Next shuttle launch delayed until "at least" March!

[askold]

So, we're going to launch one of these things a year? Seems hardly worth it.

 

[kane007]

Next shuttle launch: March 2006<br /><br />Shuttle launch windows are 04 March 2006 through 19 March , then 03 May through May 22 and then 30 June to 19 July.<br /><br />One of the driving factors would be relative orbit of the ISS and daylight launch of the shuttle.<br />

 

[radarredux]

During the conference today NASA said the March time frame was a target, because without a target the engineers had nothing to base their projections on. The March time frame is tentative, and over the next two weeks as engineers work their numbers they should have a better idea of a target date.<br /><br />The problem (not unique to space or NASA) is that they are not sure of the correct answer (for the tank problem) right now, and this makes pinning down a definitive timeline impossible.

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Bummer, I really enjoyed that last mission!<br />Nasa, get your freaking sh** together! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

No, the March target is not 'breaking news' once it was clear the External Tanks were going back to MAF (weeks ago), and it's no indication of one launch a year.

 

[spayss]

"and it's no indication of one launch a year. "<br /><br /> That's an understatement. Perhaps a launch every 2.5 years.<br /><br /> The worse scenario happened. A successful mission with a problem. Now the clock and ridiculous process starts all over.<br /><br /> Scrap the beast!

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I swear you're either my nemisis or alter ego <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[askold]

I looked at various sites and it looks like there is no firm mission scheduled after the March (hopefully) mission, or maybe a May mission for Atlantis.<br /><br />Furthermore, if you look at the NASA launch windows for the shuttle - one comes up every couple of months. That means that if everything were to work perfectly then there could be as many as 6 shuttle missions a year. If everything worked perfectly.<br /><br />I don't get it. It seems obvious to me that the shuttle is not going to achieve its goal of building the ISS. Why are we pumping massive amounts a talent and money down this rat hole? The shuttle is a beautiful machine that is simply not getting the job done. It seems that the aerospace world has fallen in love with this machine to the point of irrationality.

 

[frodo1008]

I really hope that you are correct, just this latest delay is releasing the negativists in full flock. Just witness such posts as spayss. I would have to say that even if there is still some degree of risk, as the shuttle IS going to go to the relative safe harbot of the ISS, then NASA should see to it that there is NO further delay than this.<br /><br /> Or, I am sorry but I think that congress WILL shut of the funds. Whether or not, they restore them to be used exclusively on the next system or not is another thing!<br /><br />This will just leave NASA with the problem of finishing our commitment to our partners in some other manner. Perhaps just giving the already finished equipment for the ISS to the Russians and letting them figure it out. I would bet that they would find a way! <br /><br />I am really VERY unhappy about this. And you know that I have all along been a very great supporter of NASA, the ISS, and the shuttle!

 

[askold]

I'll show you mine if you show me yours (shuttle launch schedule link, that is):<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html<br /><br />This shows only one launch - March 2006. A Florida newspaper showed an Atlantis launch in May.

 

[strandedonearth]

Hmm, here's the full ISS launch manifest, but aside from NET March, the dates are all under review. Manifested, just not on a firm schedule. It'll be nice to see the big solar panels open up.<br /><br />

 

[franson_space]

This is an old post, so you have to forget sts-114 and move things down the schedule, but you get some ideas from this I think. <br /><br />http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=88&posts=17

 

[mattblack]

Sigh... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"There are 5 missions manifested for 2006."</font><br /><br />In a related news, starting from 2006 USA will move to metric system in full force. Part of this will be adaption to metric years. One metric year (MY) will be exactly thousand days. The news has been met with both grievance and joy. Santa Claus will be visiting less often, but women can stop lying about their age.<br /><br />And this just in, the Whitehouse has confirmed that the planned Return To Moon in 2020(MY) is still on!

 

[tap_sa]

Little joke about ancient metric vs imperial stuff is insulting? Uh, well if you say so <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[najab]

I think the 'USA' he was referring to was the country, not your company. (It wasn't inteded as a slam against you guys, <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />)

 

[tap_sa]

I didn't even remember that S_G works for a company whose initials form USA too! Indeed I meant USofA the country.

 

[racer7]

Remember too that one thing that will help with the launch windows is the removal of the daylight launch restriction. It could come after the next launch and would open up a lot more launch opportunities.<br /><br />Oh, the metric year joke was kind of funny... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Sorry for my reaction, I am just a bit too sensitive these days."</font><br /><br />Our reaction to 'insults' (which I don't really class Tap_Sa's post in... but I need a working term) is tied completely to our perception of how much truth is involved in it. Call a person who is 6' tall and 120 pounds a 'fatty', and they'll laugh at you because it's impossible to take the statement seriously. Make the same accusation to someone who is 5'4" and 280 pounds, and they'll likely be very hurt. If you let yourself get <b>too</b> caught up in your perception of a particular subject, you'll likely start overreacting to statements that aren't really insulting at all (e.g. our 5'4" example punching someone in the nose for commenting that their bacon is a bit too fatty this morning).<br /><br />Lighten up, S_G. Tap_Sa and I both try to interject humor on this board wherever we can squeeze some in. Feel free to jump on spacefire with both feet at any time, though. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"You know what was insulting, it was the tone of you post suggesting we can not get back to a normal launch rate without modifying what a year is"</font><br /><br />Given the current situation I really do doubt that Shuttle can make five missions next year. Why? Well simply because (and correct me if I'm wrong) this can only happen if <i>everything</i> goes perfect from now on. In this case everything means a lot of things. ET problem must be solved. No other problems occur. Not missing any launch windows due delays, glitches, issues. IIRC the current stringent light condition criterias mean that amount of launch windows is pretty limited. Waivering those criterias doesn't sound likely in near term. IMO the unfortunate odds are strongly favouring that things won't be going 100% smoothly. This combined with the apparent shift of NASA's managerial attitude towards shuttle problems from three-wise-monkeys-style (see-no-problems/hear-no-problems/speak-no-problems) to ultra-careful, it means unavoidable delays.<br /><br />I for one would like to see you make five missions in 2006, more if humanely possible. Clock's ticking and we need that thing flying as much as possible to finish ISS and possibly service Hubble. But it just looks so unprobable <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> ($10 says there will be less than five STS launches in 2006)<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"implying we are all idiots has caused me to be a bit sensitive."</font><br /><br />Thought that I've already made this issue clear! <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Sorry for my reaction, I am just a bit too sensitive these days. "</font><br /><br />No problemo. The USA confusion was unfortunate. I really didn't remember you work for that company, only that you work for some aerospace company, not on NASA payroll.

 

[rvastro]

Six flights in 2006! Hmmm, sounds like I need to start marking my calender with the dates so I can be at each one. Looking forward to night launches again!

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"True that restriction must go away after STS-121, and I think it will. Why do you think otherwise?"</font><br /><br />Dunno about Tap_Sa, although I suspect he has much the same opinion on it as I do. I don't think that the decisions, changes, launch rates, etc. will happen as scheduled because they're being based on engineering reality rather than political reality. At that -- they're based on <b>best-case</b> engineering reality. I'll defer to your knowledge of the shuttle engineering and operations realities and grant that it's possible that the STS <b>could</b> make the flights on time. <br /><br />However, NASA has backed themselves into a corner on the safety issues, and I seriously doubt that this will actually happen. On any given launch, if there's any hint of a problem that might cause a catastrophe, I believe that there will be a delay of the next launch that will likely cause a lost window (or two... or three). The problem is... how many launches proceed <b>100%</b> flawlessly? Of the glitches that routinely happen on any given launch (shuttle or otherwise), what percentage of them <b>could</b> cause a catastrophic failure (generally most of them... albeit the actual <i>chance</i> of catastrophic failure is generally minute).<br /><br />By itself -- I see this situation simply reducing the number of flights happening before retirement. However, what will aggravate the problem is that it won't take too many more 'groundings' of the shuttle (however temporary) before the political will to continue funding it peters out entirely. If NASA continues in their 'gun-shy' manner, I believe the shuttle won't make another five flights. If they don't, you'll get a horde of op-ed pieces indicating the old NASA mindset is back and they are once again taking needless risks with the lives of our astronauts. Catch-22.<br /><br />Mind you I hope they take the second route... and that we can retire the STS before the law of probabilities

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">" I don't think they'll be politically able to lift the daylight restriction after STS-121 even if it's perfect (i.e. no foam loss at all). I expect they'll need at least two more launches without 'dangerous' fom loss before they'll be able to justify lifting the nighttime ban."</font><br /><br />I believe all remaining shuttle flights must provide as detailed ascent imagery as Discovery did. And RPM will become a routine at ISS. If these two indicate clean vehicle then OBSS sweep may not be necessary, this would be preferable because the sweep takes quite a lot of time and requires crew participation while most work of the first two methods can happen on Earth.<br /><br />NASA had two and a half years to fix the foam problem after the most severe motivator forced them to look at it, and the result didn't work. IMO there simply isn't time to come up with such bullet-proof solution that could be verified to work beyond any reasonable doubt in just one or two flights. As long as the foam is on the outside of the ET, unprotected by any additional cover and the Orbiter is sidemounted, the risk of foam damage is there. None of these parameters are likely to change, given the estimated STS retirement date and the amount of re-designing/-certifying/-resting required.<br /><br />Possible scenario; after pondering the issue for a few months, the foam thing is declared as quality control failure at Michoud (because that's what it looks like, judging by the pics Shuttle_RTF produced, showing signs of repair where chunk fell off. Btw isn't that some sort of signal that something is wrong if you can spot where repairs have been done, meaning the color of the foam is different from the rest), a new criteria gets instated saying the foam on ETs must be free of any repair work in order to fly. NASA acknowledges that the risk still exists but given the new ascent imagery/RPM/OBSS capabilities they can detect and analyze any threats with 100% certainty, and

 

[askold]

I think the issue is that the shuttle problem is no longer an engineering problem - it's a personnel problem. <br /><br />The engineering is as good as it's going to be - it's those pesky people in the cockpit that are causing the problems. If it wasn't for them, NASA would be launching a shuttle a month. There certainly would be no need for a backup shuttle sitting on the pad ready to go.<br /><br />NASA doesn't want to come to grips with the inherent danger of space flight.