Return to flight slipping

SpaceNut · 2005-03-23 09:35:44

One of those hard hitting questions is Defining the debris threat: What can shuttles withstand?
One can only hope that a shuttle rescue mission is never needed.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-24 11:46:17

The next launch will be a day time launch and those too that will follow will be of the same. That is due to the use of cameras needed to track the vehicle from liftoff for any falling debri. This does cut into the available launch windows.

In a few other threads thought were given to reflect sunlight to increase surface temperature on mars. My thought was to place the artificial satelites for night time lighting for launching here on earth as a trail way of proving some of the concepts out.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-25 11:49:56

Previously we have touched on the shuttle standing army and its future as Nasa moves forward with CEV concepts.

NASA has few ideas for keeping its workers: GAO blames coming mission

According to the Government Accountability Office report, NASA's focus on returning to flight hasn't given the agency time to focus on future needs.
The report also says NASA is still having trouble recruiting and retaining skilled workers. At United Space Alliance, "the lack of job security may be reflected in poor morale, inattention to details, errors, accidents, absences, and attrition," the report said.

Well I for one have asked how large is this standing army?

The entire shuttle work force -- not just at Kennedy Space Center -- includes about 2,000 government workers and 15,600 through prime contractor United Space Alliance, the report said. Additional workers also support the program.

So the prime contractor has the most to lose when it comes down to whether we go with a SDV or with some other.

I wonder how arcurate the Nasa head count really is though?

SpaceNut · 2005-03-31 08:15:47

This article gives a little insight into what is done by KSC for the return to flight of the shuttle.
Editorial: NASA's backbone; KSC workers deserve praise for skillfully preparing shuttle Discovery for launch

More than 3.3 million hours of work, 8,000 inspections, and 25,000 pieces of hardware added or replaced.

If KSC does that much work then why do we have the united space alliance?

SpaceNut · 2005-03-31 09:30:31

Here is another perplexing item Damaged Shuttle to Dock at Space Station Under New Plan

NASA could remotely ditch a damaged shuttle in the Pacific Ocean and rescue astronauts stranded at the International Space Station if a scenario like the one which doomed Columbia cropped up in the future.
That was the word Wednesday from a NASA astronaut who detailed for reporters an updated agency plan to return its grounded shuttle fleet to service next fall.
"There is a method for undocking and de-orbiting safely into the southern Pacific Ocean area -- away from any land masses and any population -- a stranded and abandoned orbiter," said James Halsell, a key player in the agency's post-Columbia recovery effort.

Why would we want to deorbit a damage shuttle and waste all the years of expenses and construction cost to build it in the first place as well as the return to flight cost as well?

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-31 10:45:03

The big reason is power supply, that when Shuttle runs out of fuel for its fuel cells, thats it... that Shuttle dies. The extreme cold of space will ruin its sensitive electronics, after which it cannot be retrieved for any reasonable price. The fuel supply will last about a month from launch. So, if one of the Orbiters cannot return from orbit, then the only real option is to dispose of it before its power runs out. If not, then it could fall any time, anywhere.

Powering Shuttle from the ISS is of questionable feasability, and if you were to launch a rescue Shuttle, where would it dock? There is only one Shuttle docking port.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-31 10:58:07

The next question is can no other or could no other rocket if modifications needed be able to deliver the required fuel for the shuttle power system?

Also it would not need to stay docked when another shuttle comes into the area. Just use the auto pilot from the ground and move it a safe distance away from the station.

John Creighton · 2005-03-31 11:07:43

Also it would not need to stay docked when another shuttle comes into the area. Just use the auto pilot from the ground and move it a safe distance away from the station.

Good point it should be able to land itself. To bad the shuttle is not space hardened. It would be kind of cool to keep it up there as a mobile platform with a robotic arm.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-31 11:10:01

I figure that could be done from supplies that could be brought up if that case should ever happen.
That would also give a platform for rocket assembly near the station as well.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-31 11:25:35

Nope. Shuttle's fuel cells are powerd by liquid hydrogen if memory serves. After that is gone, and you store the thing docked to ISS for a while during rescue Shuttle prep, then it would all be gone and there would be nothing to power it with while the rescue Shuttle exchanges crews & supplies.

Refueling Shuttle on orbit would be an extremely complicated procedure involving the transfer of cryogenic fuels. I doubt you could do it safely.

Anyway, if another Shuttle has a critical failure and would be stranded on orbit, you can bet good money that there wouldn't be any more Shuttle missions except the rescue Shuttle. There won't be any third return-to-flight.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-31 12:35:19

What is the fuel type that is brought to the station by the progress ship for the russian thrusters?

Also we get ride of excess hydrogen as a by product of the wastes water to oxygen unit. Would it make sense to use gaseous hydrogen rather than the liquid at that point if it should occur.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-31 12:41:41

The Progress, Soyuz, and Russian ISS RCS thrusters are all powerd by storable hypergolic N2O4 and Dimethyl Hydrazine propellants, not LOX/LH2 for Shuttle fuel cells.

No method exsists to capture or compress the hydrogen generated by the ISS LSS systems, and even if it were, the tanks on Shuttle could not hold enough to operate for very long at all, certainly not long enough to get Shuttle home.

Even if you did get the stranded orbiter back home, it would never fly again. NASA would be forced to pull the plug on Shuttle once and for all. There would be no reason to bring it back down.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-01 06:48:42

Thanks GCNRevenger as always, as for No method exsists to capture or to compress the hydrogen; If we are going to use insitu oxygen form lumar or Martian regolith. Then we better develope this need technolgy soon or at least begin work on it.

NASA Scrambles To Stay On Schedule Watchdog Group Needs More Proof Shuttle Is Ready To Return To Space

The group needs a lot more proof from NASA: proof that the redesigned tank won't rain deadly debris on the shuttle; proof that astronauts will have a set of tools and techniques to make repairs in space if necessary, and proof that mission managers have been retrained to properly follow up on potential problems.

How would one demonstrate foam sheding without an actual launch of it or of its tile repair kit?

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-01 07:11:05

You can save up and bottle the gasses from the ISS's life support system, sure, but the thing is the Shuttle's fuel cells are fed by small tanks with liquid hydrogen and oxygen. If you fill these with regular H2/O2 gasses, they will run out very very fast, definatly not long enough to get you back down. Liquifying cryogenics is definatly not easy, and I don't think that you can do it at the ISS for any reasonable amount of effort.

Their concerns are well-founded, NASA bascially concluded that repairing the RCC panel or serious tile shedding so you had a huge hole is impossible, and skipped that item on the RTF to-do list.

NASA is taking a pretty serious gamble that Shuttle will make it to the end of ISS construction without catastrophy.

RobertDyck · 2005-04-01 08:41:37

I still think the Shuttle is a good ship. It is safe; it demands respect and attention, but it's safe. Both failures were due to someone getting sloppy. Challenger failed when an engineer said not to launch because it's too cold, but a manager trying to increase the flight rate didn't want to hear that. Columbia failed for a more complex reason: a piece of carbon-carbon was knocked off during launch. Very unlikely and it meant it couldn't come home, but a rescue could have been mounted. When Columbia first launched on April 12, 1981, they also lost tiles. The military used its telescope in Hawaii to identify missing tiles so engineers could determine if it was safe to return. In January 2003 NASA chose not to ask the military for help and gamble; that gamble lost the lives of the crew. The next flight will be commanded by Eileen Collins. I've been told she is very meticulous so I expect STS-117 to be perfect. I even go to meet her at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. We happened to be in the same restaurant so the person I was with briefly introduced me; I got to shake her hand.

I believe the chance of loss of another Shuttle is so low that we only need a contingency option to rescue astronauts. All we need is Atlantis or Endeavour sitting on the other pad with airlock, docking adapter, and a couple EMU suits.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-01 09:15:52

No, Shuttle isn't a good ship. It was a failure the minute that the tank/boosters/orbiter idea was adopted and the very high cross-range was considerd a requirement. These two actions have forced Shuttle to become a compromise design that is incapable of fulfilling its stated purpose efficently or with an acceptable degree of safety. It was, is, and will continue to be a monument to the disaster of throwing engineering and money at a fundimentally flawed idea in an attempt to avoid the obvious, that all of the effort into the project was wasted.

I do NOT believe Shuttle of itself meets minimum safety standards, because the survival of the crew without recourse depends on the reliability of the system during acent; that Shuttle is "safe enough" during this phase of the flight regieme is fraudulent.

That said, I think that the risk NASA is going to take with continuing to fly Shuttle is not an entirely unreasonable one, its just not down to what it should be considering the payoff.

RobertDyck · 2005-04-01 09:30:06

I have been arguing for a manned service mission to Hubble and completing ISS as soon as possible so we could cancel the Shuttle program and redirect funds to something new. I still think it's reasonably safe but too damn expensive. However, this announcement makes our arguments moot.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketsc … .html]Bush Cancels Space Shuttle Program

Uhhh...WHAT!? Please tell me this is an April fool's joke.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-01 09:37:07

Actually it IS an April Fools' joke

SpaceNut · 2005-04-05 08:51:28

As noted before on the 1st the safety watchdog group is concerned with as end of life of the shuttle flights approach that there will be a greater chance for mission failure to occur.

Industry Panel Urges Space Shuttle Fly-Out Plan, Space Station Integration

NASA must nail down a detailed fly-out plan in order to keep skilled technicians with the space shuttle program as it heads toward its 2010 conclusion, an AIA-led Industry Panel has concluded.
The fly-out plan should include a look at whether a skills-retention incentive program is needed similar to the Titan IV rocket phase-out strategy, the panel concluded.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-06 10:58:10

A few stories in the news have made mention to the possibility of delayed scheduel of launch, safety of shuttle and risk of possible damage. Of which it would seem that it is business as usual at Nasa in that all is still go for launch in late may.

Shuttle launch on but risk remains

Delays won't scuttle shuttle, NASA official says Springs audience hears 'all systems go' for return to space

Palomar · 2005-04-06 13:00:19

*A hairline fracture in the foam insulation. They're still giving the all-clear and "shouldn't be a problem" talk.

Good luck to the astronauts (and here we go on the LEO merry-go-round again...for decades now).

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … ttle]Click

--Cindy

dicktice · 2005-04-06 15:28:04

With this kind of care, they should make it up and back. Facing up to the limitations of the Space Shuttle configuration is the only way to husband the Orbiters that are left (not to mention the crews) until they are no longer needed. Cost is no object, from here on in, unfortunately.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-07 05:16:52

Which will mean another rob from peter to pay paul in the back ground of all shuttle operations that require more time per launch, more rework refurbishments to get them flying and just down right more worker over time pay...Can you see it now Nasa asking for a higher shuttle budget or the sound of more mission cancellations for the future as well as those that are on going..

SpaceNut · 2005-04-07 11:12:55

Testing is the key to success when it come to doing space flight and that is also true for simulated condition that are not normal to flight as well.

Simulator success for shuttle Discovery crew

The astronauts sat in a mock-up of the shuttle’s flight deck that moved to simulate a real landing. They began their first simulation at four minutes before they were to hit the upper reaches of Earth’s atmosphere.

Lots of differing senerios were amoung the test for this up and coming crew.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-08 05:47:35

Space Watch: How politics drives NASA

For NASA's management culture truly to change, there must be fundamental reforms, not only within NASA, but also -- more important -- in the way Congress and the president oversee the space agency.
More than two years after the shuttle Columbia accident, however, it does not appear that elected officials have made much effort to reform their own behavior when dealing with NASA.
The CAIB noted how "NASA remained a politicized and vulnerable agency, dependent on key political players who accepted NASA's ambitious proposals and then imposed strict budget limits."

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2005-03-23 09:35:44

Re: Return to flight slipping

#177 2005-03-24 11:46:17

Re: Return to flight slipping

#178 2005-03-25 11:49:56

Re: Return to flight slipping

#179 2005-03-31 08:15:47

Re: Return to flight slipping

#180 2005-03-31 09:30:31

Re: Return to flight slipping

#181 2005-03-31 10:45:03

Re: Return to flight slipping

#182 2005-03-31 10:58:07

Re: Return to flight slipping

#183 2005-03-31 11:07:43

Re: Return to flight slipping

#184 2005-03-31 11:10:01

Re: Return to flight slipping

#185 2005-03-31 11:25:35

Re: Return to flight slipping

#186 2005-03-31 12:35:19

Re: Return to flight slipping

#187 2005-03-31 12:41:41

Re: Return to flight slipping

#188 2005-04-01 06:48:42

Re: Return to flight slipping

#189 2005-04-01 07:11:05

Re: Return to flight slipping

#190 2005-04-01 08:41:37

Re: Return to flight slipping

#191 2005-04-01 09:15:52

Re: Return to flight slipping

#192 2005-04-01 09:30:06

Re: Return to flight slipping

#193 2005-04-01 09:37:07

Re: Return to flight slipping

#194 2005-04-05 08:51:28

Re: Return to flight slipping

#195 2005-04-06 10:58:10

Re: Return to flight slipping

#196 2005-04-06 13:00:19

Re: Return to flight slipping

#197 2005-04-06 15:28:04

Re: Return to flight slipping

#198 2005-04-07 05:16:52

Re: Return to flight slipping

#199 2005-04-07 11:12:55

Re: Return to flight slipping

#200 2005-04-08 05:47:35

Re: Return to flight slipping

Board footer