Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

Palomar · 2005-09-08 08:32:59

*We've been following that tragedy in Free Chat, of course. I checked to see if this new Yahoo! article has yet been posted and don't see that it has.

The shuttle's fuel tanks are built at a plant in New Orleans, its engines tested at a site in coastal Mississippi. Katrina damaged both facilities, scattered the personnel and left many workers homeless.

The memo spells out serious damage done to shuttle facilities. There is no road access to the tank plant, and the rail lines through New Orleans used to deliver the shuttle's rockets have been disrupted.

More info in mid-September. No final decisions yet.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-09-08 08:54:02

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.

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.

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

publiusr · 2005-09-08 15:31:38

That won't sit well with Breaux' folks and his replacement. It costs too much to move.

SLC-6 is cursed--and to get to southerly launch points puts you in harms way due to weather.

The EELV plant in Decatur is in North Alabama's tornado alley. Ask the folks who survived 1989's event. It produces both EELVs now--plus Delta II. It might even be able to produce ETs.

If an F-4 hits that--we will have NO space launch capability--outside of un-proven toys.

And Alabama has two tornado seasons--spring and fall.

Commodore · 2005-09-08 19:09:09

When does it become clear to all that even the 16 mission ISS plan is impossible by 2010?

SpaceNut · 2005-09-08 19:12:25

I guess when the science subcommitte can learn how to count

Admiral_Ritt · 2005-09-12 14:57:36

If we are talking about 14 months for a new shuttle Flight, I think we need
to look at fully Automating the Shuttle ASAP, And get going on the Stick, now.

would an Apollo designed Jupiter IIC, Stage work, If we had the Plans??
Rip some of those capsules out from the Musems, "borrow them".

Time to use those apollo guys, before they go to the Nursing homes.

RobertDyck · 2005-09-12 15:39:07

"Jupiter IIC"? What is that? The Jupiter C launch vehicle was retroactively named Juno by Von Braun's team; it launched satellites 4-5kg. Juno II (Jupiter first stage with 3 Sergeant upper stages) could lift 42kg to 200km orbit or 6kg to trans-lunar trajectory. These are quite small. Juno V was renamed Saturn I. Anyone familiar with the space program should know the Saturn I. Is that what you're thinking of?

Admiral_Ritt · 2005-09-12 16:39:47

Well, let be more techincal....

The thingie that the apollo lunar missions used for trans lunar orbital insertion.
Or is it too large?

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-12 18:39:26

The Saturn-V third stage isn't big enough for ground launch on its own. Put it on top of a 5-segment Shuttle SRB, swap out the Lunar lander bay for more fuel tankage, and that might work.

RobertDyck · 2005-09-12 20:45:43

Well, the Saturn II launch vehicle had a few configurations. Saturn INT-19 was a Saturn II stage (Saturn V second stage) and Saturn IVB stage (Saturn V third stage) with fuel not quite full and up to 12 Minuteman solid rocket boosters. The version with no solid boosters could lift 5,500kg, with 2 boosters fired first round and 2 second round it could lift 13,200kg. That should do it.

The Saturn INT-18 was a S-II stage either with or without the S-IVB and 2 or 4 Titan SRBs with varying number of segments. Not surprisingly it could lift more. The largest one used 4 UA1207 boosters and the S-IVB, it could lift 66,400kg. Too much for a capsule to ISS.

As for GCNRevenger's configuration, it's practically the same as "The Stick". Thiokol's proposal would use a single 4-segment Reusable Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM) with a cryogenic LOX/LH2 upper stage that uses either a single SSME or J-2S engine. The Saturn IVB used a single J-2 engine so the upper stage is similar. If that's what you want you might as well go with Thiokol's proposal.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-14 10:42:03

NASA praises shuttle plant workers, 37 in Louisiana rode out Katrina to save vital orbiter parts

the ride-out crew was able to keep generators and pumps running at the 43-acre plant, protecting eight shuttle external tanks that were in various stages of assembly. The only damage to flight hardware: dinged insulation on one of the 15-story tanks.

Sort of pales when comparing the dollars they saved versus the tromendous dollars of damage.

Admiral_Ritt · 2005-09-14 14:06:04

Sorry, to not be specific or accurate, But yes, the idea was to
stack Apollo Era Hardware Capsule+OME+SaturnIVB On top of a SRB.

The idea being to avoid as much of Man-rating activities as possible.
If Budget was allocated and there was a will, maybe an unmaned test flight
could be ready in 2 1/2 years.??.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-14 15:55:15

As good as the old Apollo hardware was in its day, it is pretty outdated now a days, and we need better hardware.

VSE must have, at a minimum, a capsule that can carry four people for about two weeks, and preferably six people for about one week, in slightly better comfort and more safety than Apollo capsules. It also must carry the fuel needed to return to Earth from Lunar orbit, which will require both capsule and service module to be lighter then their Apollo counterparts.

Also, the old Apollo hardware is not being made anymore, and many of the designs are optimized for use with old technology. For instance, the Apollo capsule is to some degree built around its trash compactor sized computer, which would be replaced by a laptop-sized black box. The same with the bulky control pannel with all its switches and instruments. The service module will need to be redone from scratch, since it will probobly be powerd by non-hypergolic storables and provide electricity with solar pannels. 4-6mo unmanned loiter time would be nice too.

If it will be used to serve the ISS with cargo, and you didn't want to ditch the capsule airframe entirely which is a good bet if it is to return experiments, then it should be optimized for maximum volume.

Using the Shuttle SRB as a first stage also changes what the ideal upper stage would be powerd by, since the SRB seperates at a lower altitude and speed then the first two stages of the Saturn rockets, so the rockets' payload depends on the upper stage more heavily. A single J-2S engine could do the trick, but a more powerful engine like SSME would give you an additional ~5MT or so of payload. SSME is in production and is also already man-rated, but the old J-2 production line no longer exsists.

EuroLauncher · 2006-03-11 21:09:30

NASA's Space Shuttle Program successfully fired a full-scale, full-duration reusable solid rocket technical evaluation motor Thursday, March 9, at a Utah test facility. The two-minute static, or stationary, firing of the rocket motor was performed at ATK Thiokol, a unit of Alliant Techsystems Inc., in Promontory, north of Salt Lake City.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_ … _Test.html
The technical evaluation motor, or TEM-12, burned for approximately 123 seconds, the same duration each reusable solid rocket motor burns during an actual space shuttle launch. The static-fire test included 26 specific objectives and used 89 instrumentation channels to collect and evaluate the motor's performance

NASA assesses unexpected reading from fuel tank sensor
Shuttle engineers are studying what, if anything, to do about an unexpected reading from one of four liquid hydrogen main engine cutoff - ECO - sensors in Discovery's external fuel tank, officials said today. The sensors play a critical role during the climb to space by ensuring a shuttle's main engines shut down normally before draining the ship's external tank. A malfunction could trigger an early engine shutdown or let the powerplants run too long.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/s … ecosensor/

SpaceNut · 2006-03-13 21:10:10

Well those bungling dufusses at the orbitor refurb put some dents not only into the inner cargo area but it seems that they cracked the arm boom section as well.
Crack found in Discovery's RMS

Time to replace all past personel that have ever worked on the shuttle, it would seem that none of them can do any thing right....

"The crack was found with a 10X magnifier that the ultrasound missed. After finding the crack, the ultrasound was used again to verify it," reported an acquired e-mail from KSC. "The crack measures approximately 1.25 inches long diagonally (running lower left to upper right), .015 inches deep. The carbon composite is .050 thick. The smaller indentation farthest aft was nominal."

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-14 09:53:32

Don't blame the Shuttle servicing guys for this, the trouble is that the arm was designed too fagile with too little engineering margin in the first place. It was probobly damaged by the stress of launch.

What you COULD blame the service guys for though is this relativly minor problem monkey-wrenching the whole Shuttle launch schedule.

Rxke · 2006-03-14 13:08:56

Do blame them, if you read the article, they did bump into it.
I hope you're not dissing the engineering of the arm because it's Canadian...

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-14 13:26:12

Did they? Well, I suppose that is a little bit different then.

No, I wouldn't care if it were built here or in Europe, Canadians are perfectly capable of building decent componets.

Rxke · 2006-03-14 14:43:06

It's so... I dunno...
These guys are probably working as hard as the next guy, and after awhile you forget that a little slip like that could cause so much harm.
I mean, they probably 'brushed' it lightly, after all, the crack is barely visible, and then only on the outer sheath, they probably went 'ouch, darn... Phew, that was close, good I didn't hit it hard...'

And then they find a micro crack, and heck, micro or not, this thing needs replacing, guys... Better ultra-safe than sorry...

I bet russians would shrug and put some ductape over it

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-14 17:04:11

Ehhh minor damage to a solidly built piece of hardware maybe, but minor damage to something so fragile is hardly an issue? The carbon composite structure that was damaged is super-thin to save on mass, not much more then rolled up tube of paper-board probobly. The cracks, as small as they are, are a genuine issue. Composite structures are like ropes, where if you break a few strands, the whole thing can come apart unexpectedly.

The "Russian Version" would probobly weigh two tonnes and make Shuttle too heavy to lift ISS modules.

SpaceNut · 2006-03-14 17:54:17

Shuttle launch delayed to July next available launch window of July 1-19 a result of a new safety requirement to launch shuttles only during daylight hours to make sure cameras get clear pictures of the shuttle and possible debris.

NASA is delaying its next space shuttle mission to July to replace faulty fuel sensors inside the external tank. The sensors provide a backup way of making sure the shuttle's three main engines shut down after reaching orbit.
If multiple sensors fail in flight, the engines could cut off early and force the shuttle commander to attempt a risky, never-before-tried emergency landing. Another possible consequence: The engines could run dry, overheat and come apart.

Space Shuttle Launch Pushed Back to July

An investigation after last summer's sensor trouble showed that there may be a manufacturing problem that causes a loose connection between the 10-year-old sensors and wires, but further testing is needed to reach a conclusive answer.
Replacing the sensors will take three weeks and require a worker to enter through the bottom of the 153-foot tank while it is upright.

Rxke · 2006-03-14 18:34:02

The "Russian Version" would probobly weigh two tonnes and make Shuttle too heavy to lift ISS modules.

Heehee, and if they *do* get it in orbit, all the windows get plastered with outgassing from the ducttape adhesives.

(Okay, just being silly)

Okay, so shuttle delayed agggggggggain. Sigh.

SpaceNut · 2006-03-15 09:15:59

Here is an article detailing what it will take to replace the Engine Cutout Sensor.
ECO change-out - no easy process

The process involves standing the tank upright, digging the foam from the end dome cap, constructing a clean environmental room and of course it will needed to be tested which will possibly mean filling and unloading of cryogenic oxidizer and fuels. IMO this is what cause the foam to crack in the first place but that is just my best guess.

Commodore · 2006-03-15 13:30:16

Well the most effected foam would be well below the shuttle, but given our luck as of late it wouldn't surprize me if there wasn't an effect.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-03-28 04:47:45

Schedule pressure propels NASA
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.d … 60312/1007
Foam danger is unresolved, but agency moves ahead with launch plans

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-09-08 08:32:59

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#2 2005-09-08 08:54:02

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#3 2005-09-08 15:31:38

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#4 2005-09-08 19:09:09

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#5 2005-09-08 19:12:25

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#6 2005-09-12 14:57:36

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#7 2005-09-12 15:39:07

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#8 2005-09-12 16:39:47

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#9 2005-09-12 18:39:26

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#10 2005-09-12 20:45:43

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#11 2005-09-14 10:42:03

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#12 2005-09-14 14:06:04

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#13 2005-09-14 15:55:15

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#14 2006-03-11 21:09:30

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#15 2006-03-13 21:10:10

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#16 2006-03-14 09:53:32

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#17 2006-03-14 13:08:56

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#18 2006-03-14 13:26:12

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#19 2006-03-14 14:43:06

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#20 2006-03-14 17:04:11

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#21 2006-03-14 17:54:17

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#22 2006-03-14 18:34:02

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#23 2006-03-15 09:15:59

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#24 2006-03-15 13:30:16

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#25 2006-03-28 04:47:45

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

Board footer