STS-114 Mission Update Thread (Part 4)

[shuttle_rtf]

Shannon with the slapdown on the "No one said "Grounding"" Nice.

 

[redgryphon]

Shannon: Parsons and Hale did not say grounding!<br /><br />My new hero!

 

[shuttle_rtf]

"It looks like all of the foam loss didn't hit the Orbiter" - Shannon.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

"The word grounded is too strong" - Shannon. Good question from CNN on pressing him on that.

 

[lunatio_gordin]

Press conference is over. Let's count how many times we heard the words "ET Foam" and "Grounded" from the media.

 

[mattrog]

Glad they pressed the "we didnt say grounded point" - all the press reports were getting me down!<br /><br />Also just spotted the vid from the chase plane on nasa.gov - bit shakey but the 1st 2 mins are amazing ! - really gives a sense of speed and acceleration !<br /><br />http://wm.nasa-global.speedera.net/wm.nasa-global/RTF/WB57.wmv

 

[drwayne]

I found the question reasonably good about the impact of potentially not loosening launch constraints after two flights on the ISS completion.<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]

I wish they had an ISS cam. So we could actually see what they're doing. the picture's cool and all, but I'd much rather actually see it. Why don't they have a little floating camera?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Yeah, seen that, but only on subscription sites like spaceflightnow, so that's the first time I've see a link that is free. Well done, I'll pass that on!

 

[redgryphon]

<font color="yellow">Why don't they have a little floating camera? </font><br /><br />Like this?<br />And this?<br /><br />I think these are still in development.

 

[drwayne]

Its worse:<br /><br />http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050728/ap_on_sc/space_shuttle_100;_ylt=AodxZoUz5b2KvQT5H4fcSSEYAjMB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl<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]

Wasn't going to be ready in time. I remember this coming up as something relevant to Stafford-Covey...I mailed the PA of the professor who designed it and she said it's still being tested.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

What is it with Marcia Dunn. She set Paul "Crusher" Hill off into the bad mood yesterday with her follow up being a repeat of her first negative question. FFS

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Well, every other media has stated the shuttles are now grounded.<br /><br />It's terribly unfortunate that a piece of foam insulation again fell off, this time not causing any damage. As that was the problem which caused the last Shuttle to be destroyed, one woudl have expected it'd be the FIRST problem corrected.<br /><br />Apparently the word did not reach the design engineers. Very sad. <<br /><br />Come on Steve, that's just silly!!!! <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" />

 

[Astrosag]

Hey all, I'm watching nasa tv and its said that they will replay the shuttle approach to the ISS in roughly 1/2 hour...but i have a meeting to attend. SO I was hoping if anyone knew where I could get the video clip...or if anyone had the approach. Please say yes!

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">Of course the design engineers knew about the foam loss potential but it was lower priority because they were working the problem that took down Columbia which was the Bi-pod foam. The PAL ramp was looked at but was lower priority because they had not had many problems with it.</font><br /><br />I rather agree with stevehw on this. I too am shocked and appalled that we had another major foam shedding incident. I don't differentiate whether it was bi-pod foam or PAL ramp foam. That's splitting hairs and is a poor excuse. It's the foam insulation. Period. This should *not have happened*<br /><br />About foam loss near the bipods, how big are these divots? 5" ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">I disagree with the implications that the Design engineers were not informed. </font><br />Agreed. Of course they were. I disagree with stevehw's use of sarcasm in general. It's unnecessary, and the use of sarcasm intereferes with the content of the statements or questions.<br /><br />I do have a notion that the program goals for fixing foam insulation loss were not comprehensive enough. But I don't know. Was the explicit goal for repairing the foam insulation: 'fix the bipod foam' or 'keep foam loss within acceptable levels' ? Or was the explicit goal: 'no foam loss anywhere'? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

Wouldn't the STS perform better if it could shed <i>all</i> the foam when above most of the atmosphere? At that point the tank is being drained so fast that the increase in thermal conductivity might not matter anymore.<br /><br />What I'm after is that foam shedding wouldn't be bad if it happened in an orderly fashion, guaranteed not hitting the orbiter. If NASA folks run some flight simulations that tell it's impossible for any debris from PAL ramp to hit the orbiter then perhaps there isn't urging need to change anything.

 

[lunatic133]

Any idea how long the shuttles will remain grounded this time? Not another two and a half years I hope :-

 

[drwayne]

I think that's a question that might better be held until they have more of the data in.<br /><br />It seems clear to me that they will be fighting the clock in the sense that the longer it takes, the more "help" they will get, and the longer it will then take.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jaredgalen]

I could listen to Julie Payette all day.<br /><br />Magical indeed. I always said I liked Canada. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">The goal was to reduce the foam loss as much as possible.</font><br /><br />That sounds vague to me. I always try to avoid fuzzy goals like that when setting up projects for my organization. I have always found, in 20 years experience running projects big and small that fuzzy goal setting leads to fuzzy results, since each individual or team can and will interpret the goals in a maner to suit them, and fuzzy goal setting leads to diminishment of accountability. Hard goals such as "zero observable loss" or "99% reduction in loss of pieces greater than 1 cm in size" in my experience always work much better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Grasping at straws here, but I've been reminded of a story I wrote back in May.<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=2323<br /><br />Was the first thing that came to mind when the debris issue came up, but I've been specifically reminded of this just now via e-mail. Hmmmmm.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"TETL (Too Early to Tell), "</font><br /><br />Dang -- those NASA acronyms are getting weirder all the time. Now the letters don't even match with the words! Unless of course S_G was being kind by leaving off the last word <i>'TETL (To Early to Tell, Loser)'</i> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[lunatic133]

well we've got KISS, so engineers are not above insulting people with their acronyms <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />On a side note, KISS is a principle that the shuttle stayed vastly away from in its design *sigh*