Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-28 06:08:11

Hold on a minute, this paper in Florida is skipping a few things...

"redesigned external tank failed to meet stricter safety standards set after the 2003 Columbia catastrophe"

By who? Which rules? The Columbia accident board? Many of their so-called "standards" were patently impractical. There's no context for this statement.

"Today, this much is clear: NASA never will be able to completely stop the foam insulation from breaking free from external tanks in flight. But the agency has made significant progress in preventing debris large enough to cause catastrophic damage to an orbiter."

Its the truth, there is no way to completly eliminate 100% of foam shedding; however if the flakes that break off are small or away from the orbiter side of the tank, which NASA will simply have to live with if they are going to keep flying.

"Lower-level engineers flagged the 38-foot PAL ramp for removal, modification or extra inspections. They knew the handcrafted wedge was susceptible to shedding large chunks of debris... NASA removed and replaced 10 feet of the ramp to make other changes in the area. On that section, workers used a new and improved process to reapply the foam. The debris later shed during Discovery's launch came from the 28-foot part of the ramp that had not been replaced."

Now this however is completly an issue: somebody's head should roll in Lousiana over that

Rxke · 2006-03-28 09:48:05

off-topic, but anyway...

Yesterday, I was attending a lecture about economics and the arts in the 80's, about 'modern' postmodernity becoming aesthetical, instead of discourse-driven, and yes: lots of yaddayaddayadda.

But all of a sudden, I started drifting off on a remark the guy made about how Reagan outcompeted the USSR in military spending, because I wrote a paper on just that (I always seem to succeed to get the space-angle into my papers, grin)

Part of the USSR downfall, so history wants to tell us, is because The Gipper touted the STS as a weapons platform for SDI, and the ruskies panicked, built their own version, burning waaaay too much rubles etc. etc.

And now, years after the Sovjet-union has collapsed because of an overly complex shuttledesign... The U.S. *still* has three of those in active (cough) duty... Haemorrageing their space agency badly. (Oh, and that spacestation fits in there too, no shuttle, no station like the way it is now)

SpaceNut · 2006-04-01 19:38:28

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.

Follow up on the possibility of a Tanking Test under consideration

The inclusion of the Tanking Test requires approval from the KSC launch director - and discussions have been met with protests over potential foam defects which can result from "cryo cycling" the tank.

Things could have been real bad if

ET-120 went through two tanking tests prior to STS-114 last year - before being replaced by ET-121 for the mission. Following evaluations on ET-120's PAL ramp, hairline cracks were found, which it is understood was a direct result of the two 'cryo cycles'.

had been used....bang, burn another shuttle could have been lost....

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-01 23:07:24

Then why did NASA peg a tank that had been loaded and unloaded, twice, for the next mission???

This is getting to be just a tragic comedy

SpaceNut · 2006-04-02 20:21:55

I agree that this could have been handled alot better than it has been though I think there is only one other tank. From when the one two huricanes to that section of Nasa's shuttle heart came though last year.

Nasa has tried to save money by modifying any ET's that they have in process as they are needed rather than starting with a tank that has not been foamed already is of poor judgement to help solve this issue.

SpaceNut · 2006-04-03 20:32:30

Media Invited to Learn About Wind Tunnel Testing to Support Next Space Shuttle Launch

Wind tunnel tests are underway at Glenn to determine whether removing the protuberance air load (PAL) foam ramps from the external tank will create potentially dangerous aerodynamic effects. The hardware currently in the Glenn tunnel features a 25 percent scale model of a portion of the external tank.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-04 07:33:54

I.E. Glenn is trying to drum up public support, so people don't "forget" about them and raise a stink with Congress if NASA tires to close them down.

EuroLauncher · 2006-04-09 21:22:32

Mishap mangles shuttle part
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ft … ts121.html
A five-member board tapped to investigate the matter met for the first time Monday.
The initial mishap report said the damage occurred March 27 during an engineering evaluation of the power controller. A power-input connector had been installed backwards. That caused the flow of electricity to be reversed, damaging the controller during testing.
The controller is one of three used to route electricity from a shuttle's power-generating fuel cells to orbiter systems. The devices are considered critical during launch, flight, atmospheric re-entry and landing.
The mishap followed a series of workplace accidents that prompted NASA last month to order a safety standdown at KSC.
Dating back to January, the incidents included a small fire at the KSC Vehicle Assembly Building, damage to a 50-foot shuttle robot arm and the death of a construction worker performing roof repairs.

NASA Launches Third KSC Accident Investigation Of The Year,
http://www.wftv.com/news/8483112/detail.html
"Workers plugged cables in backwards into a spare power unit used aboard the shuttle. That damaged the equipment valued at nearly a half- million dollars."

SpaceNut · 2006-04-12 19:26:30

I.E. Glenn is trying to drum up public support, so people don't "forget" about them and raise a stink with Congress if NASA tires to close them down.

Well NASA Glenn budget leaves workers vulnerable

NASA Glenn Research Center's budget can't cover the work of almost 270 workers, about one-sixth of the full-time employees at the center.
"We've been sitting around for six months with nothing to do - nothing that's funded," says Sheila Bailey, a 20-year veteran at the center who has a doctorate and works with solar cells for space power applications

SpaceNut · 2006-04-14 08:29:22

Update on wind tunnel testing of ET foam...

Tank foam lost during shuttle wind tunnel test

During wind tunnel tests earlier this week, NASA subjected a full-scale mockup of a shuttle external tank section to aerodynamic forces greater than a real tank would experience during launch. In one series of tests, unmodified foam insulation used to prevent ice buildups around external fittings suffered only minor damage while a redesigned "ice/frost ramp" suffered major foam loss.

This does not bode well for launching anytime soon....

Rxke · 2006-04-15 00:34:59

"We've been sitting around for six months with nothing to do - nothing that's funded,"

Six months at a job, getting paid for sitting on your hands? :shock: I thought the communists used to 'work' like this to have lower unemployment numbers to show the rest of the world

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-15 06:28:51

Update on wind tunnel testing of ET foam...
Tank foam lost during shuttle wind tunnel test
During wind tunnel tests earlier this week, NASA subjected a full-scale mockup of a shuttle external tank section to aerodynamic forces greater than a real tank would experience during launch. In one series of tests, unmodified foam insulation used to prevent ice buildups around external fittings suffered only minor damage while a redesigned "ice/frost ramp" suffered major foam loss.
This does not bode well for launching anytime soon....

Let me guess...

Unmodified foam - applied by machine
New foam ramp - applied by Michoud engineers by hand

Sounds like late 2006 instead of mid 2006 is more and more likly. I think that will about finish off any chance of Hubble repair.

SpaceNut · 2006-04-20 12:33:52

With all the changes to the ET and the push to keep on scheduel it would seem that more than just foam changes on the tank maybe needed in order to reduce debri durring launch from striking the orbitor.

Low Q option for STS-121to reduce aerodynamic loading on the Shuttle by around seven percent bringing down dynamic pressures (noted by the value psf) to below 735 psf - which was the valve observed during recent wind tunnel testing, resulting in a crack/divot appearing on a modified ice/frost ramp test article.

The Low Q approach was originally an option to fix the Orbiter Window issue for High Q mission profiles.

Then again there are the left over fixes from the CAIB Roll Program concern noted following evidence that a Solid Rocket Booster attach strut neared its maximum design limits during Columbia's roll program on the ill-fated STS-107 mission.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-20 18:34:10

Pro: easier on the tank and booster attach points, the true limits of which are still not well understood. Would also slightly improve abort options.

Con: costs 1100lbs of payload and may delay launch if reprogramming is signifigant, changes must be made to the antique SSME computers.

The problem with the roll program should not be a problem for the CaLV either, since it doesn't have Shuttle hanging off to the side that dictates the roll maneuver occur so rapidly/early.

SpaceNut · 2006-04-22 19:53:08

Some managers believe the pad test is needed to verify that four new hydrogen propellant depletion sensors within the hydrogen tank work properly with orbiter avionics. This is because every time the tank is loaded with 389,000 gal. of -423F liquid hydrogen and 145,000 gal. of -297F liquid oxygen there's a thermal shock to the massive structure that affects its foam and other properties in subtle ways. It also has the potential of increasing the chances that later fuelings for actual launch attempts could cause cracks in the external tank foam unacceptable under much more strict post-Columbia rules.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-22 20:32:57

*sighs*

Why can't they just get a dewar with LH2 and stick the sensor in it at the pad?

SpaceNut · 2006-04-24 19:55:52

I find the sequence of tank numbering a little off since number 94 must have been hanging around for quite some time now...

External Tank schedule spotlight

The current flow of tanks, noted to be ET's 119, 118, 123, 120 and 94 are 'retrofit' tanks, having been past a stage of construction that requires modification - most notably the removal of their PAL ramps, changes to their ice/frost ramps and LH2 Diffuser re-installation.
All tanks past ET-119 will include Developmental Flight Instrumentation (DFI) cable tray accelerometers, to aid the flow of information that will continue to be collated on the aerodynamic loads endured by a tank during ascent. These instruments will fly for the first time on ET-118, given ET-119 - which will fly with Discovery on STS-121 this summer - was shipped to KSC before the additions could be made.

Commodore · 2006-04-27 17:27:35

NASA To Launch Next Shuttle Mission With Current Ice Frost Ramp Design

NASA has decided to fly the next shuttle mission (STS-121) with the ice frost ramps as currently designed. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin will announce this decision at a hastily arranged press conference Friday morning at NASA

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-27 18:36:57

...do they mean the PAL ramp? It sounds like they do. This is the exact same piece of foam that came within a few feet of hitting Discovery, and may have dinged Atlantas' RCC wing tile years back. I am not very pleased with this, especially the 50/50 split thing.

cIclops · 2006-04-27 20:55:50

...do they mean the PAL ramp? It sounds like they do.

Not according to spaceflight now

ice-frost ramps, areas of foam around the brackets supporting the pressurization lines that are intended to prevent ice formation before blastoff

They are different external ET structures. The ice frost ramps are located near the protuberance air-load (PAL) ramp which is an air deflector. The PAL ramp has been removed.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-28 07:25:05

Okay, that is less infuriating I suppose

If only they could put the loaded ET under a tent full of dry gas until the final moment before liftoff.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-20 04:18:19

NASA spent 29 months and about $1.4 billion in an effort to find and fix the cause of the ill-fated re-entry before launching its first post-Columbia mission last July.

Space shuttle rolls out to launch pad; Discovery makes hours-long trek, moving closer to July liftoff

The shuttle's payload a cargo pod dubbed Leonardo, spare space station parts and other items
NASA is currently targeting July 1 to launch Discovery's mission, the orbiter has a flight window that extends through July 19. Additional shuttle launch opportunities open in late August and mid-December.

Commodore · 2006-05-20 18:16:17

Is it just me, or is leaving the shuttle stack exposed to the weather for 2 months sound like a bad idea to anyone else?

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-20 19:22:20

"Exposed" allright...

...during the opening month or hurricane season

cIclops · 2006-05-21 03:40:52

Is it just me, or is leaving the shuttle stack exposed to the weather for 2 months sound like a bad idea to anyone else?

It's less than six weeks to the opening of the launch window on July 1.

The risk of a rollback due to bad weather is not that high, it's only happened 4 times in 114 launches.

10/90 Columbia STS-35 Tropical Storm Klaus
08/95 Endeavour STS-69 Rollback due to Hurricane Erin.
07/96 Atlantis STS-79 Rollback due to Hurricane Bertha.
09/96 Atlantis STS-79 Rollback due to Hurricane Fran.

Full rollback history here

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2006-03-28 06:08:11

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#27 2006-03-28 09:48:05

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#28 2006-04-01 19:38:28

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#29 2006-04-01 23:07:24

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#30 2006-04-02 20:21:55

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#31 2006-04-03 20:32:30

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#32 2006-04-04 07:33:54

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#33 2006-04-09 21:22:32

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#34 2006-04-12 19:26:30

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#35 2006-04-14 08:29:22

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#36 2006-04-15 00:34:59

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#37 2006-04-15 06:28:51

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#38 2006-04-20 12:33:52

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#39 2006-04-20 18:34:10

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#40 2006-04-22 19:53:08

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#41 2006-04-22 20:32:57

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#42 2006-04-24 19:55:52

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#43 2006-04-27 17:27:35

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#44 2006-04-27 18:36:57

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#45 2006-04-27 20:55:50

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#46 2006-04-28 07:25:05

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#47 2006-05-20 04:18:19

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#48 2006-05-20 18:16:17

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#49 2006-05-20 19:22:20

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#50 2006-05-21 03:40:52

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

Board footer