Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

SpaceNut · 2006-05-21 16:25:58

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?

I think the main problem with doing this would be water penitration into the foam and damage to it cause by birds pecking holes into it causing possibly a chance once filled to have foam fall off when launched.

SpaceNut · 2006-06-09 06:57:44

Discoveries flight is still on scheduel STS-121 crew say they're ready for mission
.
Shuttle crew says it’s time for flight test; Astronauts accept tiny risk of catastrophic foam damage

they conceded that much smaller pieces of debris might still be shed by 34 aerodynamic foam ramps designed to keep ice or frost from building up on the tank's external plumbing.
If a big enough piece were to come off one of the ice/frost ramps, and if it struck just the wrong place on the shuttle, and if it did maximum damage, "the results would be catastrophic,"

Can we get anymore IF's.... mitigation is all we can do with so many locations.

cIclops · 2006-06-10 06:08:42

Yep all is go go for launch. Wayne Hale, Shuttle Program Manager, said at the latest press briefing that the schedule out to 2010 of 4 fights a year is very achievable. Perhaps NASA are looking at accelerating the plan and retiring the fleet earlier? This could have significant savings, releasing funds for the exploration program enabling the CEV to fly earlier.

SpaceNut · 2006-06-12 19:44:35

NASA keeps an eye on Alberto

NASA's hurricane plan calls for a shuttle to be rolled back from the pad if there is a possibility that wind could exceed a sustained velocity of 60 knots. A rollback would have to be complete before the wind reaches 40 knots.

With good reason as it continues to pick up strength.

Alberto prompts evacuation on Florida coast

Scientists say the 2006 season could produce as many as 16 named storms, six of them major hurricanes. Last year's hurricane season was the most destructive on record and the busiest in 154 years of storm tracking, with a record 28 named storms and a record 15 hurricanes.

Track Tropical Storm Alberto

cIclops · 2006-06-20 02:10:57

Interesting debate over the STS-121 launch decision - crew risk is acceptable but not the vehicle's - it's almost as if Griffin would prefer to get rid of it! (The Chief engineer and the Chief safety and mission assurance Officer both voted no go for the mission)

“Crew safety is our first and most important concern,” read the statement prepared by NASA’s chief engineer Christopher Scolese and Bryan O’Conner, a former astronaut and the space agency’s chief safety and mission assurance officer. “We believe that our crew can safely return from this mission.”

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-20 07:13:49

The crew probably won't die because of heat shield damage (hence they are okay with launch), but if there were severe damage that would be the end of the Shuttle program (hence why they voted no go).

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-30 06:54:36

Um... isn't anybody, like, interested that NASA is going to try again tomorrow?

cIclops · 2006-06-30 09:13:56

Um... isn't anybody, like, interested that NASA is going to try again tomorrow?

Sure.

The media are, they want to see problems because problems are news and news is money and influence.

I am, I want to see successful RTF, ISS finished, STS retired and the resources used for real exploration.

There should also be at least 100 people on the irc channel (see below)

There has to be somebody else, somewhere ...

Rxke · 2006-07-03 13:48:13

Djeez...

Another crack...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5137462.stm

But still a go for tuesday :shock:

SpaceNut · 2006-07-03 20:55:50

Lots of other stuff as in a thurter problem and the waiving of the ET foam testing that showed voids.

NASA expects small pieces of debris; Readiness review details flaws in covering of tank

The inspections, using high-tech tools that can spot cracks and other flaws beneath the surface of the foam, found several voids -- basically air pockets -- in the foam ranging from 0.3 to 1 inch in diameter.
Computer models and other analyses indicate the defects could generate pieces of debris during launch that are between 10 times and 30 times smaller than the size NASA considers dangerous.

The crew if it makes it safely will have many days filled while in orbit.

Mission to test shuttle repairs; Astronauts to fix railcar, carry supplies to station

There will be 7 cameras running to observe the tanks shedding of foam at lift off. Hopefully none will be damaging.

Looks like its going to be a blast... Weather scrubs another launch attempt Next opportunity for Discovery’s red glare comes on the Fourth of July

Would be better if the weather could be cancelled out of the equations for the shuttles last few years of service. Maybe prepping the other shuttles for alternative sites... such as Edwards air force base. If the cape is a no go then fly the crew to the alternative site and launch..

Some more details on what may lead to a no launch but at this point Nasa is all go if weather permiting.

NASA investigating crack in shuttle foam

A pencil-sized crack in the foam insulation on space shuttle Discovery's fuel tank had NASA managers scrambling on Monday to determine whether they could safely launch the shuttle on Tuesday.
After meetings following the discovery of the 5 inch by 1/2 inch crack, NASA continued preparing the shuttle for a Tuesday launch but delayed a decision on whether to call it off until engineers can determine the impact of the crack, which is minute compared with the briefcase-sized chunk of foam that doomed shuttle Columbia in 2003.
The crack, found during a routine inspection overnight, was located on a bracket on the tank that holds the super-cold liquid oxygen fuel line in place -- an area that is stressed during the fueling process and when fuel is drained from the tank every time a launch is postponed.

We talked about this very issue of the tank being exposed to the elements for long periods of time. Though I had speculated that it was the ultra-cold liquid hydrogen and oxygen that was the cause to this long ago...

Frozen rainwater blamed for missing shuttle foam

Rain falling on the space shuttle's external tank on Sunday may have frozen and led to a seven-centimetre (three-inch) triangular chunk of foam coming off a bracket, NASA shuttle managers said on Monday.
The freezing would have been caused by the ultra-cold liquid hydrogen and oxygen fuel in the tank.
The affected foam is in a dangerous area located on the top bracket that secures the 43-cm (17-inch) liquid oxygen feedline near the top of the hydrogen part of the tank. It is close to the orbiter's nose, and relatively close to the bipod region, from where the foam that ultimately doomed the shuttle Columbia in 2003 was shed.
"The bracket is in an area that we don't like to have foam come off," says deputy shuttle manager John Shannon.

Ian Flint · 2006-07-04 13:00:59

They made it!

I haven't watched a live Shuttle Launch for years. It's still pretty exciting.

dicktice · 2006-07-21 11:20:42

It sure is! And now that they can inspect the reentry tiles via the extended Canadarm, as well as perform repairs via spacewalk, regularly scheduled launches can be expected. I haven't checked but certainly two or more in 2006, and now, why not?

redhorizons · 2006-07-27 14:14:08

I wanted make sure everyone read this so I am copying the whole article here. Very well said I think.

Discovery's STS-121 Mission: NASA Made the Right Call
By George T. Whitesides

National Space Society
posted: 27 July 2006
02:10 pm ET

The difficult decision made recently by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin to launch the Space Shuttle Discovery, despite objections from NASA’s safety chief and top engineer, demonstrated solid leadership and the very qualities America has always embodied - boldness and daring in the face of calculated risk.

Leaders make decisions. Great leaders surround themselves with discipline specialists and rely upon their expertise to guide those decisions. Those leaders have to factor in competing recommendations of many experts, weigh the various risks and opportunities against the goals and objectives and make a choice.

In the case of the latest Discovery mission, now back from a successful 13 day mission to the International Space Station (ISS), Griffin indeed relied upon a panel of leading experts. In a face-to-face flight readiness review two of his most senior experts voted against launch, doing so based on their discipline’s view of the risks for this specific mission. It was not their job to weigh the risks to the entire program. That was up to Griffin, arguably the most technically-competent administrator in NASA’s history.

Griffin had to weigh many factors pertaining to the shuttle program, ISS, and manned civil spaceflight. Another redesign of the shuttle’s fuel tank could cause the next launch to slip another year. Delaying Discovery’s launch would have brought additional risk to ISS assembly and the shuttle program. Why? A delayed launch would have forced six flights within one year before the shuttle fleet’s 2010 scheduled retirement. The shuttle program is not designed to accommodate such a packed flight rate without incurring considerable risk. Another risk factor that was key to Griffin’s decision was the possibility of the United States failing to meet its international commitments to complete the ISS.

Exploration and settlement have always entailed risk, requiring the courage of brave souls to venture forth. Nations and leaders who understand this principle prosper. Only a couple of hundred years ago the mortality rate of explorers and settlers was quite high. Dutch sailors figured that they only had an even bet of making it back home alive. In America, the first English colony, Roanoke, disappeared completely. Half the settlers in Plymouth died during their very first winter. The risks were great all across the continent. Death Valley wasn’t named after the scenic view.

Space exploration is the greatest adventure embarked on by humanity, with perhaps the greatest rewards, and its ultimate potential justifies significant risk.

Space is worth the risk because exploration excites the human soul. Because it is so exciting and hard it challenges the best of our minds. Space exploration encourages young people to study the hard subjects, like engineering, math, and the sciences, that are critical to future economies. In America only 5% of our college graduates are engineers. That number is dropping. The Chinese graduated 45% of their students as engineers. In China the number of engineering graduates is increasing. Apollo spurred tens of thousands of students to pursue engineering. These engineers had an enormous impact on the American economy. To keep up with evolving world economies America needs to do this again.

The Moon and asteroids may hold part of the key to addressing global warming and developing sustainable energy resources. Platinum group metals (abundant in asteroids) may be found on the moon at impact sites of metallic asteroids. Development of these resources may enable the world to establish a hydrogen economy, since there may not be enough platinum group metals on Earth to produce the fuel cells for all the world’s cars.

Lunar Helium-3 may enable a safe form of fusion power that could be used around the world without the risk of contributing to weapons enrichment. Helium-3 fusion does not produce the radioactive byproducts to enable weapons development. You could give Helium-3 reactors to North Korea and Iran and sleep like babies over the deal.

The members of the National Space Society believe the United States has become too risk averse. John Augustus Shedd wrote, “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for." There are two roads before America: one, full of excessive caution and introspection, leads to diminishment and decline. The other, guided by visionary consideration of risk and reward, leads to a renewed sense of purpose and continued world leadership.

Space exploration and development activities are worth the risk. It is time for the nations of Earth to embrace calculated risk, risk for a purpose, risk that makes our souls sing. This mission of Discovery was a stepping stone toward our future in space. Now that she is back home and NASA back on track, let us be thankful for the brave who dare to be great. Dr. Griffin made the right call.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-27 19:51:12

America only 5% of our college graduates are engineers. That number is dropping. The Chinese graduated 45% of their students as engineers

Pssst. These numbers have since been debunked, Chinese "engineers" include all non-scientists in technical fields (eg computers), not just mechanical engineers. The number is also probably inflated.

dicktice · 2006-07-29 16:37:24

Re. "The members of the National Space Society believe the United States has become too risk averse."
What you really mean is "gamble averse." Because, we now know that the Space Shuttle Program prior to the last two missions amounted to a kind of Russian Roulette which gambled with the lives of our crews during reentry, through ignorance of the surface integrity prior to reentry--a case of ignorance is bliss. But now, with every aspect of liftoff-through-separation carefully monitored, and self-contained onboard eyeball-to-tile inspection and repair capability in orbit, the risk factor become less a gamble and more an engineering and/or human error proposition. Too bad it took so long to reach this point, but now with solid solid support from all the governments involved, the thing can still be accomplished. My point is that the risk is now no worse than we'd mistakenly thought is was, all along!

redhorizons · 2006-07-31 09:49:34

The grad rates for engineer numbers may be inflated, but the sad fact is, we are at the precipice of a new space race and there is not the interest in it that there was in the Apollo era. The passion for exploration seems to have died in all but a few. I do what I can by trying to encourage the youth I work with to look to the stars, to dream of Mars, and then to persue math and engineering and astronomy and astro-biology....and so on. We are not going to be the ones that touch done on the Moon, or Mars or the Asteroids, but these kids will be.
GCN, your critique of AltSpace and NASA, keep me in check when my dreams and excitement get too high, but it is this kind of passion that the Altspacers have, that needs to permeate into hearts and minds of our younger generations. So humanity can continue its quest of knowledge and exploration. Otherwise we are doomed to mediocrity on this little blue speck.

dicktice · 2006-08-24 08:40:47

Cheer up ... at 32, you sound older than me. But then I never really "grew up." There's lots to be enthusiastic about, now that the cold war times are over. We can cooperate with Russia and China in space now, for God's sake! If we pull up our spacesuit sox, we may still get off the planet before you find your poor old self in a nursing home. Maybe, even before you bury me!

SpaceNut · 2006-08-28 19:44:46

It was some time ago but I meantioned that the Shuttle Atlantis could have problems if launched late and with the roll back it may make for a potential Orbiter, Soyuz docking logjam at International Space Station. All it takes is one small thing - and a bit of bad luck - and a launch can be delayed again - and again.

Due to the roll back cause by Ernesto the a failed Crawler hydraulic will add 2 to 3 hours to rollback time. NASA had planned to move Atlantis into high bay 3 in the VAB, which faces the launch pad. A crawler-transporter moved that MLP out of the bay earlier today, but had to put it back after hydraulic problems developed. This had the segments of the SRB for next flight being assembled on it.

At the launch pad, a shuttle and its propellant-loaded solid-fuel boosters are protected from the weather by a lightning protection system and rain barriers that effectively surround the orbiter. No such protection is available during a roll to or from the pad. We can only hope that bad weather stays at bay long enough to get the shuttle into shelter.

The lighting strike also has added to the problems since the Booster were still in the process of being varified as being ok, so who knows when this will get done...

dicktice · 2006-08-30 16:10:20

But now, here we are, returning again to the launchpad. I'm surprised and impressed by their flexibility, and the cooperation shown between NASA and the Russian Space Agency. Full marks, for those in the drivers seat.

Rxke · 2006-09-08 09:16:24

scrubbed again because of ECO issues...... This is beginning to become a recurring theme...

Rxke · 2006-09-09 09:27:35

Great launch!

All APU's seem to be working fine.

Nice footage with the new camera's on the ET, BTW...

dicktice · 2006-09-09 10:43:50

The engineers prevailed through perserverance and know-how, and Murphy's Law was overcome. Now it's up to the astronauts to do their thing in orbit. No more political interventions, please: With all the successive congressional budgets forcing increasingly dicey design decisions throughout the space shuttle program, who needed Murphy these past weeks?

Commodore · 2006-09-10 16:36:02

They might just be able to pull this off.

While I have serious questions on the worth of the ISS, I do think failure to complete it will be far more costly than success.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-10 19:50:59

Shuttle, when it is working right, is supposed to be safe to within 200-250 flights per failure. Another 18ish flights is therefore less than 10% risk. A gamble, but acceptable apparently.

SpaceNut · 2006-09-10 20:16:42

Not sure how to take the chances of failure while trying to complete the station but pack the work in per flight as much as possible and try to lessen the gambles...

As for now the lauch went well once the delays were taken in stride. All looks good as they begin the next 11 days of what will be a jammed packed effort of construction.

A day of 'non-stop work' for astronauts going to bed at roughly 4:15 p.m. ET Monday.

There goes Nasa again waiving paper at what is deemed not safe. They will have to perform a tricky hookup with the orbiting laboratory and lift a 17½-ton girder out of the cargo bay.

At one point, the girder will swing only 5 inches from part of the shuttle. Normally, NASA requires an object moved by the arm to stay at least 2 feet away from the shuttle.

The girder is for all the packed away solar panels that will need to be installed once the girder is in place.

What gets me is the chance for damage if there is a delay to attaching it and getting power going though it...

That will require three complex spacewalks and two sets of operations with robotic arms on the shuttle and station. The girder will sit overnight in the grasp of the space station arm. Tuesday, the station arm will clamp it onto the station, paving the way for two spacewalkers to hook up the girder's electrical and data lines. If the girder spends too much time in the chill of space before receiving electricity, it could be destroyed by the cold.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2006-05-21 16:25:58

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#52 2006-06-09 06:57:44

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#53 2006-06-10 06:08:42

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#54 2006-06-12 19:44:35

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#55 2006-06-20 02:10:57

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#56 2006-06-20 07:13:49

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#57 2006-06-30 06:54:36

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#58 2006-06-30 09:13:56

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#59 2006-07-03 13:48:13

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#60 2006-07-03 20:55:50

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#61 2006-07-04 13:00:59

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#62 2006-07-21 11:20:42

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#63 2006-07-27 14:14:08

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#64 2006-07-27 19:51:12

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#65 2006-07-29 16:37:24

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#66 2006-07-31 09:49:34

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#67 2006-08-24 08:40:47

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#68 2006-08-28 19:44:46

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#69 2006-08-30 16:10:20

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#70 2006-09-08 09:16:24

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#71 2006-09-09 09:27:35

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#72 2006-09-09 10:43:50

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#73 2006-09-10 16:36:02

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#74 2006-09-10 19:50:59

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

#75 2006-09-10 20:16:42

Re: Next Shuttle Launch: Late 2006?

Board footer