Next shuttle launch delayed until "at least" March!

[shuttle_rtf]

<br /><br /> />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 />Sorry, can't agree with that.<br /><br />NASA doesn't want to come to grips with the inherent danger of space flight.<<br /><br />Due Diligence in trying to make it as safe as possible is not the same as NASA not wanting to come to grips with the dangers that obviously exsist - and will for many years to come.

 

[strandedonearth]

"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"<br /><br />Actually, SG pointed out once that as the foam ages, the color gets darker, I would assume from oxidation. Which does make repairs conveniently easier to spot. This was pointed out on some STS-114 processing pics.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

And colour change doesn't have to mean it's a repair (as such)....they have a process called "Sanding and Blending" - which can appears as a different shade to the rest of the ET.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">" as the foam ages, the color gets darker,"</font><br /><br />Ah, OK, missed that tidbit earlier.<br /><br />askold, the essence of reusable vehicle is that after a mission you want it back, intact, whether there's personel onboard or not. If you operate a small fleet of RLVs, pay no attention to re-entry problems and just keep flying, pretty soon you don't have a fleet at all!

 

[askold]

Well, of course the vehicle should be as safe as possible. Everybody can agree on that.<br /><br />It's what comes next that's tricky - when do you know it's safe enough? Unfortnately the way you know that it's not safe enough is when something goes wrong after launch. The only way to make sure you don't find out that it's not safe enough is to never launch!

 

[spayss]

"I really hope that you are correct, just this latest delay is releasing the negativists in full flock. Just witness such posts as spayss"<br /><br /> We folks who want the Shuttle scrapped (after Columbia) are not 'negative' but quite the reverse. We are optimistic that the USA can do much better. We should be striving for excellence and not puting bandaids on mediocrity.<br /><br /> I have a much greater expectation and belief in our space industry than the Shuttle supporters. The USA is about moving forward and creativity and not floundering in the pickle barrel.

 

[askold]

Tap_Sa: The shuttle has flown 114 (or so) missions with two failures, so we should be able to get 150 missions out of the reamaining 3 vehicles.<br /><br />NASA only wants to fly 17 more missions to finish the ISS so we have more than enough orbiters if our only concern is for the hardware.

 

[BReif]

I too have great expectations for the space program, and it is my hope to see the full implementation of the president's Vision for Space Exploration, most specifically, human return to the moon leading to permanent presence, and human missions to Mars, also leading to permanent human presence. <br /><br />This is why I beleive it is absolutely crucial to begin now on the Crew Exploartion Vehicle, so that it can be flight tested by the end of 2008. <br /><br />My fear is, despite congressional approval of the overall Vision for Space Exploration, if NASA and its subcontractors do not move forward on CEV, when the next administartion comes into the White House on January 20, 2009, the Vision for Space Exploration could very well be cancelled, leaving the United States with no human spaceflight capability. My fear also is, that if the US backed out of human spaceflight, so would Russia and Europe. <br /><br />I beleive that the US needs to move ahead on CEV, the congress needs to come up with a legislative solution to the ban on the US buying seats on Soyuz due to the Iran Non-proliferation Act, get CEV flight tested by year end 2008, and flying humans to ISS by 2010 (not 2014). <br /><br />Meanwhile, IF we can solve the political problems with Soyuz, we (US and Russian jointly) could launch 2 of them to ISS, staffing the station with 6 crewmemebers so that science and research could be done as well as maintenace. I still beleive the ISS can serve a research purpose, if it is staffed, and it can be done in its current configuration. IF any additional modules are necessary to its science goals, then there must be a way to launch them on Atlas 5 or some other vehicle, then have Soyuz or Progress rendevous with it, and ferry it to Station for construction. I'm not an engineer, so I don't know if this is workable, but it is a thought. <br /><br />It seems to me, there are always alternatives, ones that could lead to CEV sooner, Moon and Mars sooner, and ISS being used now

 

[shuttle_rtf]

> I have a much greater expectation and belief in our space industry than the Shuttle supporters. <<<br /><br />As the single most negative person I've seen on these boards, I find that quote hilariously ironic.<br /><br />For it is the Shuttle Bashers that want the industry to stop, scrap the Shuttle, wait God knows how many years until there is a viable replacement.<br /><br />For those of you who think "But no! Simply move the savings from the scrapping of the Shuttle to advancing the development of the new crafts" forget that you can bet your life that said savings would go directly back to DC. <br /><br />The STS program is the best thing we have right now for the job in hand that is part of the Vision for Space Exploration. Shuttle suppporters see that sensible progression, which is why I found your comment in error.

 

[thecolonel]

<i>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.</i><br /><br />I hate it that the term NET is used so liberally by NASA. It is like acknowledging that you refuse to overachieve. What the heck ever happened to NLT (no later than)?!

 

[dragon04]

"For it is the Shuttle Bashers that want the industry to stop, scrap the Shuttle, wait God knows how many years until there is a viable replacement."<br /><br />In my case, that's totally wrong. I wouldn't consider myself a shuttle basher, but if people would look at this pragmatically rather than emotionally, maybe they would see where opponents are coming from.<br /><br />I've seen a few reasons that people want to see the STS program continue at all cost.<br /><br />1. "If we cancel the STS program, God knows how many years it will be before we get back in space."<br /><br />My answer.. And your point would be? There is no mandate to continue spending more money and sit throughdelay after delay just to keep the STS program active.<br /><br />How many years of no active American Manned Space Program have we already endured post Challenger and Columbia. The logic against a hiatus until the CEV is built and launched is just bankrupt. Any subsequent delay in putting the STS program back in space is robbing the start of the future.<br /><br />2. "The money will go back to DC."<br /><br />I'm still not remotely convinced that there is not a way to reallocate funds from the STS program to the next generation manned vehicle program. Where there is a will, there's a way.<br /><br />And if the money DOES go back to DC, that's fine by me. I may be only one person, but MY tax dollars pay for NASA. And at this point, I truly believe that we will be posting on these boards in August of 2006 about the possible March 2007 Re-Return to space. I don't feel that my money is being spent in the wisest way possible now.<br /><br />I'm Pro-Space. Big time. But I'm also pragmatic enough to see when my good money is being thrown into a bottomless pit.<br /><br />3. "Our obligation to our international partners concerning the ISS."<br /><br />Hogwash. Things didn't work out as planned. Every year, the costs to even attempt to complete the ISS go up as components sit on the ground. Please do not expect me, the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[spayss]

Dragon04<br /><br /> Well stated. The Shuttle had it's place. The prize fighter analogy is a good one. Why fade away punch drunk when a decisive retirement party would add a touch of dignity and be a forum for celebrating the achievements of the Shuttle.<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

It is relatively simple. If the shuttle can continue to fly then NASA's current plans for the CXV and CEV can indeed go through relatively smoothly. This is because Mike Griffin has stated rather strongly that he wishes to use the SRB's as the principle boosters for the CXV or CEV. IF the producer of the shuttles SRB's thinks that it is going to be making no more such solid rocket motors for at least the next five years, do you actually think the Morton-Thiokol Corp. is going to hang on to its work force, and contiue to produce (or even improve) such rockets? Knowing corporations, then I would say not!<br /><br />Even just as importantly, Griffin wishes to use the current shuttle design as the bassis for a shuttle-C type of material hauling only type of heavy lift vehicle. But if the shuttle itself is no more for the same five years (and I think that this portion to the space flight equation may even take longer than the five years) then this option also becomes far more difficult to impliment!<br /><br />So, if you are not going to use these shuttle systems as options and instead start from scratch, you are going to find it even more expensive than continuing to fly the shuttle and then using shuttle system parts for the next step.<br /><br />That IS what NASA's own analysis has found out, or else why would Mike Griffing support such a plan? IF NASA was to be given relatively unlimited funding, then many or us who support the shuttle would indeed say to stop flying the shuttle and build a far better system. But we now have somewhat the same political situation that gave us the original shuttle. Then the war was in Viet Nahm, now we are fighting in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and fighting possible terrorist attacks right her in the USA. And even the possibility of going to war with other countries! Now, do you think that congress is going to support a totally new civilian space program? If so, then I have this bridge in Brocklyn that I wish to sell you! It isn'

 

[frodo1008]

What I would prefer to be used would be the term "schedule commitment". Such as the commitment to place a man on the moon and bring him safely back to Earth by the end of the 1960's. Old fashioned perhaps, but sometimes the older ideas DO work, as we certainly DID accomplish the mission, now didn't we?

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Holy humbug, there's been some C.R.A.P. spouted in this thread.<br /><br />As <i><b>I</b></i> understand the daylight launch restrictions, the object of that exercise is <i><b>not</b></i> primarily to affirm that foam is being shed from the tank. (although I imagine this is one of the objectives) It is to affirm that the tracking/filming equipment can capture foam being shed. I believe the most important in that is radar imagery.<br /><br />Once they have confirmed the ability to spot potentially hazardous shedding, then there is no logical reason to continue with daylight-only launches. <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>

 

[spacefire]

Happy day, oh Happy Day<br />When the Shuttle's thrown away! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Oh go away, go away.<br />For the Shuttle's here to stay<br /><br /><br />(until 2010) <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[SpaceKiwi]

A bird ... er, three ... in the hand is worth two in the Bush ... er, 's VSE plan.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.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]

Don't make me laugh whilst drinking booze, for it is a waste when over my screen )

 

[lunatio_gordin]

But, that would mean that Each orbiter is worth one and a half non-existant CEVs! <br /><img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[spacefire]

that's why you're up this late! Boozing and posting! Fun if you know when to stop.<br />I'm just sobering up right now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<img src="/images/icons/laugh.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]

Yeah, and being English, I'm looking for a fight <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Might set up a "If you don't like Shuttles, you are not a nice person" thread <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Yep and the media ain't helping with their conveyer belt of drivel that is brainwashing the public.

 

[spacefire]

you two are a hoot. ditch the pink shades please! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>