Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

SpaceNut · 2005-11-21 11:25:55

Rather than continue in the Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis thread with talk of a Discovery flight taking place in 2006. This is a fresh thread to discuss the status of Nasa's ability to prepare any shuttle for flight. It would seem that the Hurricanes of 2005 has knocked out more of Michoud thant we had thought or so it would seem in the latest on the ET's being worked on.
ET Folks Not Ready For Prime Time

Wayne Hale chaired the 17 November PRCB (Program Requirements Control Board). Some people were ready to make their presentations at this meeting. Others were not.

KSC replied that the ET avionics and electronics had to be checked out on arrival. Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) checks out the avionics and electronics before the ET is shipped and then KSC checks them again after the ET arrives and checks again after the ET is mated with the Orbiter. Hale commented that the same tests were "being done 3 times".

No wonder it costs so much to fly a shuttle..

According to a knowledgeable source, the final straw for Hale when he asked KSC if they had consulted with Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) on the ET processing schedule and requirements. Their answer was "no". They consulted with the Lockheed Martin Launch Site Support (LSS).
Then Hale asked participants on the telecon for MSFC's comments - a request, which was followed by silence. Hale then asked the ET representatives for comments - again, silence. Finally, he asked if anybody from Lockheed Martin at MAF was online. He finally got a response: "Yes, we're here". Hale asked, "Were you a part of this discussion?" Answer: "I don't know anything about it."

Nasa seems more like a three stooges or Larel an Hardy show than the Nasa of old. Hopefully they can gfet there act together and soon.

Rxke · 2005-11-22 03:15:53

Depending on how complex the avionics are, three tests *can* turn out cheaper than one or two.

Build it, test it. If broken, repair or use other set, instead of shipping a possible broken one. Duh.
Ship it, check if it survived the shipment before installing, instead of installing a possible broken piece. Duh.
Install it, check, instead of flying with a possible broken piece. Duh.

None of these test seem superfluous to me. Shipping is oftentimes quite rough on equipment, despite care taken re: packaging and handling. It makes sense to check after arrival. You don't want to install a part that's *already* broken.

Of course: how complex and hence expensive is this testing? Now that's a completely different matter....

SpaceNut · 2005-11-22 06:24:49

Yes depending on the complexity the senerio of this process yes it is a valid process but for Nasa this is a very costly process.
Have you heard of the term point of use build, where build an intergration are within the same facility. This reduces cost, handling, inventoring, test and re-test of an item as well as the likelyhood of damage.

Nasa needs to get smarter if it wishes to survive, with respect to building rockets because the further alway from the launch site that each piece must come. The more sever this cost gets, the more likely that an Item can or will be damaged.

For this reason the CEV needs to be more centralized from the respect of build to launch if Nasa wants a low cost vehicle. Yes there may be an exception to the rule but money is money and Nasa needs to save all that it can to meet the exploration goals, ISS completion, return to flight of the shuttle and still be able to build DaStick for a sooner operational status. Rather than putting everything on hold.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-22 18:02:31

This is just getting silly, how much evidence is needed to show that the external tank people are not capable of performing up to par? Its high time that Griffin asked if Boeing's Delta-IV plant could build the tank instead.

Dook · 2005-11-22 19:06:10

Why don't they just put the foam on the inside instead of the outside?

Once an external tank is built they can inject quick expanding foam inside to take up space and expel the air so ice cannot form on the liquid oxygen and hydrogen tanks.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-22 20:39:29

For starters, it would reduce the volume the tank could hold so much that it wouldn't hold enough to reach orbit.

Second, if the foam were to break inside the tank, something even worse then it falling off and hitting the Orbiter would happen: the foam would get sucked into the SSME turbopumps.

"Kaboom" would be something of a gross understatement of the consequences of such an occurance. I would feel much safer with foam hitting the orbiter then giving the SSMEs an excuse to explode.

And it would take a really long time to perfect the changes in manufacturing. If NASA can't fly Shuttle in 2006, it probobly won't ever fly at all.

Edit: While on the subject, it is sounding more and more like M. Griffin is secretly getting fed up with the Shuttle ET mess and the unwillingness/innability to stop working/thinking in ways which won't work.

I would not be entirely surprised if he were to do something... rash... and announce that the big SDV or the TheStick will be used to send up ISS modules that we can wiggle out of and that Boeing Delta-IV plant will be given a no-contest contract to build the SDV cores and TheStick's upper stage.

...The latest NASA options study even looked into using RS-68 (Delta-IV engines) instead of SSMEs on the SDV's first stage as a cost savings measure. Convienant that would be, no?

SpaceNut · 2005-11-22 21:12:46

This couples in with discusion in another thread but here goes on the pal ramp.

[url=http://www.flatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/BREAKINGNEWS/51122015/1007/NEWS02]Foam ramp may be removed for good

NASA could fly without PAL ramp as early as first flight[/url]

The 38-foot long protuberance air load ramp could be removed from the external fuel tank after two more shuttle missions, shuttle program manager Wayne Hale said today.
It's possible, but not likely, that the ramp could be taken off for the next mission, which NASA hopes to launch in May.

Why so many flights to answer getting rid of it...

Wind tunnel and other tests are being done to make sure that taking the foam ramp off will not allow turbulent air to damage the critical pipes and cables on the outside of the tank. Tests could take until next fall, but Hale said the program hopes to finish sooner.

If wiring is all that is in need of protecting put them in a conduit and lets move on.

All for another very lenghty period of redesign of the ET in addition they will use another process to fix the tanks that are already made.

So for now, the plan for the next two shuttle flights is to remove the ramps already on the tanks and rebuild them using more stringent manufacturing procedures aimed at preventing the kinds of flaws that can lead to foam loss.

Cancel Michoud operations all together and move the tank build out to the Boeing plant as GCNRevenger suggests.

Edit shuttle status log contains the tank details:
NASA's Space Shuttle Processing Status Report: S05-033

SpaceNut · 2005-11-22 21:26:32

Well the tanks that were for the STS-114 Mission of Discovery have made it back to Michoud and there has been alot of cracks found.

Technicians found nine hairline cracks in the insulation on a fuel tank that was originally earmarked for the Discovery mission launched July 26. It was twice filled with cryogenic fuels for tests before being replaced with another tank, for unrelated technical reasons, before Discovery launched.
NASA, which spent more than $1.5 billion fixing the tank and upgrading other systems
Engineers are studying whether the foam structures can be safely removed entirely from the fuel tanks, eliminating 22 pounds (9.9 kg) of potential debris, said shuttle program manager Wayne Hale.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-23 00:22:05

It really does befuddle me... that here NASA is, with its future in increasingly grave jepardy, yet NASA engineers are still just doing the same old, same old thing...

Wind tunnel tests are going to take twelve more months why? Its going to be almost four years since the "foam problem" revealed itself in tragic fashion, and the ET office pegged the PAL ramps for possible deletion before Discovery's flight because they were a potential hazard.

And now we have reports that meetings with M. Griffin with the Michoud people that they have no idea when they will be ready and aren't communicating with the rest of NASA and are bascially doing precisely the same thing they have been doing for the past ten or twenty years to such smashing (crashing?) sucess... To top it off they whine about their jobs instead of "thank God our shoddy work didn't kill another crew."

...and I think that is reason enough for M.Griffin to take them out of the equation. The Boeing plant is already set up to build completed rockets of the same diameter of the CEV's upper stage, and infact bodily taking a stiffer version of the Delta-IV first stage and swapping RS-68 for SSME, then just put the capsule on top... and its ready to stack on modified SRB.

Considering how... hysterical (albeit with good cause perhaps) he sounds, I have to wonder why Griffin doesn't designate Michoud as a "last stand" for NASA reform, that either he is allowed to eliminate the facility or else give up on VSE if Congress won't allow him to make cuts which will ultimatly just have to be made reguardless of what the senators from Lousiana think.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-02 10:17:05

WashingtonPost indicates from an Email :

when they examined a tank that had been twice loaded with fuel and then emptied, engineers found nine vertical cracks in the lower, hydrogen, PAL ramp. Another tank that had not been cryoloaded had no such cracks.

Previous reference of exam:

mid-October, engineers attributed the Discovery foam loss to other factors, including "crushing" by technicians crawling on top of the tank during manufacture and a possible air-filled "void" inside the foam that had expanded and burst as Discovery climbed.

There fixes at there time were to improve manual foam application and or some or all of the pal ramp foam removal...

BWhite · 2005-12-02 11:16:10

The headline? June 2006 launch date in jeopardy.

Pull the plug, already

SpaceNut · 2005-12-05 06:38:49

While the article that follows is indicating flight 121 for foam removal along the Pal ramp it still does not address flight 115 if going forward with foam on the ramp...

NASA Likely To Fly Next Shuttle Sans Foam Ramp

SpaceNut · 2005-12-06 06:46:36

Changing of the guard or setting up for the future, I am not sure which is to be believed but change is usually for the better.

John Chapman Selected to Lead External Tank Project Office at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-06 08:07:05

I think this falls under "we have GOT to do SOMETHING" catagory... either Michoud gets its act together, or NASA will be in trouble. Too much of NASA's future rides on senators from Lousiana to cut the facility loose, or else they would have done it already probobly.

Anybody, even a Marshall engineer, has got to be better then the incompetant fool that WAS running the show.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-06 08:19:15

The only thing that Michoud seems to have failed at with regards to the ET appears to be foam application, forced foam refridgerant change, apparent non testing of cyrogenic tank loading an unloading effects on the foam and workmanship of foam handling after applying. If that is all they have failed at then have all foam done nearer to the mating location so as to reduce the handling and reloading effects and off load the responsibility to another group to apply the foam initially.
Other possiblities are for Lockheed and boeing plants to shift all of there tank construction to the michoud facility anf move all ET's to one of the alternative locations once buildings are made to handle its build.

Michoud at this time is definitely in the line of fire for success or failure of Nasa's future...

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-06 10:45:00

No spacenut, Michoud has not failed in any one detail, their failure is their systemic incompetance, that they just don't take their job seriously enough or responsably enough.

Chunks of foam have been falling off the tank since before Columbia, and the orbiter itself was hit on the wing by foam at least twice before the Columbia tragedy, once causing severe damage to an RCC panel. And what did they do about it? Nothing.

After the foam blowing agent switch, or maybe even never, the foam applied by hand wasn't subjected to thurough testing; they never actually took a piece of the foam (which can't be that expensive) and cut it up or subjected it to stress testing. They just didn't do it until somebody got killed, they skipped it and assumed it was okay, and that is just irresponsable.

A large chunk of foam, the same type and near the same place and applied the same way as the piece that killed the Columbia crew, came off and nearly hit Discovery in the same way, from a section of the foam that was already under consideration for removal since it was a possible safety hazard. Even worse, they attached sensors to the suspect piece of foam to see if it was safe... while the crew was riding on that tank!

And now, now they can't even seem to fix the tanks they do have almost complete in anything resembling a timely fasion; here NASA is with its future in increasing jepardy with Shuttle delays and cost overruns, but they can't even perform relativly simple changes to the tanks and the whole program is held up while they get their act together.

There is no one single failure down in Lousiana, the problem with Michoud is its people, who apparently can't do their jobs right.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-06 11:10:08

Or Michoud is only a manufacturer site and that real engineering which is off site is sleeping at the wheel or perhaps hybernating even on site. However they are not and have not been preforming the appropiate tests or following though with what has happened with Michouds manufactured product.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-06 13:11:15

The "manufacturing" people and the "engineering" people are one in the same, they are not two different branches, however the people that do the designing and management are probobly more at fault than the engineers that actually weld and spray foam on the tanks. However, even the foam guys should have been responsable and tested their technique and new blowing agent much more thuroughly, since foam samples cut from pre-Columbia tanks had obvious, serious flaws.

SpaceNut · 2006-01-30 07:40:04

Well here is the thoughts on the ET that I had and what follows is Griffin's

The only thing that Michoud seems to have failed at with regards to the ET appears to be foam application, forced foam refridgerant change, apparent non testing of cyrogenic tank loading an unloading effects on the foam and workmanship of foam handling after applying. If that is all they have failed at then have all foam done nearer to the mating location so as to reduce the handling and reloading effects and off load the responsibility to another group to apply the foam initially.
Other possiblities are for Lockheed and boeing plants to shift all of there tank construction to the michoud facility anf move all ET's to one of the alternative locations once buildings are made to handle its build.
Michoud at this time is definitely in the line of fire for success or failure of Nasa's future...

Mike Griffin After Nine Months

Orlando Sentinel: Where does NASA stand on the foam issue right now? As we proceed toward a May or June or whatever [space shuttle] launch date, what issues have yet to be resolved before you are comfortable with flying?
Griffin: We think now that we understand in substantial technical detail the mechanism by which the foam is and was liberated. We think we finally understand the details of how the bipod foam came off that damaged and ultimately destroyed Columbia. So understanding the mechanism for foam loss, we now believe we have some approaches to prevent it, or if not prevent it, to control the size of it, which would be equally suitable if we make sure it comes off in chunks we have now established are too small to hurt.
Orlando Sentinel: What is the exact mechanism that you now think you understand?
Griffin: Cycling of the tanks with cryogenic propellants - in fact, [super-cold] liquid hydrogen, because we don’t see this problem with liquid oxygen – causes or exacerbates voids in the bond between the foam insulation and the tank and produces cracks in the foam. If and when those cracks propagate to the surface, with a crack connecting a void to the surface, then you have a mechanism for cryopumping. When the tank is cold, air is ingested. It liquefies and goes into the voids. Then as the tank empties and the [air] warms up and evaporates, the resulting pressure blows the foam off.

cIclops · 2006-02-01 08:50:44

Orlando Sentinel have published PERT type STS-121 schedules for the ETs ...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-11-21 11:25:55

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#2 2005-11-22 03:15:53

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#3 2005-11-22 06:24:49

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#4 2005-11-22 18:02:31

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#5 2005-11-22 19:06:10

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#6 2005-11-22 20:39:29

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#7 2005-11-22 21:12:46

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#8 2005-11-22 21:26:32

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#9 2005-11-23 00:22:05

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#10 2005-12-02 10:17:05

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#11 2005-12-02 11:16:10

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#12 2005-12-05 06:38:49

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#13 2005-12-06 06:46:36

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#14 2005-12-06 08:07:05

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#15 2005-12-06 08:19:15

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#16 2005-12-06 10:45:00

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#17 2005-12-06 11:10:08

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#18 2005-12-06 13:11:15

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#19 2006-01-30 07:40:04

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

#20 2006-02-01 08:50:44

Re: Shuttle ST-115 Discovery: A Foam debri retest flight

Board footer