Shuttle grounded - again

[EHITCH]

NASA: No Flights Until Foam Issue Fixed

By MARCIA DUNN
AP Aerospace Writer
Published July 27, 2005, 5:54 PM CDT



SPACE CENTER, Houston -- NASA officials said Wednesday it would ground future space shuttle flights because foam debris that brought down Columbia is still a risk.

A sizable chunk of foam insulation that came flying off the shuttle Discovery's fuel tank during Tuesday's liftoff did not hit the orbiter and does not pose a risk to the seven astronauts.

But it is a problem NASA thought had been fixed, and represents a tremendous setback to a space program that has spent 2 1/2 years trying to rise from the ashes of Columbia.

"We won't be able to fly again" until that hazard is removed, Bill Parsons, shuttle program manager, told reporters in a briefing. "Obviously we have some more work to do."

 

[bbchien]

NASA: No Flights Until Foam Issue Fixed

By MARCIA DUNN
AP Aerospace Writer
Published July 27, 2005, 5:54 PM CDT



SPACE CENTER, Houston -- NASA officials said Wednesday it would ground future space shuttle flights because foam debris that brought down Columbia is still a risk.

A sizable chunk of foam insulation that came flying off the shuttle Discovery's fuel tank during Tuesday's liftoff did not hit the orbiter and does not pose a risk to the seven astronauts.

But it is a problem NASA thought had been fixed, and represents a tremendous setback to a space program that has spent 2 1/2 years trying to rise from the ashes of Columbia.

"We won't be able to fly again" until that hazard is removed, Bill Parsons, shuttle program manager, told reporters in a briefing. "Obviously we have some more work to do."

I saw this. What really gets me is, after 2.5 years, they sent another one up- a reworked old one. 2 1/2 years- that's enough time for a major redesign!

So, we have crew up there, and the ship is grounded. Man, I hope they survive. Sigh.

 

[EHITCH]

they sent another one up- a reworked old one.
So, we have crew up there, and the ship is grounded. Man, I hope they survive. Sigh.

Unfortunately, all we have in the fleet are reworked old ones. If memory serves (and it often does not serve particularly well these days), the Columbia accident report advised that the shuttle fleet was never really intended to fly for as long as it has been. But, what else is new in aviation?

I hope and think and pray the crew will be safe -- evidently the foam did not hit the space craft -- the video I saw yesterday showed a chunk of something that flew off the ET and clearly did not strike anything on the shuttle, just blew away. They also showed video of what appeared to be a bird that was impacted about 2 seconds in to takeoff, up near the nose of the tank. Hope they remember to report that bird strike incident once they get back ....

 

[sierra]

so ... why can't they come home with the Russians?

 

[Maverick]

I saw this. What really gets me is, after 2.5 years, they sent another one up- a reworked old one. 2 1/2 years- that's enough time for a major redesign!

So, we have crew up there, and the ship is grounded. Man, I hope they survive. Sigh.

It routinely takes 4 to 5 years for our auto industry to design, build and launch a new vehicle. I remember Ross Perot complaining about that during his brief tenure on the General Motors Board. He said " Hell, we won a world war in less time than that".

It is amazing to me that with all our computer technology it still takes that long. I also remember that the P51 Mustang went from conception to a working prototype in something like 90 days and at the start of our involvement in WWII we had a goal of building 50,000 planes that first year. As I recall we built 100,000.

As it stands now we are trying to give our manufacturing ability away to anyone who will take it. Craftsmanship has given way to huge profits from cheap labor.

I think I better get off my soap box now. Sorry for the rant.

Jeannie

 

[wsuffa]

so ... why can't they come home with the Russians?

The Russian ship is not big enough. I think it only carries 2 (or maybe 3?)

 

[silver-eagle]

With the current shuttle systems over 21 years, and millions of miles on them, they are getting a bit long in the tooth. Burt Rutan's project is the first new [proven] space technology in years. Maybe the next space shuttle system Nasa uses will come from him.

 

[fgcason]

so ... why can't they come home with the Russians?

They could. But then what are you going to do with the shuttle stuck in orbit? It's not like you can just power it down and leave it sitting cold until someone gets clever. You probably have to scuttle it into the Pacific pretty quick.

This is just a big gas tank. Apollo went from a blank piece of paper to the moon in about 4 years...less if you consider problems they had that slowed them down. They should put a team together with a blank chalkboard to redesign that mid size bomb from scratch instead of patching up the ongoing problems.

Everything is about the bottom line nowadays. Reality check: If you want to quit blowing them up, you're just going to have to spend the $$, do it right and get over the bank account nonsense. The whole concept of cheapest design possible for the lowest cost possible for maximum return possible on equipment that's cut to minimum tolerances is not conductive to safety or continued operation.

 

[poadeleted20]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra
so ... why can't they come home with the Russians?

They could.

The Russian capsule carries a Russian pilot and two pax. There are seven aboard the Shuttle plus two already up in the ISS. Typically the Russians can run a Soyuz up and back every few months. The ISS only holds about 12 man-months of life-critical supplies (food, air, etc) and the Shuttle caries maybe 14 man-weeks. Do the math. If they can't bring the Shuttle down safely, it's Martin Caidin's "Marooned" scenario, and I don't see Gregory Peck over there at Baikonur ripping through the checklists to turn the Soyuz around in two weeks rather than two months.

 

[bbchien]

Here's the problem, from an undergraduate physics perspective. The big tank is full of liquid fuel. Its pressure is decreasing, and it's evaporating in the tank. So the tank gets cold. Meanwhile, as compression and friction take the outside of the tank up in temperature, the outside heats up. So you have a substance that gets very, very brittle.

Now, this has been a physics problem since....lemme think, now, Werner Von Braun and the first liquid fuel rockets? May since PV=nRT? So in the 2 1/2 years they have accomplished what? They only managed to get video of the problem while putting the crew at risk?

Burt Rutan was correct. The NASA managers should be fearing for their jobs.

 

[Michael]

I understand what you are all saying, and don't take this wrong..but..Burt got one person barely into space. he would have to redesign altogether in order to carry 7 people and a satellite into orbit. Not to mention the costs involved in designing something of that magnitude. NASA is limited in the funding they receive.
That being said...remember when the first shuttle flight tests were being done, and the shuttle would return with numerous missing tiles on its belly? I'm not convinced its the tiles as much as its the age and the tiles at play in the shuttle breakup upon reentry. They need to rebuild these or redesign period.

 

[Brian Austin]

It routinely takes 4 to 5 years for our auto industry to design, build and launch a new vehicle. I remember Ross Perot complaining about that during his brief tenure on the General Motors Board. He said " Hell, we won a world war in less time than that".

It is amazing to me that with all our computer technology it still takes that long. I also remember that the P51 Mustang went from conception to a working prototype in something like 90 days and at the start of our involvement in WWII we had a goal of building 50,000 planes that first year. As I recall we built 100,000.

As it stands now we are trying to give our manufacturing ability away to anyone who will take it. Craftsmanship has given way to huge profits from cheap labor.

I think I better get off my soap box now. Sorry for the rant.

Jeannie

Part of this is development of production tooling but most is marketing stuff, I'd imagine. Back in WWII periods, a few folks would come up with the design and hundreds of draftsmen and engineers would make it a viable product for the war effort. Today, a team has to work together and design submissions have to go through a web of committees and polls to get to even the prototype level. In their defense, though, if you build it but can't sell it, what's the point?

I used to build plastic injection molds for a tool & die place in west Michigan. From prototype handoff to mold leaving the plant on a truck was typically 90-120 days...but could be done in less than a month if someone really wanted to get it done fast. The first Saturn SL1 bumper fascia mold has my fingerprints on it, among others.

 

[SkyHog]

Now - how did the shuttle program go as long as it did without serious problems on every flight? The only thing I can think of is something or someone changed within the organization so that quality is no longer a focus.

 

[Frank Browne]

Everything is about the bottom line nowadays. Reality check: If you want to quit blowing them up, you're just going to have to spend the $$, do it right and get over the bank account nonsense. The whole concept of cheapest design possible for the lowest cost possible for maximum return possible on equipment that's cut to minimum tolerances is not conductive to safety or continued operation.

Exactly. The issue boils down to whether or not our elected officials have the
political moxie to make it happen. I don't think the current administration can get it done because of the obstructionist " loyal " oppositions desire to impede anything he tries to do. Combine that with the rather short sighted notion held by WAY too many people that we need to 'spend all that money fixing problems on earth ' and you end up with a hamstrung NASA.

JFK committed this nation to a lunar landing on the basis of a single SUBorbital flight by Alan Shepard in May 1961. At that time there had been NO space walks or orbital docking of two vehicles or lunar excursion modules or lunar rovers or even a rocket motor that could launch a vehicle that could carry more that one person. Every bit of the technology needed to get a man on the moon needed to be thought up, designed, tested, redesigned, tested again and then incorporated into the technological wonder called Apollo/Saturn. It's an issue of political will. From a scene in The Right Stuff...."no bucks, no Buck Rogers".


Excerpt from JFK's May 1961 speech to congress committing to a lunar landing........


This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, material and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel.

New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. The could in fact, aggravate them further--unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space.

 

[Richard]

Exactly. The issue boils down to whether or not our elected officials have the
political moxie to make it happen. I don't think the current administration can get it done because of the obstructionist " loyal " oppositions desire to impede anything he tries to do. Combine that with the rather short sighted notion held by WAY too many people that we need to 'spend all that money fixing problems on earth ' and you end up with a hamstrung NASA.

JFK committed this nation to a lunar landing on the basis of a single SUBorbital flight by Alan Shepard in May 1961. At that time there had been NO space walks or orbital docking of two vehicles or lunar excursion modules or lunar rovers or even a rocket motor that could launch a vehicle that could carry more that one person. Every bit of the technology needed to get a man on the moon needed to be thought up, designed, tested, redesigned, tested again and then incorporated into the technological wonder called Apollo/Saturn. It's an issue of political will. From a scene in The Right Stuff...."no bucks, no Buck Rogers".


Excerpt from JFK's May 1961 speech to congress committing to a lunar landing........


This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, material and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel.

New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. The could in fact, aggravate them further--unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space.

It's inaccurate to hold JFK's speech as a showcase of how things get done. Don't forget the Cold War and Sputnik were very great motivators. And why on earth would he include warnings against inflated costs or wasteful interagency rivalries if they didn't exist then? Even during the Apollo program there were protests of "Ricketts rather than Rockets".

NASA has had budget problems pretty much it's entire life. Layer an inefficient or politically tied admin and infighting on top. Or, a lead agency which is chartered to do one thing and ends up usurping the role of many agencies to do many things. Hubble, the space station, STS missions, and many other projects are often contradictory to one another. Trying to do too much with too little leads to waste and nothing done well. The agency has expanded beyond it's original charter. Just like the USGS doing Elephant Seal counts.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Now - how did the shuttle program go as long as it did without serious problems on every flight? The only thing I can think of is something or someone changed within the organization so that quality is no longer a focus.

Privatization being forced upon NASA by the federal government is a big part of that.

Also, remember that even with quality and safety as the primary focus, this is an incredibly complex system, leading to higher chances of failure.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It's inaccurate to hold JFK's speech as a showcase of how things get done. Don't forget the Cold War and Sputnik were very great motivators.

It routinely takes 4 to 5 years for our auto industry to design, build and launch a new vehicle.

Sadly, we need a new enemy. The US is now like a large monopoly, and we need some competition to keep us on our toes.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I saw this. What really gets me is, after 2.5 years, they sent another one up- a reworked old one. 2 1/2 years- that's enough time for a major redesign!

So, we have crew up there, and the ship is grounded. Man, I hope they survive. Sigh.

Bruce,

They'll be fine. I just visited NASA last month after Gaston's and saw just how much they've been working on methods to fix the tiles. There may be some minor damage to the tiles right now, but the reason for the grounding isn't the tiles, it's the foam on the ET which did NOT hit the tiles this time but did cause the Columbia accident.

Tile repairs should be more of an emergency type of procedure than routine, which is the reasoning behind the grounding. If you had a problem with one of the engines on your plane, thought it was (for example) a bad mag, replaced the mag, and still had the problem on your next flight, would you replace one other part and fly again to see what happened and take a chance on having one quit, or would you have your A&P tear it down until he KNEW what the problem was?

NASA as a whole does have a pretty good attitude towards safety, and that is what we are seeing now. Remember that the press likes doom and gloom, especially relating to things that fly. Thankfully NASA has not yet let that affect their decision making.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra
so ... why can't they come home with the Russians?

If they can't bring the Shuttle down safely, it's Martin Caidin's "Marooned" scenario, and I don't see Gregory Peck over there at Baikonur ripping through the checklists to turn the Soyuz around in two weeks rather than two months.

So there's nine people, one Soyuz capsule (the emergency escape one for the ISS) and one Shuttle in orbit. If the shuttle is unsafe and a Soyuz needs at least one person to man it for a launch (I dunno what the min crew is for it), that means three more Soyuz launches to get everyone home.

I think their level of supplies is better than normal right now, as one of the missions of Discovery was to re-stock. I think they can re-stock with Soyuz and possibly also unmanned Russian vehicles. I did hear on one news program that Atlantis was going to be ready "just in case" but I don't think that's accurate.

Got lots of questions for my sister now...

 

[MSmith]

Just to clear things up.

The Discovery is fine. They will be able to land. (Well, actually they still have checking to do yet but the chunk of foam that was spotted falling away missed the shuttle.)

It's FUTURE flights that are grounded.

 

[The Old Man]

I think some people are leaping to an erroneous conclusion here.

Like any grounding, grounding the shuttle fleet does not imply automatically that any craft currently "in flight" cannot complete the flight. It means that the one in flight cannot take off again until the grounding is lifted, not that it cannot return.

The grounding is for launch system problems, not for inherent problems with the orbiter. Once it is determined that no damage to the orbiter occurred during this launch, the return can be made.

 

[judypilot]

Sadly, we need a new enemy. The US is now like a large monopoly, and we need some competition to keep us on our toes.

I've occasionally had this thought as well. Both people and nations seem to do better if they are kept on their toes, and with nations, that pretty much means having an enemy. We actually do have one: terrorism. And, in fact, that enemy is inspiring some pretty interesting technologies. Maybe space was an appropriate response to our previous enemy, and we need to move on. There does hang about this aspect of NASA an air of past interests and exploits that are just that--past. The manned space program hasn't produced anything interesting in terms of science and technology in years; it's just hype. The "science projects" the shuttle has conducted are jokes and embarrassments. They're kids' projects, for goodness sake!

In fact, NASA has done some pretty terrific stuff in the past 10-15 years in their earth observation program. Although I'm more right leaning than not, this is one of the things I disagree with the current administration on--they need to be pumping up that side of NASA and leaving this manned space flight thing for the future when we decide we really need it again. I think it's the wrong challenge for the times. The earth observation program, unlike the shuttle program, has produced real discoveries that are influencing how we look at the world.

My major concern about terrorism is that the government put together such a massive bureaucracy to deal with it that I wonder whether it can actually produce anything. All the interesting technologies are being privately developed. Well, that's not strictly true. DHS is funding some research in computer and food security that could be pretty interesting.

Judy

 

[poadeleted3]

I've occasionally had this thought as well. Both people and nations seem to do better if they are kept on their toes, and with nations, that pretty much means having an enemy. We actually do have one: terrorism. And, in fact, that enemy is inspiring some pretty interesting technologies. Maybe space was an appropriate response to our previous enemy, and we need to move on. There does hang about this aspect of NASA an air of past interests and exploits that are just that--past. The manned space program hasn't produced anything interesting in terms of science and technology in years; it's just hype. The "science projects" the shuttle has conducted are jokes and embarrassments. They're kids' projects, for goodness sake!

In fact, NASA has done some pretty terrific stuff in the past 10-15 years in their earth observation program. Although I'm more right leaning than not, this is one of the things I disagree with the current administration on--they need to be pumping up that side of NASA and leaving this manned space flight thing for the future when we decide we really need it again. I think it's the wrong challenge for the times. The earth observation program, unlike the shuttle program, has produced real discoveries that are influencing how we look at the world.
snip

Judy

Many people, myself included, have zero interest in funding just unmanned science only missions. I'm glad scientists have stuff to get all excited about, and the stuff they learn really is interesting, but if the space program isn't about getting mankind into space, the scientists need to find a way to pay for their own toys. The space program needs to be leading the way for us to go into space, or frankly not many people will care.

 

[fgcason]

There does hang about this aspect of NASA an air of past interests and exploits that are just that--past. The manned space program hasn't produced anything interesting in terms of science and technology in years; it's just hype.

I'm all for manned flights and doing new interesting stuff. But I have to agree with you on this. It's almost like they keep flying the shuttle in much the same way you see the 105 year old tribal warrior carrying his shield and spear around. Holding onto the Glory Days in any way possible even though those days are long past.

Every time something goes wrong, the politicians point at the moon and say let's go and committee together a planning session in the back halls of somewhere where it never sees the light of day. Dispicable behavior.

Yes we do need the station and the up and down ability to go to the moon and beyond on a regular basis. Problem is I don't honestly see manned moon flights ever happening again. IMO it's at best a Rutan type program if it's ever done again. It won't be done by the gov't unless something drastic happens. There are groups like Rutan that would do it in a second, problem is the public that funds the gov't operations don't even know what the dots in the sky are on a clear night when the city power go out then proceed to call the local observatories in a panic for reassurances. (NOT a joke BTW)

In fact, NASA has done some pretty terrific stuff in the past 10-15 years in their earth observation program. Although I'm more right leaning than not, this is one of the things I disagree with the current administration on--they need to be pumping up that side of NASA and leaving this manned space flight thing for the future when we decide we really need it again. I think it's the wrong challenge for the times. The earth observation program, unlike the shuttle program, has produced real discoveries that are influencing how we look at the world.

Good point. Manned flight just doesn't have a real goal right now.

The problem with eliminating manned flight for a while or 100-500 years is that we loose the ability to do it then you have to relearn the skills from scratch. Think of the moon flights as an example. We have two Saturns laying on their sides as museum pieces and the plans and all the paperwork etc that got us there in 1969 readily available. However I seriously think that if we said GO today with a 5 year target date that we could not do it even using the proven 36 year old cheat sheets. There would be tiny Saturn pieces all over Florida if they tried to fly one 2 years from today. It's not that we can't. It's that we just don't have the experience to fly that monster anymore.

We need to loose the wishy washy political motivational clips for popularity points. Choose a goal and actually stick with it. Don't committee it in the back sub basement closet. Draw it up on the big wall for everyone to see and start building the stuff to get there right now and don't back off until you're there. Bring back the Glory Days or get out of the way and let someone in there that can.

The shuttle limping into low Earth orbit, hopefully without blowing up, with no bigger realistic goal in sight is kinda BORING. I'm just not seeing the inspiration. It's real annoying holding ones breath on every launch and sighing relief when it doesn't blow itself to smithereens.
I'd love to see someone stepping onto the Moon 5 years from now. Disappointment year after year is annoying. For now I think I'll stick to the really exciting stuff of radio controlled robots driving into untouched unknown ground and finding sedimentary type rocks and nobody knows what else on Mars.

For the first time in 4.5 BILLION YEARS we FINALLY have the ability to actually do something really really interesting...We, right here, right now, won the super triple points power ball lottery and we're too lazy to cash the ticket in... TOTALLY SHAMEFUL.

This is something that really torques me off.

Rant of.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Does anyone else think nasa will be disbanded, or totally reorganized after the next catastrophe?