NASA says it will ground future space shuttle flights

[askold]

The most important issue is not "what" NASA does - they could decide to stick the external tank into a giant pair of pantyhose - it's that it will take a long, long time to complete the system tests for whatever the solution is.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the shuttle ain't getting any younger ....

 

[gpurcell]

I've always been a huge supporter of STS...but this, frankly, is horrifying. It is only luck right now that we don't have Discovery in exactly the same situation as Columbia...with a shattered leading edge panel.<br /><br />Two and a half years...hundreds of millions of dollars...and the system still isn't safe to fly.<br /><br />We need to end shuttle NOW and divert the funds into the CEV.

 

[cdr6]

To one extent or another I would say it has been with us all along, we have been just recently been made aware of it by the tragic loss of Columbia. <br /><br />Since Challenger, greater attentionb has been paid to the lift off and photography... debries shedding had most likely been noticed before but was most likely dismissed as ice and not considered a risk. Indeed on the second flight of Columbia (STS-2) the orbiter shrugged off the loss of tiles on the OMS pods with little consequence...giving the false presumption of robustness of the airframe. It became common place that dinged and damaged tiles were replaced on the orbiters almost routienely between flights. (Ah! Another tile in can.) <br /><br />I guess familiarity does breed contempt. On Columbia, as on Challenger, the orge stood forth, and demanded payment for our transgressions.

 

[john_316]

Or they can go back and paint the ET's white again like they did on the first couple of missions and take on the added weight...<br /><br />I wonder if the paint would make a difference?<br /><br />I also wonder if they are EPA happy BS going on where they cant use certain chemicals for the insulation and crap?<br /><br />I miss flourocarbons and CFC's they dont hurt the enviroment... They made things work right......<br /><br />Okay!!!!!! <br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[rybanis]

Goddamnit.<br /><br /><br />...and I was so excited to see the shuttle back in orbit, too. I hope they can fix this in a timely manner. Either that, or I guess its time to really look into SDLV.<br /><br /><br />So what should I have to drink? I feel like I need one after reading this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I am really reluctant to just chuck the system (unlike some people here). For one thing do you who are closest to being in the know, actually know anything definitive here? I am at least thankful that THIS orbiter was evidently not heavily injured. Will we know anything truly definitive by the work that the astronauts are going to do on this flight. <br /><br />IF the problem is as unsolved as it might appear to be, then there is a real problem here! I know the problem is very great, but with all the resources that have been pumped into solving this, why this continuing failure?<br /><br />Do you have ANY idea what you could impart to at least we the supporters of the space program itself?

 

[cello]

imho, there was always foam debris from et. on every shuttle flight since very first. nasa just never had chance to see how it's really going on. knowing what they are able to know today, are current et design would ever certify for flight? it's too late to redesign et. just acceptable tolerance is needed. otherwise, current shuttle is safer then ever.

 

[spacester]

Here's how it breaks down for me.<br /><br />All the attention was paid to orbiter-side foam, new processes led to the exposure of a design flaw in the opposite side. <br /><br />That was sheer guesswork, but the following seems solid.<br /><br />The STS system is not man-rated at this point in time.<br /><br />We need to complete ISS. (Or abandon it.)<br /><br />Launching ISS components on other than STS is highly problematic and time consuming to execute.<br /><br />We need to determine just how flight worthy STS is.<br /><br />Ergo, we need to launch STS unmanned. We need to do something very similar to RadarRedux's unmanned Shuttle / Soyuz / Progress transportation system.<br /><br />Soyuz works until CXV shows up.<br /><br />Many of us think CXV is going forward apace but can be developed much faster than aerospace projects usually take, with the proper support.<br /><br />Ergo, we need to make CXV happen ASAP<br /><br />Ergo, it's time to do something that makes perfect sense but will raise howls of protest. Two things actually.<br /><br />It's time to pick winners. It's time to jump on board the t/space bandwagon. It just makes a lot of sense to do it that way, the logic cannot be ignored. <br /><br />The public will love the t/space plan, it's cool.<br /><br />NASA is on emergency footing as of the launch.<br /><br />NASA needs to put the Griffin stamp on the t/space plan and present it to the public. There have been hundreds of plans drawn up over the years, we just need a leader to pick the best plan and make it happen<br /><br />The other howls are going to be for the astronaut corps. If STS is unmanned, what happens to the astronauts? IMO the answer is obvious, but then that's just me. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> We should put our astronauts in schools across the land as ambassadors of the future, have them work with kids and the general public to get this country excited about our future under Mike Griffin's NASA.<br /><br />Money can be saved from the Astronaut program without <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

I think there is a silver lining to this cloud. Now that there have been problems again it will be much harder for some people in congress (especially senators Hutchison and Nelson) to have NASA extend the Shuttle program beyond 2010. It's obvious to everyone now that the Shuttle is not safe and never will be.

 

[grooble]

There is no shame in giving up and losing for the greater good. I hope the people who can make the decision are not so bound by pride that they can't say enough is enough and bring the program and the ISS construction to an end.<br /><br />NASA could then go full out on CEV / CXV / new heavy lift vehicle and do it all right with a simpler more efficient system.<br /><br />In future, no international space mission should have to depend solely on ONE nations capability.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>I guess Shuttle_RTF gets to keep his name.<<br /><br />Yep, Shuttle RETURNED to Flight< <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Sorry, been biting my lip whilst reading this wet dream of a thread for Shuttle bashers, but hell, I don't blame you all after the way the media took the quotes and paraphrased the arse out of them last night. <br /><br />Hell, even one of my writers (covering me while I was out chasing bad people) managed to have a headline that sounded like we were getting the circular saws out in the OPFs.<br /><br />I blame half of this on Parsons and Hale being 'too' honest yesterday - watching the conference back, they aren't exactly versed in positive mannerisms. I blame the other half on subeditors looking for an impact headline and abstract.<br /><br />Correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem is some areas of the ET shed some foam that it shouldn't of. Ok, grab MAF by the balls and tell them to fix it.<br /><br />We're talking about a fix being required, with many thousands of experienced experts in this field being tasked with getting this right.<br /><br />Maybe it can't, but until I get ET Engineers scratching their heads and saying "&%$#@! me, I think we've hit a brick wall here" then I hold hope that this is something that can be solved and we'll have STS-121 coming up asap.<br /><br />Ok, bash me away for that <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I do love the X-33/VentureStar, but let the Air Force pay for that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Half the problem with this 'saving of money' is the chances are the US Government will say "Ok, so how much money have you saved by scrapping the Shuttle and the ISS?"<br /><br />"Cool! Send it back then, just cause you've saved it, doesn't mean you get to spend it."

 

[drwayne]

""Cool! Send it back then, just cause you've saved it, doesn't mean you get to spend it.""<br /><br />Exactly. I have tried to bring this up on a number of threads in which people will say words to the effect of "Cancel the shuttle and take the money and use if for" - the point is that there will be some taking going on, taking from NASA to fund the war in Iraq, no child left behind, cow flatulence projects etc.<br /><br />The government works in such a way as to penalize those that save money. "Great, you saved money, I can take it and spend it elsewhere. So, next year you will need a lot less money in your budget, here's you budget cut. What you saved this year, plus I assumed you would save more next year too"<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[halman]

frodo1008,<br /><br />I think that NASA may have to bite the bullet and sacrifice some payload capacity to deal with this foam issue. Personally, I would like to see an analysis of the possibility of a net which fits over the entire External Tank, that would be worked into the foam as the foam is applied. In this way, a segment which does come loose is less likely to seperate enough for the air to get underneath it, which is what actually rips the chunk off of the tank. Such a net might weigh 500 kilograms, but I believe that it would be effective in preventing foam strikes. A net could not just be draped over the ET after the foam is applied, because it would get torn off shortly after lift off. But a netting embedded in the foam, which is made of a material that the foam will bond to, could give the foam enough surface tension to resist lifting an inch or so above the surrounding material, which allows the airstream to begin working on the chunk.<br /><br />Obviously, the foam is not adhering to the finish of the ET properly. Coating the ET with a super sticky material might also help to prevent the pieces from breaking loose.<br /><br />Hey, maybe they could do away with the foam entirely, and just nuke the tank with a radar right before launch, to melt any ice off. The whole reason for having the foam on the tank is to prevent ice from forming, which can break loose during launch, and cause major damage. Or maybe a big electric blanket, which is sacrificed each launch?<br /><br />There is a way to beat this. The only problem is how to do it without losing too much payload capacity. But it seems obvious to me that at least some capacity is going to be lost, as reformulating the foam, and changing the application methods, have not worked.<br /><br />What really makes this so vexing is that there is no companion launch vehicle, which could carry some of the load. Every kilogram of payload is precious right now, which is a very bad situation to be in. We should h <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Good, yours is the first post on this thread (other than the pure information posts of shuttle_guy) that has given up ANY real information. I mean people are running around with a "The Sky is Faling. The Sky is Falling!" attitude. Now, indeed the dky may be falling, but I would really like a little more definitive information before totally burying the shuttle and ISS!<br /><br />Please keep getting more information! This is really too important to just leave to those with an axe to grind!

 

[vogon13]

I don't find the S-II insulation on the inside of the tank experience very reassuring. How many S-II stages were launched?<br /><br />113?<br /><br />ET foam worked over 100 times in a row. It's those 1 in how many failure modes that bite us in the butt.<br /><br />My concern for insulation in the tank is that the cryo fuel will saturate the insulation, and then gasify during launch and blow off pieces like is theorized to have happened to Columbia.<br /><br />Radius of ET change drastically when cooled to -400+ below zero. Insulation on outside of tank can be observed for buckling, tears, etc. Inside of tank, you rely on the competence of the insulation designers, and I'm sorry to say this, they do not have the necessary credibility now.<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>

 

[grooble]

*Grinds axe with a stone*

 

[BReif]

My fear is the potential result of the permanent grounding of the shuttle. While I see the merit of retiring the space shuttle fleet now (and perhaps it should be), there could potentially be a 10+ year period where the United States does not have a manned launch capability. Future missions to ISS on Soyuz are not certain because of treaty restrictions. There is great potential that the ISS would not be completed, because there would be no lifter able to send up the components, so the ISS could be abandoned by the partners, and the program shut down. Then there is no infastructure for doing the long duration micr-gravity research we need to do before we could go to beyand LEO. With more endless debate, like we saw in the 80's over the space station, the CEV could be delayed endlessly, even canceled, putting a manned return to the moon or a manned program to Mars in jeaporady as well. I guess my fear is that this could be the end of manned spaceflight, and the end of our hopes for going to the moon, mars, or anywhere. They (Congress) could potentially scrap the entire manned spaceflight program, never to be brought back again, leaving humanity earth-bound. I see this as a very real danger in this instance. It could go that far. <br /><br />Bryan<br /><br />

 

[davf]

As s_g has noted, I was mistaken: it was the S-IVB. <br /><br />I don't think any of the issues you bring up were noted to occur with either the S-IV or S-IVB. <br /><br />I would think that tank pressure is much higher than the outside pressure and you don't have the direct impingement of airflow on the insulation. While no expert, I would guess that these two alone would dramatically reduce the chance of foam popcorning or otherwise being ripped off.<br /><br />Also, the insulation materials used are different as are the instalation methods. The excerpts from 'Stages to Saturn' below explain some of the insulation process for the S-IV and S-IVB. I had forgotten this was available online.<br /><br />The real question is... is this even feasible for the Shuttle? Not without a complete redesign of the ET and the accompanying complications thereof. Afterall, ANYTHING can be done to fix the problem... but the goal is to find a solution that will maintain performance. Now the goal gets tough. And I don't think having problems like this should be unexpected. It's a shame it can't be flown unmanned, though, since unmanned tests would result in a sound bite on the news rather like the SRB testing after Challenger. <br /><br />http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/ch6.htm<br /><br />"To form workable masses of insulation material, they contrived a three-dimensional matrix of fiberglass threads, woven onto a boxlike form reminiscent of a child's weaving frame-top to bottom as well as back and forth. After it was strung, the matrix frame was placed in a mold, and polyurethane foam was poured in and cured. The result was a reinforced foam block, 30 centimeters square and 20 centimeters deep, which could be sawed into a pile of flat plaques, then machined to the required convex and concave contours appropriate for the interior of the S-IV liquid hydrogen tank. "<br /><br />"Once a section had been completely tiled, wor

 

[lunatic133]

I just think it's such a disappointing failure ... we waited all that time and spent all that money, and s_g and friends put in so many hours, and for what? Just to ground the shuttle for another 2+ years? I'm sorry but I just can't accept that. There has to be a better way. And if getting rid of the shuttle and building a better spacecraft is that better way, then so be it. I never was too fond of a spacecraft incapable of going beyond LEO, anyway.

 

[vogon13]

Any fix is to be 'amortized' over as few as 15 launches.<br /><br />Worth the bother?<br /><br />Also, insulation inside tank will displace fuel unless ET OD is increased. Seems like this is going to be a problem. The manufacturing process sounds drastically more expensive than what is done to ET, this will be a factor also. Would such a complex process be inherently more reliable? Seems a flaw at many more points in the application could result in a problem.<br /><br />Thanks for clarification as to which Saturn stage had internal insulation. My concerns persist despite whichever stage had it. <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>

 

[dragon04]

"I mean people are running around with a "The Sky is Faling. The Sky is Falling!" attitude."<br /><br />At least from my perspective, Frodo, it's not so much doom and gloom as it is simple practicality.<br /><br />Let me ask you. Do we need the ISS to go to the Moon and Mars? Do we need the Shuttle to go to the Moon and Mars?<br /><br />Some people seem to be so enamoured with both programs that they are willing to see NASA pursue them beyond reasonable cost and time. And why? I have to ask.<br /><br />More money. More delays. With this mentality, Mars might as well orbit Alpha Centauri. We're on the edge of a precipice. We're poised to mortgage our future to make the present work regardless of the cost.<br /><br />No Thank You, Sir. The sky is not falling. My soapbox is already planted firmly atop its rubble. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Just to ground the shuttle for another 2+ years?</font>/i><br /><br />The potential "good news" is that the PAL issue has been circulating around for a while, so there may be some reasonable solutions already on the drawing board. This could potentially be a quick fix (e.g., 3 months), it could be a long fix (1+ years), or someone along the line (Griffin, Congress, the Whitehouse) may decide to pull the plug.<br /><br />Just some baseless speculation: The solution will be quick or not at all.</i>

 

[lunatic133]

Well, NASA's not completely hopeless, either. Two weeks ago people here were certain beyond a doubt that Discovery would be delayed until September, and she wasn't. So perhaps Atlantis may launch sooner than expected as well (though probably not in 2005, a few months is better than two years). Still, I think that retiring the shuttle is better done sooner rather than later, but not until we at least have a somewhat concrete design for a CEV/CXV on the table.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Talking around with some engineers involved with the ET - I'd put money on Atlantis in the November window.