STS-133

[Moonwalker]

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.

[christra]

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!

[Moonwalker]

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.

[Moonwalker]

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.

[Admin]

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

[Moonwalker]

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...

[Admin]

...<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

[Moonwalker]

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.

[Admin]

...<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  

[Moonwalker]

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/

[Spaceguy5]

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.

[Moonwalker]

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.

[Spaceguy5]

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.

[Admin]

...<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

[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

/Admin