No shuttle flights for a year

[shuttle_rtf]

From the Bill Harewood article you have linked up.<br /><br /> />In a recent internal memo that was widely circulated in the media, Hale wrote that a launch before next fall appeared unlikley. But Griffin today downplayed the memo and said he believes the next flight will take off earlier than that.<<br /><br />There ya go. <br /><br />You will, however, see 1001 articles saying "off for a year" because most of the mainstream media will just copy and re-word the MSNBC article. Happens all the time. Pretty sad, but true.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>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 />That would be me.<br /><br />From the article before the one linked by Shuttle Man:<br /><br /> />"The problem with how many can be shipped back to MAF relates to storage problems at the facility.<br /><br />"We have more ETs stored here than anytime in recent memory," noted a source.<<br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

"You will, however, see 1001 articles saying "off for a year" because most of the mainstream media will just copy and re-word the MSNBC article. Happens all the time. Pretty sad, but true."<br /><br />Then, it will be taken to be true because "so many sites are reporting it". <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I'm mostly kidding, but in a case a year or so ago where some very unfavorable quotes were attributed to someone on the web, a student reporter put them in the newspaper as fact, based on the fact that they "appeared all over the web" as her fact check.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Yes, but it's safe to take off. (As far as I am aware, the foam shedding is not a risk on take-off. Or at least, it's on the order of, or smaller than, other risks already taken.)<br /><br /><i>If</i> foam sheddding occurs that causes damage to the orbiter than prevents a safe return, then the astronauts can stay in the ISS until another Shuttle can be sent to rescue them (or they can come back by Soyuz). It's highly unlikely that two Shuttles will suffer such damage in the <20 flights we need to finish the ISS.<br /><br />Minimising foam loss is worthwhile, but not at the cost of preventing the Shuttle flying at all in the few years it has before retirement.

 

[drwayne]

I have been assuming (we all know what that does) that someone has looked to insure that there is not risk to the structural integrity of the vehicle from a foam strike, i.e. a strike taking out a window, leading to depressurization?<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"> But Griffin today downplayed the memo and said he believes the next flight will take off earlier than that.</font>/i><br /><br />Yes, that, as I mentioned before, is Griffin's style: assume you can (e.g., launch in March) until it is absolutely proven otherwise. This is opposed to the "assume you cannot until proven otherwise" approach.<br /><br />I think Griffin is absolutely correct here; otherwise, eveyone might slack off a little and eventually it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.<br /><br />For example, one of the concerns raised in the articles (and by shuttle_guy) is that NASA still does not have a good handle on the foam shedding problem. If after several more months they do not have a good solution, I can imagine Griffin calling in the astronauts and key members and propose what has already been discussed here: <i>Launch with the current shuttle tanks and use ISS as a safe haven if necessary.</i></i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The on orbit RCC and tile inspection and ISS life boat make a Columbia type accident extremely remote. I agree that we should start flying again as the ET is now.</font>/i><br /><br />I also agree, but I think NASA needs to do two things. First, they need to get complete buy-in from the astronauts -- the ones whose lives will be on the line. It is probably also important to get buy-in from their families. Second, NASA needs those astronauts to go out in public (probably several times) stating that they are aware of the risks, but they are prepared to take them. Having Hale or Griffin go out there in public will not have the same impact on the American public.</i>

 

[drwayne]

Actually, it looks to me like this risk to the crew is pretty effectively mitigated. I don't see the need for the public "we recognize the risks" statements to be made by the personnel.<br /><br />I think NASA would have to explain to the public the flowchart and decisions, and the way in which the risk is mitigated through inspection and lifeboat measures.<br /><br />But, resonable minds can in fact differ here...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>If after several more months they do not have a good solution, I can imagine Griffin calling in the astronauts and key members and propose what has already been discussed here: Launch with the current shuttle tanks and use ISS as a safe haven if necessary.<<br /><br />Agreed. That's the important issue. Some of the media (and I'm media, so I'm not slapping on purpose here) act like ET foam liberation is something new from STS-107 and STS-114.<br /><br />With the ISS as safe haven and the new inspection tools, I'd fly.

 

[vt_hokie]

Guys, let's be honest here, when NASA first hints at even a slight possibility of delay, that usually means 100% probability. When they say 50% chance of launch by a certain date, that probably means more like 10%, and when they say they are highly confident in meeting a certain target, in actuality that might mean 30% probability if you're lucky! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[erioladastra]

"Guys, let's be honest here, when NASA first hints at even a slight possibility of delay, that usually means 100% probability. When they say 50% chance of launch by a certain date, that probably means more like 10%, and when they say they are highly confident in meeting a certain target, in actuality that might mean 30% probability if you're lucky!"<br /><br />Actually, NASA is usually very accurate. The dates given are usually NET - NO EARLIER THAN. The media just doesn't seem to understand that concept and that becomes the date. I can't how many times I saw "launch slips" for LF1 because the launch would be after the NET date!

 

[erioladastra]

"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. "<br /><br />Not totally correct. Much of the data required for the foam investigation is ONLY available as MAF computers - which if course still have to be recovered which means IT people in and... Equipment also needs to be shipped from MAF to KSC and MSFC. I have not heard yet any launch window analysis (beta, lighting, RS launches...) so don't know the windows after March but if small that makes it harder also. I hope we go sooner than a year but I think it will be tough.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I've asked about this and they say that isn't an issue. They have lost no hardware and no major equipement will be required at KSC from MAF for mods in works.<br /><br />Not ideal, obviously.

 

[paleo]

The proof is in the puding. There either will or won't be another Shuttle flight within a year. Just ask yourself if you had to walk into a Las Vegas casino and make a bet...how would you bet with real money?<br /><br /> This has nothing with 'should' or 'could' or motivations but simply will there or won't there be a flight? If I was betting my money I would bet 'no'. If I had ultimate power over a launch then I would vote 'yes'.<br /><br /> There's just no way the beast will be launched again unless the foam issue is solved to everyone's satisfaction. The upside of a successful mission just doesn't outweigh the downside of another disaster. If things went wrong heads would roll...careers lost and possible demands for criminal investigations. Some memo would be cited that advised against a launch and all hell would break loose (even if unreasonable).

 

[shuttle_rtf]

According to a memo obtained by MSNBC.<br /><br />Then, according to a memo obtained by ABC.<br /><br />Now we've got:<br /><br />“A best case estimate pre-hurricane…would have made the March launch date infeasible, May unlikely,” according to the Sept. 1 memo written by Wayne Hale, NASA’s acting shuttle program manager, and obtained by SPACE.com.<br /><br />Sorry, this is now officially becoming silly.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Sorry, this is now officially becoming silly.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Couldn't agree more. I think they have analysed this one well beyond the point of death. Life's a risk and 20th/21st century spacecraft are going to be dangerous. These are irrefutable facts as far as I am concerned.<br /><br />The margin for error is 'unfortunately' non-existant when it comes to human spaceflight and that's the long and the short of it. Any safety improvements introduced to CEV will only be incremental at best, and the margin for error will still be ultimately so close to zero as to challenge most calculators ability to display digits beyond the decimal point. The level of safety we would all like to see remains beyond our technology, even at a conceptual level I would wager.<br /><br />That being said, and acknowledged in a pragmatic fashion by those whose butts are in the pointy end of the Orbiter, it's time to suck it up and go fly. <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>

 

[thecolonel]

<i>Yes, that, as I mentioned before, is Griffin's style: assume you can (e.g., launch in March) until it is absolutely proven otherwise. This is opposed to the "assume you cannot until proven otherwise" approach. </i><br /><br />Let's face it, the role of NASA administrator is very politcal in nature. And one of the best skills a politician can have is being able to accentuate the positive in an otherwise negative event.<br /><br />That said, with the foam shedding issue at hand, there is a unique opportunity to utilize this event for the best. What could that possibly be? Using it as a catalyst to re-introduce the public, congress, and the media, to the idea of risk acceptance in human spaceflight. NASA currently uses the word safety so often, that if I had a dime for every... well... you get the idea.<br /><br />Let's change the face of the human spaceflight back to the one of yester year: one of heroes, one of adventure, one of necessity, and mostly importantly, one worth the inherent risk.

 

[steve82]

Years ago, Oberg had a column in Omni Magazine where he devoted a lot of space to debunking UFO stories. Only thing is, many of the UFO stories he debunked were so obscure and arcane that nobody had ever heard of them until his article debunking them came along. Sort of like a cure in search of a disease. At times he's also been a bit sensationalistic too, almost as if he were trying to draw attention to himself. But, I think he's done well for himself and he does perform a useful function getting information out and offering his commentary in the media. He has helped the program. I don't think he's exactly gifted as a writer though.

 

[askold]

The poor shuttle is dying a death of 1,000 cuts.<br /><br />It's undignified and painful to watch. Somebody should put the poor thing out of its misery.

 

[vt_hokie]

<font color="blue"><i>"It's undignified and painful to watch. Somebody should put the poor thing out of its misery."</i></font><br /><br />I agree, as long as NASA remains too afraid to accept the risk of spaceflight, but yet ironically the space shuttle may actually be safer to fly now than it ever has been. With the ISS safe haven option available, let's just fly the thing and finish the ISS! <br /><br />I think that the arbitrary "drop dead" retirement date of 2010 should be lifted, and instead the program should be allowed to finish out the 28 flights remaining in the manifest, however long that takes. Of course, with the Republican smoke and mirrors "VSE", that won't happen. <br /><br />Also, wouldn't it make sense to keep Endeavour flying a little longer than Discovery and Atlantis, being that it is significantly younger and has the fewest flights?<br /><br />I fear that the new "Vision for Space Exploration" will maybe give us a 1960's style capsule launched on the SRB stick, if we're lucky, and not much more. Perhaps in 15 years we'll get the "Shuttle-derived Heavy Lift Vehicle" - that is if technology doesn't pass it by and make such an expensive launch vehicle obsolete - but I don't see any money left over to build anything to launch on this heavy lifter! Apollo got us to the moon within a decade, and I don't really see the current program getting us anywhere in the next 20 or 30 years!<br /><br />I strongly believe that before we worry about doing more in space, we need to focus on getting people and payloads to and from space more cheaply and reliably. The "VSE" is inherently flawed, in my view, because it rests on a shaky foundation of obsolete technology. New, safer, more affordable launch vehicles are a necessity if we are going to truly open up the space frontier!

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">I agree, as long as NASA remains too afraid to accept the risk of spaceflight, but yet ironically the space shuttle may actually be safer to fly now than it ever has been. With the ISS safe haven option available, let's just fly the thing and finish the ISS!</font><br /><br />I don't think the ISS can be considered a safe heaven. It'll run out of supplies long before all astronauts can be brought down. Unless the Shuttle could be equipped for LD space flight ( a couple of months), such that it wouldn't eat out oxygen and stuff from the ISS.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

I remember over a decade ago reading that Endeavour was to be equipped for extended duration missions of up to 28 days. (Still not truly long duration, I know, but longer than current shuttle missions.) What ever became of that?

 

[spacefire]

good question...I always thought the Spacehab module allowed the Shuttle to spend more time in orbit, but I guess that's not the case. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

The long pole (or short pole, depending on how you look at it) in shuttle endurance is the supply of liquid hydrogen and oxygen used by the fuel cells. That rus out, you are out of power.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

deploy solar power arrays then <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>