NASA says it will ground future space shuttle flights

planet_z · Jul 27, 2005

AP-Space Shuttle URGENT SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - NASA says it will ground future space shuttle flights because foam debris that brought down Columbia is still considered a risk. A sizable chunk of foam insulation that came flying off the shuttle Discovery's fuel tank during Tuesday's liftoff did not hit the orbiter and does not pose a risk to the seven astronauts. But it was a problem NASA thought it had fixed. Shuttle program manager Bill Parsons told reporters: "We won't be able to fly again" until that hazard is removed. He added: "Obviously we have some more work to do." (Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) AP-NY-07-27-05 1850EDT

najab · Jul 27, 2005

Argh!!! <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /> Watch the press briefing, please. They haven't "grounded" the fleet. They just said that they want to understand the debris shedding from the PAL ramp before the next flight.

j05h · Jul 27, 2005

which is it? Grounded or on hold? NPR just said the fleet is grounded until they can fix the shedding foam. Let's put the Orbiters in museums and finish ISS with the new heavy lifter. Best hopes to Discovery. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

spacefire · Jul 27, 2005

Saw it on BBC just now. Shuttle should be grounded-for good! Even if they fix the problem of the ET shedding-which NASA though they did, I gathered from the news- it will cost a lot to fix 'again' and it will waste a lot of time. Let's hope Discovery will make it home OK. Then it's time to move on! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

blacknebula · Jul 27, 2005

Call it a launch delay. The object didn't even hit the shuttle.

SpaceKiwi · Jul 27, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Argh!!! Watch the press briefing, please. They haven't "grounded" the fleet.<hr /></blockquote> Talk about chinese whispers. My brother called to say the same 'grounding' story is running on the hourly news bulletins from Radio New Zealand. I've just heard the item myself. I will obviously review the presser when I get home from work tonight but, even without comment from Parsons, etc, it would have to be a real concern long-term? Not so much because it is still shedding, we all expected that, but because of the size. They were quite adamant they had the size issue licked. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

j05h · Jul 27, 2005

kiwi- i'm with you on the size issue- that chunk of foam (ice?) looked huge in the still pics. here's an AP link: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050727/ts_afp/usspaceshuttledebris_050727223131 josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

vogon13 · Jul 27, 2005

The piece of foam that came off this time was entirely capable of duplicating Columbia damage had it occured nearer to max Q. Problem has to be fixed before any other launch is attempted. Not addressed. Not analyzed. Not debated. Not deferred. Fixed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

planet_z · Jul 27, 2005

Well, according to this until the hazard is removed the shuttle fleet is on hold. AP-Space Shuttle JOHNSON SPACE CENTER (AP) - NASA says it's grounding future space shuttle flights because foam debris like the kind that brought down Columbia is still a risk. Shuttle program manager Bill Parsons says "we won't be able to fly again" until that hazard is removed. He told reporters, "Obviously we have some more work to do."' A sizable chunk of foam insulation that came flying off Discovery's fuel tank during yesterday's liftoff did not hit the orbiter and NASA says it does not pose a risk to the seven astronauts. But it is a problem NASA thought had been fixed; it represents a tremendous setback to a space program that has spent two and a-half years trying to rise from the Columbia disaster. (Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) AP-NY-07-27-05 1901EDT It's also on the front page of Space.com http://www.space.com/returntoflight/

sgtbeavis · Jul 27, 2005

Kudo's to NASA for showing how seriously they are taking these issues. It gives the perception that real change is happening there. Sounds like they may look into methods to remove the PAL ramps that lost the insulation. I wonder if there is some kind of wrap that could be used to re-enforce the insulation. Anyways, it is just one more illustration as to why NASA needs to accellerate the development of the CEV and a SDLV for heavy lifts.

najab · Jul 27, 2005

>The Shuttle fleet is now officially grounded, it's on top page of CNN too.CNN also once reported that the US DoD targetted and killed US defectors during the Vietnam War. Just because it's on CNN doesn't make it true. Contrary to your hyperbole, NASA figured out exactly what the cause of the ECO sensor 'failure' was - as evidenced by the fact that they were tested multiple times during the count and performed perfectly in each instance.

radarredux · Jul 27, 2005

> Argh!!! Watch the press briefing, please. They haven't "grounded" the fleet./i> "NASA Grounds Shuttle Fleet as Foam Problem Resurfaces" http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050727_rtf_sts114_shuttle_grounded.html <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"Until we've fixed this, we're not ready to fly," said Bill Parsons, NASA's space shuttle program manager, during a press briefing here at Johnson Space Center. "You could say that we're grounded."<hr /></blockquote> "NASA Will Not Fly Shuttle Again Until Debris Problem Unders" http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1054 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Shuttle Program Manager Bill Parsons, speaking at a post-MMT press briefing this afternoon said: ... "Clearly, with the event we had, we were wrong. We did not contact the orbiter at all. But it does give us pause to go back and look at what it is. Until it is closed we will not fly again. Might as well let that out now. Until we are ready we will not fly again."<hr /></blockquote> That certainly doesn't sound good. And given that fixing this problem (foam shedding from the external fuel tank) has been the primary focus for 2+ years and they couldn't fix it, I wonder how long they expect it will take to fix now? Do they spend another $8 billion on the shuttle program over the next 2 years without any flights only to fly another 8 missions or so before retiring the shuttle? Or do you throw in the towel now and direct that money to fund the next vehicle? At this point I would give the odds at 50-50 that the shuttles are permanently grounded.

Leovinus · Jul 27, 2005

I guess Shuttle_RTF gets to keep his name. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

liquidspace2k · Jul 27, 2005

What NASA need to do to help prevent the foam from falling is to rap a net around the whole ET tank, which will help prevent peices of foam from falling

dragon04 · Jul 27, 2005

ISS notwithstanding, I'm afraid NASA has to reassess the continuation of the shuttle program should this result in a fleet that's going to be grounded another 2 years. While I firmly believe that the fleet should be grounded because of this and that NASA is making the only call they can (a good one), the viability of the shuttle as a launch system is going to be questioned by a lot of people. I'm very afraid there will be another round of Congressional Hearings, and another Special Investigation Committee. After all, we can't build or fix anything without Congress wasting time and money first. I feel sorry for the thousands of people who worked their hearts out to put Discovery in orbit yesterday. This has just got to be devastating to them emotionally. IMHO, the writing is on the wall. Any significant delay and extra cost in getting the next shuttle into space should indicate retirement of the fleet. I know drwayne said that the money that would not be spent on the shuttle program would not be reallocated to a new program, but if the United States wants to put men and women into space from here forward, then somehow, some way, Mike Griffin needs to persuade Congress to allow reallocation of funds. Lastly and most importantly, I hope and pray there is no detrimental damage done to Discovery and that she and her crew come home safely 11 days hence. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

spacefire · Jul 27, 2005

RTF could also stand for Retire The Fleet <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

cookie_thief · Jul 27, 2005

Why didn't they put the insulation inside the tank? Or does it serve a different purpose?

dragon04 · Jul 27, 2005

On the surface, a double walled tank with insulation between the inner and outer walls seems like a good idea but I'm guessing that would add too much weight to the vehicle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

dragon04 · Jul 27, 2005

Shuttle_Guy : I see a TON of NASA bashing on here. What I've never seen but I'm sure it's been posted is that at least THIS poster would like to thank you and all involved for keeping Mankind's greatest quest alive. And I hope you don't think my above stated opinion is contradictory to what I just said. It's not. At least that's not my intent. I think SDC is blessed to have a poster who helped put men on the Moon. And I hope you're at NASA long enough to be there for Luna v2.0 <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

rogers_buck · Jul 27, 2005

NASA has little choice now other than to adopt the SDC contributors plan for rapidly sticking a fork in the ISS. 1) Mod shuttles to fly w/o crew. That's easy, just need a button to drop the gear. A modified garage door opener would do the trick. 2) Launch a second crew to the ISS on a Soyuz. 3) Don't do anything else to fix the shuttles. Stuff-em full of parts, pizzas, and whatever else and launch them w/o man rating as fast as they can be turned. 4) When a shuttle arrives near the ISS, second crew climbs into the Soyuz and docks with it. A couple of guys climb into the pilots seat and docks the beast with the ISS. The Soyuz returns to an empty dock with one guy aboard. 5) Unload the pizzas, beer, clean underpants, etc.. 6) Say g'bye to the shuttle as it undocks with no monkeys onboard (and lots of empty beer cans, pizza boxes, and soiled underpants). 8) Take a reentry track over the Gulf to land at KSC. Shuttle_guy says that's the safest route in case it falls apart. 9) If you loose one, shrug and keep launching the rest. 10) Rotate second crews with new Soyuz launches.

vogon13 · Jul 27, 2005

Not sure insulation on inside of tank is doable. Chunk comes off and plugs the drain and you will blow the turbopumps. If insulation gets into cooling passages of engine bell, you will get a hot gas burn through. If insulation blocks a sensor, engine electronics might shut down an engine at a bad time. Or not shut it down when you want it to. I also suspect there could be some insulation in the fuel line effects that may mimic pogo problem from the old Saturn V. Wrapping the external tank seems risky too. Wrap can come free and foul the orbiter. May keep payload bay doors from opening. Might keep ET tangled with orbiter. Might make shed pieces bigger, as wrap will connect shed pieces to unshed remainder, and maybe 'unzip' a real big piece. Aerodynamics of slip stream getting under a big 'flap' might tumble the vehicle, or use up more APU fuel than you have. This is a huge problem. It is vitally important that any solution used not have any failure mods that result in loss of vehicle. Criticality analysis of failure modes of solutions are going to be a big driver in the search for an answer to this problem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

earth_bound_misfit · Jul 27, 2005

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I'm almost soiling my underwear after reading that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?Go here to see how: SDC Eye saver </div>

cdr6 · Jul 27, 2005

By doing this (grounding) NASA has again shown great maturity, and professionalism in the face of what has to be tremendious pressure. To all the whiners and wannabes pay close attention, because this is what it takes to go into space. Nothing else will suffice... Management deserves a "Snoopy" for this one! GOOD CALL!!!

dragon04 · Jul 27, 2005

I do have a question. Is the shedding of insulation during launch something that has happened over the history of the Shuttle program? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

rogers_buck · Jul 27, 2005

I really do think it is the only viable alternative left. The russians can make additional Soyuz flights available in place of Progress launches that would be needed if the shuttle were down for another year, and nobody is going to want to spend another $1B for naught. The worse thing that could happen is that they pretend it's OK, patch it, and put people onboard. People are the one cargo that can get to the ISS w/o the shuttle. My guess is they will either wind up trivializing the problem or pull the vehicle from service. Might as well use them up hauling the mail. If they get damaged they won't be lost until the return leg when there is nothing onboard but garbage.

NASA says it will ground future space shuttle flights

planet_z

Guest

najab

Guest

j05h

Guest

spacefire

Guest

blacknebula

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

j05h

Guest

vogon13

Guest

planet_z

Guest

sgtbeavis

Guest

najab

Guest

radarredux

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

liquidspace2k

Guest

dragon04

Guest

spacefire

Guest

cookie_thief

Guest

dragon04

Guest

dragon04

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

vogon13

Guest

earth_bound_misfit

Guest

cdr6

Guest

dragon04

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page