Astronauts Confident in Safety of Shuttle Mission

[zavvy]

<b>Astronauts Express Confidence in Safety of Planned Mission</b><br /><br />LINK<br /><br />The seven astronauts of the Discovery, the space shuttle that NASA hopes to launch this spring in the first flight since the Columbia disaster two years ago, said Friday that they were eager to return to orbit and resume the nation's human spaceflight program.<br /><br />"It's time for us to go fly," said the shuttle's commander, Col. Eileen M. Collins of the Air Force, in a news conference here, the first for the Discovery crew. <br /><br />Two years of research and testing to reduce the shedding of foam from the shuttle's liquid-fuel tank have solved the problem that doomed the Columbia, Colonel Collins said. Of the Discovery, she said, "If it wasn't safe, I wouldn't get on it." <br /><br />Like most of her fellow crew members, the 48-year-old commander is a veteran astronaut. In 1999, she lifted off aboard the Columbia in one of the most hair-raising shuttle launchings to date. Computers controlling two of the craft's three main engines experienced short circuits seconds after liftoff. Backup circuits kept the engines running, and the shuttle made it into orbit. <br /><br />During the coming Discovery mission, astronauts are to test different methods of fixing holes and cracks in the shuttle's insulating tiles and the leading edges of its wings. Results obtained from ground tests show that cracks could probably be patched, "minimizing the risks significantly," said Charles J. Camarda, a mission specialist who holds a doctorate in aerospace engineering.<br /><br />An extension for the Discovery's robot arm will also be tested. The 50-foot-long boom will allow the astronauts to use lasers to examine the shuttle's outer surface for tiny holes and cracks.<br /><br />Besides Colonel Collins and Dr. Camarda, 52, the crew members are the pilot, Lt. Col. James M. Kelly, 40, of the Air Force; and four mission sp

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I can't think of a better commander than Col. Eileen Collins.....even if my knowledge is limited.<br /><br />First memory of her was on STS-93 (Columbia)....which I'll have to transcribe the launch into a post one day for our esteemed leader Shuttle Guy to help explain. That launch seemed very problematic and close to an abort (I think).<br /><br />Collins could be heard listing a fault/alarm as Columbia started her roll and - from what I could tell at least - handled it very calmly.<br /><br />Would love to shake her hand one day, a few people I've spoken to say she's very down to earth and approachable.

 

[najab]

><i>That launch seemed very problematic and close to an abort (I think).</i><p>Yes, the Orbiter was one short away from an AOA/ATO scenario. And this was the on second launch attempt after a RSLS initiated cutoff just before the first launch. All in all, Columbia was being very troublesome for that mission.</p>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I can't think of a better commander than Col. Eileen Collins.....even if my knowledge is limited. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I was fortunate enough to meet her once -- the only astronaut I've ever met! It was a real pleasure to meet her, although it was very brief, and I was far too shy to actually ask any meaningful questions. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> She struck me as very confident, but not at all arrogant. She was indeed very approachable. It says a lot that I was able to introduce myself to her; I'm pathetically shy about meeting new people, especially if they are even remotely famous or important, but although my brain froze and I couldn't think of anything useful to ask her, I didn't feel at all embarassed to talk to her. She put me at ease before she'd even said anything. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I have been in similar positions in meeting a few famous physicists - I have been more successful in talking to them when one (or more) beers have been involveed in the process. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[backspace]

<i> "During the coming Discovery mission, astronauts are to test different methods of fixing holes and cracks in the shuttle's insulating tiles and the leading edges of its wings. Results obtained from ground tests show that cracks could probably be patched, "minimizing the risks significantly," said Charles J. Camarda, a mission specialist who holds a doctorate in aerospace engineering. <br /><br />An extension for the Discovery's robot arm will also be tested. The 50-foot-long boom will allow the astronauts to use lasers to examine the shuttle's outer surface for tiny holes and cracks."<br /></i><br /><br />I was under the impression that neither the boom nor the patching kit were going to be ready by RTF.... Is it my or the Times' error?<br />

 

[najab]

><i>I was under the impression that neither the boom nor the patching kit were going to be ready by RTF.... Is it my or the Times' error?</i><p>Neitherboth. The last I heard the boom wasn't going to fly on STS-114, though it was recently delivered to KSC and could fly if the schedule slips any. The tile repair kit is going to fly, it's the RCC repair kit that they are having problems with.</p>

 

[backspace]

Ahh the RCC. <br /><br />Tanks!

 

[najab]

I guess March->May was enough of a slip for it to make it. Cool.

 

[elguapoguano]

As long as the fix to the external tank was sufficient we really don't need a 50 foot inspection beam, or RCC repair kits. That is unless the shuttle takes strikes from micrometorites or "space junk". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[najab]

My bad. Somewhere along the way I got the impression that it had happened later in the flight, after SRB sep. I should have checked it out before posting, I guess I'm getting lazy. <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /><p>Wow. Losing an engine that early in the flight would be very bad.</p>

 

[najab]

I can see how RTLS wouldn't have been a viable option. Since that was a low inclination launch, would an East Coast abort have been possible, that's more an option with high inclination launches, right?

 

[najab]

From something s_g said a while back, I understand that a low-energy RTLS might well entail a landing at Bermuda, so that is something they're trained for. If they had lost two engines at T+:05 they probably couldn't have made Bermuda though. I was just thinking that if it did happen that early they could have continued the roll so that they would fly up the coast and land in Nantucket (or something like that).

 

[drwayne]

Were...colorful metaphors used?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

What are the terms of reference with those simulator training missions, SG? In the circumstance you described, would the CDR's decision not to have "faith" in the auto-pilot have been noted and critically evaluated?<br /><br />I guess part of the sim training process is to educate out of flight-deck astronauts any "hero" tendencies they might have, and teach them to trust the equipment to do its job. Was the CDR going against the orders of flight controllers in your sim and, if so, were the proverbial eyebrows raised?<br /><br />******, also getting old apparently. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Ah ha! So - I ask as I didn't see any reference to which STS it was - the first launch attempt was when cutoff was given on T-minus 7 due to high levels of hydrogen in the aft engine compartment?<br /><br />I say T-minus 7...but someone was asking for cutoff at T-minus 9 and had to repeat himself a couple of times before it was given.<br /><br />Did the hyrogen igniters fail to burn off some surplus gas or was this more to do with Columbia herself internally? <br /><br />Was interesting to watch further on in the video how everyone relayed their information (I assume at the Firing Room, rather than the Flight Loop seen as Houston doesn't take over till start of roll program?)

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>The hydrogen igniters fire at T-6.5 seconds< <br /><br />Uh oh, I've been thinking the hydrogen igniters were the 'triangle of sparks' that fire on T-10 under the SSMEs? Do I deserve a slap for thinking this? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[najab]

><i> Do I deserve a slap for thinking this?</i><p>Nope. But they don't fire at T-0:10, but about T-0:7, right before engine start.</p>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

This is bothering me, as I've gone back and re-watched about 10 launches and it's right on T-10 (not 11 or 9) when these "sparks" start up. All a good three/four seconds - on all 10 launches - before the SSME's fire up.<br /><br />Yet, on the excellently presented Challenger Accident Investigation DVD...they say "T-8 for the ignigters and T-6.6 seconds for the 'in sequence' SSME start. Yet on the video of the launch they appear to also start up on T-10 - according to the commentary - again three to four seconds before SSME start.<br /><br />Obviously it is as both you guys say.....I'm hardly gonna question a USA guy...but what am I missing here?<br /><br />

 

[backspace]

I can understand your confusion. The old files on the KSC list look like this:<br /><br /> 212<br />T-00M31S GLS GO FOR AUTO SEQUENCE GLS CGLS (Auto)<br /> 212<br /> ARM CUT OFF GLS CGLS (Manual)<br /> INITIATE RSL5 GLS CGLS (Auto)<br /> **************************************<br /> * NOTE: AFTER THIS TIME, ONLY CUT *<br /> * OFF IS AVAILABLE & WILL RESULT IN *<br /> * GLS RECYCLING TO T-20 MINUTES & *<br /> * HOLDING *<br /> ***************************************<br /> ORB VENT DOOR SE9 START GPC CGLS (Auto)<br />T-00M28S START SRB APU'S GLS NTD,ALL<br />T-00M26S START SRB APU'S GLS CGLS (Auto)<br />T-00M25S 25 SECONDS 212 NTD,ALL<br />T-00M21S START SRB GIMBAL TEST GLS CGLS (Auto)<br />T-00M20S 20 SECONDS 212 NTD,ALL<br />T-00M16S ACTIVATE SOUND SUPPRESSION WATER GLS CGLS (Auto)<br />T-00M15S 15 SECONDS 212 NTD,ALL <br />T-00M13S PERFORM SRB AFT MDMS LOCKOUT GLS CGLS (Auto)<br /> VERIFY LH2 HIGH POINT BLEED VALVE CLOSED GLS<br /> TERMINATE MPS HELIUM FILL GLS<br />T-00M10S 10 SECONDS 212 NTD,ALL<br /> <br /> FREE HYDROGEN BURN OFF SYSTEM IGNITION GLS CGLS (Auto)<br /> GLS GO FOR MAIN ENGINE START GLS<br /> 212<br /> REMOVE ET/SRB RANGE SAFETY INHIBITS

 

[najab]

><i>Obviously it is as both you guys say.....I'm hardly gonna question a USA guy...but what am I missing here? </i><p>If you have the ocular proof, then it's up to me to figure out what <b>I</b> am missing!</p>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Thanks NajaB and SG - you guys are very modest, but highly appreciated for the vast amount of interesting info provided, as far as this Shuttle fan is concerned. <br /><br /> />My excuse: getting old. i just had a birthday. I am 59 now. <<br /><br />Well, you're only as old as the woman you are feeling <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> But anytime you want to swap lives with this 33 year-old, you won't need to ask twice! <br /><br />Can I ask what RSLS stands for? Also, should the only option be a bail out over the ocean in the downrange...do they attempt to seperate the orbitor from the ET and SRBs first, then try to get the Shuttle into "as near as possible" upright glide before bail out?<br /><br />I know that can't be at all easy, but bailing out has to be with all the engines off I'd assume?

 

[najab]

RSLS = Redundant Set Lauch Sequencer. Basically when you hear the "auto-sequence start" call during countdown (at about T-0:31) the Shuttle's onboard computers start running in redundant set mode, which means they have control of the launch in tandem with the ground launch sequencer. If they detect a condition that is out of limits they can trigger an automatic abort without having to 'consult' with the ground.<p>><i>Also, should the only option be a bail out over the ocean in the downrange...do they attempt to seperate the orbitor from the ET and SRBs first, then try to get the Shuttle into "as near as possible" upright glide before bail out?</i><p>It's not an 'attempt' it's a <b>must</b>! The crew escape slidepole can only work if the orbiter is in controlled level flight somewhere between 50,000 and 10,000 (or so) feet. There's no way to bail out with the SRB's or main engines burning and even without the SRB's the Orbiter/ET combo would fly like a brick with a brick attached to it!</p></p>

 

[nacnud]

So how does the separation of the orbiter and the rest of the stack take place? I presume it depends on the exact situation, but say two engines fail a minute into the flight, or whatever, but a RTLS (return to launch site?) abort is needed. Is it something like, shut off remaining engine/fuel, separate the orbiter and hope the aero-surfaces and the reaction control system can control the decent? Or would you keep the remaing engine/SRBs going to gain more hight first?

 

[najab]

><i>So how does the separation of the orbiter and the rest of the stack take place?</i><p>Ah, brings back some memories that does - that was one of, if not the very first, questions I asked at SDC. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> And so, on to RTLS aborts...<p>First off, RTLS is called for one of two reasons: failed main engine(s) in the first two minutes of flight, or a serious systems failure (eg: one APU down, another failing). Remember that RTLS was added to the aborts late in the program, before then these kind of failures were considered non-survivable, so bear in mind that RTLS is not something you really want to be doing - things have to be really, really bad.<p>So, the &%$#@! hits the fan and the knob is turned to RTLS and the CDR pushes the button. What happens next? Well first off the GPCs switch to RTLS mode (MM60x I think). The first thing we will do is wait. Remember, the SRBs are still burning, we can't do anything until they separate. Once the SRBs are jettisoned the GPCs have three things they have to do: dump prop, get the stack headed towards KSC and separate the tank.<p>Dumping prop is fairly easy, the main engine(s) will burn it off quite quickly and so we can combine the first two tasks. This is where powered pitch-around (PPA) occurs.<p>PPA is one of the most misunderstood manouvers out there. Most people imagine that the vehicle flies some kind of loop, in fact my question was whether it was an inside or outside loop! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> What we're forgetting is that by the time the SRBs burn out, the vehicle is 20+ miles high and aerodynamic forces are much less than we're accustomed to. What they actually do is use the SSMEs and RCS to rotate the orbiter in the pitch plane so that instead of being heads down facing away from KSC they are heads up facing towards the Cape.<p>Okay, I just told you a lie - they don't get all the way to facing the Cape yet, because we still have fuel to burn off. The PPA stops when the Orbit</p></p></p></p></p></p>