No shuttle flights for a year

[alonzofyfe]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9241242/

 

[shuttle_man]

Story is false. Working off a low level memo sent before KSC was decided on to carry on with work on the three ETs here. Spring is still the aim.

 

[franson_space]

This is an example of bad media covering the Shuttle. <br /><br />First there's the "no more Shuttle launches for another year"<br />http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9241242/<br /><br />"MSNBC.com has obtained an “extremely preliminary” planning document written by Wayne Hale"<br /><br />Then this, right after...<br /><br />"memo by acting shuttle program manager Wayne Hale and obtained by USA TODAY."<br />http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-09-07-shuttle-katrina_x.htm<br /><br />So did everyone get a copy or what? And the memo....it's a week old, before as Shuttle Man says, they decided to work on the three tanks at KSC!<br /><br />Stupid media.

 

[drwayne]

I don't think I have ever been associated with a test program that did not have some degree of surprise in the instrumentation data that was not predicted by pre-flight work (simulation, testing etc.). It happens. You hope to learn from it, you do your best to, and you keep on trucking.<br /><br />In any vehicle there are both known potential failure modes and unknown failure modes. Thats life in the real world. There is no such thing as perfect engineering. Despite all the fancy computers and simulations and testing, the day of the flight is still the ultimate sayer of truth. It will always tell you something new.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[elguapoguano]

The sad thing is, it probably WILL be a year between Shuttle flights. And that just sucks. Cause you know, they'll try to launch in March, but since they are fixing the tank at KSC unexpected problems will arrise, so the launch will be pushed back to May. Then on the pad, something else will pop up and they'll miss that window too. So if we're lucky another Shuttle will launch sometime in Summer 2006. Or in other words................. A year later... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Did somebody confuse "No shuttle flights until NEXT year." With "No shuttle flights for a year."?

 

[shuttle_man]

"Stupid media, stupid media....<br />Sure, blame the media!<br /><br />I prefer to believe James Oberg than any Shuttle-XXX pseudo here. With the shuttle, you can't be wrong foreseeing the worst."<br /><br />I think you'll find more informed people on the Shuttle program on forums than a writer who asked if foam shedding has happened with other STS missions (duh) and now appears to be mistranslating an out of date memo. Maybe that's why you're a Shuttle Naysayer, because you are not well informed. It would be on spaceref, nasaspaceflight, spaceflightnow, nasawatch etc.etc. if it was of any relevance. Give it a week and that writer will catch up with ET mod operations moving to KSC.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Give it a week and that writer will catch up with ET mod operations moving to KSC. "</font><br /><br />Something I keep wondering about when I see this statement... I've never seen anything which indicated that NASA has decided what modifications <b>to</b> make on the tanks. Has there been a consensus on what to change on the ET's? If so -- what are the mods they're going with?

 

[nacnud]

IIRC I think they were looking at taking the PAL ram off and replacing it with a metal fence.

 

[drwayne]

They probably are still filling the dance card with contestants. The engineering musical chairs is probably yet to come...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I've never seen anything which indicated that NASA has decided what modifications to make on the tanks. Has there been a consensus on what to change on the ET's? If so -- what are the mods they're going with?</font>/i><br /><br />From the article (which many claim is wrong):<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The most recent mission, he explained, “had flight instrumentation on the [forward] PAL ramp,” and the results were a “significant data surprise” since “the data from this instrumentation did not correlate with [computer modeling] and wind tunnel testing.” In other words, it’s not just a matter of NASA not knowing what the aerodynamic stresses were going to be — they thought they did know, but what they knew before the flight turned out to be wrong.<br /><br />Based on this surprise, Hale continues, “the technical community is extremely reluctant to agree” with removing these troublesome PAL ramps (as some engineers have suggested) based purely on computer model validation. “Flows in this area are unsteady,” he explained, “and [computer model] techniques are not well suited to analyzing unsteady flow situations.”<br /><br />As a result, Hale concludes, removing the ramps "is not considered a serious next-flight option.” ... <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />So, from this (perhaps non-existent) memo, NASA still does not have a specific plan.</i>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I think they do not yet know what mods will be done."</font><br /><br />That was my understanding, and is why I am taking statements that they will do the mods at KSC with a hulking big grain of salt. Until they know what the mods are... how can they know with any certainty that it will be feasible to do them outside of Michoud... where all the tooling/etc. is?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Did somebody confuse "No shuttle flights until NEXT year." With "No shuttle flights for a year."?</font>/i><br /><br />From the (supposed) memo, Wayne Hale concludes: "<i><b><font color="yellow">Launch dates before the fall of 2006 may not be credible.</font>/b></b></i>"<br /><br />The article concludes that if NASA goes with a plan to remove the PAL ramp, the next launch would not occur until early 2007 (tank available in Oct 06 + 3-4 months to get ready for launch).<br /><br />From the article:<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As a result, Hale concludes, removing the ramps "is not considered a serious next-flight option.” And even if the flight data could be obtained, he adds, the timeline his team had developed showed that a “non-PAL ramp tank could be made available in the October 2006 time frame” — it would take three or four months after that date before a launch could occur.<br /><br />Other repair proposals face similar extensive analysis efforts, but Hale's memo also suggests that none so far show any evidence they could be done by the middle of next year.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote></i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Story is false. Working off a low level memo sent before KSC was decided on to carry on with work on the three ETs here. Spring is still the aim.</font>/i><br /><br />Of course spring is still the aim. The article even describes this as an "<i>extremely preliminary</i>" planning document, and that it is part of a "<i>worst case</i>" scenario. Even the operative sentence uses the word "may": "<i>Launch dates before the fall of 2006 <b><font color="yellow">may</font>/b> not be credible.</b></i>"<br /><br />Finally, Griffin has mentioned more than once that they assume they can will fly on a certain date until it is proven that it cannot be done, as opposed to assuming it cannot be done until it is proven that it can be done.<br /><br />So yes, I am certain "spring" is still the plan, but that doesn't mean the article (stating that this is a fear that some are considering) is wrong.</i>

 

[drwayne]

Actually, in my line of work, I only work on test programs, so my statement was intended to tell you at a top level (and in the spirit of being as honest as I can) what experiences I have. I was not calling the shuttle flights test flights per se when I wrote it.<br /><br />However:<br /><br />That said, the RTF flights were instrumented with the idea that they were in fact test flights. Modifications had been made to the external tank that needed to be evaluated. We had access to images and data that were not available previously. As my previous post stated, when you look at new things, you are going to find places in which either your understanding of the environments or your modeling is not up to snuff. Mother Nature is smarter than I am, for sure.<br /><br />In addition, the nature of the data collected was in fact new and unique. Ideally, camera observations such as were made for this flight would have been done at the beginning of the test program, but the technology for doing so was not available until the last few years. If this data had not been available (like for any previous shuttle flight), we would not have known about the pieces that flew off.<br /><br />Which brings up a last point that I have stated a number of times. We have no database of what a boost phase flight looks like at this level of detail. For that matter, we have no database of what a shuttle TPS looks like at this level of detail prior torentry prior to this flight. The reality is the database, and the knowlege is just now coming on line.<br /><br />Given that environment, it is hard to see how one would not call these RTF flights, and possibly all the rest "test flights". I am speaking as a scientist here, and not as a politician/budget person. I don't do that shtick.<br /><br />Now you will note that my previous post, and this one as well are based on my experience as a scientist and an engineer, in looking at how one plans for flights, instruments flights, models flights, interprets <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>If they have they are not telling anyone. I think they do not yet know what mods will be done. <<br /><br />MSFC seem certain the PAL Ramps are coming off. MAF ET guys - and I quote "have their chisels ready to get the PAL Ramps off". Two USA ET guys say "No idea what the plan is yet."<br /><br />The MAF comment is now old...and - although I know they are all ok thank God - it's going to be a while before another update given they've been relocated to Houston after Katrina.<br /><br />I've not seen this memo...strangely claimed as their own by both ABC and MSNBC...but this sounds like another case of MSFC not communicating fully with USA etc. On the PAL Ramp issue, but as you note it's not all about the PAL Ramp.<br /><br />Just an assumption on the communcation issue. I'll do some asking around.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">MAF ET guys - and I quote "have their chisels ready to get the PAL Ramps off".</font>/i><br /><br />Space hackers. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /></i>

 

[JonClarke]

Is it just me or have Oberg's writings decreased in quality over the past decade. he used to be an excellent source of information and comment on space programs, now he seems to be just a curmudgeon. Has he been afflicted by the Jeff Berll syndrom or has be just over taken by other sources?<br /><br /><br />That aside I agree, if this story were real it would all over the other sites. Of course events may conspire to make him right in the long run but that does not make him right now.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

Regardless of the merits of this particular story, I'm growing increasingly frustrated with NASA's inability to get the space shuttle flying again. Personally, I think that if we've lived with the design flaw for the last 25 years, might as well just accept the risk for the remaining flights rather than spending billions to modify a vehicle that's about to be retired. At least now we have the ability to evaluate any damage in the unlikely event that it does occur. And besides, as we focus on the last thing that got us, there are probably 10,000 other things that are just as likely to get us next time. Either fly the damn thing and finish the space station or just give up already!

 

[shuttle_man]

I'm not really wanting to comment on the writer, just the story. We've seen enough horsecrap in the media about the Shuttle lately, this threw me over the edge.

 

[shuttle_man]

While your ideals don't wash in the corridors of NASA, I do understand what you are saying.<br /><br />The problem is, we lost seven good friends of ours due to TPS damage caused by foam shedding going uphill. While it may have been a one off incident that has a 1 in 2000000 chance of happening again, say, seven lives are worth a few delays.<br /><br />Given the choice, I realize that the astronauts would still fly. The engineers would still fly. It's not safe, it's as safe as we can make it. All manned space flight is the same. It's not the Shuttle, it's just damn risky riding rockets into space, period, but we can't allow the same problem to happen twice and we don't just give up. We have a job to do and we'll do it as safe as we can do it.

 

[erioladastra]

"I'm not really wanting to comment on the writer, just the story. We've seen enough horsecrap in the media about the Shuttle lately, this threw me over the edge."<br /><br /><br />True - but the fact is that March was going to be tight since the final plan for the PAL ramp and the rest of the tank repairs have not been finalized. Nowe we hope to move some tanks to KSC to complete processing (whatever that may be). So first of all they have to get barges in to transport the tanks - but you need employees to do that. Most don't have homes or power so we have no idea when this will happen. It is very likely we have a long time, perhaps a year, to the next launch.<br />

 

[shuttle_man]

We have three ETs at KSC. We only need to modify two of them for a launch (STS-121 and STS-301). This is why the story is wrong. MAF is not required for the Spring launch. Only around 50-80 MAF staff and plans are to bring them and their families out to FL. Providing STS-121 goes without incident, we can support another launch. Then (and around that time) will we need MAF sending us ETs again for the THIRD launch.<br /><br />This article will help you on the ETs.<br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=3646

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">That aside I agree, if this story were real it would all over the other sites.</font>/i><br /><br />Tank changes, hurricane put shuttle schedule in limbo<br />By WILLIAM HARWOOD<br />SpaceFlight Now<br />http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts121/050908hurricane/<br /><br />Future Shuttle Flight Dates Uncertain in Hurricane's Wake<br />By Tariq Malik<br />Space.com<br />http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050908_katrina_shuttle_upt.html<br /><br />Katrina damage affects NASA, may delay next shuttle launch<br />CBC.CA<br />http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/09/08/Katrina_NASA20050908.html<br /><br />NASA unsure when next shuttle launch will be because of Katrina<br />Tampa Bay's 10 News<br />http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=18640<br /><br /><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Of course events may conspire to make him right in the long run but that does not make him right now.</font>/i><br /><br />Once again, I reiterate, this memo was a worse case scenario, not a declaration of a schedule change. There is a difference between "It is true the memo exists and this is a potential fear" and "The schedule is officially changing".</i></i>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

I was under the impression that MAF had ET's coming out the waazoo over there? I can't remember where I read it (probably here) but I recall seeing a quote to the general effect that Michoud was having difficulty finding space to store all the ET's they had.<br /><br />Would that refer to the basic metallic structure of the ET's, which are subsequently applied with foam closer to their being needed at KSC? I don't know what the storage capacity is at Michoud but I got the impression from the interview I'm recalling that they had 12-15 ET's stockpiled up? It gave the impression of a significant number anyway.<br /><br />With the talk being bandied around about possibly only another 16 launches of the STS, I assume Michoud could get to work on construction of the modified ET for SDHLV pretty much as soon as the design process is completed? <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>