STS-133

[Admin]

Launch rescheduled for "no earlier than December 3".

/Admin

[MDBenson]

The new panel and breakers are in, the leak tests on the GUCP assembly are done and 'Doubler' sections are no fitted on the cracked ET stringer sections. New foam on that area has got to go back on yet and needs 4-5 days to cure properly. At that stage they need to meet and verify they are good to go for another attempt, then get all the pre-launch checks and routines back on schedule to go for another try.

Here's hoping.

[Moonwalker]

@MDBenson

Maybe I should have said that things already begun to change with the Shuttle era, not entirely during the Shuttle era. Just to safe my bandwith at least this time, I quote James Lovell on this: "We're afraid of having accidents."

The Shuttle was meant to be profitable and to be launched frequently. In fact it became none of it, sadly. Maybe it was developed too early in space flight history, but that's a different story.

Yes, the Shuttle is a complex beast. That's why I actually like Soyuz so much and why I want to see NASA/the USA return to capsule design finally. That launches are delayed for weeks and even month whilst the launch vehicle already sits on the pad, readied for launch so far (beside the delaying issue), is something that only happens on STS. And I think it makes the whole thing even more expensive. It even delayed the entire ISS assembly time line and even the Shuttle retirement itself (but in favour of Shuttle fans of course .

[Moonwalker]

Launch rescheduled for "no earlier than December 3".

/Admin

So December might be an interesting month. COTS-1 (Falcon9 + Dragon) is scheduled for a Dec. 7 launch.

Who will be the first?

[Steven]

Launch rescheduled for "no earlier than December 3".

/Admin

So December might be an interesting month. COTS-1 (Falcon9 + Dragon) is scheduled for a Dec. 7 launch.

Who will be the first?

Shuttle Discovery will only be able to launch between December 3rd, and December 7th, due to beta angle constraints.

If Discovery doesn't get off the pad, she'll have to wait until February 27th, 2011 (STS-134's current launch date). 

[Spacewalker]

Shuttle Discovery will only be able to launch between December 3rd, and December 7th, due to beta angle constraints.

If Discovery doesn't get off the pad, she'll have to wait until February 27th, 2011 (STS-134's current launch date).  

The reason for this launch window to close on Dec 7th is not beta angle: Soyuz 25S is scheduled to dock to ISS on Dec 17th. So, Discovery needs to undock before the arrival of the Soyuz, since NASA does not allow to have one of its shuttles docked to ISS during docking or undocking operations of other spacecraft. Therefore Dec 7th is the last possible launch date to make it a worthwile mission with enough docked time on ISS to accomplish at least the most important mission objectives.

NASA is currently also looking into a possible launch window over the holidays, after the Soyuz has docked to the ISS. Also, the beta angle constraints for the beta angle cutout in January are under review.

[Steven]

Shuttle Discovery will only be able to launch between December 3rd, and December 7th, due to beta angle constraints.

If Discovery doesn't get off the pad, she'll have to wait until February 27th, 2011 (STS-134's current launch date).  

The reason for this launch window to close on Dec 7th is not beta angle: Soyuz 25S is scheduled to dock to ISS on Dec 17th. So, Discovery needs to undock before the arrival of the Soyuz, since NASA does not allow to have one of its shuttles docked to ISS during docking or undocking operations of other spacecraft. Therefore Dec 7th is the last possible launch date to make it a worthwile mission with enough docked time on ISS to accomplish at least the most important mission objectives.

NASA is currently also looking into a possible launch window over the holidays, after the Soyuz has docked to the ISS. Also, the beta angle constraints for the beta angle cutout in January are under review.

Thanks for the correction.  I realized my.. er, mistake .. after submitting and re-reading and could not edit.

In regards to the January beta angle constraints that are under review, NASASpaceFlight.com has a great article on site for that:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/11/nasa-reviews-beta-angle-constraints-for-sts-133-launch-date-options/

Thanks again.

[Steven]

Via NASASpaceFlight.com:

NASA managers decide to slip to a NET December 17 target:  http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/11/sts-133-nasa-slip-net-december-17-target/

[Moonwalker]

Meanwhile I even doubt a launch this year. At least it is becoming scarce by no earlier than Dec. 17.

Well, this is how manned space flight is being performed at NASA (or rather not), 49 years after the first manned US space flight and 42 years after their first manned flight to the Moon, now sitting on the pad for month just to get something into low earth orbit... R.I.P. NASA (or in other words: enjoy your last two manned missions)

But after all we at least might see SSM2010 (?) and a SpaceX Dragon launch before

[Richard R]

We might know something tomorrow about the next attempt to launch 133.

Richard  R

[Moonwalker]

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

[Admin]

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?

...<SNIP>...

Because... of course... you have a direct line to God 

Now what is your forecast for February? (a forecast you'll stick to until then of course).

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

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?

...<SNIP>...

Because... of course... you have a direct line to God 

Not really I think former NASA people, who now are able to blunder out things they shouldn't have blundered out while they still were in office, are a pretty good line.

Now what is your forecast for February? (a forecast you'll stick to until then of course).

I don't really have forecasts. Just doubts.

As James Lovell said, we are afraid of heaving accidents today. Of course safety should stand above everything. But one can't ever assure a 100% safety, less than ever by a thousands of requirements and papers. One could research and test things for month, and by accident discover more and more things (like another cracks here and there etc.) which reveal more and more questions. Plus the Shuttle is exposed to different atmospheric conditions for month. January might be rather cold. So I don't think such delays increase safety, but just let to believe it would. One can't ever know all variables for sure. If anything is uncertain, it's space flight. Christopher C. Kraft (former NASA engineer and Apollo manager). And all those today NASA requirements do not make space flight any more certain.

Elon Musk was afraid because of those Air Force requirements which caused that huge delay for the first Falcon 9 launch. In respond a STS worker says that those Air Force requirements are just small potatoes compared to what he will have to anticipate once NASA will be partly responsable for Falcon 9 launches. So even commercial space flight will suffer from that bureaucracy machine, which is going to suffocate by its own requirements, rather than launching rockets efficiently...

[Admin]

..<SNIP>...

Not really I think former NASA people, who now are able to blunder out things they shouldn't have blundered out while they still were in office, are a pretty good line.
...<SNIP>...

Nah, I don't buy that. They only can still only speculate. Once they found that 20ft crack it was a given that the launch wasn't going to happen this year, but it was impossible to forecast that a few months ago, so no, ex-NASA or not, they cannot have known that that would have happened.

Either way, let's see what happens in February and if this situation won't cancel the planned STS-135.

/Admin

[CapCom71]

...by the way,do we have a pure ULF mission already in SSM2007....?