Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

BWhite · 2005-06-23 22:14:41

What an idea to make the CEV unnecessarily heavy just for

sending a clear message both to the EELV manufacturers and to the U.S. Air Force, who funded much of the EELV development effort.
What is the message? The message is that Griffin isn't planning on using their rockets.
That's an unusual approach to make the future lunar infrastructure cost effective, I'd say.

Nah.

Once the Thiokol + J2 is built, he will then fund t/Space and SDV will be cargo only thereafter.

Or the 30MT CEV will be re-useable meaning it won't return to Earth from LEO. It will be parked in LEO for future re-fueling and new crews.

Frankly, I rather like that idea.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-23 22:28:39

I do think that Griffin is trying to pull some sleight of hand here... there is no good reason for CEV to weigh 30MT, so he must have set this figure for an alterior motive. Which include:

-"Oops, sorry Rummy! EELVs are too small, we can't use the USAF's rockets."

-CEV on Stick = Save the Shuttle Army, to heck with VSE

-Trying to pressure Boeing/Lockheed (or should that by hyphenated?) to give NASA a supersweet deal

"Frankly, I rather like that idea."

Frankly, I rather hate that idea. Bringing whatever vehicle you use to get to the Moon back to Earth orbit makes no sense, since:

-You only need to put the crew in CEV for a week aproximately, how long it takes for a Lunar round trip. A big ship is simply unessesarry and wasteful.

-Launching new fuel for CEV, rendezvous, and the actual transfer is a signifigant technical hurdle and reoccuring expense which is not going to be much less then just buying a new CEV each time, at the expense of big time development dollars and time. *I wish to invoke the "Just get on with it, dangit!" principle here.

-Even with aerobraking into LEO, if you didn't bring a capsule capable of Earth reentry from Translunar velocities, then you don't have anytime abort and have to rendezvous to get back down. If you did bring one, then thats alot of dead mass you have to lug to the Moon and back, enough to obliterate your payload.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-24 05:02:54

2010 will be the retirement date, I'm pretty convinced.
Endeavour first, prior to her next Maintenance Period in 2009.

Wellbeing convinced of a final date is ok but wasting the money on another Maintenance period on Endeavour around 2009 IMO is foolish. The down time is at least a year or more and the number of shuttle mission flights that are lost to are anywhere from 3 to 6 which we could have made use of to finish the iss on time, simply does not warrant major maintenance.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-24 05:16:03

-"Oops, sorry Rummy! EELVs are too small, we can't use the USAF's rockets."

Well payback seems far for what they caused for shuttle to change.

-CEV on Stick = Save the Shuttle Army, to heck with VSE

The keeping of the army may be true but it also gives the USA independence from the Russians leverage on soyuz rides to the ISS.

-Trying to pressure Boeing/Lockheed (or should that by hyphenated?) to give NASA a supersweet deal

Well maybe they should they have been making there rockets long enough to have figured out ways to cost reduce them, I would have hoped by now.

While going from 20 to 30 mt seems like a lot I wonder if other motives for this are also going to be used to change the spirals by doing so.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-24 06:44:59

"The keeping of the army may be true but it also gives the USA independence from the Russians leverage on soyuz rides to the ISS."

We would have that anyway if we went with CEV launched on a "super" Atlas-V

Saving the Shuttle Army presents one really huge problem: cost. That the army costs NASA, and costs it so much money that it has crippled the whole agency for decades. If you include the people that are needed to run the ISS, which are by-extension employed by Shuttle, we're talking about $4-5Bn dollars, fully HALF of NASA's manned spaceflight budget.

I think that NASA will be doomed unless they can get the cost of launching stuff down to a quarter of their spaceflight budget, and this is not going to happen unless Griffin really starts getting rid of large portions of The Army wholesale. His willingness to do this is all-important to the future of NASA, and if he is selecting hardware with the primary purpose of savings those jobs... then he has already doomed the whole enterprise with his weakness.

BWhite · 2005-06-24 11:18:39

First, we need to balance http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mp … 38878]this stuff;

With Florida as a key battleground state and the Texas senator a loyal ally of the President, having a CEV fly with crew on board by 31 December 2010 may be a political necessity if we wish to retire orbiter by 2010.

Cut back on ISS modules and set a CEV on top of a Thiokol stick (the solid parts of which are already paid for in the budget - use sticks that would have gone to STS) and it seems there is a better chance of squeezing CEV funding out of the STS/ISS budget for 2005 - 2010.

On the other hand, do we wish to continue to fly the orbiter until an EELV CEV flies with crew?

Second, my intuition says Griffin will seek a long term blending of t/Space for crew and SDV for cargo. No man rated EELV flights. He wants t/Space but needs a fall back to assure orbiter is cancelled.

(As an aside, GCNRevenger may "hiss" at 30 MT but I also remember an issue being raised about structural ratios and man-rating that EELV does not currently comply with. Behind the scenes, Griffin may be doing everything possible to kill EELV CEV.

Just as EELV was a slam dunk with O'Keefe, the opposite may be true with Griffin and there is NO WAY president Bush was unaware of Griffin's prejudices/preferences on this subject at the tiem he was nominated.)

Thiokol plus J2 allows NASA to fly CEV soon =and= within current budgets which allows Griffin to pacify Senators Nelson and Hutchinson.

Third IF we leverage lunar LOX form the start (or as soon after the start as possible) to leave CEV on orbit and re-use it as much as possible will be a more robust less expensive architecture long term. Once CEV is on-orbit, all we need to lift is crew and methane or LH2.

Fledi · 2005-06-24 12:17:01

That's what I'm wondering about, it looks like he is probably thinking about adding some cargo to the crew for the CEV to carry to the Moon, that is similar to the Shuttle approach. And if one thing has proven to be not cost effective is to take crew and cargo together.
But then maybe it's something different we don't know about yet.

United Space Alliance · 2005-06-25 19:44:29

Serious issue noted with a failed avionic board relating the ECO sensors. Atlantis now doesn't have one at all (and she's needed for RTF as STS-300) and Discovery's is under repair.

Could be a real showstopper

SpaceNut · 2005-06-27 05:17:11

Well if one reads the NASA's Space Shuttle Processing Status Report: S05-025 there seems to be no mention of this. The only source indicating any problems is in the form of wire inspection.
NASA scraps new techniques to inspect wiring on shuttles; Tools won't be ready in time, officials say

While Electrical and electronic failures are somewhat bothersome this should not be seen as a show stopper though.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-27 07:10:20

Depends on what failed.

If one of Shuttle's antique 20+ year old computers is fried, replacing it will be pretty hard. Its unlikly that such computers are still built anymore.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-27 10:53:49

Space Shuttle Main Engine Defective Parts 'Purged'

The "several month investigation" stemming from the incident is causing Honeywell and NASA to replace about 1,600 electronic capacitor components in all 20 of the program's engine controllers.

Fairly lengthy article but depending on the type of capacitor type, the damaged caused by a part of this type could be in liquid acidic or in toxic out gassing and in explosive or flame causing conditions as the parts self destruct.

United Space Alliance · 2005-06-27 16:56:10

Stafford Covey give the green light to lauch on July 13.

United Space Alliance · 2005-06-27 16:57:54

Depends on what failed.
If one of Shuttle's antique 20+ year old computers is fried, replacing it will be pretty hard. Its unlikly that such computers are still built anymore.

The flight computers are updated - within reason - all the time. Note how we lost two computers on STS-92. We don't go on Ebay looking for Commodore 64s

SpaceNut · 2005-06-28 07:17:44

Pulling this forward from the safety thread that I posted this to for ISS final construction info.

One must ask is [url=http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsshut264322644jun28,0,6486869.story?coll=ny-health-headlines]NASA's future at stake
The success of the troubled shuttle program's upcoming attempt to return to space is expected to largely decide the direction of the agency[/url]

The shuttle program
More than 100 missions have been made since the beginning of the space shuttle program 24 years ago, but none since the loss of Columbia in 2003.
MISSIONS year and total flights made by shuttle:
1981 2 1982 3 1983 4 1984 5
1985 9 1986 2 1987 0 1988 2
1989 5 1990 6 1991 6 1992 8
1993 7 1994 7 1995 8 1996 6
1997 8 1998 5 1999 3 2000 5
2001 6 2002 5 2003 1 2004 0
2005 0
TOTAL 113

With this data and knowing that we have been from 1988 though to 2003 with the ability to fly 4 shuttles one when looking into the future for the number of flights remaining to complete the ISS with only 3 remaining shuttles for a possibly as high as 28 and as low as maybe 8 depending on completion level, can we fly at the rate we need without another accident until it is retired.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-28 07:44:13

Oh if we lose another orbiter, Shuttle will never fly again for sure.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-30 11:30:24

The tools for inspection of the shuttle tile systems are getting another boost.

New Laser Scanners to Detect Shuttle Tile Damage

NASA has developed a new three-dimensional laser scanner to seek out cracks and other damage amidst the thousands of ceramic tiles that protect space shuttles from the heat of reentry.
Smaller and faster than their orbital counterparts, the prototype scanners may help astronauts and ground engineers track tile other thermal protection system damage with more accuracy than ever before.

clark · 2005-06-30 14:37:43

Lucky number 13!

July 13, 2005, we fly.

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-30 15:05:29

Hmm, my brother has court on that date... heh.

Looks good to go. I will totally make time on NASA TV for that event. Think I'll make time for every STS launch from then on. I used to watch them before, but I did miss quite a few.

United Space Alliance · 2005-07-02 19:34:33

"Oh if we lose another orbiter, Shuttle will never fly again for sure."

Yeah, we can't lose another. We 'could' still run on two orbiters, but there's no way they'd fly again if we lose another.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-07-04 18:42:08

I bet they said the same thing after Challenger. Oh the irony...

SpaceNut · 2005-07-08 05:38:48

Most issues resolve around the repair if need be of damage to a shuttle once it is in orbit. They have looked at differing measures, replacement panels( presumably stored on the ISS) and while some would be successful for small holes others would seem to down right fail to do the job.

[url=http://www.flatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050708/NEWS02/507080327/1007/news02]In-space repairs become an impossible mission

Chapter 6: The shuttle tiles[/url]

Engineers had worked overtime on a promising concept: rigid composite carbon over-wraps that could be bolted onto wing panels. They performed as protective skins that could cover holes as big as a large pizza. But the earliest delivery date was late 2005, maybe 2006. That would stall NASA's first post-Columbia flight and completion of International Space Station construction.
The estimated cost was significant: More than $100 million to design and manufacture a full set for the wing. There were operational challenge, too. Forty-four wraps -- one for each unique wing panel -- would have to be built and hauled to the station to be stowed for emergencies.

But what they have not looked at was a process to take a mold of the target area of damage and to bring that back into the ship or station to make a replacement from the goo of the affected panel. Such that you remove the damaged panel area and put in your freshly made panel in its place from this mold.
Another option would be to use information from the location of damage which could be accessed on computer to create a new panel. One might use 3D modeling process to create the replacement to fit from the goo. Using lasers to set it up or to harden it before placing it into the damaged area of the ship.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-08 08:38:14

Iii don't think you understand what they mean by carbon composite over-wraps... what they are basically talking about is a backup RCC tile for each one on the wing, which can be fitted without having to remove the damaged one under it (which you can't do in space).

Making RCC panels is very hard, you can't do it in space with any reasonably sized device.

SpaceNut · 2005-07-08 08:50:11

The over wrap does not work, because it changes the air flow around the wing edge which further increase the temperature that they will see and I do understand that they just cover the existing ones. But that also means a system to anchor them in place also must be provided. A little glue behind them will not work so that leaves altering the original panels connectivity. Which if you can do that, then you can replace them.

Also what makes, making RCC panels so difficult?

SpaceNut · 2005-07-11 08:30:50

Well to answer the question here is a news article with some particulars of this Dallas plant helps shuttle keep cool for they make the RCC panels.

How many are on the shuttle:

There are 101 panels on each shuttle, including 22 on the leading edge of each wing. Through the years, the Lockheed Martin operation has made a little more than 900 form-fitted pieces.

How fast they can be produced:

But it takes 10 months to make each piece. The plant, of course, can make several at a time.

How they are made:

The pieces are made a little like you make the hull of a fiberglass boat – laying out rayon strips, soaking them in resin, letting them harden. A big difference is RCC undergoes several trips into a 4,000-degree furnace and gets several coatings to give it its magical properties. Some of the steps take days and weeks.

Does not seem that difficult in these terms, is there more to how they are made?

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-07-14 11:23:36

Oh if we lose another orbiter, Shuttle will never fly again for sure.

NASA's website said

Quote:
During the STS-114 launch postponement press briefing, NASA managers said they're still analyzing the issue with the Engine Cut-Off sensor on Space Shuttle Discovery's External Tank. For the moment, no new launch date has been set.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-06-23 22:14:41

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#27 2005-06-23 22:28:39

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#28 2005-06-24 05:02:54

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#29 2005-06-24 05:16:03

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#30 2005-06-24 06:44:59

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#31 2005-06-24 11:18:39

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#32 2005-06-24 12:17:01

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#33 2005-06-25 19:44:29

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#34 2005-06-27 05:17:11

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#35 2005-06-27 07:10:20

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#36 2005-06-27 10:53:49

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#37 2005-06-27 16:56:10

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#38 2005-06-27 16:57:54

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#39 2005-06-28 07:17:44

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#40 2005-06-28 07:44:13

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#41 2005-06-30 11:30:24

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#42 2005-06-30 14:37:43

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#43 2005-06-30 15:05:29

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#44 2005-07-02 19:34:33

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#45 2005-07-04 18:42:08

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#46 2005-07-08 05:38:48

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#47 2005-07-08 08:38:14

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#48 2005-07-08 08:50:11

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#49 2005-07-11 08:30:50

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

#50 2005-07-14 11:23:36

Re: Return to Flight countdown and update thread - STS-114 breaking news thread

Board footer