Community
On Orbit => Real NASA Space Shuttle Missions => Topic started by: Jeff B on October 22, 2010, 05:16:33 AM
-
The Press Kit for STS-133 has been released. One week to go before launch.
-
Cool press kit, but it´s still not sure if they can keep 1st Nov launch date...
-
Confirmed all go and in good shape for Nov 1.
-
We'll be "synch-launching" with it. To all newcomers - try it. Seeing the sim shuttle take off together with the real one is a cool experience!
Check the Synchronized Launches thread to understand how it's done :)
http://www.space-shuttle-mission.com/forum/index.php?topic=3064.0
/Admin
-
Cheers Admin. Have completed all the missions but not a synchronized one as yet. Am definately going to do this with STS-133. As it happens we in Melbourne have a public holiday (Melb Cup horse race) and the launch couldnt be a better time here 7.30am. Perfect.
-
Admin,
had a look at the link you posted bit it is only the link to a poll. No info on how to go about it. Is there another link?
-
Admin,
had a look at the link you posted bit it is only the link to a poll. No info on how to go about it. Is there another link?
Seems to work for me. You'll need (optimal setup): Two computers, or at least two monitors. Run TS (TeamSpeak) to Uri_Ba's server, you can find that in the Help and Hints forum. Run a NASA TV stream, or the audio feed, for updates and live T minus counters.
Admin, just another question here - would you be interested in a "synchronized landing" type deal? Should all be the same as launch, just hit "exec" at the TIG of the DoB. :)
-
Admin,
had a look at the link you posted bit it is only the link to a poll. No info on how to go about it. Is there another link?
I re-checked the link. Poll? No way! Read the posts there and see which mission to load and how to prepare. There is enough info there to get you going.
/Admin
-
Boo. I was happy when they delayed it to Tuesday (As I don't have classes that day, and can afford to drive to Tittusville to watch <_<), but Wednesday is the busiest day of the week x.x I kinda hope it gets pushed back further to Thursday >_>
-
Rolling back the RSS right now. 0016z
-
STS-133 scrubbed due to "substantial" GUCP leak. Issue plagued STS-119 and STS-127, but they say this is worse.
Next launch attempt NO EARLIER THAN Monday, November 8th. Currently in a 72 hour scrub turnaround.
Managers will be meeting in 2 hours time to discuss a forward plan.
-
It's funny how many leak problems they've been having
-
It's funny how many leak problems they've been having
Funny in a very, very light way, haha. Sucks because now the launch is scheduled to NO EARLIER THAN November 30th, 2010. This will allow time to get out to the GUCP and see what's going on, without pressuring them for a NET Monday attempt. It has also been noted that the GUCP looks slightly askew (in the press briefing today), so that probably won't help the issue with the leak...
Here's a YouTube video, provided by NASA, about the GUCP. Good for those who don't know a whole lot about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLtTRsPzSA
There has also been a crack in the external tank foam (noted by Mike Moses at the Post Scrub News Conference) - he said about 7 inches wide between two stringers on the External Tank.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/495910main_133-et-crack-1280.jpg
That's the crack. They'll also be working on that too - they probably are going to make a plan, but nothing right off yet that I heard of. Hopefully it isn't *too* bad so they won't have to rollback and fix the tank, but that could be an option.
-
[rant]
Seriously, it doesn't make any fun anymore to follow the NASA program. When watching a Soyuz launch, there is always a 99,9% confidence that the launch will take place, as usual. I can only hope SpaceX i.e. Falcon 9 will get there as well. But NASA just won't be anywhere. They don't even get something off the pad within weeks and month which they operate for decades. The USA has changed and one can see it by the space program as well...
[/rant]
-
Nothing's 'changed'. Safety has always come first, if you have an issue you can't launch. I suggest you look back over the 30-year program and see how many times a launch has scrubbed or delayed. A great number have. Perfect launches like STS-129 are an exception to the rule. We might look back with rose tinted spectacles at previous launches and think this stuff all used to go off flawlessly but the truth is launching rockets, and especially vehicles as complex as the Space Shuttle, has never been straightforward.
Thew GUCP has been a bone of contention on numerous previous occasions, sometimes it just doesn't seal properly.
The design of External Tank hasn't changed since STS-96 or something (the first use of the lightweight variant) and the stringers are a known problem, and have been repaired before (although not on the pad to my knowledge). This isn't an issue they can't repair, but would you rather they repaired it and everything was safe, or the ET (which takes most of the strain of launch) broke?
The flight deck panel and breakers they replaced are just old. Discovery has been going a long time and hasn't been refitted for some time.
All the Shuttle craft are the same way, just look at the outside tiles, the paintwork, the number of tiles that have been replaced underneath...
The complexity of the beast means stuff sometimes doesn't go to plan. Safety is the byword, and NASA ans United Space Alliance stick to it. I prefer it that way.
As for Soyuz didn't the most recent one have a delay? Also it's a very much simpler vehicle in a part of the world where the weather is very stable. The USA don't have that kind of luxury, but in return we get to see a few more flights of one of mankind's most amazing pieces of ingenuity... if we're patient.
I know it's frustrating, and I also watched a great number of friends on Twitter gather excited in Florida for the NASA Tweetup, some spending lots to get there, only to see them get no launch. If you feel bummed out, imagine how they felt! But all of us hold no gridge or place no ill will because we know it's all done for a reason.
STS-133 will fly, but only when it's ready.
-
Launch rescheduled for "no earlier than December 3".
/Admin
-
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.
-
@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 :)).
-
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? :)
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/
-
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 :P ;D
-
We might know something tomorrow about the next attempt to launch 133.
Richard R
-
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 ;D
-
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 ;D
Now what is your forecast for February? (a forecast you'll stick to until then of course).
/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 ;D
Not really ;D 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...
-
..<SNIP>...
Not really ;D 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
-
...by the way,do we have a pure ULF mission already in SSM2007....?
-
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.
I did not say that anybody did know what would happen. Of course nobody did :) I was talking about what Wayne Hale has to say about NASA i.e. costs and delays generally, caused by an awful amount of paper/requirements (as with any good bureaucracy).
That's just my personal opinion: if we take the amazing technology and achievements of STS aside for a second, the program is a pain in the a**. I know that those who work on it do a lot of hard work, but still, the program is inefficient in relation to costs and time and how the whole thing was initially planned in the 1970's. As much as I love the technology and watching the missions, I can not wait until NASA or somebody else does something more reasonably on a more regular basis (and with way more science as well).
-
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.
I did not say that anybody did know what would happen. Of course nobody did :) I was talking about what Wayne Hale has to say about NASA i.e. costs and delays generally, caused by an awful amount of paper/requirements (as with any good bureaucracy).
That's just my personal opinion: if we take the amazing technology and achievements of STS aside for a second, the program is a pain in the a**. I know that those who work on it do a lot of hard work, but still, the program is inefficient in relation to costs and time and how the whole thing was initially planned in the 1970's. As much as I love the technology and watching the missions, I can not wait until NASA or somebody else does something more reasonably on a more regular basis (and with way more science as well).
Ah, yes.
Wayne Hale has a lot to say. I like the guy.
/Admin
-
Wayne Hale has a lot to say. I like the guy.
Well, he certainly knows something about NASA. Especially about its bureaucracy, since he was not just a NASA engineer, but also Flight Director for 41 Space Shuttle missions and Space Shuttle Program Manager :)
It is not really uncommon that former NASA people, as soon as they leave the office, say things they better should not have said whilst still holding a chair. On the other side, what he and a lot of others say is not really something new. It's actually known like other things as well. For example, if there are news that NASA can not find the original Apollo 11 footage material, it might be surprising to some readers and conspiracy theorists(/terrorists), but this is actually not surprising at all because it's known that the way NASA handles its archives is quite deficient and in great need of improvement (there is no central archive; stuff is spread in different locations and those who archived the Apollo material are mostly either retired or dead already).
-
To continue your line of thought:
http://www.switched.com/2010/12/08/nasa-accidentally-sells-off-computers-with-sensitive-data/
/Admin
-
NASALeaks ;D
Maybe I should start thinking to buy an old NASA computer 8)
But what makes me more sad is how they handle their old relicts like used Apollo capsules/hardware. They already sold (and lost) so much of it, that a few capsules interior look like an old car from a scrapyard (missing switches, panels, torn out cables etc.). Especially the Apollo capsules used for the Skylab missions. So it's not hard to guess how the Shuttles might look in future once people will be able to visit them and take a look while discovering fake (and partly even wrong) panels parts in it etc...
One can buy original Apollo hardware (including flown ones) online these days. I think that's not the way how to handle such historic stuff :-\
PS: but maybe NASA is in a going-out-of-business sale ;D ;D ;D
-
PS: but maybe NASA is in a going-out-of-business sale
I don't find that a bit humorous.
-
Tanking test is now NET Friday due to cold weather at the pad. They will roll the vehicle back to the VAB 4 to 5 days after the tanking test to do scans on the back of the tank, the areas they can't access while at the pad.
It's all detailed in Chris Bergin's great article: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/12/sts-133-tanking-test-plan-outlined-rollback-additional-inspections/
-
Inspections reveal four more cracks on Discovery's tank:
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/101230cracks/
-
Inspections reveal four more cracks on Discovery's tank:
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/101230cracks/
Which proves that you do not recklessly and irresponsibly cut funds that have a direct impact on missions, until the program is over. Not having a spare ET is irresponsible.
If, god forbid, there will be a disaster during one of the last mission, it will be clear who should take personal responsibility and go home.
I do hope that there are a few people with frozen balls and sleepless nights out there, pondering at all the wrong decisions they took ever since they took office.
/Admin
-
Yes. Not having another external tank available indeed is quite a bad decision, especially right now. Imagine they would find another cracks, which I think seems likely now and which is rather curious.
If I would be assigend to launch with STS-133, I would not be just 100% confident like they always tell in interviews. At least there would be a little something in the back part of my head during ignition and launch (riding the Shuttle actually means riding a hydrogen bomb ;D). Especially at "go at throttle up", which remained a critical moment even until today at which everybody inside and outside the Shuttle still has Challenger in mind. You can hear this quite often in interviews. Barbara Morgan was talking about it not just too long ago. But no miracle, since he witnessed it live at the cape back then.
-
Which proves that you do not recklessly and irresponsibly cut funds that have a direct impact on missions, until the program is over. Not having a spare ET is irresponsible.
If, god forbid, there will be a disaster during one of the last mission, it will be clear who should take personal responsibility and go home.
Should there really be a disaster taking away the life of astronauts or other people, this person should take the honorable old Japanese way of committing suicide.
But before risking a disaster the actual tank should be probably considered not air worthy even if this means scrubbing one of the last missions totally. And in this case there should be definitely someone or someseveral going home.
/Armin
-
Which proves that you do not recklessly and irresponsibly cut funds that have a direct impact on missions, until the program is over. Not having a spare ET is irresponsible.
If, god forbid, there will be a disaster during one of the last mission, it will be clear who should take personal responsibility and go home.
Should there really be a disaster taking away the life of astronauts or other people, this person should take the honorable old Japanese way of committing suicide.
But before risking a disaster the actual tank should be probably considered not air worthy even if this means scrubbing one of the last missions totally. And in this case there should be definitely someone or someseveral going home.
/Armin
I actually have a very good idea which single person should thake responsibility and go home ;)
/Admin
-
Somehow I feel like having a déjà vu of some sort concerning decisions and management...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOpq_IYjZ_g&feature=related
-
There are many sceptical voices across the web already. And honestly, I also have quite a bad feeling. At the moment of ET separation I will be more than just glad. Did they find all cracks? What if there are another cracks? The External Tank absorbs the tremendous vibrations from both SRB's. Imagine if cracks are causing a part of the ET structure to fail, which I think is more likely than unlikely. Would be interesting to know what the Lockheed Martin guys in Michoud are thinking about it...
-
There are many sceptical voices across the web already. And honestly, I also have quite a bad feeling. At the moment of ET separation I will be more than just glad. Did they find all cracks? What if there are another cracks? The External Tank absorbs the tremendous vibrations from both SRB's. Imagine if cracks are causing a part of the ET structure to fail, which I think is more likely than unlikely. Would be interesting to know what the Lockheed Martin guys in Michoud are thinking about it...
The only cracks that have been found so far are in the stringer area (intertank). These cracks could lead to foam liberation. If foam is liberated at certain section of the ET it could hit the shuttle during ascent. That is the only fear.
None of the engineers ever questioned the structural integrity of the tank in all. In fact they consider it -based on the gathered strain gage data from the last tanking test- even stronger than needed.
I think it is not helpful to stoke fears about a possibly failing ET stucture due to any cracks. The cracks are located at the upper end of the stringers only and they put doublers on it now. No astronaut would enter the shuttle for lift off if he would have any doubts about the repaired ET.
We should not support any rumours of people that are eager to spread their (often unprofessional) view or fears through the internet.
This is all I have to say. ;)
-
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.
-
Do you know all the engineers?
Do you? :D
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. ;)
-
Do you know all the engineers?
Do you? :D
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.
-
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.
-
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 8) 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
-
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 ;D
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
[...]
It is enough to make one want to add 300 grains of lead to their diet.
LOL ;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
The question is: at which time the crack developed? According to NASA the issue developed during de-tanking on Nov. 5th. It is not unusual that cracks develope during preparation on the pad. Discovery already would have launched one day before, on Nov. 4th, if the weather would have been better. And if there would have been no foam crack on Nov. 4th, they likely would have launched with those undiscovered cracks in metals behind the foam. The de-tanking on Nov. 5th was done because of the GUCP leak. Without the GUCP leak and without de-tanking, there might have been no foam crack and therefore they would not have discovered the cracks below the foam.
As for panicing: nobody ever was panicing, publically ;) What I am talking about is "concerns". If there would be no concerns, they would not strengthen the structure and launch with the crack like they did with STS-121 for example. But the crack was not small enough for not being concerned. There is enough concern to delay the launch for month and for structural repairs.
-
Well, I think even if Mike Leinbach personally would tell you that the ICE Team would have detected the crack without detanking, ready for liftoff, you wouldn't believe it, Moonwalker.
Sadly, this is the reason why some guys here stopped further discussions with you. If your theories and informations and the ability to accept well-founded firsthand knowledge were as good as your selfconfidence - that would be nice. But it isn't so.
So, if you like to talk to yourself - go ahead. I am out of this discussion now.
Have fun!
-
Well, I think even if Mike Leinbach personally would tell you that the ICE Team would have detected the crack without detanking, ready for liftoff, you wouldn't believe it, Moonwalker.
I would believe it if the crack was there without de-fueling. But according to updates the crack developed during drain operations.
Also, the material/metal was found to be mottled, as they describe it. ET-138 also suffered from cracks but already during manufacturing. The foam crack on ET-137 was a lucky indicator in any case as they seem to send mottled material up into the sky otherwise.
-
Shuttle Discovery launch delayed to late February
NASA managers Thursday decided to give engineers additional time to assess external tank cracks and repair scenarios, ruling out an early February launch for the shuttle Discovery. The next shuttle launch window opens Feb. 27, but NASA is assessing whether it might be possible to move that up a few days.
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/110106delay/
Welcome in the 21st century and 6th decade of space flight. T+3 month and counting for an 8.5 minutes ride into low earth orbit...
Sorry that I can not stop my sarcasm.
-
Shuttle Discovery launch delayed to late February
...<SNIP>...
Sorry that I can not stop my sarcasm.
Well, you're not really sorry, are you.
Here's to clarify: the delay to Feb is mostly due to the launch window not because NASA needs three months to fix the cracks! Actually most of the time is used for testing, not for fixing. And now they will use this extra-time until Feb to make more tests, just in case. They'd be foolish if they didn't.
If they launched anyway (to fit your "schedule") and it ended up in a near-disaster or worse, they'd be reckless and incompetent.
Sarcasmor not, at least resist the temptation of distorting facts or taking them out of context to fit your anti-NASA on-going narrative. We know that regardless of what NASA does, you'll be there to bash and smear. If you only weren't so obvious! You've been doing that quite a lot, in most of your NASA-related posts. I've said that before and I'll say it again: for as long as you keep at this, your posts will not be regarded as objective or as worthy of a serious and mature debate.
/Admin
-
Here's to clarify: the delay to Feb is mostly due to the launch window not because NASA needs three months to fix the cracks!
They are working on the crack issue since November 2010 which, in combination with the GUCP leak, is the reason why the Shuttle sits on the ground for month now. And the latest delay is due to: "engineering investigation, testing and analysis regarding shuttle Discovery's external fuel tank stringer crack issue" to quote NASA. The vehicle is anything but ready to lift off safely yet. Launch windows are not the issue here (mottled metal is the issue, and not only for one External Tank). "With the work remaining, the potential for additional modifications yet to be defined, and further reviews pending, the decision was made today to allow the teams additional time and delay the next launch opportunity out of the early February launch window"
If they launched anyway (to fit your "schedule") and it ended up in a near-disaster or worse, they'd be reckless and incompetent.
I don't like to see fitting the schedule just for the sake to see it lifting off. I'd like to see NASA retiring the Shuttle finally and operating a less complex system. There is really no need to yell: "please do not retire the Shuttle". NASA is not incompetent. But the current program is really inefficient.
We know that regardless of what NASA does, you'll be there to bash and smear.
It should be obvious that I am not looking just at the pomp and circumstance of NASA unlike many people prefer doing so. I would immediately stop to bash and smear if there would be no reason anymore, i.e. a time and cost efficient program more than 30 years after they wanted to do so already ;) But after all, it's a governmental body and the chances that something will change in future are rare I guess. Constellation told a lot (to those who listened). But that's not the right thread to discuss those things I think :)
PS: all I said was T+3 month and counting for an 8.5 minutes ride into low earth orbit. What's wrong about it? Nothing. It's T+3 month and counting...
-
...<SNIP>...
(to those who listened). But that's not the right thread to discuss those things I think :)
Oh, we're listening allright Moonwalker - the thread has a nice number of views to prove that. However your obvious bias is your enemy, not the people here. What you have been doing in this and other threads, is mostly exposing your anti-NASA bias, so that's hardly news. Your post regarding the Feb schedule is a glaring example of this fact.
We gave up trying to show you that there is another side to the coin. I am only posting here to correct distorsions and uncorroborated claims, in case people may get the wrong information. Moreover - we encourage people to do their own research and compare notes. Otherwise, we have no argument - you are entitled to your position, just as anybody else here.
If you want people not only to listen but also to participate, be more balance and objective (and doing some researching would also help, but that's not always necessary).
Otherwise you'll find out that you'll be talking only to yourself (at least on this subject).
/Admin
-
It takes not a lot of research to see that the clock is T+3 month and counting. And why the launch has been delayed many times also should not take too much research: OMS Pod leak, backup SSME controller fault, GUCP leak and first and foremost fixing cracks still pending. These are not uncorroborated claims but facts. So I don't understand what's your point to be honest.
I don't think that I am talking to myself. In fact this forum just is quite calm, especially since there are no updates anymore. Currently it's just 5 guests and 4 users, so one should not expect to much of response anyway.
-
...<SNIP>...
I don't think that I am talking to myself. In fact this forum just is quite calm, especially since there are no updates anymore. Currently it's just 5 guests and 4 users, so one should not expect to much of response anyway.
Nice try deflecting. I hope it works for you.
/Admin
PS: actually the daily maximum concurrent visits count hasn't gone down - on the contrary, lately it actually went up a few times consistently - for example today - and the day isn't over yet. So basically your momentary concurrent visitors count observation is statistically irrelevant. But I am used to that ;D
-
Thursday’s Program Requirements Control Board (PRCB) meeting overviewed the status of Discovery’s External Tank (ET-137), with recommendations made to install radius blocks on over 100 stringers.
Discovery final flight continues to be at the mercy of evaluations into the cracked stringers on her tank...
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/01/sts-133-103-et-137-stringer-mods-launch-slipping/
-
Shuttle Discovery launch delayed to late February
NASA managers Thursday decided to give engineers additional time to assess external tank cracks and repair scenarios, ruling out an early February launch for the shuttle Discovery. The next shuttle launch window opens Feb. 27, but NASA is assessing whether it might be possible to move that up a few days.
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/110106delay/
Welcome in the 21st century and 6th decade of space flight. T+3 month and counting for an 8.5 minutes ride into low earth orbit...
Sorry that I can not stop my sarcasm.
Better safe than disaster. The attitude you're showing now is what led to Challenger.
Do you know anything about engineering ethics? It's actually pretty common sense, I can't believe so many disasters have been caused by defying them: If it's broken and you know it, don't use it--do tests, fix it, do more tests, and make certain to the best of your ability that it'll work and especially that it won't endanger the lives of anyone else. Don't bash NASA for the delays fixing/testing is causing. They're doing the right thing, heaven forbid we have another shuttle disaster.
-
Shuttle Discovery launch delayed to late February
NASA managers Thursday decided to give engineers additional time to assess external tank cracks and repair scenarios, ruling out an early February launch for the shuttle Discovery. The next shuttle launch window opens Feb. 27, but NASA is assessing whether it might be possible to move that up a few days.
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/110106delay/
Welcome in the 21st century and 6th decade of space flight. T+3 month and counting for an 8.5 minutes ride into low earth orbit...
Sorry that I can not stop my sarcasm.
Better safe than disaster. The attitude you're showing now is what led to Challenger.
Do you know anything about engineering ethics? It's actually pretty common sense, I can't believe so many disasters have been caused by defying them: If it's broken and you know it, don't use it--do tests, fix it, do more tests, and make certain to the best of your ability that it'll work and especially that it won't endanger the lives of anyone else. Don't bash NASA for the delays fixing/testing is causing. They're doing the right thing, heaven forbid we have another shuttle disaster.
Yes. They are doing the right thing in relation to those cracks. But I hink my attitude is mistaken. My attitude would not have lead to Challenger but to the cancellation of the STS program in the 1970's already (I would have been one of those disliked representatives).
One can not blame NASA for putting safety high on the priority list. There is no need to thank NASA for it. It should be taken for granted in the space flight business. But one can blame NASA (and congress) for losing focus after Apollo, which is exactly what happened and what became a millstone around NASA's neck (the Shuttle). Today they have to keep struggling with an extremely complex and susceptible (and flawed) system under high costs and efforts just to get stuff into low earth orbit.
Just to back up my comment this time by quoting former NASA admin Michael Griffin:
In a meeting with USA TODAY's editorial board, Griffin said NASA lost its way in the 1970s, when the agency ended the Apollo moon missions in favor of developing the shuttle and space station, which can only orbit Earth
"It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path," Griffin said.
[...]
Asked Tuesday whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin said, "My opinion is that it was. ... It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible." Asked whether the space station had been a mistake, he said, "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-09-27-nasa-griffin-interview_x.htm
But it has to be added that Constellation also would not have been the right way on its schedule and costs.
-
I bet if you were there back in the day, you'd have criticized the Apollo program for being costly and for running into problems too <_< The Space Shuttle is extremely impressive compared to the small capsules used before. It's done so much that they never could have accomplished.
-
...<SNIP>...But I hink my attitude is mistaken. My attitude would not have lead to Challenger but to the cancellation of the STS program in the 1970's already (I would have been one of those disliked representatives).
...<SNIP>...
You could've fooled me!
/Admin
-
Moonwalker, I suggest that you apply for the NASA admin job, or at least for the position of the Presidential Advisor for Space Exploration. And if that position does nit exist, it should be created just for people like you.
There are only a handful of people seeing what needs to be done (in retrospect) as clearly as you think you do (and thank God for that!)
Go for it! You have my vote ;D
/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 ;D ;)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html
-
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 ;D ;)
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" :P
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!"
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Steve Bowen replaces injured Tim Kopra on STS-133.
See NASA press release: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/jan/HQ_11-023_STS-133_Spacewalker.html
-
Steve Bowen replaces injured Tim Kopra on STS-133.
See NASA press release: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/jan/HQ_11-023_STS-133_Spacewalker.html
And so far, no slip in the launch date of NET 2/24. That's a good thing. I feel bad for Tim Kopra, unfortunate that he's been pulled with 6 weeks from launch, but I guess they all know the risks associated with an upcoming spaceflight.
-
Whoever is online at the moment.
On http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/status.html
is a lifestream, where you can watch the work at the tank.
Right now, a worker just started to work. Quite interesting.
/Armin
-
Discovery is back on the pad - for what we hope is the final time. The RSS is around her, so she's snug.
Let's hope she flys on the 24th, I will be there in person to see her off. :)
-
It's for today :) Now, watching NASA TV HD 24/24 !
-
It's for today :) Now, watching NASA TV HD 24/24 !
Finger crossed, we have a launch today!
/Admin
-
I wish I could be there to see her off today...... I'm seriously thinking about making it down to see the last launch in June. Post pics for those who will be seeing it today! I'll be watching the live stream.......
-
Anyone know what's up with NASA TV's streaming video feed? I can't get it to start the video stream at all....
Never mind, it's apparently not compatible with Firefox... IE is fine...
-
I'm leaving in about 20 minutes to go to an engineering banquet in Cape Canaveral--should also be able to see the launch as well, if we don't get stranded in traffic <_< I'll try to get pictures, that is, if I don't get too distracted gawking in awe q=
-
Loking good. We're gonna have a launch today!
It's the Discovery's last mission so let's regard these moments as history in the making...
/Admin
-
Wow beautiful launch! I'm always in awe when I see one of these things take off! I'll be watching the NASA stream over the next 2 weeks..... :o
-
I managed to watch it roughly 15 miles from the pad in Cape Canaveral, although it disappeared after only a few seconds (s****d cloud cover </3) and I didn't get any in-focus pictures.
Honestly, I think the banquet I went to afterwards was the most interesting. 2 NASA employees (Who were part of the investigation with the RCC panels after STS-107) gave an hour presentation, and I got to hold and inspect an RCC T-seal that flew on Discovery 33(ish) times.
-
Beautiful launch ! Thanks for the crew and good luck for Discovery ! I'll watch the next one for sure !
The progress on the LIVE NASA TV is terrible ! Now it's really possible to watch NASA TV without disconnection!
-
Now Discovery is docked with the ISS, wating for motion dampening, before her last hatch open ceremony.
/Admin
-
Discovery just got another docked-to-ISS day.
The STS-133 mission got extended by one more day to accomodate for more tasks and a more relaxing schedule.
I bet that there are a lot of smiling happy campers up there ;D
/Admin
-
With Discovery crew back into their vehicle, the crews start closing the hatches separating the ISS and Discovery for the last time.
/Admin
-
Discovery is "go for undocking".
/Admin
-
And Discovery has undocked from the ISS for the final time...
History in the making.
/Admin
-
...and the last Discovery Fly-around.
/Admin
-
Do you have the new ETA for the approach/landing ? In GMT if possible :)
-
Just could see ISS and Discovery in formation passing over Germany.
Beautiful! :D
-
The OBSS tiles check is complete, with the entire process having been downloaded (uploaded?) to Huston for evaluation. This was the last tiles check and OBSS activation for Discovery.
Quite a few "lasts" today - last farewell ceremony in the ISS, last undocking, last TORFA, and now that the RMS rests back onto its craddles, last OBSS usage, last tiles check, and last RMS ops.
Soon, the last crew of Discovery will have their last sleep onboard this respectable bird and then land her, again, for the last time this Wednesday at KSC...
Sad moments of closure and pondering as the retirement of the STS program draws closer.
/Admin
-
Discovery is "go for reentry". Weather tomorrow seems not to be a problem, but you never know ;)
Let's hope that Discovery will make it safely home for the last time.
/Admin
-
Discovery touchdown planned for tomorrow, Wednesday, March 9 at 11:57 EST.
GodSpeed Discovery!
/Admin
-
I guess they are going for DN for KSC? (like on STS-131)
-
50 minutes to Discovery's last PLB door closure and a bit more than two orbits until the its last Deorb burn.
Weather at KSC still looking good for a landing today, as scheduled.
/Admin
-
Discovery has a go for her last DEORB burn.
/Admin
-
And soon, last sonic boom, last HAC, last landing ... :'(
-
Great landing on great weather! Discovery has spent a cummulative one year in space and serviced Space Exploration for 27 years.
/Admin
-
Great landing on great weather! Discovery has spent a cummulative one year in space and serviced Space Exploration for 27 years.
/Admin
It was heartbreaking to watch Discovery landing the last time. Yes, I know, there is no real need anymore, but it was still heartbreaking.
I just don't quite understand one thing. Like the Russians kept the Sojuz alive, despite a large hiatus of "no need", why can't USA do the same with the Space Shuttle. How much it possibly cost to keep at least one shuttle instrumented, have boosters, have one fuel tank, turn off all the instruments of mission control, but keep them? What if some disaster would disables ISS for good? With one shuttle they could save all the critical research material, whatever else, which otherwise will be all lost, if the whole ISS would have to burn up in the atmosphere.
-
Heartbreaking is the right word. And emotional (to quote Cthulhus).
I am sure that many of us shed a real tear during the last active moments of Discovery and when hearing "Houston Discovery. For the last time: wheels stopped.".
As far as I can tell, the STS-133 crew, especially Nicole Stott, did the same at touchdown. We could hear her emotions errupting during their last interview in space.
/Admin
-
Great landing on great weather! Discovery has spent a cummulative one year in space and serviced Space Exploration for 27 years.
/Admin
The problem is how you look at that info. People like us would say "never before a human transport vehicle has spent so much time in space". Problem id that those who oppose can say "it's like building an airliner that can only fly 7 hours a week". Either w:-) way I now would have to go back to DC and see her up close. Last time she was standing on pad A.
-
Great landing on great weather! Discovery has spent a cummulative one year in space and serviced Space Exploration for 27 years.
/Admin
The problem is how you look at that info. People like us would say "never before a human transport vehicle has spent so much time in space". Problem id that those who oppose can say "it's like building an airliner that can only fly 7 hours a week". Either w:-) way I now would have to go back to DC and see her up close. Last time she was standing on pad A.
I'm sure it'll become a Mecca for Space Exploration lovers (and for many SSMS virtual astronauts too - LOL)
/Admin
-
As far as I care.. it's my personal mecca already :)
-
KSC will always have a place in my heart, after getting the chance to see the operations up-close as press, it's just an absolutely majestic, well performed, amazingly engineered work of art. There's no other words about this.
To the untrained eye, these birds are machinery, but to us... they're living giants who take to the skies - and Discovery is now being put into her "cage" for the final time. Forced retirement sucks, but she's earned this one, no doubt about that.
Great landing today, thanks to all the crews who helped support this girl for her 39 flights. Just an amazing ride she's had, may she remember them all. :)
PAO Josh's words choked me up this morning. "To the ship that has lead time and time again, we say... Farewell, Discovery".
-
Great landing on great weather! Discovery has spent a cummulative one year in space and serviced Space Exploration for 27 years.
/Admin
One year ? Impressive !
I was surprised by the landing. For me it was a short landing !? I would like to know the statistics on the various Shuttle landings. Which one has made the shortest landing?
-
they had 18 knots headwind with gusts to 28.
nominal TD was 2100 yds @ 195 kts.