![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch,
NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER? This took two years to figure out? I swear, Gene Kranz must shake his head in disbelief at what has become of our space program. Can anyone imagine NASA going to the moon with this kind of hand-wringing, risk averse management? Here is the full article: ************************************************** ************** NASA Delays Post-Columbia Flight Again By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer NASA on Friday delayed by another two months the first space shuttle flight since the Columbia disaster, saying it needs more time to ensure that the fuel tank does not shed dangerous pieces of ice at liftoff. Discovery is now scheduled for launch no earlier than July 13. The flight had been targeted for late May. A large chunk of foam insulation from the external fuel tank punched a hole in Columbia's wing that led to the shuttle and crew's demise during re-entry in February 2003. Now, the lingering concern involves the possible buildup of ice on the tank once it's filled with super-cold fuel, and the hazard such shards would pose if they came off during the launch and hit the shuttle. NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, announced the delay at a midmorning televised news conference, saying it was the result of recent launch-debris reviews. "This is consistent with our overall approach to return to flight, which is that we're going to return to flight. We are not going to rush to flight, and we want it to be right, so we're doing what we need to do to ensure that," Griffin said. Extra repairs to Discovery's fuel tank will be needed, namely the addition of a heater, said NASA's top spaceflight official, Bill Readdy. The work means that NASA will have to remove Discovery from the launch pad and return it to the massive Vehicle Assembly Building. The prime area of concern is a 17-inch-diameter liquid oxygen line that runs 70 feet down the lower half of the 154-foot tank. Its expansion joints have produced ice in the past. After the Columbia accident, NASA devised a foam skirt, or so-called drip lip, to wick moisture away from the joints. Engineers believe it would reduce ice formation by 50 percent. Shuttle managers decided a more comprehensive repair was needed. Technicians will install a heater at the uppermost joint, something already planned for flights beyond Discovery's. To add the heater on Discovery, the shuttle will have to be hauled back to its hangar, which will add days if not weeks to launch preparations. NASA is also concerned about possible ice formation on the brackets that hold the oxygen line to the tank. The shuttle team is dealing with a few other unrelated problems with Discovery, involving balky engine-cutoff sensors in the fuel tank and thermal blankets contaminated recently with hydraulic fluid. Readdy said the extra two months will provide time to resolve all of these issues, and they will be tackled first while the shuttle is still at the launch pad. Another fueling test of Discovery's tank may be necessary, Readdy said. The test a month ago ago uncovered the intermittent sensor trouble and a few other problems. Griffin said he accepted shuttle managers' recommendation to postpone the flight, to perform the extra work. "I want to launch as soon as we can," said Griffin, who took over the top NASA job just two weeks ago. But he added that he wants the launch to be safe. "Schedule matters," he said. "It shouldn't matter to the point of causing people to do dumb things or to take ill-advised actions ... We want to launch Discovery when we can because the completion of the international space station depends upon an expeditious launch schedule. We don't want to launch it sooner than we can." Columbia was brought down on Feb. 1, 2003, by a gash in the left wing that was caused by a suitcase-size piece of foam that broke off the tank during liftoff. All seven astronauts were killed 16 days later during re-entry. NASA wants the first two post-Columbia launches held in daylight to ensure good photography of the shuttle and its fuel tank, which has been modified to prevent big pieces of foam insulation from coming off. Daylight also is needed over the North Atlantic in order to capture good photos of the fuel tank as it drops off eight minutes after liftoff. The July window extends from July 13 until July 31. If Discovery does not fly in July, the next opportunity would come in September. The 12-day mission will supply much-needed supplies and replacement parts to the space station. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 29 Apr 2005 09:57:14 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:: After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch, NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER? It sounds like NASA is being laudably prudent. But why these modifications weren't performed before rolling the shuttle to the launch pad is curious. The article mentions: NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, announced the delay at a midmorning televised news conference, saying it was the result of recent launch-debris reviews. .... Another fueling test of Discovery's tank may be necessary, Readdy said. The test a month ago uncovered the intermittent sensor trouble and a few other problems. Griffin said he accepted shuttle managers' recommendation to postpone the flight, to perform the extra work. "I want to launch as soon as we can," said Griffin, who took over the top NASA job just two weeks ago. But he added that he wants the launch to be safe. So it looks like the new administrator is a prudent professional. How can that be bad? The real question is, who made the decision to move the shuttle to the launch pad knowing that had "intermittent sensor trouble and a few other problems"? Griffin sounds like just what NASA needs, and I'll bet the crew would agree. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ok.. so let me get this straight.. The shuttle didn't pass "preflight",
so the flight is being delayed for safety reasons and modify or update the equipment just a little bit more.. Sure sounds a lot like you are miffed because they are trying real hard to avoid a case of "get there-itis". So what if its been 2 years.. the last time it was over 4, wasnt it? And the first one was a case of "I TOLD YOU SO" regarding the o-rings on the SRB's..Theres nothing wrong with wanting to get it right.. Astronauts and engineers are professionals, not daredevils with a death wish. I would applaud the setback. Just like I would look another pilot in the eye and say "Good Call" for scrubbing for equipment or weather issues. Dave Jay Honeck wrote: After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch, NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER? This took two years to figure out? I swear, Gene Kranz must shake his head in disbelief at what has become of our space program. Can anyone imagine NASA going to the moon with this kind of hand-wringing, risk averse management? Here is the full article: ************************************************** ************** NASA Delays Post-Columbia Flight Again By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer NASA on Friday delayed by another two months the first space shuttle flight since the Columbia disaster, saying it needs more time to ensure that the fuel tank does not shed dangerous pieces of ice at liftoff. Discovery is now scheduled for launch no earlier than July 13. The flight had been targeted for late May. A large chunk of foam insulation from the external fuel tank punched a hole in Columbia's wing that led to the shuttle and crew's demise during re-entry in February 2003. Now, the lingering concern involves the possible buildup of ice on the tank once it's filled with super-cold fuel, and the hazard such shards would pose if they came off during the launch and hit the shuttle. NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, announced the delay at a midmorning televised news conference, saying it was the result of recent launch-debris reviews. "This is consistent with our overall approach to return to flight, which is that we're going to return to flight. We are not going to rush to flight, and we want it to be right, so we're doing what we need to do to ensure that," Griffin said. Extra repairs to Discovery's fuel tank will be needed, namely the addition of a heater, said NASA's top spaceflight official, Bill Readdy. The work means that NASA will have to remove Discovery from the launch pad and return it to the massive Vehicle Assembly Building. The prime area of concern is a 17-inch-diameter liquid oxygen line that runs 70 feet down the lower half of the 154-foot tank. Its expansion joints have produced ice in the past. After the Columbia accident, NASA devised a foam skirt, or so-called drip lip, to wick moisture away from the joints. Engineers believe it would reduce ice formation by 50 percent. Shuttle managers decided a more comprehensive repair was needed. Technicians will install a heater at the uppermost joint, something already planned for flights beyond Discovery's. To add the heater on Discovery, the shuttle will have to be hauled back to its hangar, which will add days if not weeks to launch preparations. NASA is also concerned about possible ice formation on the brackets that hold the oxygen line to the tank. The shuttle team is dealing with a few other unrelated problems with Discovery, involving balky engine-cutoff sensors in the fuel tank and thermal blankets contaminated recently with hydraulic fluid. Readdy said the extra two months will provide time to resolve all of these issues, and they will be tackled first while the shuttle is still at the launch pad. Another fueling test of Discovery's tank may be necessary, Readdy said. The test a month ago ago uncovered the intermittent sensor trouble and a few other problems. Griffin said he accepted shuttle managers' recommendation to postpone the flight, to perform the extra work. "I want to launch as soon as we can," said Griffin, who took over the top NASA job just two weeks ago. But he added that he wants the launch to be safe. "Schedule matters," he said. "It shouldn't matter to the point of causing people to do dumb things or to take ill-advised actions ... We want to launch Discovery when we can because the completion of the international space station depends upon an expeditious launch schedule. We don't want to launch it sooner than we can." Columbia was brought down on Feb. 1, 2003, by a gash in the left wing that was caused by a suitcase-size piece of foam that broke off the tank during liftoff. All seven astronauts were killed 16 days later during re-entry. NASA wants the first two post-Columbia launches held in daylight to ensure good photography of the shuttle and its fuel tank, which has been modified to prevent big pieces of foam insulation from coming off. Daylight also is needed over the North Atlantic in order to capture good photos of the fuel tank as it drops off eight minutes after liftoff. The July window extends from July 13 until July 31. If Discovery does not fly in July, the next opportunity would come in September. The 12-day mission will supply much-needed supplies and replacement parts to the space station. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... On 29 Apr 2005 09:57:14 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote in .com:: After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch, NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER? It sounds like NASA is being laudably prudent. But why these modifications weren't performed before rolling the shuttle to the launch pad is curious. The article mentions: NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, announced the delay at a midmorning televised news conference, saying it was the result of recent launch-debris reviews. .... Another fueling test of Discovery's tank may be necessary, Readdy said. The test a month ago uncovered the intermittent sensor trouble and a few other problems. Griffin said he accepted shuttle managers' recommendation to postpone the flight, to perform the extra work. "I want to launch as soon as we can," said Griffin, who took over the top NASA job just two weeks ago. But he added that he wants the launch to be safe. So it looks like the new administrator is a prudent professional. How can that be bad? The real question is, who made the decision to move the shuttle to the launch pad knowing that had "intermittent sensor trouble and a few other problems"? Griffin sounds like just what NASA needs, and I'll bet the crew would agree. Griffin is a bean counter and it shows. NASA has tremendous internal problems which Griffin needs to fix before the organization can begin to be anything approaching effective. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 04:07:05 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in : : Griffin sounds like just what NASA needs, and I'll bet the crew would agree. Griffin is a bean counter and it shows. NASA has tremendous internal problems which Griffin needs to fix before the organization can begin to be anything approaching effective. That seems like a reasonable assessment given what's happened here. At least Griffin is considering fixing the Hubble telescope. He sounds like he's trying to do the right thing. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jay wrote:
I swear, Gene Kranz must shake his head in disbelief at what has become of our space program. Can anyone imagine NASA going to the moon with this kind of hand-wringing, risk averse management? Gene Kranz is my hero (so too is Scott Crossfield). I have Failure Is Not An Option recorded on my DVR (from the DW channel) and watch it every few weeks. When I asked Gene Cernan about Gene Kranz he was quick to stress that there were numerous other great Flight Directors at the time and that he was somewhat surprised that Gene Kranz was singled out. Hilton |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jay Honeck" wrote in message oups.com... After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch, NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER? This took two years to figure out? I swear, Gene Kranz must shake his head in disbelief at what has become of our space program. Can anyone imagine NASA going to the moon with this kind of hand-wringing, risk averse management? hand the program over to Disney, it might work then! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ok.. so let me get this straight.. The shuttle didn't pass "preflight", so
the flight is being delayed for safety reasons and modify or update the equipment just a little bit more.. Sure sounds a lot like you are miffed because they are trying real hard to avoid a case of "get there-itis". So what if its been 2 years.. the last time it was over 4, wasnt it? If, after over 20 years of shuttle flights, they can't do a pre-flight inspection in less than 2 years, I would just as soon NASA give us back the billions we have given them (this year) so we can donate it to the Chinese space program. Look, I understand the need for great care after Columbia -- but it's been TWO YEARS. The whole time, there have been over 10,000 people at the Cape on the payroll, doing precisely...what? Then, just when everything is poised on the pad for launch -- OOPS! -- we forgot to install the heater??? It's a national embarrassment. We visited NASA in March, and were very impressed with the facility. I'm glad they have preserved much of our Apollo history, and I'm gladder still that there are so many people dedicated to space flight. It's our future, and anyone with a brain stem knows it. But, dammit, they've got to actually PERFORM. Now. Either sh*t or get off the pot. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jay Honeck" wrote in message oups.com... After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch, NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER? This took two years to figure out? I swear, Gene Kranz must shake his head in disbelief at what has become of our space program. Can anyone imagine NASA going to the moon with this kind of hand-wringing, risk averse management? Here is the full article: ************************************************** ************** NASA Delays Post-Columbia Flight Again By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer NASA's big problem with the shuttle is that they over promised 35 years ago to get it funded. They promised a safe, inexpensive, reusable space truck with quick turnaround time. Arguably, they missed each of those marks. In addition, they tried to sell space travel as routine, and people hold them to that standard. Unfortunately, space travel is anything but routine, and the shuttle (or any other space vehicle) has more than a few single points of failure that have fatal consequences. NASA, Congress, and the US public need to recognize and admit that if we're going to continue manned space flight, we will suffer losses. We need to accept that fact and move forward without all of the hand wringing and political posturing that we get with every accident. Not that we shouldn't strive for a perfect safety record, but even if NASA had unlimited funding, riding rockets would still dangerous. For me, it comes down to this (choose 1): - Continue manned space flight and recognize that people are likely to be killed from time to time, despite the best efforts to prevent accidents. - Discontinue manned space flight. KB |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Kyle Boatright" wrote:
For me, it comes down to this (choose 1): - Continue manned space flight and recognize that people are likely to be killed from time to time, despite the best efforts to prevent accidents. - Discontinue manned space flight. KB Yes, those are the choices ** except replace "likely" by "certain" in the first of these choices. And in making the choice, recognize that if you want to perform important and useful tasks with taxpayer money in space ** obtain spectacular and otherwise unobtainable scientific knowledge, perform extraordinarily useful and economically important engineering functions like weather satellites, GPS, broadcasting ** then the basic fact is that: * There is NO useful role or need for sending people into space to accomplish ANY of these missions. * In fact, the enormous increase in mission costs and complexity and the enormous limitations on performance required to include passengers on any space mission and get them back safely pretty much guarantees that no useful scientific or engineering results will result from those missions ** as the history of our space effort to date fully demonstrates. If some want to argue that sending more people to the moon (or, God save us all, to Mars) will somehow demonstrate the greatness of our nation, well, they're welcome to do so (and I'd agree that the Apollo program was probably justified, in its time, on that basis alone). And I have no opposition to, and wish all good fortune to, private efforts in the Burt Rutan style. But our shuttle and Space Station programs should have been abandoned long ago and their funding redirected to unmanned space capabilities and challenges. Given the present and likely future state of space technology "lunar colonies" are as utterly unnecessary as they are immensely expensive; and the idea of sending people to Mars in the foreseeable future is a fantasy. It's not a matter of policy choices, it's a matter of the laws of physics. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Participated in my first NASA GA research project (long) | Peter R. | Piloting | 22 | October 22nd 04 05:59 PM |
NASA Research looking for pilots with WSI in-flight weather experience | Peter R. | Piloting | 3 | October 20th 04 02:23 AM |
NASA Jet Might Have Hit Record 5,000 Mph | Garrison Hilliard | Military Aviation | 0 | March 28th 04 04:03 PM |
Off topic NASA joke! | Ed Majden | Military Aviation | 5 | February 8th 04 09:39 AM |
Cause of Columbia Shuttle Disaster. | Mike Spera | Owning | 2 | August 31st 03 03:11 PM |