Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

John Creighton · 2005-08-19 01:47:37

Today's New York Times editorial:
Editorial
Mismanaging the Shuttle Fixes
Published: August 19, 2005
The troubled space shuttle program is in even more trouble than we realized. Seven members of an official review panel have just issued a scathing indictment of the process by which NASA determined that it was safe to start flying the shuttles again - only to discover that it really wasn't.
Meanwhile, NASA itself, still reeling from unexpected foam shedding on the first test flight since the Columbia disaster, has been forced to postpone the next shuttle flight until March or later while it struggles to fix the problem.
Both events ought to force the administration and Congress to take a much harder look at how long the shuttles should keep flying - or perhaps whether they should be flying at all. The underlying problems suggest the need to retire the shuttles quickly, both to end this needless flirtation with catastrophe and to free up funds for more exciting space ventures.
After NASA spent two and a half years trying to repair the shuttles and instill a more rigorous, safety-conscious attitude in its work force, it was depressing to read a 19-page critique by the seven panelists accusing NASA of cutting corners to meet unrealistic launching schedules. That was precisely the kind of management failure that brought us the Challenger disaster of 1986 and the Columbia accident in 2003. If left uncorrected, it will probably bring us another shuttle catastrophe in years to come.
The seven critics were a minority on the panel, which had 25 members and was known as the Stafford-Covey Task Group, after the two former astronauts who led it. The panel was set up two years ago to assess how well NASA was doing in meeting the recommendations of the board that investigated the Columbia accident. In a lengthy final report issued this week, the task group concluded that NASA had met most but not all of the board's requirements.
The seven critics added a withering commentary based on observations they had made during two years of monitoring NASA up close. They found that arbitrary launching dates had led engineers to choose quick solutions for technical problems, not necessarily the best solutions. If a problem looked too hard to solve, the engineers and managers had a tendency to define it away. Performance standards that were supposedly mandatory became goals that simply required NASA's "best effort."
NASA's top leadership was accused of failing to set high standards and hold people accountable for meeting them, although the new NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, was praised for astute interventions after his arrival. Most troubling of all was the bald assertion in the minority report that NASA's much vaunted engineering force had lost its appetite for careful and rigorous analysis.
One technical review meeting degenerated into a series of status reports, with not a single technical question asked or answered. It can only be disheartening that such lackadaisical behavior is still entrenched after all the exhortations for NASA to reach new heights of vigilance.
A majority of the panel - which included members with substantial expertise in space matters, including some who have headed large technically based organizations - did not sign on to the minority report. Some members even praised NASA's performance.
But the minority report gains credence from the wealth of detail it cites and the expertise of the critics. Their ranks include a retired NASA engineer who spent years in key positions within the agency; an astronaut who made five shuttle flights and now oversees military space launchings in Florida; a longtime deputy director in the Navy's nuclear program, which is frequently touted as a model of technical management; a former director of the Congressional Budget Office; a former under secretary of the Navy; an academic who managed recovery operations in Texas after the Columbia accident; and a professor of public administration who has been analyzing the need to encourage dissenting views in organizations like NASA.
This is not a marginal group that can be dismissed as a bunch of misguided rabble-rousers. All seven were appointed by NASA because of their presumed expertise and objectivity.
Mr. Griffin pledged yesterday to read the critique carefully, as well as the main report, to extract ideas for improving the space program. He contended that the agency had made great strides in improving the shuttle and tightening its engineering discipline, but he clearly wants to shuck off the shuttle program when feasible.
The new administrator said he was no longer aiming at a specific number of shuttle flights but was working instead toward an expeditious but orderly retirement of the shuttle over the next five years - enough time, he thinks, to finish the space station. If the minority critique is anywhere near on target, as it appears to be, he ought to move that retirement date forward considerably.

Wow, does the New York times usually take such a deep interest in space issues?.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-19 06:58:52

Teams of Marshall Space Flight Center engineers probe foam failures

Just how many teams do we really need to figure this problem out?

The team is also investigating why falling foam continues to plague NASA's space shuttle launches. A preliminary report is expected to be ready for NASA Administrator Michael Griffin in about three weeks.

Other tank foam changes have been proposed over the years, including wire screens or paint to keep the foam in place. Those have been rejected because of weight considerations and because changes could cause more problems.

edit:
Michaud not sure when they'll get tanks or what they'll do

All three of the external fuel tanks that were put together for the next space shuttle flights will likely be returned to the Michoud assembly plant in New Orleans
The three tanks at Cape Canaveral are at different stages of readiness, LaNasa said.
"Two had been retrofitted; one has been there for several years and has not been retrofitted," he said.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-19 08:45:51

Here is why they are looking at the missions for atlantis and discovery changing for the march launch time frame.

The switch frees Atlantis to fly the remaining Space Station truss segments, which are too heavy for Discovery, in 2006. By changing the Orbiter line up, the Shuttle program will not have to do two back-to-back missions with Atlantis, as previously scheduled.

Now I was under the illusion that all the orbiters were capable of the same payload capacity and after this quote now I see that they are not.

I am also beginning to wonder about the last remaining shuttle Endeavour (OV-105) status as to when it may finish its major overhaul. Which started in 2003...

SpaceNut · 2005-08-22 13:00:01

Does anyone know how many shuttle tanks were made during the 2 year down time? I know depending on the number of shuttle flights to complete the ISS is another valuable number that we need to pin down in order to change what the Michoud facility does do in the future.

edit:
Found this while searching:
NASA Information

Lockheed Martin Space Systems--Michoud Operations manufactures the Space Shuttle External Tank at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans. The NASA facility reports to Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Under Marshall contracts, Lockheed Martin will continue to assemble External Tanks through 2006 and is in negotiations to continue to assemble External Tanks through 2008.

Hopefully contract will not be renewed...

Ad Astra · 2005-08-22 22:54:39

One thing is for certain: shuttle ET's will always be made at Michoud, as it's the only facility large enough with the right tools for the job. The question is whether Lockheed Martin will still be running the show at Michoud. It's hard to imagine anybody else doing it, seeing as how Martin-Marietta was the original prime contractor for the ET.

Adoption of the SDLV will ensure that the Michoud workforce stays gainfully employed for decades to come.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-23 06:36:53

Mile stones are what defines a program and in the shuttles experiment definition that would be in the testing of its components.
Thirty Years And Counting

The first was in 1975. Since then more than 2,200 tests on Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) have been completed at NASA's Stennis Space Center in south Mississippi
The 114 missions that began with Columbia's STS-1 flight used a total of 342 main engines. All were tested at Stennis.

Of course this included the discovery missions engines and lots of other trivia info in this article.

idiom · 2005-08-24 14:19:48

Shouldn't they have used a total of, say fifteen or 30 engines? Not 300+. Maybe they mean main engine burns...

Ad Astra · 2005-08-24 18:12:34

The shuttle program has used more main engines than one might think. The test articles and the engines lost with Challenger and Columbia count towards that total. It should also be noted that shuttle engines have a finite lifetime--I believe they are reused about 25 times before retirement.

However, the 342 number is probably incorrect. The PR person writing the article probably multiplied 114 shuttle missions by three SSME's per mission. If you pick up the Dennis Jenkins book on the shuttle, he lists the serial numbers and histories of each SSME produced up to the point when he wrote the book.

idiom · 2005-08-26 04:59:42

Yeah... or why bother making them reusable.

BWhite · 2005-08-28 17:35:35

September?

If Hurricane Katrina smashes Michoud, Atlantis won't fly in March 2006.

"The lowest spot on our levies are 19.3 feet above see level," he said of the Michoud tank factory. "The facility has been shut since 8 a.m. this morning. At this point, we will be shut through Tuesday and we'll see how it goes from there.

A recent forecast:

COASTAL STORM SURGE FLOODING OF 18 TO 22 FEET ABOVE NORMAL TIDE
LEVELS...LOCALLY AS HIGH AS 28 FEET...ALONG WITH LARGE AND DANGEROUS
BATTERING WAVES..

I do not believe 19.3 feet above sea level is 19.3 feet above high tide.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-28 20:03:16

Gee wasn't about this same time last year we were worried about florida when we were just trying to get the shuttles ready. Now it looks like we are in the same boat this year with the ET manufactures site..
Wonder what this will set Nasa back financially if a direct hit occurs... Say nothing about delaying any future shuttle missions.
So much for finishing the ISS before retiring the shuttle in 2010.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-28 20:11:12

Three things could happen...

-Damage may not be that severe to the whole complex

-Severe damage to Michoud will end the Shuttle program, Griffin will have the Boeing Delta factory build SDV pars instead

-Severe damage to Michoud and the associated delays will still not dissuade the pro-Shuttle fanatics in Washington enough to change anything, may be enough to extend the 2010 deadline.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-30 07:41:18

Well the brunt of the storm has passed and though there are reports of water damage not much else is being said at this point.
Another source indicated that only 2 partical tanks where at the building made it though the storm.
Plus the other 2 that are being shipped back from KSC means that for a 2 year return to flight that the facility was not doing all that much or so it would seem when another 15 to 28 flights are what are need from now until 2010. Seems like they are behind on production...

SpaceNut · 2005-09-01 10:08:40

Updates on the storm and conditions still pouring in but it looks like the 3 tanks that would have gone back are now to be reworked elsewhere.

Fuel tank can't go back as scheduled

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-01 12:07:35

Even if the Michoud facility is badly damaged or not, the surrounding towns where the engineers live no longer exsist. I think its safe to say that Michoud is out of comission for probobly a year. That, obviously is not good news for Shuttle, particularly since the people needed most to fix the tank are probobly now refugees.

Just how much trouble is it to build the things? The Boeing plant ought to be big enough, shouldn't it?

SpaceNut · 2005-09-01 12:20:33

Where is there site located? I am sure Nasa is looking at all options but who knows these days.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-02 09:51:29

NASA considering shuttle tank fixes at KSC as option to continuing to be able to fly the shuttle.

Among possible locations:
The transfer aisle of the Vehicle Assembly Building, a ground floor area between high bays that stretches some 718 feet from the north to the south side of the building.
The KSC Operations and Checkout Building, which features a lengthy, environmentally controlled low bay where NASA has worked on Gemini and Apollo spacecraft as well as Skylab, the nations first space station, and European Spacelab modules.
The team also is examining what ground support equipment would be needed to perform repair and modification work at KSC.
Another factor: Identifying people at KSC and Michoud who have the right skills and certifications to perform the work

Ad Astra · 2005-09-04 12:17:24

Assuming that Discovery can be prepped in time and the ET mods at the cape stay on schedule, NASA will be able to launch in March and May with the ET's on hand. After that, we'll have to wait and see how long it takes for Michoud to get up and running. Current estimates say that New Orleans will not even be habitable until after May 2006.

The shuttle program has a lot going in its favor, though. Manned spaceflight is used as a measure of how great a nation is; it makes sense that the US will spare no expense in getting Michoud running again, even if the surrounding areas aren't ready.

At least Congress will take up the Iran Nonproliferation Agreement this fall. If it's amended, NASA won't be burdened with schedule issues owing to ISS crew transfer.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-07 20:36:37

It is looking like it is going to be alot long than we had previously expected. [url=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9241242/]No shuttle flights for a year?
NASA memo warns impact of Katrina, tank problems could be long lasting[/url]

Of course with no people it will be hard to make tanks.

It just may be time to shift gears to Da stick's upper stage design and build.

Ad Astra · 2005-09-07 23:01:45

If the fixes are performed at KSC, and assuming the foam problems are indeed fixed, NASA can still make two or three flights in 2006 using the available ET's. After that, it might be time to shut the program down if Michoud isn't fixed. Why not shut it down now? Because the FY 06 money's already been appropriated. It also looks like the 16-flight ISS completion plan is in trouble already.

If we end the shuttle program on Sep. 30, 2006, that will at least allow NASA to fly a pair of ISS resupply flights, and Michael Griffin can get the Hubble mission he wants so badly.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-08 05:14:56

The bigger trouble is that all ET's that were part of SDV designs would have come from there facility as well.
Lets spread out the ET construction to multiple sites for competition for lowest cost and to allow for contigency against natural disasters.

C M Edwards · 2005-09-09 06:08:38

I found a satellite photo of the Michoud Assembly Facility. Other photos of the area nearby - including the other 800 acres of the Michoud Facility - are available on the same site.

The main factory floor appears intact, but the grounds are littered with debris and some of the surrounding buildings - also part of the facility - are clearly severely damaged, as are the factory offices in the tower off of the factory floor.

OMG! There's a saturn V rocket lying on its side in one photo!

Oh, wait... Nevermind. That was already there.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-09 07:50:04

The hurricane damage estimates — $500 million at Michoud and $600 million at Stennis — are preliminary and based largely on aerial surveys of the two facilities, said NASA's Bill Parsons, who is leading the recovery effort.

Many of the 7,000 workers at the two facilities are homeless, and it is uncertain when they can report for duty. High winds and water damaged some buildings. Electricity was cut off, and transportation routes were flooded.

At Michoud, Lockheed Martin Corp. has been able to contact only half its 2,000 employees, said Bill Parsons, a shuttle official who is heading NASA's recovery effort. At Stennis, almost all 1,800 employees have been accounted for, and about 200 are without homes.

VTTFSH_T · 2005-09-14 21:07:54

I don't think Atlanis after the hurricane. Well it may fly, but not this year. Many NASA structures that are vital to the Space Shuttles were damaged during the hurricane.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/09/0 … index.html

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-14 22:19:13

The hurricane damage estimates — $500 million at Michoud and $600 million at Stennis — are preliminary and based largely on aerial surveys of the two facilities, said NASA's Bill Parsons, who is leading the recovery effort.
Many of the 7,000 workers at the two facilities are homeless, and it is uncertain when they can report for duty. High winds and water damaged some buildings. Electricity was cut off, and transportation routes were flooded.
At Michoud, Lockheed Martin Corp. has been able to contact only half its 2,000 employees, said Bill Parsons, a shuttle official who is heading NASA's recovery effort. At Stennis, almost all 1,800 employees have been accounted for, and about 200 are without homes.

I think thats it for the Space Shuttle program

A silver lining in Katrina's clouds after all

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-08-19 01:47:37

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#52 2005-08-19 06:58:52

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#53 2005-08-19 08:45:51

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#54 2005-08-22 13:00:01

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#55 2005-08-22 22:54:39

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#56 2005-08-23 06:36:53

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#57 2005-08-24 14:19:48

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#58 2005-08-24 18:12:34

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#59 2005-08-26 04:59:42

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#60 2005-08-28 17:35:35

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#61 2005-08-28 20:03:16

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#62 2005-08-28 20:11:12

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#63 2005-08-30 07:41:18

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#64 2005-09-01 10:08:40

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#65 2005-09-01 12:07:35

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#66 2005-09-01 12:20:33

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#67 2005-09-02 09:51:29

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#68 2005-09-04 12:17:24

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#69 2005-09-07 20:36:37

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#70 2005-09-07 23:01:45

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#71 2005-09-08 05:14:56

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#72 2005-09-09 06:08:38

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#73 2005-09-09 07:50:04

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#74 2005-09-14 21:07:54

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#75 2005-09-14 22:19:13

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

Board footer