it is possible that they can finish the ISS with reduced payload manifest without mishap, but it is an awful risk. I think you misunderstand a little bit Cindy, it has always been NASA's aim, ever since Carter said the "dream is over," to rake in as much money as possible for as long as possible. Such behavior should not come as any sort of surprise.

Going up to fix Hubble would be a mistake for a host of reasons with any kind of mission, Shuttle or robot. NASA no longer has EMUs either, as they have basically been retired since they have little worth.

The risk and expense of such a mission simply don't make sense, going to fix Hubble for any reason other then sentimentality and good PR is indefenseable, and these reasons aren't good enough either.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-17 20:53:46

Sounds like a big gemini capsule but in either case it would need lots of redesign to get to where we need to be.

If Nasa was a business it would have never been allowed to act that way nor would the funding for such continue.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-17 21:25:18

An entirely new capsule... two rows of seats, perhaps with an "isle" down the center with three on either side.

"If Nasa was a business it would have never been allowed to act that way nor would the funding for such continue."

Yeah so? NASA isn't a business. There is nothing wrong with this.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-25 19:42:24

Well for those that do not wish to see the shuttle ever fly again , this news will go against there wished for it will give the shuttle increased chance for night flights.
Radar duo could help lift restriction Shuttle may see launch at night

SpaceNut · 2004-12-27 05:52:55

Yeah so? NASA isn't a business. There is nothing wrong with this.

That's true but maybe it should be run more like one.

Businesses one have an income stream from which it pays wages and benefits for those that work to produce the commodity that is sold. The remainder goes into R&D and savings once paying the stock holder dividends. They must as part of the source budget how much goes for the manufacture of those goods and there research.

But if the company functioned like NASA does then they would be filing chapter 11 for they would have spent all sources of revenue. Never putting anything aside for a rainy day. The company as well would have not planned what was needed to keep it within the market share for its product. Which one of the reasons for the Space exploration goals.

They company for its manufactured product looks for ways to reduce the cost to manufacture the item but also at the remaining overhead costs. They look to reduce cost for each one made after the first. The shuttle is a failure in that regards.

They in turn also look at design for manufacturability of the item so as to start out with the lowest cost to make the item to begin with.

Repair is a part of the warranty of the product and there must be quality not just quantity for all that is made.

Ok so Nasa is not a business they do R&D, manufacture items for launch and page huge wage costs from a given revenue source that you and I pay. From the budget dollars granted this agency from the congress.

Sounds like a business to me.
They just do not receive anything from its manufactured goods and only marginally from its research as income or revenue. That is a draw back of being a government agency.

So why do rockets cost so much?

SpaceNut · 2004-12-27 12:56:33

NASA juggles shuttle plans: The agency balances safety and savings while planning flights and fleet retirement.

Sounds more business like than in the past but still falls short IMO when it comes to laying off people. Why carry the added burden on the books?

So far, only three programs have been canceled, which will save roughly $177 million and potentially affect 470 jobs, mostly NASA contractors.
The first program -- the second phase of the Advanced Health Management System program -- was to include a slight change in the shuttle's main engines as well as better information in the cockpit for the crew. But there were questions about whether the change would reduce risk to the crew as much as had been predicted. Ultimately, it was deemed largely unnecessary.
NASA will save $31 million because of the decision not to proceed with the program, agency spokesman Allard Beutel said. That will affect 121 positions -- all employees working on the first phase of the program, including six NASA employees.
The second canceled upgrade was for the orbiters' cockpits, to make the instrument panels easier to read. When NASA decided to go ahead with the changes, the agency also planned to fly the shuttle until at least 2020, and perhaps longer. When officials went back to re-examine the idea, an internal study showed that the upgrade could be installed in only two of the three orbiters before the fleet is retired, Beutel said.
Canceling the program will save $25 million -- NASA already has spent $398 million on it -- and affect 215 jobs, including 20 NASA civil servants.
The third program to be scrapped was the Orbiter Vehicle Health Monitoring System, essentially a newer, better version of the data recorders now on the shuttle.
Instead of replacing the recorders, Beutel said, NASA will replace the recording tapes to extend the lives of the devices, as well as redesign them to allow more data to be transmitted to the ground during a mission. The agency already is adding new sensors to the orbiters' wings as part of the return-to-flight effort.

civil servants affected by the decision will be reassigned to other jobs; most work at Johnson Space Center in Houston.
Shuttle contractors are trying to make sure that the positions affected by the cancellations are folded into other operations.
"We think that the number of USA employees that could be affected is less than 150," he said. "But we hope not to lay anybody off if we can avoid it. We're looking for placement options and transfer opportunities."

SpaceNut · 2004-12-28 21:01:08

Thou there has been slow but steady progress towards returning the shuttle to flight. The main reason for its grounding was foam debri falling from the external tank.
The external tank has been altered but how was it tested for the stress that it will see under a maybe not so typical launch.

NASA improves rocket fuel tank in big step toward return to space

Media Invited To See Shuttle External Fuel Tank Ship From Michoud

NASA Unveils Changes to Prevent Another Shuttle Disaster

"This is the safest, most reliable tank NASA has ever produced," said Ms. Coleman.
Still, Ms. Coleman acknowledged that the tank's foam insulation will still produce debris. "We can never completely eliminate foam coming off the tank," she said.
redesign included these steps:
Lockheed Martin Space Systems, the maker of the external tank, will now assign two workers to apply the foam - one to apply it and one to look for flaws that could leave an air pocket that might fill up and freeze.
Lockheed has tightened its certification standards for foam workers, requiring them to demonstrate expertise in applying foam in specific areas of the tank, instead of being certified for applying the foam anywhere.
Heaters have been added to replace the insulation at points where the foam was considered particularly vulnerable, including the connection between the tank and the orbiter - the spot that produced the frozen foam that damaged the Columbia.
Some components of the tank have been redesigned to limit the size of the pieces of foam needed to cover them, or to reduce the chance of freezing. For instance, Ms. Malone said, a spot on the tank where a feeder line comes in was reshaped so that any water that accumulates will drip off to the side rather than onto the foam.
Cameras will be mounted on the tank and a booster rocket to allow flight engineers to monitor the foam's condition. While some members of the Columbia's flight team suspected that the foam might have damaged the craft, they were unable to ascertain its condition.

Edit:
New year, new hope for shuttle missions NASA plans to unveil a better rocket fuel tank

Safety revisions to the fuel tank represent a major component of NASA's return-to-flight strategy. Since the Columbia shuttle disaster on Feb. 1, 2003, NASA has spent nearly $200 million to reduce the kind of tank insulation foam losses that caused the fatal wing damage.

Though that is not that much of a complete launch cost it is however quite a bit more than a single tank is worth. I hope they have got it right this time.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-13 12:13:03

Naswatch:

Endeavour Maintenance Slips
Editor's note: According to NASA sources, tomorrow (13 Jan) the PRCB will be told that OV-105 (Endeavour) maintenance will not be completed in time to support the STS-117 launch. A schedule slip of approximately 4 months will be identified. KSC has adjusted its resources to support preparation of OV-103 (Discovery) and OV-104 (Atlantis) for flight and is going to go a 24/7 schedule to support the STS-114/STS-300 Rescue missions and STS-121. In addition, charts will be presented at the PRCB suggesting a waiver of the 3 year period between major maintenance overhauls for OV-104 so as to allow more flights to compensate for the lack of a flight-ready OV-105.

KSC news release last status page

Main return to flight Page

No indication from this status date 1/7/05

???

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-11-30 09:58:08

Re: Return to flight slipping

#102 2004-12-01 07:28:29

Re: Return to flight slipping

#103 2004-12-07 08:30:33

Re: Return to flight slipping

#104 2004-12-07 16:12:17

Re: Return to flight slipping

#105 2004-12-07 20:13:21

Re: Return to flight slipping

#106 2004-12-13 06:29:39

Re: Return to flight slipping

#107 2004-12-13 07:00:53

Re: Return to flight slipping

#108 2004-12-16 07:05:25

Re: Return to flight slipping

#109 2004-12-16 10:03:31

Re: Return to flight slipping

#110 2004-12-17 05:29:21

Re: Return to flight slipping

#111 2004-12-17 08:34:40

Re: Return to flight slipping

#112 2004-12-17 09:03:31

Re: Return to flight slipping

#113 2004-12-17 10:11:07

Re: Return to flight slipping

#114 2004-12-17 11:00:10

Re: Return to flight slipping

#115 2004-12-17 14:06:01

Re: Return to flight slipping

#116 2004-12-17 14:48:27

Re: Return to flight slipping

#117 2004-12-17 15:00:22

Re: Return to flight slipping

#118 2004-12-17 15:56:43

Re: Return to flight slipping

#119 2004-12-17 20:53:46

Re: Return to flight slipping

#120 2004-12-17 21:25:18

Re: Return to flight slipping

#121 2004-12-25 19:42:24

Re: Return to flight slipping

#122 2004-12-27 05:52:55

Re: Return to flight slipping

#123 2004-12-27 12:56:33

Re: Return to flight slipping

#124 2004-12-28 21:01:08

Re: Return to flight slipping

#125 2005-01-13 12:13:03

Re: Return to flight slipping

Board footer