Return to flight slipping

SpaceNut · 2005-01-14 07:55:32

The repair kit for the next shuttle mission might not fix a problem the size of Columbia's.Months before NASA resumes space shuttle missions, program managers concluded Thursday that Discovery astronauts will have to rely on an experimental repair kit that may not fix the kind of damage that doomed Columbia.
Shuttle engineers acknowledged difficulties late last year with a caulk-like substance used to fill in gouges in the shuttle's soft silica tiles. The substance produced air pockets in simulated flight conditions.
Columbia was downed by a breach of six to 10 inches in the carbon composite material lining a vulnerable region of the wing. At best, Discovery astronauts could fill cracks or patch holes no larger than four inches.

Fire strikes KSC building Second blaze in 2 months forces evacuation of VAB

What happenned the first time:
Workers accidentally started a fire in the building on Dec. 2 while they were testing techniques for spraying foam insulation on shuttle external tanks.

Cape Canaveral Fire breaks out on roof of space center

The small blaze began atop one of the building's low bays, where roofers were doing work with a blowtorch and tar

Mark S · 2005-01-16 17:17:40

Thank you for the shuttle RTF updates. The NASA people are doing their darndest to make Discovery safe and ready for its May (?) launch date. The unresolved question is how long the shuttle can last. Can we go accident-free through 2010? Try as they might, the shuttle was never a good concept and NASA will never achieve acceptable safety margins.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-16 22:29:30

I think that they can pull it off safely enough, my question is can they do it safely enough and finish the ISS on time (Dec 2010).

SpaceNut · 2005-01-17 05:46:17

I myself am concerned that as mission for shuttle start that the standing army of workers will get sloppy trying to keep up with the increased work load of having to get a second shuttle ready after each flight is launched for the purpose of rescue. Keeping in mind that we are planning to launch each no more than twice a year. Means a less than 6 month turn around between missions and that each mission to mission launch time is no more than 2 months apart.
Under that scenario we are going to have trouble keeping up with the launch rate to refurbishment between flights only after just a few.

If the ISS is the save haven (supplies lasting only 45 tops) we may then need to come up with rather than a rescue mission but a resupply the ISS capability and to stop relying on the Russians for that with there soyuz and progress combinations.

How hard would it be to retro-fit a Delta IV payload section for being grasped by the arm once near the station? No automated docking at first, that could come later as we need to continue with resupply responsibilities.

Having done this step would relieve the build up and chance of failure of a shuttle due to workmanship issues.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-17 09:42:33

NASA only intends to have a backup rescue Shuttle ready to roll out within a month for the first flight or few after RTF. NASA is also aiming to launch four to five times a year perhaps, not twice.

At that flight rate, it seems plausable that NASA can finish the ISS roughly on time if the station will take only ~18 more construction flights to finish as it proposed.

The supply problem will be mostly solved by the ESA ATV, and so each Shuttle flight can dedicate itself to crew transfer and construction only.

However, I share your concern that NASA may not be able to do this quickly and safely at the same time. As far as using Delta-IV for construction, this isn't going to happen, you would need a self-powerd maneuverable bus capable of rendevous and stopping on a dime. Since ISS payloads are designed to be held from the sides for Shuttle and not pushed from the bottom like Delta-IV, it is unlikly that a bus can be built that will be light enough to fly on the standard Delta-IV.

Even if it did, there is little time to finish ISS, since it is going to get too old to be worthwhile if it isn't finished pretty soon.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-17 10:46:03

My comment on twice was for each shuttle to fly 2 flights each to give a total of 6 missions per year.

My thought on the delta was only for a resupply capability similar to the russians and not for construction as a short term fix. Just in case a shuttle is stranded and unrepairable until materials for a proper repair where launched to the station. Which might occur if we are to use such a delta configuration for that reason.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-17 12:21:03

Interesting article on how Mr. Fix-It: Colin Campbell describes in good detail what must happen for a shuttle fix and the testing that is taking place.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-17 12:49:46

As far as a supply mission, getting payloads to the ISS is not the problem, the problem is how to go that last mile and rendevous with the station, preferably without ramming it accidently... It would have to be very precise in order to slow down enough for robot arm capture, and right now we have no such vehicle.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-18 09:25:37

Well the $64,000 dollar questions is?

Ongoing space shuttle wing leading edge impact tests show tiny cracks or even damaged surface coating, coupled with internal de-lamination, can lead to catastrophic failure.
What is not yet known is how small a piece of debris can be and still cause the kind of damage that, if unrepaired, could bring down a shuttle; and whether chunks of foam insulation from the shuttle's upgraded external fuel tank will be above or below that critical size, whatever it turns out to be.

[url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/050117impact/] NASA struggles to define shuttle impact damage threat
[/url]

A good write up of the process of how the test data variables are being collected and analyzed. IMO they must get it right.

Ad Astra · 2005-01-19 20:52:07

NASA will never be able to launch six missions per year again. The plan is for two orbiters to be in service and one in overhaul at all times. Right now Endeavour is in overhaul and Atlantis will be next. Realistically I only expect each orbiter to fly twice per year. If NASA wants to fly five missions or more per year they should have to prove their commitment to safety before they are cleared to do so.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-20 06:17:39

NASA will never be able to launch six missions per year again. The plan is for two orbiters to be in service and one in overhaul at all times. Right now Endeavour is in overhaul and Atlantis will be next. Realistically I only expect each orbiter to fly twice per year. If NASA wants to fly five missions or more per year they should have to prove their commitment to safety before they are cleared to do so.

If NASA has two operational Shuttles, then flying them each twice a year should not be too hard for a total of four flights... Which gives us 18 flights from now until 2010. If NASA can include a small number of extra flights or delete an ISS componet, this should be enough time to finish construction.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-28 14:06:34

Well regardless of how many are active there are still 8 remaining recommendations for Nasa from the CAIB to complete from the original 15.

NASA Has Eight Recommendations To Still Complete On Shuttle

Ad Astra · 2005-01-29 13:31:31

The eight unfinished items include the toughest technological challenges made in the recommendations -- preventing the shedding of debris, strengthening the reinforced carbon panels, hardening the orbiter and repairing thermal protection tiles, according to the report by the Return to Flight Task Group.

The first of these recommendations is already done, IMHO. NASA has reached the limit of the amount of debris shedding they can prevent. Removing the bipod-ramp foam was an important step, but as long as there is any foam left there is the potential it will be shed.

I don't know how realistic the other goals are. NASA has already said that tile repair may not be flown on the first RTF mission. NASA and its partner MD Robotics deserve high praise, though, for getting the inspector boom ready in record time.

My guess is that NASA plans on flying anyways, even if eight recommendations haven't been met. NASA has resigned itself to the possibility of a debris strike during launch, and believes that the ISS safe haven is the best course of action.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-04 12:04:04

Well I wonder where the russian's have been since the last shuttle flight. Have they not been listening to the safe haven argument at all that Nasa has given us with regards to not servicing the Hubble. That Nasa thinks that the ISS is a great safe Haven if a ship is unrepairable.
Is all this concern coming from the constant lack of supplies of food and air, coupled with the recent near accident? ???

Cosmonaut Worried About NASA Shuttle Plans

Cosmonaut questions space shuttle strategy

ISS Can't Serve as Refuge - Russian Cosmonaut

Russian worried by NASA proposal

Space station chief wary of haven plan

Ad Astra · 2005-02-04 23:10:20

If the crippled shuttle still has operational life support systems when it docks with ISS, the astronauts could easily live there for the 30 or so days it would take to launch a rescue mission. This assumes, of course, that the orbiter is equipped with the Extended Duration Orbiter package.

I'm at a loss to explain how NASA can pull it off without EDO installed. Maybe they're not realistically considering the "safe haven" option and instead want to minimize risk through reducing the amount of debris that falls off the ET in the first place.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-05 02:00:21

The ISS wouldn't have to serve as a shelter for all that long, just long enough to send up a rescue Shuttle.

Does the EDO package displace ISS cargo or much payload mass?

GraemeSkinner · 2005-02-05 04:12:07

The ISS wouldn't have to serve as a shelter for all that long, just long enough to send up a rescue Shuttle.

How long would it take them to prepare a shuttle for a rescue, if the crew had taken shelter in the ISS? And would they take the food/supplies with them or have extra store on the ISS in advance?

Graeme

Ad Astra · 2005-02-05 11:31:12

NASA is looking at 30-33 days for sending up a rescue mission. It was estimated that two weeks would have been enough to send Atlantis on a rescue mission to Columbia, but a lot of testing and safety checks would have to be skipped.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-05 12:12:28

I think that its a safe bet to say that the Shuttle is uniquely and extremely vulnerable to not checking everything properly, and would multiply the risk of disaster.

In other words, a rush shuttle flight is a high risk to its crew too.

el scorcho · 2005-02-05 16:54:23

When a pressurized orbiting tin can with air and food supply problems is a candidate for consideration as a "safe haven," things have gone too far. The ISS is NASA's Vietnam. And the idea of one shuttle being a rescue vehicle if something goes wrong with another one is absolutely ludicrous; why send up one aging dinosaur to rescue another? If that situation were to arise, I say send 'em home in a Soyuz.

If the fleet retires in 2010 (I say retire it now and distribute the ships to various amusement parks and museums) and all goes as planned in the private sector, Virgin Galactic will have been flying suborbital for three years or so. And if I understand correctly, SpaceShipTwo will have orbital capability, so the demise of the shuttle and the very real possibility of the ISS pulling a Skylab will do nothing to hurt humanity's presence in space. Besides, maybe that Bigelow guy will have his station up by then and we can see some things begin to happen. ???

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-05 17:52:49

If the Shuttle is damaged such that it can't come back down, then the combined reasources of the ISS and the damaged Shuttle wouldn't last long. There wouldn't be enough time to launch two or three extra Soyuz capsules before they ran out. Progress can hardly keep two people alive, and the ATV and the big Ariane rocket takes long enough to build that they can't be rushed.

A rescue Shuttle is the only option to save the crews in time with some safety margin. Without the ISS as safe haven, then there isn't any margin at all, and infact a second Shuttle probobly couldn't be launched in time.

Euler · 2005-02-05 18:13:41

The damage to the shuttle would probably be damage to the wings rather than to the life support. Shuttle and ISS would still have trouble supporting a full crew for an extended period of time, but the situation should not be too critical if you only sent up around 4 astronauts on the shuttle rather than 7. Later, when the ISS is more complete and better supplied, it will be capable of supporting more people.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-02-06 03:02:47

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.

seems to be a lto fo work to do

laying off workers is where the shuttle budget savings will come from, also Jeffery Bell has this thing down as one of NASA's next big failures but his work is ofetn prone to dramatics rather than real scientific facts. There already has been some info made public, two years after the Columbia disaster, some NASA managers fear that cost-cutting measures and pressure to resume shuttle launches are jeopardizing critical safety reforms. Quote:
Confidential interviews with shuttle officials, as well as internal NASA documents and e-mails said to be obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, portray a program rushing to fly again despite serious money problems and growing concerns about meeting an ambitious schedule. How about someting happening in Space, can we launch a Shuttle2 to recuse them, use the ISS for protection or perhaps send 'em home in a Soyuz. Is a rescue Shuttle is the only option to save the crews in time with some safety margin and perhaps without the ISS as safe haven, then there isn't any margin at all ? a calculated risk, but they need to. Go ahead and use it to complete the ISS and then ditch it, it may fail again, but the odds are somewhat on NASA's side that it won't before it's terminated in 2009.
It's time to take some risks in finishing up the ISS and then move on to the moon using the CEV...? New tests show that the new space shuttle is more vulnerable than NASA thought. return to flight is slipping back. Already pushed back to March 2005, it may be delayed further into 2006 if they can't fix the rudder actuator problem. The shuttle is so vulnerable to hits from debris that even the post-Columbia changes may not be enough to protect the shuttle, WESH NewsChannel 2 reported.
Recently, NASA rolled out a new space shuttle fuel tank designed to avoid the failure that brought down Columbia. A piece of foam insulation weighing almost 2 pounds made a hole in Columbia's wing. The new tank was designed to lose pieces no larger than about 1/3 of an ounce.
Steve Lindsey is preparing for a mission he hopes will never launch: the rescue of other astronauts in orbit. If a crisis arises during shuttle Discovery's planned return to flight in May, Lindsey and a crew of three could be called upon to lift off aboard sister ship Atlantis on an emergency mission that would be the first in the history of human space exploration. Rescue flights were hotly debated at NASA. According to Bush's proposal, once the shuttle fleet has returned to flight, it will be used to complete construction of the International Space port. Hubble missions have been scrapped, NASA's argument is that the 19-35 ISS missions are acceptably safe, but the 2 Hubble missions are not. Buzz Aldrin has already talked about the possible need for using the ISS as a shield for shuttle where it would provide assistance like a lifeboat, the astronauts may also have to fly in Russian made rockets. There are other complications like maybe needing more ideas like Soviet Progress and European ATV supply ships, and a possible flaw between 2006 and 2010 in which no ISS lifeboat is planned.
Engineers have been trying to determine just how much damage 1/3 of an ounce can do to a shuttle. Engineers used a long air-powered cannon to find that out, and they concluded -- to their surprise -- that a chunk weighing about 2/3 of an ounce can make a crack in the shuttle's wing.
Further tests, using the 3,000 degree heat and high pressure a shuttle gets on the way down, revealed that even that small crack is enough to make the wing fail and cause a repeat of the Columbia accident.
However the Spacestation chief is wary of haven plan, One of Russia's most experienced cosmonauts, who will take over command of the international space station this spring, said he has concerns over NASA's plans to use the orbiting outpost as an emergency shelter for a damaged shuttle. Cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev said NASA's emergency plan for the crew of a damaged space shuttle to take refuge on the orbiting station until a rescue ship could be sent raised safety issues and he had pressed managers on the issue. "We need to prepare a backup plan for this backup scenario," said Krikalev, 46, a veteran of three long-duration
space flights and two shuttle missions. "It's going to be difficult. The station cannot stay in this configuration for a long time," he said during a news conference at Houston's Johnson Space Centre. 8 unfinished items had included the toughest technological challenges made in the recommendations -- preventing the shedding of debris, strengthening the reinforced carbon panels, hardening the orbiter and repairing thermal protection tiles, according to the report by the Return to Flight Task Group.
According to Spaceref NASA is once again facing budget pressures - pressures that are being translated into changes in its work force. This is not the first time that this has happened. In previous years, such pressures were either the result of overall attempts across the federal government to reduce the workforce, or due to cuts in NASA's budget. This year, these changes come in the wake of an overall budget increase for the agency - one spurred on by a major new space policy issued by the White House. So many news agency ask how can NASA get around this, do flights in Russian Rockets, get the Europeans to help out more like using their ATV supply ships or trying to off load launches that are borderline as to the need of a shuttle and making sure that we launch each shuttle 3 times each year and get the shuttle to retire as soon as possible ? Twenty five shuttle flights for a cost of between two billion to two and a half billion a year, so it looks like the cuts will come and NASA is preparing to eliminate 100 contractor processing jobs at Kennedy Space Center under a 2005 operating plan approved by the shuttle program's manager, Congress might cut all but $10 million from the planned Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission. Can NASA be able to launch six missions per year again, depend so much on shuttle and push the shuttle workers and astronauts to the max to catch up on the science that has fallen behind and to the work needed on the ISS, can they do the plan is for two orbiters to be in service and one in overhaul at all times ? Do all this and still keep the Space work going well, make things profitable and keeping the best checks on the health of astronauts and keeping their commitment to safety ?

lets hope NASA can do it, and we will see manned flight soon again

SpaceNut · 2005-02-10 20:02:46

Nasa is still pushing forward for the schedueled flight of which they still have not chosen which repair techniques will be carried on the first flight for a repair demonstration in space of columbia style damage.

NASA Still Debating Space Shuttle In-Flight Repairs

NASA is still undecided about which techniques for in-flight repair on the heat shield to test to ensure the Columbia accident is not repeated.
MIXING MATERIAL IN SPACE
The heat shield repair technique that spacewalkers Soichi Noguchi of Japan and Steve Robinson have practiced the most involves a complex caulk gun and a heat-resistant material known as STA-54. Ground tests, however, indicate there may be problems mixing and applying the material in the weightless environment of space.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-11 07:13:11

This article is about not only technique or repair, its materials being used but also to what type of damage and its location in regards to which tile type has been damaged.

NASA picks shuttle repair techniques for space tests

After weeks of internal debate, testing and analyses, NASA managers today selected four rudimentary tile and wing leading edge repair techniques to demonstrate during the first post-Columbia shuttle mission.
Two of the repair procedures will be carried out inside the shuttle Discovery's crew cabin, a so-called "overlay" technique that could prove useful for fixing damage to heat-shield tiles and a "plug" procedure for repairing larger holes in wing leading edge panels. A less sophisticated tile repair technique, one intended for minor damage, will be demonstrated during a spacewalk, along with a technique for repairing small cracks in leading edge panels.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2005-01-14 07:55:32

Re: Return to flight slipping

#127 2005-01-16 17:17:40

Re: Return to flight slipping

#128 2005-01-16 22:29:30

Re: Return to flight slipping

#129 2005-01-17 05:46:17

Re: Return to flight slipping

#130 2005-01-17 09:42:33

Re: Return to flight slipping

#131 2005-01-17 10:46:03

Re: Return to flight slipping

#132 2005-01-17 12:21:03

Re: Return to flight slipping

#133 2005-01-17 12:49:46

Re: Return to flight slipping

#134 2005-01-18 09:25:37

Re: Return to flight slipping

#135 2005-01-19 20:52:07

Re: Return to flight slipping

#136 2005-01-20 06:17:39

Re: Return to flight slipping

#137 2005-01-28 14:06:34

Re: Return to flight slipping

#138 2005-01-29 13:31:31

Re: Return to flight slipping

#139 2005-02-04 12:04:04

Re: Return to flight slipping

#140 2005-02-04 23:10:20

Re: Return to flight slipping

#141 2005-02-05 02:00:21

Re: Return to flight slipping

#142 2005-02-05 04:12:07

Re: Return to flight slipping

#143 2005-02-05 11:31:12

Re: Return to flight slipping

#144 2005-02-05 12:12:28

Re: Return to flight slipping

#145 2005-02-05 16:54:23

Re: Return to flight slipping

#146 2005-02-05 17:52:49

Re: Return to flight slipping

#147 2005-02-05 18:13:41

Re: Return to flight slipping

#148 2005-02-06 03:02:47

Re: Return to flight slipping

#149 2005-02-10 20:02:46

Re: Return to flight slipping

#150 2005-02-11 07:13:11

Re: Return to flight slipping

Board footer