STS-133

[Moonwalker]

None of the engineers ever questioned the structural integrity of the tank in all.

Do you know all the engineers? And why do you think they never questioned the structural integrity of the tank? Because you never heard such discussions officially?

What does cause the cracks? And, the cracks are located near SRB attachment. I did not hear any voices from Lockheed Martin yet...

In 1986 the public did not know anything about the SRB O-ring issues. Not even the guys at mission control, launch control and not even the crew did know which discussions were going on just one day before the final launch attempt between Morton-Thiokol and the Shuttle/NASA management. That's why people are just concerned because you could not always trust all NASA decisions and communication in the past. Lots of things were underestimated in the past, even the foam loss was not considerd to be a real issue. Only after STS-107 they added the OBSS technology and procedure.

Of course there are a lot of unprofessional voices. But I personally prefer to listen to voices of that business whenever possible/available.

[christra]

Do you know all the engineers?

Do you? 

Of course there are a lot of unprofessional voices. But I personally prefer to listen to voices of that business whenever possible/available.

That's the same on my side.
But I learned from earlier discussions here that your research wasn't always "the best".  On the other hand it seems to me that the only valid opinion for you is your own.

For that reason I added the last line in my former post. 

[Moonwalker]

Do you know all the engineers?

Do you? 

Of course not. And I never claimed

Of course there are a lot of unprofessional voices. But I personally prefer to listen to voices of that business whenever possible/available.

That's the same on my side.
But I learned from earlier discussions here that your research wasn't always "the best".  On the other hand it seems to me that the only valid opinion for you is your own.

Well, opinions are opinions and rarely valid in all objectivity.

But it's something different with facts. In case you are referring to the SpaceX thread (which I think you do basically): that SpaceX does offer access to space in a cheaper way than NASA right now is not an opinion. It's a matter of fact. If SpaceX would be able to do more in future is speculation and of course just is my (and lots of others) opinion.

In relation to this thread: Concerns for the External Tanks ability to be launched safely are valid I guess. And if the leak on the Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate had not been detected, they would have launched with those existing cracks...

But, we'll see what happens next and how work and decisions will look like. Repairs will begin today and analyzing of data will continue.

[mborgia]

Clearly someone is concerned enough about the integrity of ET 137 that they have ordered reinforcing doublers attached to 36 stringers (18 on each side, nine forward and nine aft of the SRB attach point). 

I'm not an aeronautical engineer, I'm a jet instructor.  But I know enough to know you don't add weight to anything on an aircraft or rocket unless their is a darned good reason to do so. 

Certainly the decision to retire the shuttle will rank as one of the most bipartisan acts of foolishness ever committed by the U.S. government.  Considering that we've already endured the loss of the amazing capability of Saturn V, the decision to retire the still very young Shuttle fleet is just shocking in its lack of vision even seven years after it was announced. 

I don't agree though with keeping spare assets sitting on the ground, such as an extra tank.  We have an extra tank (ET-122) and NASA very wisely decided to fly an extra mission with it, using a limited crew.  STS 135 will extend by a year the ability of the station to perform useful science before NASA and the international partners are inevitably forced to scale back crew size after the shuttle is lost.  Once we are reduced to a three member crew, they will again be spending all of their time just maintaing the station, with no research being done.

[Moonwalker]

Clearly someone is concerned enough about the integrity of ET 137 that they have ordered reinforcing doublers attached to 36 stringers (18 on each side, nine forward and nine aft of the SRB attach point).

I'm not an aeronautical engineer, I'm a jet instructor.  But I know enough to know you don't add weight to anything on an aircraft or rocket unless their is a darned good reason to do so.

Exactly. Especially in space flight adding extra weight does increase costs significantly. But if it's for safety this time, I'm glad. On the other hand, it shows that there are some concerns which are valid enough.

Certainly the decision to retire the shuttle will rank as one of the most bipartisan acts of foolishness ever committed by the U.S. government.  Considering that we've already endured the loss of the amazing capability of Saturn V, the decision to retire the still very young Shuttle fleet is just shocking in its lack of vision even seven years after it was announced.

Actually the Saturn V is my favourite launch vehicle. What an amazing machine this was. Whenever I watch videos of its launches, it always amazes me. Especially the sound of those 7.5 million pounds of thrust. Compared to this, a Shuttle launch just seems to be a "plaything" of some sort But this is just what I'm thinking as a fan boy of Apollo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rXtG3vfAlA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3sVuFjJlp4

On the rational side of thinking, one has to agree that the entire infrastructure which NASA built in order to operate the Saturn V's just was way too expensive. That's why there was no further interests in those vehicles afterwards, neither commercially, nor governmental. Even the Saturn 1b was too epxensive and out of interest after Apollo and after only 9 launches. Building the Shuttle was the next logical step in order to build a space station and gain experiences in space before heading out further beyond the Moon, to Mars. But sadly it also was too costly in almost any case, including time, in relation to its early promises.

As for retiring the Shuttle: not to retire it would mean no progress if one intends to fly anywhere beyond low earth orbit. NASA can't keep the Shuttles fully operational while developing and fully testing a new system. At least not unless NASA gets a budget boost which in fact it will never get for doing two different things/programs at the same time.

Former NASA admin Michael Griffin:

"The problem with the shuttle has always been that it costs around three billion dollars a year to continue to have the shuttle program, and so that's fine, but unless extra money is provided, you cannot both retire the shuttle and develop something new. And so, we were in a position, and still are, where it's necessary to retire the shuttle in order to have the money to develop anything new."

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/04/goodnight-moon-michael-griffin-on-the-future-of-nasa.ars

[bjbeard]

Discovery's final launch postponed until February

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/101203delay/index.html

How did I know they won't launch this year?

It seems that Wayne Hale (NASA engineer and former flight director and space shuttle program manager) is right when he calls NASA a train wreck, caused by increased bureaucracy due to the misbelief that more bureaucracy and more paperwork would increase safety. In fact it increased cost and delay but exceeded the optimum point for safety. NASA these days has a board for everything and thousands of requirements (or homemade variables, whatever you call it). Guess who decides to delay the launch by month based on a countless number of requirements? The Program Requirements Control Board of course. I wonder if the Program Requirements Control Board is controlled by a Control Board for the Program Requirements Control Board, of course backed up by another Control something Board...

Yes, safety first. But what we see is not increased safety anymore. It's the point were the program clearly reveals its inefficiency by sitting on the pad from almost one season to the next one. It might be spring already by the time they might launch, whilst moss will cover the flight deck windows, which then will be removed and afterwards controlled if the procedure of moss removal did fit all requirements designated for the Moss Removal Requirement Control Board

That is a US Government Agency for ya. And why do I hear Bruce Willis in my head as I read that???

Our government has become just like that. Slow, Plodding, and generally ineffective. They allowed this to happen for some reason, yet are unwilling to support any future space program.

It is enough to make one want to add 300 grains of lead to their diet.

[Stardust9906]

In relation to this thread: Concerns for the External Tanks ability to be launched safely are valid I guess. And if the leak on the Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate had not been detected, they would have launched with those existing cracks...

This clearly isn't the case as the problem would have been spotted by the Final Inspection Team leading to a scrub.

[Moonwalker]

In relation to this thread: Concerns for the External Tanks ability to be launched safely are valid I guess. And if the leak on the Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate had not been detected, they would have launched with those existing cracks...

This clearly isn't the case as the problem would have been spotted by the Final Inspection Team leading to a scrub.

I don't think so. Without a hydrogen concentration of 6% on the Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate, they would not have done detailed analyses. The decision was made after they discovered that hydrogen concentration while the crack was discovered by accident.

--- snip ---

And this exactly is what my concerns were related to:

"Technicians at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida will begin modifications to 34 support beams, called stringers, on space shuttle Discovery’s external fuel tank today. Crews will fit pieces of metal called radius blocks over the tops of the stringers located at the external tank’s thrust panel area to increase the structural support of the stringers. The thrust panel areas are located at the attachment points between the tank and the solid rocket boosters, which see the most stress during the flight into orbit. The work is expected to take about a week."

For sure they are not only concerned because of foam loss. They are strengthening the structure at that critical SRB attachment point...

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html

[Moonwalker]

[...]

It is enough to make one want to add 300 grains of lead to their diet.

LOL

[christra]

In relation to this thread: Concerns for the External Tanks ability to be launched safely are valid I guess. And if the leak on the Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate had not been detected, they would have launched with those existing cracks...

This clearly isn't the case as the problem would have been spotted by the Final Inspection Team leading to a scrub.

I don't think so. Without a hydrogen concentration of 6% on the Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate, they would not have done detailed analyses. The decision was made after they discovered that hydrogen concentration while the crack was discovered by accident.

I checked that with some experts on Nasaspaceflight (and they really have first class knowledge and information) and they confirmed that the Final Inspection Team would have caught the crack anyway as it was done by thermal imaging. It was stated by either Mike Moses or Mike Leinbach on air.

[Stardust9906]

In relation to this thread: Concerns for the External Tanks ability to be launched safely are valid I guess. And if the leak on the Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate had not been detected, they would have launched with those existing cracks...

This clearly isn't the case as the problem would have been spotted by the Final Inspection Team leading to a scrub.

I don't think so. Without a hydrogen concentration of 6% on the Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate, they would not have done detailed analyses. The decision was made after they discovered that hydrogen concentration while the crack was discovered by accident.

I checked that with some experts on Nasaspaceflight (and they really have first class knowledge and information) and they confirmed that the Final Inspection Team would have caught the crack anyway as it was done by thermal imaging. It was stated by either Mike Moses or Mike Leinbach on air.

IMO the foam crack in itself would likely have been enough to scrub the flight even if the GUCP leak hadn’t happened.

[christra]

IMO the foam crack in itself would likely have been enough to scrub the flight even if the GUCP leak hadn’t happened.

Correct! Because it is a unfavorable spot on the ET to loose foam.

[Moonwalker]

The foam crack issue developed on November 5th during de-tanking according to NASA. The de-tanking took place because of the GUCP leak. Without bad weather and without the GUCP leak, Discovery already would have launched one day before, on November 4th. Now the question remains if the crack already was there before de-tanking. If it was not there, they would not have discovered any cracks in the metal.

[Moonwalker]

IMO the foam crack in itself would likely have been enough to scrub the flight even if the GUCP leak hadn’t happened.

Correct! Because it is a unfavorable spot on the ET to loose foam.

Just like the foam crack discovered one day before launch of STS-121.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/151517main_BestImage.jpg

[christra]

Some more information from an engineer at KSC who talked to the ET guys:

"The ICE inspection team most definitely would have flagged the cracked foam.  They are extremely thorough in their inspection and use visual and infrared equipment to perform it.  They detected that foam crack while doing their inspection even though the launch had been scrubbed due to the GUCP leak.

They are investigating in depth whether there could be structural load problems during flight causing a structural failure.  As has already been decided they will at a minimum perform the stringer mods to the stringers closest to the load beams in the intertank structure where the SRBs react into the tank.  It also appears likely they will perform the mods to all the stringers.  One interesting aspect of the load tests is that although there was a 36% reduction in the factor of safety for the stringers, the initial Factor Of Safety (FOS) was 4 which means the reduction lowered the FOS to a bit less than 3.  I believe if I remember from years ago that some aircraft structure has FOS of 2 simply because that is considered a good payoff versus adding more weight to the aircraft."

In other words, they don't know it yet if there will be a problem with the structure. The safety margins are twice as high in comparison to aircrafts. The FOS of 2 for aircrafts is right.
They would perform the stringer mods also if this would prevent any foam liberation.

Nobody is in panic...