I don’t understand this “safe haven” concept.

[askold]

The premise seems to be that if Discovery suffers a foam strike on ascent that makes it impossible to re-enter the atmosphere, 9 people will make themselves comfortable on the ISS while NASA prepares Atlantis to launch – with what, a crew of 2 or 3?<br /><br />But, when Discovery (STS-114) barely missed being hit by a suitcase-sized chunk of foam, NASA fiddled with the foam for nearly a year before going with STS-121. So, are we to believe that NASA will immediately launch Atlantis (piling 11 or 12 people into ISS) using exactly the same technology that had failed on the previous 2 launches? Of course not.<br /><br />No wonder 2 engineers said “no-go”. NASA doesn’t really have a fall-back plan for a foam strike on ascent. They’re just pretending they do.<br />

 

[vogon13]

You are highlighting one of the paths through the fault tree.<br /><br />Don't suppose anyone likes that out come very much.<br /><br />There are other branches on that tree that are immediately unsurvivable . . . .<br /><br />Your scenario gets everyone onto the ISS, presumably (do we know for sure?) the Soyuzes would eventually get everyone down and then we morthball the ISS.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[askold]

According to NASA, this is the one survivable branch of the fault tree - you may lose the vehicle but not lose the crew.<br /><br />The "safe haven" of the ISS is what Griffin is using as justification for overriding the 2 no-go votes of the senior engineers. It looks to me like the ISS is not a practical solution to the ascent foam strike problem. So, why are the no-go votes overridden?

 

[gawin]

the No-Go's were over ridden becuase simply if they wait untill the foam problem is fixed it will be time to retire the shuttles.<br /><br />this flight is basicly a gamble. if it gos ok then great if it fails its the end of the shuttle and the ISS. They are basicly saying that if we have 100+ flights and only one took a strike that caused a loss then we have a 1 in 100 chance that nothing will happen.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">the No-Go's were over ridden becuase simply if they wait untill the foam problem is fixed it will be time to retire the shuttles.</font>/i><br /><br />I also believe that. Either fly the shuttle now or retire it now. The foam will never be 100% fixed.</i>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Life doesn't come with a guarantee. Launching into space will always have some inherent risk with Shuttle, with Soyuz, with CEV, and likely with generations of spacecraft being built long after we have all shuffled off this mortal coil.<br /><br />There is a possibility that an unacceptably large piece of foam will strike the Orbiter on ascent. There was a greater statistical chance of foam striking the Orbiter on RTF1.<br /><br />It didn't.<br /><br />Delaying the launch because of the minority opinion of two engineers while they "fix the problem" will not miraculously make the ET safe. So long as there is foam on the tank, there will always be a possibility of a piece/s coming off and crippling the Orbiter.<br /><br />By extention of these engineer's opinion they can never give a "Go" for launch, as they cannot fully eliminate the possibility of a foam stike from somewhere on the ET. <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>

 

[scottb50]

As long as t's working they don't have to evactuate the entire facility. The Russians could keep the ISS viable for a long time.<br /><br />Now if they have a problem it's a different situation. Then it becomes a stuation where those people at the ISS need t be evacuated immediately,s omething that is not possible today,<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chriscdc]

Why bother with the shuttle or x-38. Just launch a few Soyuz craft and take them down 3 at a time.

 

[askold]

So, how many would that be in total if Atlantis went up - 13, 14?<br /><br />They could field a soccer team and still have some alternates.

 

[frodo1008]

Let us see here then. IF the Discovery is crippled (if it wasn't crippled too badly, the astronauts could even try to fix it, then most of them could still be rescued and no more than two come back with discovery later), and let us say crippled where it can't come back right away, then there would be 9 people on board the ISS for awhile. Now the rescue shuttle goes up and can bring back at least 3 from that 9, leaving 6. We know that a Soyuz can go up with one and bring back 3 people, so that leaves 4 on board the ISS. And I am certain that the Russians must at least have one Soyuz reasonably ready at all times.<br /><br />The ISS was holding 3 people before, so an increase of one for even the ususal time is not too much of a stretch of the imagination.<br /><br />Now it is just barely possible for the rescue shuttle to be also crippled, but the chances of that happening are less than the chances of anything happening that has happened in the entire history of all the manned space missions!<br /><br />So, over all NASA does have a reaonably safe bet here. However, if they continue to delay for every single possibility of foam loss, it is quite possible that they will not even fly at all this year. If that were to happen I can guarantee an almost 100% possibility of the shuttle NEVER flying again!<br /><br />So, under these circumstances NASA is fully justified in launching in July!<br /><br />Some here may not be aware of askold's hidden agenda, but from past posts I believe that this is exactly what he is looking for. So his exagerated concern here really doesn't touch me too much. He has stated that he is not aginst the manned program. But he is againt the shuttle, and the ISS, I even think he would be perfectly happy to see NASA disbanded, and the robotic explorations turned over to the National Science Foundation. <br /><br />What is funny is that I personally don't totally disagree with the idea. Indeed, take NASA's science efforts and turn them over to the NSF

 

[frodo1008]

Well, then the 7 on the current Discovery flight + the 4 on the rescue shuttle is the total of new people at the ISS. Even if the rescue shuttle only brings back 10, that only leaves 1 + the current ISS crew of 2, or no more than the 3 that was the same number that we have already had for some six months at a time on board the ISS before the Columbia accident. That is even better than what I was saying! And that is regardless of how many Soyuz capsules are ready or not! <br /><br />So we have now answered askold's original query here. Now, at least I am fully satisfied and informed, so I will now go elsewhere.<br /><br />Have A Great Day, Everybody (yes, that includes askold also)!

 

[frodo1008]

Well, then the 7 on the current Discovery flight + the 4 on the rescue shuttle is the total of new people at the ISS. Even if the rescue shuttle only brings back 10, that only leaves 1 + the current ISS crew of 2, or no more than the 3 that was the same number that we have already had for some six months at a time on board the ISS before the Columbia accident. That is even better than what I was saying! And that is regardless of how many Soyuz capsules are ready or not! <br /><br />So we have now answered askold's original query here. Now, at least I am fully satisfied and informed, so I will now go elsewhere.<br /><br />Have A Great Day, Everybody (yes, that includes askold also)!

 

[frodo1008]

Well, then the 7 on the current Discovery flight + the 4 on the rescue shuttle is the total of new people at the ISS. Even if the rescue shuttle only brings back 10, that only leaves 1 + the current ISS crew of 2, or no more than the 3 that was the same number that we have already had for some six months at a time on board the ISS before the Columbia accident. That is even better than what I was saying! And that is regardless of how many Soyuz capsules are ready or not! <br /><br />So we have now answered askold's original query here. Now, at least I am fully satisfied and informed, so I will now go elsewhere.<br /><br />Have A Great Day, Everybody (yes, that includes askold also)!

 

[frodo1008]

Sorry about the multiple posts, but The system was so slow that I hit the button more than once. Hopefully this short message won't do the same!

 

[askold]

I have no hidden agenda. I think this "rescue mission" concept needs further exploration. I'm surprised that everyone (including the reporters at the news conferences) are swallowing this without further scrutiny.<br /><br />Here's how the scenario would unfold:<br /><br />We lost Columbia due to foam and NASA refused to launch another shuttle for 2 1/2 years while they worked on the foam. Then Discovery launched and shed more foam - NASA fiddled with the foam for another year. Then we launch STS-121 and, hypothetically, more foam is lost that cripples the orbiter (but the crew is safe). <br /><br />So, the theory is that NASA scrambles Atlantis and sends it up even though 100% of the previous 3 missions had moderate to fatal foam problems.<br /><br />I just don't believe. The 2 no-go votes were right. There would be terrific pressure to not launch Atlantis under these conditions. It's crazy to put ourselves into a situation where this could occur.

 

[frodo1008]

Somehow I thought that we had already explained the situation here. This is why I see a hidden agenda.<br /><br />However, if now you have changed your mind, and would allow the shuttle to be further worked on even into the next year without insisting that the program be halted completely. I am willing to go along with you. Is that now your changed opinion?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">even though 100% of the previous 3 missions had moderate to fatal foam problems.</font>/i><br /><br />I think the odds of a fatal foam strike (one that is fatal to the orbiter's ability to return safely, that is) on two consecutive launches will be rare. Even if none of the recent changes were applied, the odds would only be about 1 in 10,000. There are probably many more things that can go terribly wrong that have higher probabilities than 1/10,000.<br /><br />Having said that, there may be some hand wringing if there is even a moderate foam strike that is much less than that of Columbia's yet the damage is still visible to the unaided eye. An example is the attention paid during the last mission to the small inter-tile material that was sticking up (down?).<br /><br />If there is visible (but slight) damage, everyone will be second guessing what to do (use the safe haven and abandon the orbiter, try a repair that might make things worse, risk a return, ...), and NASA will again receive a spotlight of media coverage that it doesn't want.</i>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

This whole thing has just been a media beat-up in my view. You know how they love controversy, and they are playing it to the max on the remote possibility (hope?) that there is a problem.<br /><br />Modifying the Ice Frost Ramps is not going to suddenly make the ET 'safe' to fly, nor is leaving as/is going to guarantee that large foam sheds from the Ice Frost Ramps and/or hits the Orbiter and/or damages the Orbiter.<br /><br />You might as well start worrying about SSME outs and such like, if you're going to obsess about the foam so much. <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>

 

[erioladastra]

"Just launch a few Soyuz craft and take them down 3 at a time. "<br /><br />When you launch a Soyuz you need a pilot so at best you could take 2 down. But as S-G points out, there are not enough Soyuz's and it would take too long to build more.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">I think the odds of a fatal foam strike (one that is fatal to the orbiter's ability to return safely, that is) on two consecutive launches will be rare. Even if none of the recent changes were applied, the odds would only be about 1 in 10,000.</font><br /><br />So far the flight data shows a fatal foam strike is about 1 in 100 flights. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[askold]

A "media beat-up"?? Read this story - he's NASA's top safety official!!!:<br /><br />WASHINGTON (AP) – NASA's top safety official objected to the agency's decision to press ahead with the launch of Discovery next month without fixing a potentially catastrophic foam-shedding problem, but said he won't appeal – and won't resign in protest – because he does not believe the shuttle astronauts' lives are in danger. <br /><br />“It's a done deal,'' NASA chief safety officer Bryan O'Connor said in a Monday night interview with The Associated Press. <br />.....<br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/ap_060620_sts121_oconnor.html

 

[SpaceKiwi]

From your cited reference ...<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>O'Connor said he told Griffin he would have appealed had he thought the crew's lives were in danger. <br /><br />“It's a real close call,'' O'Connor said, adding that his own office was split, with some safety officials thinking that it wasn't as big a problem as he thought.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Even his own office couldn't come to a consensus on the issue. Given that there were only two discenting voices at the Flight Readiness meeting which numbered around 200 'experts' IIRC, and one of those discenting voices wasn't even carrying an unequivocal mandate from those in his own office, I think their concerns were noted but treated appropriately in the bigger picture.<br /><br />I stand by what I said, the media are looking to fuel this debate. When you read the statements directly attributable to the two gentlemen, it is fairly clear that they would have pressed the issue far more vigorously if they believed there was a clear and present danger.<br /><br />O'Connor appears to be 'back-tracking' in his direct quotes, although I believe that is more the media placing the wrong emphasis once again on what he and his colleague said to begin with. <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>

 

[askold]

Maybe they're getting pressure from the top.<br /><br />I work in software development - I've never seen any good come of it when the company boss overrules the QA department and says "ship it".

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>No wonder 2 engineers said “no-go”.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Not to split hairs here, but they said "no-go" based on possible loss of *vehicle* -- they explained they would not appeal the decision (which would've grounded Discovery) because they did not believe there was a significant risk of loss of *life*.<br /><br />In other words, they are confident in the ISS safe-haven concept.<br /><br />You are correct that the Atlantis rescue flight would have the same risks as the Discovery flight. But there would be far more incentive to take a risk and fly in that circumstance. <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>

 

[askold]

Cool.<br /><br />Can non-reporters pose questions by email .....?