Shuttle Grounding - A Suggestion

[drwayne]

At the risk of making what might be considered a devils advocate suggestion, here goes:<br /><br />Debris strikes do not appear to pose a risk to the ascending shuttle. They are a risk to the descending shuttle. So<br /><br />Keep flying the shuttle as is. Fly it to the station with the minimum manning to do the job, with no equipment you are not prepared to lose.<br /><br />Continue the extensive inspection process. Look for damage that threatens the re-entry. If you see it, go to lifeboat mode, and ditch the shuttle in question. Return the crew to Earth via Soyuz. (Yes, you have to figure out how to do the funding)<br /><br />Assuming you can do a good job on the inspection process (I know that is a big assumption), the worst thing you have is 3 more one-way shuttle flights for supply and completion. You probably have more, with what appears to be a minimum risk to the crew, again hinging on how effective your are at inspecting.<br /><br />In short, don't do a bunch of twiddling with the foam/tank. Understand that there is a re-entry risk that you can mitigate, with only the cost of destroying shuttles that you are going to retire anyway.<br /><br />What do y'all think? This is inteded to stimulate thought in some different directions...<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[larper]

Pretty much my opinion. With the caveat of, try to fix the big chunk problem. Ignore the little piece problem.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[hurricane4911]

That's a very good suggestion that makes a great deal of sense. At the risk of being cynical, because as we know NASA is a politcal organization....<br /><br />Exactly how does your proposal benefit the private contractors whose profits rely on spending another billion dollars to keep that foam sticky?<br /><br />It's all about the money, and who controls the congressional purse-strings. It certainly isn't the scientists

 

[drwayne]

The concern my idea is addressing is that fixing the foam issue will involve significant delays, probably resulting in a tank which will still shed, and the additonal risk of the process of fixing something that breaks something else. Save time, save money and mitigate the risk you invoke.<br /><br />One thing in the thought process I am changing is the way the cameras and evaluation process is viewed. In this model, it is not a process for gathering data to evaluate fixes, it is primarily a critical go/no go assessment process - even more than before, as we now know there is a finite risk that we have no-go damage.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Wow. Thanks! I don't know how to deal with someone agreeing with me - it happens so seldom - espcially here at home. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

You've made a great point. Let's face some facts and boil them down to their simplest form.<br /><br />This shuttle mission is doing 2 things. We're ferrying supplies to the ISS and taking out their trash. And it takes 7 people to do this why?<br /><br />Although I must say that debris strikes on ascension has caused 1 out of 1 shuttle catastophes when debris is involved.<br /><br />But this points back to the fundamental problem with the STS system. NASA could easily add an outer shell to the tank that renders the foam problem null and void.<br /><br />The tradeoff is that it then carries less mass to space. We can't have it both ways. It's either relative absolute safety or absolute mass lifting capability.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[shishka]

Bravo, drwayne. This sentance says it all:<br /><br />"In short, don't do a bunch of twiddling with the foam/tank. Understand that there is a re-entry risk that you can mitigate, with only the cost of destroying shuttles that you are going to retire anyway."<br /><br />Now THATS how you make progress in space. You have the spacecraft; you have the ISS hardware, you have volunteers. Just do it!

 

[drwayne]

"Although I must say that debris strikes on ascension has caused 1 out of 1 shuttle catastophes when debris is involved."<br /><br />I concur, but I *think* the inspection plan covers that failure more. *HOWEVER*<br /><br />As I have mumbled a lot in the past, the inspection process is working largely with new data. We know a lot about what TPS damage looks like *after* re-entry, but we don't know have a pre-reentry database to work with. We certainly don't know what Columbia *really* looked like. So - in the spirit of complete disclosure - the inspection process is not guaranteed to allow us to make a good go/no go decision.<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">What do y'all think? This is inteded to stimulate thought in some different directions...</font>/i><br /><br />I would add one thing... the shuttle is still going to return to Earth one way or another.<br /><br />(1) Minimum/no change solution - program a return that minimizes a track over inhabited areas and splashes down somewhere safe.<br /><br />(2) Harder solution - complete the changes for unmanned automated re-entry and landing, plan a re-entry path that minimizes flight over inhabited areas, land at a relatively safe place (Easter Island?), and fly the shuttle home on a plane.<br /><br />There may be cases where the shuttle is damaged but could potentially return safely. In that case (2) above may be a good compromise -- attempt to save the shuttle but don't risk lives.<br /><br />Anyone know how hard it would be to modify the shuttle for complete automated return?</i>

 

[drwayne]

In the spirit of minimal changes (don't futz with the tank), I had pondered a destructive ditch of the shuttle as the disposal method.<br /><br />That is of course not a divine directive (my wife did not issue it) <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[lunatio_gordin]

So, the shuttle is declared unfit to return to earth. How can we get it away from the station unmanned so that you can have the next shuttle dock with it?

 

[drwayne]

We'll have to get it away from there a quicker than that. After only a couple of weeks, the shuttle will be dead, no power.<br /><br />I wonder what all NASA has planned to be unmanned operation. Just the deorbit (with a space walk after doing a manned separation)?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Celebrating 2900 posts of questionable valuable.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[lunatio_gordin]

oooh. that sounds risky. Flying from the undocked shuttle to the ISS. Like a scene from that Mars movie...<br />Plus, if the shuttle survives it's deorbit, it's still usable. Though i can't imagine that happening.

 

[starfhury]

The assumption here is that Soyuz will never have a problem. What do we do if Soyuz develops a problem? The last problem Soyuz had during return place the crew some 700 miles from there intented location. Another thing, no astronaut can survive severe vehicle damage during reentry. Should the Soyuz heat shield fail during re-entry, your toast. There's no option to bail out same as the shuttle. Even on launch, there's no escape for the crew should the capsule develop a problem. Supposing the capsule is damage by flying debris from an exploding booster. Even if the escape rocket succeeds, damage to the Soyuz could still be fatal. The risk is lower than the shuttle for sure, but don't ignore it. Space is still dangerous whether by shuttle or Soyuz.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[hurricane4911]

<br />So, the shuttle is declared unfit to return to earth. How can we get it away from the station unmanned so that you can have the next shuttle dock with it?<br /><br />I assume they have that already worked out since there is a last resort plan already in place to house the crew at ISS to be picked up another orbiter.<br /><br />One question...Are shuttle launches now officially "off the table" for ALL non-ISS missions?<br /><br />

 

[jtkirk1701]

could they not paint or cover the foam with a something that would either stick it all together or cover it from wind and airflow pressures???<br />

 

[drwayne]

That sounds like fun sir.<br /><br />I warn you, it will probably be like that time I met the (famous from writing a famous quantum mechanics text) physicist Mertzbacher. It took a couple of beers before I overcame my in person shyness and being star struck.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"could they not paint or cover the foam with a something that would either stick it all together or cover it from wind and airflow pressures???"<br /><br />There is another thread in the M&L section on foam where people have been discussing potential foam fixes.<br /><br />In the context of my particular course of action, remember that any solution of this nature will have to be extensively tested, not just to show that it holds the foam together, but that it doesn't break something else. (Example: Outgassing of solvents from hypothetical paint or glue damages tiles). This will take more time than you think and more money, and the solution may *still* screw something up.<br /><br />There is a theme in this thread of "Better the devil you know".<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[hurricane4911]

Understood.<br /><br />Back in the '60s everyone in the NASA food chain was on the the same page. Quality, Excellence, and Execution.<br /><br />It's not the same anymore. Not just in NASA, but in virtually all aspects of government. Bad decisions are made by those who are beholden to lobbysts and not by science.<br /><br />Cynacism aside, I believe the foam has been flying off the ET since day 1. Statiscally 1 in 60 shuttle launches will end badly. Do what you can about the foam and finish the station, in 20+ launches keeping an orbiter on standby. Then retire the fleet.<br /><br />Just my humble opinion.<br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">">> "Anyone know how hard it would be to modify the shuttle for complete automated return? "<br /><br />It is not difficult at all."</font><br /><br />I read somewhere that shuttle is otherwise remote-controllable but the landing gear deployment is manual, and manual only, requiring an astronaut hand to push a button. Is this true or some urban legend, and if true is this already 'fixed' so that if needed an unmanned mission is just a matter of issuing proper commands by radio?

 

[drwayne]

And if the re-entry is a destructive ditch, then we will not have to worry about landing gear or chute. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />Thanks for the LOL from the cable comment. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

By the way, gentle readers, I do realize that a destructive ditch is not a trivial as the words make it sound. The shuttle is after all an aerodynamic body, it is posible that even with the best prgramming to control it, that it may go into a mode that takes it many miles off the planned trajectory...<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I understand.<br /><br />You work on them. You pour your life and your soul into making them the best machine you can. You know the men and women that fly her. You know how special they are. You do your best to make sure they come home to their families. <br /><br />I saw it on Apollo. I am sure it is the same with the shuttle team.<br /><br />I apologize for sounding the way I did about destroying the shuttles.<br /><br />Wayne<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>