Not another shuttle bashing post, but seriously -

[frodo1008]

You are doing it again! Do try to keep your facts and time lines in order, if you would!<br /><br />As of right NOW the ISS IS actually in space with humans on board, and has a current volume of some 450 cubic meters.<br /><br />IF Bigelow can indeed get a human module up into orbit by the end of the decade, you state that this will be some 180 cubic meters AT THAT TIME! <br /><br />Eventually, Bigelow proposes to have this particular manned station have some 860 cubic meters (how much longer is that going to take?).<br /><br />In 2008 the ISS will have the capacity for six people on board instead of the current three. <br /><br />Now, don't in turn misunderstand me here, I am all for Bigelow and his projects, and I do hope that the next large station will indeed replace the ISS, just as even that station will eventually be replaced by something even larger and better. If we are truly going to have a space faring civilization it is going to take all of the efforts of many such stations. but the ISS did help a whole lot to point the way, and just canceling it before it even reaches its potential would indeed make it a very large waste, and as a taxpayer I don't want to see that!<br /><br />Besides, as I stated do we in the US keep our word or just tell the other partners to just shuck it? If we do then how much cooperation (even with an American company such as Bigelow's) can we then expect from the rest of the world? Not much, I would have to say!!<br />

 

[askold]

The lofty goals of the space station have been steadily scaled back until nothing is left except - don't annoy our space partners. Personally, I can live with that.<br /><br />Don't think a program can't be stopped just because "so much money has already been spent" or "so many lives have already been lost". Of course it can be stopped. History is full of examples.<br /><br />This business with the gouged tiles isn't over. Everybody's putting on a happy face while the shuttle is in orbit - once it comes down and NASA gets a close look at it - Griffin is going to be pissed. Wayne Hale has said that he's got it under control - no pieces bigger than a matchbox. Now we get a grapefruit. Don't be surprised if Griffin decides the people working for him are all clowns and he pulls the plug himself!

 

[frodo1008]

Griffin isn't going to "pull the plug" as that would basically doom NASA itself! And neither Griffin nor his boss president Bush wants that as a legacy of this administration.<br /><br />I gave as a reason to continue that we should honor our commitments. But that is just one reason to finish the program. Please don't just take that as my ONLY reason, as it isn't!<br /><br />If the manned program of NASA goes down the robotic program will not be far behind!<br /><br />So I would strongly suggest that you do hope and pray that the shuttle finishes its job without another accident!<br /><br />In all my years working in the aerospace industry I have NEVER seen a program that is as far along as the ISS (and the shuttle needed to finish it) that was as you suggest just canceled! It ISN"T going to happen, so just forget it!

 

[thereiwas]

Griffin himself has said he would cancel the whole thing himself if another orbiter was lost. That's how close to the edge they are playing this.<br />

 

[grdja]

In the same way people compare Space Ship 1 (a high altitude rocket plane) to a real orbital launch vehicle; other compare ISS modules filled with equipment and experiment racks to Bigelow's empty balloons.

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Griffin isn't going to "pull the plug" as that would basically doom NASA itself! And neither Griffin nor his boss president Bush wants that as a legacy of this administration.</font><br /><br />Maybe not "willingly", but I can almost <b>guarantee</b> you that Griffin's hand is <b>on</b> the plug pending Endeavour's return to Earth in one piece.<br /><br />I'm not sure I buy the "legacy" argument. Outside of our community, and the appropriately proportional community outside of SDC, just who do you think really gives a hoot about the STS program or the ISS? The short answer is not enough people to make a difference.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">If the manned program of NASA goes down the robotic program will not be far behind!</font><br /><br />An appeal to panic? If anything, the robotic program would <b>flourish</b> in the absence of the Manned Program. More missions for less money. Risking machines instead of Human Lives. I can plainly see the selling points.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">In all my years working in the aerospace industry I have NEVER seen a program that is as far along as the ISS (and the shuttle needed to finish it) that was as you suggest just canceled! It ISN"T going to happen, so just forget it!</font><br /><br />I'm certain you're correct. Dead certain. Personally, I've never thought much of the ISS to begin with. My personal viewpoint on benefit vs. expense doesn't lie in LEO no matter how it's packaged or promoted.<br /><br />However, you make a salient point even if I disagree with it. We started it, we should finish it as much as we can. Not because we have "obligations" to ESA and JAXA and whoever else, though. IMO, we have to do as much as we can just because we said we would, and we ain't quitters. Probably ironically the <b>worst</b> justification. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I've made my peace with watching the United States diddle around in LEO and degenerate back to The N <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[askold]

"Griffin isn't going to "pull the plug" as that would basically doom NASA itself! And neither Griffin nor his boss president Bush wants that as a legacy of this administration."<br /><br />Hyperbole - that wouldn't doom NASA. What would another fatal acident do to Griffin's legacy?<br /><br />The best-case scenario for Griffin is a scarry near-accident to use as justification to ground the shuttle. These gouged tiles could do it.<br /><br />I can imagine a press conference after the orbiter lands:<br /><br />Dr. Griffin: We've examined the orbiter and determined that the engineers just can't stop foam from shedding from the tank in potentially large pieces. They have repeatedly failed goals that they have set themselves so I have lost confidence that they can make this thing work. I won't risk any more lives with this ticking timebomb. I have decided to rename the ISS the "Klub Kremlin" and am handing the thing over to the Russians to run as a destination resort for rich industrialists. With this albatross removed from our necks, you can expect to see great things from NASA. Thank you.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"The best-case scenario for Griffin is a scarry near-accident to use as justification to ground the shuttle"<br /><br />He can't unilateraly do it. And he won't even try

 

[rocketscientist327]

I don’t even know how to word this without irritating people, but here we go anyways:<br /><br />While we have always had debris/foam damage during assent, things critically turned for the worst when the shuttle became “Environmentally Friendlyâ€. <br /><br />Exhibit A: http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/columbiastory2A48513A.htm<br /><br />Quote from the article “Debris got people's attention again in the late 1990s, when NASA had to change the way it sprayed the orange foam onto the tank to satisfy environmental laws. The first shuttles that flew with the new flavor of external tank foam came home with the worst damage of the decade. <br /><br />A NASA probe determined the new, freon-free foam did not hold up as well under the rigors of launch. It popped off in larger amounts than normal. Columbia landed in December 1997 with more than 300 dings, scratches and divots in the black tiles.â€<br /><br />I wish I could find the actual probe, but with everything NASA, it is hidden and locked away and my google skills are not as good as they could be. <br /><br />Bottom line: The new foam is not as good as the old stuff, so go back to it. Safety is always the first priority and if we need to use freon, so be it. It is completely unimaginable to me that we could be risking the lives of astronauts because we do not want to release freon into the environment. NASA is being held hostage to politicians and the politically correct.<br /><br />How much have Freon emissions been reduced over the past 10 years? Mother nature can handle 13 more shuttle flights if it reduces the risk of catastrophic foam strikes by only two percent. I googled but could not find data on how many “hits†of ice/foam per mission starting from 1981 to the present.<br /><br />The article seemed to say that since the new foam has been used, the incident rate has jumped considerably.<br />Some one please correct

 

[thereiwas]

The environmental harm from the metals in the SRB exhaust is probably greater than that from the freon.<br /><br />Freon effects on the atmosphere are, however, quite real and measured. It is not a 'politically correct' issue, any more than cigarette smoke is a 'pc' issue.

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Hello RS327, good 1st post.<br />That article you linked up was interesting, thanks for that. <br /><br />(This part not directed at anyone in particular) I found these passages took my attention mostly, quoted from the Floridatoday link above....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />During that flight, Houston radioed Atlantis in space asking mission specialist Mike Mullane to crane the robot arm around the bottom of the wing. Someone on the ground wanted a look at the shuttle's heat-shield tiles because something smacked the ship pretty hard during launch.<br /><br />Gently pressing a pair of joysticks, Mullane twisted and turned the remote-controlled arm to just the right spot. The crew watched the pictures pop onto a television screen inside Atlantis.<br /><br />"We gasped. Hundreds of tiles are scraped and gouged. At least one tile is completely missing. What's going to happen to us on re-entry?" <br /><br />Nobody died. Atlantis safely delivered Mullane and his crewmates back to Earth. Standing on the runway in the California desert, the grinning astronauts posed with NASA brass to celebrate. Behind them, just above their heads in the picture, the black tiles under Atlantis' wing are pockmarked with big white divots.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm now feeling a lot better about the current TPS damage, and a lot better about the call from MCC to not attempt a repair. <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>

 

[icemanmd]

I crawl out of hiding to say.<br /><br />I can honestly say I dont believe the shuttle is the issue, I believe it is the people who run the shuttle and make the higher decisions. <br />DO I honestly believe the shuttle will make it back this time? Yes I pray it does.<br /><br />Does the laser scan and pictures show the engineers how many other tiles around the damaged one will fall off or are loose? No. <br />Do I think it should have been checked by hand?<br />Yes.<br /><br />Do I think the program will be stopped if we loose this one.....I sure hope so.<br /><br />I think it is not a wise decision to look at pictures and scan and claim is all well. Just like the heated debate I was in last time BEFORE the last one had a failure which cost 7 lives. People should not dismiss things just cause it looks like it should work. <br /><br />Time for a new launch vehical.<br /><br /><br />Also I used to be a universe, what happened? Now I am a proton.........lol<br /><br /><br />

 

[docm]

Interesting read;<br /><br />Columbia Accident Investigation Report, Ch. 3 - Accident Analysis (PDF) <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>><br />Throughout the history of the External Tank, factors unrelated to the insulation process have caused foam chemistry changes (Environmental Protection Agency regulations and material availability, for example). The most recent changes resulted from modifications to governmental regulations of chlorofluorocarbons.<br /><br />Most of the External Tank is insulated with three types of spray-on foam. NCFI 24-124, a polyisocyanurate foam applied with blowing agent HCFC 141b hydrochlorofluorocarbon, is used on most areas of the liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen tanks. NCFI 24-57, another polyisocyanurate foam applied with blowing agent HCFC 141b hydrochlorofluorocarbon, is used on the lower liquid hydrogen tank dome. BX-250, a polyurethane foam applied with CFC-11 chlorofluorocarbon, was used on domes, ramps, and areas where the foam is applied by hand. The foam types changed on External Tanks built after External Tank 93, which was used on STS-107, but these changes are beyond the scope of this section.<br /> /><br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Griffin himself has said he would cancel the whole thing himself if another orbiter was lost.</font>/i><br /><br />I don't think there would be any choice in the matter, regardless of public opinion, Congress's position, or Griffin's position. A loss of an orbiter would require a stand-down of flight operations, and there would be no way they could get it back up and running in order to complete a meaningful number of flights to ISS by 2010.<br /><br />Furthermore, the number of flights scheduled to ISS right now is pretty much the absolute minimum necessary to leave the ISS in a usable state after the Shuttle is retired (or at least so says a recent report), and that schedule is getting tight. I think they will continue to fly their schedule.<br /><br />As long as NASA is up front with the astronauts and their families regarding the risks, I think it is OK. And I am willing to bet almost everyone of them would agree to continue to fly. The alternative would be to essentially shut down and de-orbit ISS, and there would be no manned flights for NASA astronauts for about decade when we start to return to the moon. And even then, only about 8 astronauts would fly each year. That would effectively terminate many/most of their careers.</i>

 

[qso1]

askold:<br />Not the shuttle – the engineering mistakes remain (the ET) and band aides are applied. Nothing to do with statistics.<br /><br />Me:<br />After Challenger, numerous fixes were put in place including fixes to the ET struts which one engineer at the time was claiming was the real cause of the Challenger accident. Today, I agree that the ET foam problem has not been fixed but its quite possible that its an intractable problem and you originally posted that the shuttle should stop flying. NASA is attempting to do just that over a period of time. ET fixes will take time to implement and it may be more time than what is left in the shuttles planned operational life. So do you want to see the shuttle fixed or retired?<br /><br />My comparison of the two programs records (Apollo and shuttle) is no more a misdirect (And I didn't intend it as a misdirect anyway) than saying the shuttle is dangerous because it has had two accidents in 116 missions.<br /><br />If one does not wish to at least look at the Apollo data, we have nothing to compare the shuttle data to. How do we really know any system is safe? The Buran flew only once while its carrier rocket flew only twice and as a result, the Russian shuttle has a 100% safety record but is it safe? Not enough data to say that with a high degree of certainty.<br /><br />askold:<br />Can we just stick to the engineering issues of the shuttle?<br /><br />Me:<br />Sure. I wouldn't say the shuttle doesn't have its share of engineering problems but that was part of the challenge of building such a machine. It may well be that as humans, we are up against something a little more challenging than we can deal with in our time. After all, nobody has successfully been able to come up with an economical shuttle replacement.<br /><br />It has always been assumed that a winged SSTO type vehicle would be needed for economical operations. Current and near term state of the art technology may be unable to bring such a vehicle about without signifi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

askold:<br />Why doesn’t anybody hear what I’m saying? I’m not saying that space flight (human or robotic) is free of unknown risks. I’m saying that the shuttle is a known risk and NASA is playing Russian roulette with the astronauts lives.<br /><br />Me:<br />We have heard you. We simply are not agreeing that NASA is playing Russian roulette. Taking calculated risks yes...Russian roulette, no.<br /><br />askold:<br />NASA in March 2006: <br /><br />Shortly after liftoff of Discovery on July 26, 2005, launch video showed a piece of foam that weighed about a pound falling away from the external fuel tank. <br /><br />NASA Administrator Michael Griffin ordered that engineers fix the problem before another shuttle flight. <br /><br />"Just to make it perfectly clear to you, foam will still come off the tank after we have done all these mitigation efforts," Hale said. "What we have done is worked off all large pieces. We believe the pieces that come off will be small, definitely smaller than a matchbox. <br /><br />Endeavor August 2007: <br /><br />About the size of a baseball, the debris was initially thought to be ice before engineers shifted on foam insulation. But it may actually have been foam, ice or a piece of ablative material a bit denser than foam, Shannon said. <br /><br />Matchbox? Baseball? What’s the engineering standard? It’s constantly shifting. This isn’t engineering!<br /><br />Me:<br />You be the engineer for a moment here...what would you consider an acceptable amount of falling foam keeping in mind that its probably impractical if not impossible to prevent small amounts of foam from falling.<br /><br />Whats your standard? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Whatever mass, propelled at the velocity of the piece that killed Columbia, will not cause penetration to within 1/2 the thickness of the thinnest tile or fracturing of the carbon-carbon on the leading edges. If that's a BB, pea or golf ball size piece then so be it. <br /><br />Anything more is a tragedy looking for a place to happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[askold]

I don't expect the shuttle to be perfect - no thing created by man is. But NASA does seem to be cutting the vehicle a lot of slack. I truly hope that our luck doesn't run out before the program ends.

 

[JonClarke]

Please answer the question given to you by qso1. Avoidance is not an option.<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>

 

[CalliArcale]

Hey, Icemanmd! Long time no see! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Welcome back!<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Does the laser scan and pictures show the engineers how many other tiles around the damaged one will fall off or are loose? No.<br />Do I think it should have been checked by hand?<br />Yes.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />By "checked by hand", do you mean feeling it to see if it's loose? I don't think that's an option. I'm told that working in an EMU glove is like constantly squeezing a tennis ball, and you can see for yourself just how thick those gloves are in the NASA TV footage of any spacewalk. I don't think they could really tell if the tiles were loose. And trying to grip them in those gloves could be disastrous. I'll let the actual Shuttle folks comment on that, but I suspect it would do a lot more damage to try to inspect it that way.<br /><br />Checking by hand might inadvertently guarantee that there's damage....<br /><br />The laser scans did give them enough data to precisely duplicate the damage on tile samples on Earth which were then subjected to a blast furnace to determine how well they would insulate. I stumbled upon a blog which goes into some detail on that, from the perspective of an astronaut trainee who got to help out with that actual testing. It's an interesting read.<br />How I Am Becoming An Astronaut <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[rocketscientist327]

This, I feel, is proving my point. Everyone is trying to save the environment and cutting off the arm to fix a hang nail. If the Freon damage that has been measured from using the Freon-based foam is not nearly as damaging as the SRB exhaust plumes, what does that say about Ares 1 and 5?<br /><br />Is NASA deliberately damaging the environment to ensure astronaut safety with the Ares series of vehicles?<br /><br />http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/enviro/studies.htm<br /><br />This link has all sorts of studies on the release of aluminum oxides. I will be honest and say I did not read them all, however, NASA has been aware of the issue since 1992. What I got out of the reports (some of the science is very dry and not interesting to me but I toughed it out and read anyways) is that each SRB pokes a tiny hole in the ozone layer which can last up to three months (shuttle SRBs) or as little as a few days (strap-on SRBs on Titan and Delta). Obviously, shuttle SRBs make bigger holes than strap-ons.<br /><br />I did read somewhere that one environmental group says every time we launch a space shuttle, we put 100,000 aluminum cans into our atmosphere. I do not agree with this, but I do agree that we are putting aluminum oxides up there that take time for mother nature to remove.<br /><br />I guess what I am saying here is, I am really ticked off that we are compromising astronaut safety for the environment with the space shuttle but have no problems gumming it up with Ares. I am not sure how much Freon emissions have been cut since 1995 but I am willing to go out on a limb and say we could use “the good stuff†for the last few missions of the shuttle if it would mean smaller chunks of foam and fewer chunks of foam falling off during assent.<br /><br />NASA is all over the place on this and I am frustrated.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br />Rocket Scientist 327<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

There is a common misconception that the ETs use some kind of freon-free foam. They don't. One of the Shuttle folks can tell you more accurately than I can, but they're using the same foam they always have. The EPA regulations have an exemption for certain areas where safety is a concern. This is one of them. There are medical exemptions too; for instance, I carry a fast-acting "rescue" inhaler for my asthma, and it uses CFCs in its propellant. These are being phased out over time.<br /><br />The "hole in the ozone layer" is also a popular misconception. It is not true. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Thanks!<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The tile bonds can only be checked by pulling on the tiles with a sucktion cup and an attached weigh or calibrated pull. (Sucktion cup would not work in a vacuum !!)<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />And the attached weight might be a problem in freefall. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[askold]

<b>Please answer the question given to you by qso1. Avoidance is not an option.<br /><br />Me: <br />You be the engineer for a moment here...what would you consider an acceptable amount of falling foam keeping in mind that its probably impractical if not impossible to prevent small amounts of foam from falling. <br /><br />Whats your standard? </b><br /><br />Oh, sorry - didn't realize there was a question pending.<br /><br />This one is easy - My standard would be the one set by Wahne Hale and Dr. Griffin (I've found that you get the best results (the most buy-in) if the participants in a situation set the goals themselves. <br /><br />"NASA Administrator Michael Griffin ordered that engineers fix the problem before another shuttle flight."<br /><br />"... Hale said. "What we have done is worked off all large pieces. We believe the pieces that come off will be small, definitely smaller than a matchbox."<br /><br />There's your standard - a matchbox, not a grapefruit. I'd like to hear what Hale has to say about missing his own standard.

 

[hearme]

askold: I don't expect the shuttle to be accident free. What does amaze me is that NASA continues to fly a clearly flawed vehicle that they simply can't fix.<br /><br />Me: I agree. How many more accidents and how many more good people will have to die before NASA staff get off their lazy asses and think about coming up with some alternative plans to current flawed shuttles?