STS-133

[Moonwalker]

Admin, one does not have to be a tree to understand death of the forests

Being an NASA admin means being a puppet. I provided a few views of Michael Griffin, which of course you and a lot of others don't like just I did not like as well not too long ago. But as a NASA admin you can't actually do anything. Those who tell you what to do are warming their chairs in Washington. And if they don't like you being in the office, you are no longer in the office. You have to present what those in Washington want you to present. The views of Griffin were good for the retiring the Shuttle agenda (which in fact was and still is rather necessary) and to keep propagating Constellation. But Obama entered his office on January 20th 2009. Griffin left his office on January 20th 2009 (by that time Constellation inofficially was known to be death already btw.). Obama nominated Bolden who has amongst other things the inofficial assignment to improve relations with the Muslim world. So please don't give anybody the advice to apply for the NASA admin job

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html

[Admin]

Admin, one does not have to be a tree to understand death of the forests

Being an NASA admin means being a puppet. I provided a few views of Michael Griffin, which of course you and a lot of others don't like just I did not like as well not too long ago. But as a NASA admin you can't actually do anything. Those who tell you what to do are warming their chairs in Washington. And if they don't like you being in the office, you are no longer in the office. You have to present what those in Washington want you to present. The views of Griffin were good for the retiring the Shuttle agenda (which in fact was and still is rather necessary) and to keep propagating Constellation. But Obama entered his office on January 20th 2009. Griffin left his office on January 20th 2009 (by that time Constellation inofficially was known to be death already btw.). Obama nominated Bolden who has amongst other things the inofficial assignment to improve relations with the Muslim world. So please don't give anybody the advice to apply for the NASA admin job

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html

You'd be surprised how critical of NASA I am - about a lot of things. And of course, I posted quite a few times about my "disappointment" about the reckless and obscene use of NASA as a political tool, or statement - your link is only one example of that.  I am not a NASA fanboy as you're trying to put it, but I'm not a NASA basher either, because i believe that NASA did and still does a lot of good things, and for now the balance is still positive. It is easier to fix NASA than to go radical and close it down.

It is evident however that you can't seem to find anything good about NASA, and are happy at anything bad that seems to be happening there. One only needs to read your posts here to realize that the only tree can you see in the big forest is SpaceX or better said, "not NASA". It is rarely that I can find a person who is so constantly against NASA as yourself, and not always for a good reason.

Accusing anybody who doesn't fully agree with your points of being a NASA fanboy, or blind, or incapable of seeing the grand picture, doesn't make your points more valid. Manipulating and distorting facts to fit your agenda, and posting unresearched or unfounded "facts" to glorify your claims have quite a contrary effect: it keeps people off the thread, even people who might generally, but not fully, agree with some, or with many of your claims. This has nothing to do with NASA - it's more a matter of style. It's obvious that you've ticked the "Notify me of replies" checkbox on this thread so that you don't miss any opportunity of having the last word at telling everybody how bad NASA is, or how good the others are. That itself proves how intent you are in smearing NASA and preventing otheres from voicing a more balanced, or opposing opinion. Several forum members PM-ed and emailed the Admins asking to lock the thread - you've obviously hit a nerve by not allowing others to get through. But as you see, the thread is still open and it will stay open, hoping that eventually you'll get the message (not that I believe that that will ever happen). Besides, one's legitimate opinion is not grounds for policing.

My suggestion to you to apply for those jobs was a joke of course, trying to tell you that talking is cheap, while doing requires more effort and responsibility. So, along the same line, I stand by my suggestion: it is easy to criticize from outside than actually DOING something about it. If you think that you have figured out what needs to be done so well, and are so intent on telling everybody about it, prepare a nice document and publish it, mail it to the White House, promote it through politicians and lobby, send it to NASA etc. DO something about it! Like the grand philosopher Danny De Vito said once: "money talks and bullshit walks" 

But I forgot that your grand plan would be to "kill NASA" and handing over space exploration to a handful of emerging, purely commercial entities like SpaceX, or Virgin Galactic, hoping that they will adjust their business plans so that they can operate with ROIs of 2-3, or more generations.

/Admin



 

[Moonwalker]

I have not ticked any "Notify me of replies" checkboxes. These forums are very neat and calm (luckily) so that it takes just a few seconds to quickly check new posts. Since I've logged in the last time about 12 hours ago or so, there is only one new post which I am replying to right now

Well, as I've mentioned casually in other threads: the letters NASA do not stand for manned space flight only. What I am critical about NASA is its manned space flight program. But the manned part of NASA in fact is a very small one. It just gets a huge amount of money and the most public attention. But most of the science that NASA does is not happening in manned space flight (atmospheric and climate research, geology, planetary research, astronomy and astrophysics and much more...). The science in manned space flight only is a little in comparison. Most time and money spent is system-related, i.e keeping stuff up and running. They spend more time for stuff like filter cleaning on the ISS than for science (which is I guess why even people like Griffin are not true proponents of the ISS program). And the Shuttle offers even way less scientific capabilities without any spacelab in the bay. It is in fact a true "transportation" system just as it was meant to be.

NASA does a lot of useful science and exploration on the ground and unmanned in space. And this even rather efficiently. But its manned program is something different. And that's what I am very critical about since it eats up a lot of money and resources that usually is/was assigend for much more important research rather than to shoot over-budgeted manned rockets into the sky because of political nearsightedness. Retiring STS and cancel Apollo on Steorids is anything but "killing NASA". This is hugely mistaken. Killing those programs is a real chance to do things in a more efficient way finally. NASA is not all about building and sending manned rockets into the sky. This can be done by others way more efficiently while NASA trains astronauts and choses the target and requirements.

[Pocci]

I must confess, that I do not always read Moonwalkers long posts completely, but there is at least one fact he seems to state correctly:

Look at: http://www.nasa.gov/rss/133_update.xml
at the following chapter:

Shuttle Team to Look at GUCP, Foam Crack Issues
Freitag, 5. November 2010 19:32
Technicians will retrieve the ground umbilical carrier plate at Launch Pad 39A and begin a close look at it over the weekend after a leak in the apparatus prompted a scrub of Friday's launch attempt for space shuttle Discovery. Mike Leinbach, shuttle launch director, said the liftoff was postponed until no earlier than Nov. 30 so engineers could have time to consider the problem and inspect the GUCP more closely.
 
 Mission managers also will look closely at a crack in the external tank foam that developed as supercold liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen were being drained from the tank. The 15-story tall, orange external tank shrinks and expands as its temperature changes from the effects of the propellants. That change can cause the foam insulation on the outside of it to crack.
 
 Mike Moses, chair of the Mission Management Team, said the crack did not develop until after the launch attempt was called off. However, he said the team will analyze the crack carefully.
 
 Discovery's next possible launch opportunity comes Nov. 30 at 4:05 a.m. EST.

"Mission managers also will look closely at a crack in the external tank foam that developed as supercold liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen were being drained from the tank."

and

"Mike Moses, chair of the Mission Management Team, said the crack did not develop until after the launch attempt was called off."

Moonwalker may be biased in other facts, but not in this.
Without the umbilical plate leak there would be no detanking, no cracks and STS-133 would have been launched.

/Armin

[Moonwalker]

I must confess, that I do not always read Moonwalkers long posts completely, but there is at least one fact he seems to state correctly:

Look at: http://www.nasa.gov/rss/133_update.xml
at the following chapter:

Shuttle Team to Look at GUCP, Foam Crack Issues
Freitag, 5. November 2010 19:32
Technicians will retrieve the ground umbilical carrier plate at Launch Pad 39A and begin a close look at it over the weekend after a leak in the apparatus prompted a scrub of Friday's launch attempt for space shuttle Discovery. Mike Leinbach, shuttle launch director, said the liftoff was postponed until no earlier than Nov. 30 so engineers could have time to consider the problem and inspect the GUCP more closely.
 
 Mission managers also will look closely at a crack in the external tank foam that developed as supercold liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen were being drained from the tank. The 15-story tall, orange external tank shrinks and expands as its temperature changes from the effects of the propellants. That change can cause the foam insulation on the outside of it to crack.
 
 Mike Moses, chair of the Mission Management Team, said the crack did not develop until after the launch attempt was called off. However, he said the team will analyze the crack carefully.
 
 Discovery's next possible launch opportunity comes Nov. 30 at 4:05 a.m. EST.

"Mission managers also will look closely at a crack in the external tank foam that developed as supercold liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen were being drained from the tank."

and

"Mike Moses, chair of the Mission Management Team, said the crack did not develop until after the launch attempt was called off."

Moonwalker may be biased in other facts, but not in this.
Without the umbilical plate leak there would be no detanking, no cracks and STS-133 would have been launched.

/Armin

Thanks for pointing this out. This is what I was talking about. Without the GUCP leak there would have been no crack in the foam likely. But the potential for cracks in the metal exists regardless, as cracks even appeared on at least one another External Tank during manufacturing. So it is rather likely that they would have launched with cracks if the GUCP leak issue did not happen.

[Pocci]

But at liftof there would habe not been any cracks. These would have come during "detanking" in the ascent phase.
Is the tank filled only for launch or is a wet rehearsal part of the normal preparations?
I wonder on how many launches these tank-re-warming-cracks were there during ascent.
And how many cracks of the stringers were covered by unbroken foam.
Or does in this case here any stringer crack lead to an foam crack as well?

I wonder if this is a general construction problem of the tank or if it is a special (manufacturing?) problem with this very tank here.

/Armin

[Stardust9906]

No wet rehearsal, the only de tanking during normal operations is when a pre launch abort takes place.

And you make an interesting point on flight history as the same design of tank has been flying since 1998 with no problems.  All you can do is fix the problem when it becomes apparent and NASA has been working this one very hard indeed.  That’s all anyone can ask of them.

[Moonwalker]

I think we have to make distinctions between cracks in the foam and cracks in the metal. There have always been cracks in the foam. If the crack which scrubbed STS-133 would have been smaller, like the one they found for example one day before launch of STS-121, they would have launched with it. The cracks in the metal already might have existed, even without any crack in the foam. There was at least one another crack on another External Tank (ET-138) which is not even mated to any Shuttle and SRB yet.

It is not yet clear what caused the underlying cracks. They presumably could have been triggered by temperature-induced stress as the tank was loaded with supercold liquid oxygen and hydrogen rocket fuel. But a similar crack was found in ET-138, scheduled for use by the shuttle Atlantis next summer, and that tank has not yet been subjected to cryogenic temperatures. The cracks may be related to the use of lightweight materials in the latest generation of tanks.

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/101110crack/

The root cause of the cracked stringers on STS-133′s External Tank (ET-137) may have been found, following the investigation team’s findings that the material used for the tank’s intertank support beams was found to be “mottled”, when compared to standard material.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/01/sts-133-et-137-investigation-boosted-potential-root-cause/

[Stardust9906]

If this has been an underlying problem since 1998 then flight history shows that the tank is robust enough to take these cracks without failing.  If it is a one off then the problem has been discovered and dealt with correctly.

[Moonwalker]

If this has been an underlying problem since 1998 then flight history shows that the tank is robust enough to take these cracks without failing.

Your conclusion sounds logical, at first view. But because it never went wrong in the past and so it is safe, is not the way how science and engineering works (not by guessing). Whether the ET is ready to be launched safely or not can only be objectively determined by proper and valid testing. And they'll never know if and how many cracks there was in the past (unless they discovered some and recorded it) which makes guessing invalid without actual testing.

If it is a one off then the problem has been discovered and dealt with correctly.

Absoluetly. But mostly thanks to the GUCP leak issue and the resulting foam crack during drain operations, which pointed out that there is more than just a foam crack. As mentioned, ET-138 also suffered from cracks obviously without even being tanked/used yet.

[Spaceguy5]

If this has been an underlying problem since 1998 then flight history shows that the tank is robust enough to take these cracks without failing.

Your conclusion sounds logical, at first view. But because it never went wrong in the past and so it is safe, is not the way how science and engineering works (not by guessing).

'There is not enough evidence to say that earlier shuttle flights launched in cold weather were dangerous! Sure, there were some blowthroughs in the SRBs but that doesn't mean anything and those flights were still successful! There's no reason Challenger shouldn't launch!'

'Other flights have lost foam off the external tank, but there have been no catastrophic failures! It's not that important of an issue!'

Not exact quotes, but that's more or less how some past managers thought, and look where it got us <________< "Normalization of deviance" as astronaut Mike Mullane put it in one of his speaking programs on safety and engineering ethics. You can never assume "Hey, it worked before. There's no reason it won't now!"

[Moonwalker]

If this has been an underlying problem since 1998 then flight history shows that the tank is robust enough to take these cracks without failing.

Your conclusion sounds logical, at first view. But because it never went wrong in the past and so it is safe, is not the way how science and engineering works (not by guessing).

'There is not enough evidence to say that earlier shuttle flights launched in cold weather were dangerous! Sure, there were some blowthroughs in the SRBs but that doesn't mean anything and those flights were still successful! There's no reason Challenger shouldn't launch!'

'Other flights have lost foam off the external tank, but there have been no catastrophic failures! It's not that important of an issue!'

Not exact quotes, but that's more or less how some past managers thought, and look where it got us <________< "Normalization of deviance" as astronaut Mike Mullane put it in one of his speaking programs on safety and engineering ethics. You can never assume "Hey, it worked before. There's no reason it won't now!"

That's almost exactly what happened to STS-51L back then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOpq_IYjZ_g&feature=related

But this time it's different though. They are really working on it and delay the launch. But that's not what I am sceptcial about although those delays are a real pain in the a.... What I don't like already starts at the design of STS. They still depend on that complicated and susceptible stack after 30 years. Not to mention the unprotected thermal protection system. STS-107 was a clear sign (and btw it also worked before, from 1981 until 2003...). The decision for retirement was and still is right although I'm not making a lot of friends with such comments. But that's what the sad truth is about. The Shuttle is an amazing piece of hardware and from that point of view I love it just as everyone. But aside from a perfect world, its "side effects" like costs, time, efforts and susceptibility outweigh the benefits sadly.

[Moonwalker]

NASA orders full round of stiffeners to Discovery tank

Senior NASA managers Monday agreed to install stiffeners all the way around the shuttle Discovery's external tank to beef up structural ribs, or stringers, that are susceptible to cracks when exposed to ultra-low-temperature propellant. Engineers say the modifications can be completed in time to support at launch as early as Feb. 24, assuming the work goes smoothly no other major problems develop.

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/110110tank

[Steven]

Great STS-133 update today.

The basic jist of it all:

* Radius Blocks will be installed on the stringers, this should lead to much more confidence in the intertank (I believe John Shannon said full confidence).
* Launch date is targeting February 24th, 2011, at 4:50pm EST.  This is not a NET, just a current work-to date.  ISS is finalizing plans for this date.
* ESA's ATV will launch on the 15th of February and should dock to the ISS on the 23rd, clearing the way for Shuttle.
* STS-133 will likely slip day-for-day if ATV should slip.  We'll see how that plays out, though.

That's the basics of it, check NASASpaceFlight for the video of the conference and a great transcription by Chris Bergin.

[Steven]

Tim Kopra, STS-133 Spacewalker, has been involved in a bicycle incident and injured his hip.  It's unconfirmed at this time whether he has broken his hip or not.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20028646-501465.html