- Status
3 questions come to mind.<br /><br />What are the specific defects?<br /><br />When were they detected?<br /><br />If it was earlier, why was the issue not addressed then? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
I too do not fully understand what the problem is.<br /><br />Is it three damaged tiles on the leading edge of the wing?<br /><br />Also would this have not been discovered 7 repaired in the VAB, prior to roll out????<br /><br />Seems strange.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
From the status report "In this case, engineers already knew about three RCC panels - 9 right, 13 right and 12 left - that had small areas of coating degradation.<br /><br />Going into Discovery's launch campaign, the leading theory for the cause of the degradation was a slow process of oxidation. Using a technique known as thermography, engineers showed that the areas of concern were stable and had not worsened over the two most recent flights. Based on that, along with past experience with the panels and other test data, the orbiter project and wing leading edge subsystem engineers concluded in August that Discovery could safely be launched as is. The groups repeated that recommendation today."<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Nice man up, S_G.<br />It's nice to see someone admit when they were wrong, or at least crabby.<br />We all have days like that.<br /><br />{add +1 to S_G respect level} <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
Cheers shuttle_guy.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
If they fly, we all know what the story from the media will be throughout the mission<br /><br />A real shame aswell <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />
"The defects are hairline cracks in 3 RCC panels which have been analysised and found acceptable for flight. The flew on the last Discovery mission and they came back unchanged"<br /><br />I understand what you're saying about the analysis etc, but surely they should have replaced them before rollout, just to be on the safe side. And more so after Columbia
Thanks Dave, I was only upset about it because of the respect I have for you, via my time here, gaining more of an understanding - as I'm sure you all are here - via your answers to my newbie questions before I started NASASpaceflight.com, and your support for me starting it.<br /><br />Apology accepted with thanks.<br />Chris.
What's the price for an RCC-panel? I guess they're quite expensive, like most parts on the shuttle.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>You don't understand what L2 is. We would never put anyone at risk of this, as it is explained in the intro sections of that area of the site. We're picking up the ball PAO's dropped, we're not publishing anything SBU, ITAR, Export Controlled etc.etc. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>I don't want to further derail this thread, but I also don't want to be accused of doing a drive-by and leaving. <br /><br />Chris, I remember when you were posting here and considering building NSF. I'm amazed at how fast your site took off and grew. You deserve a lot of praise for what you've done. I do occasionally read your articles when big events are going on (tile damage, Falcon 1 failure, etc.). I find them to be informative and accessible. There is none of the "sky is falling" stuff that exists with the main stream media. Great job!<br /><br />That said, I really don't care for your forums. More specifically, it's the posters. Some of what I dislike is just the attitude. For example, you'll have someone ask a slightly off topic question. Even if it's a good question, it will be followed by a pile on of about six other posters telling them to stick to the topic. Really, who causes the bigger distraction there? It gets annoying just trying to follow a thread. Granted, I'm talking about the L1 forums, so maybe it's better on L2? I'm sure you're careful in regards to what is actually published. I still expect that a time will come that someone posts too much or comments about something they shouldn't. Showing that they have the most inside information seems to be in the nature of some of your posters. <br /><br />So please, accept a honest congratulations from me on the success of your site, but realize that at least your forums aren't for everyone. I'll happily stay here and read what <b>shuttle_guy</b> and a some of the others have to say.
Thanks, I very much appreciate your comment, Racer, especially on my news articles, as that's my main role with the site.<br /><br />I also understand the nature of forums and how certain forums are more suited to certain posters etc.etc. In fact, I wouldn't of wanted to create a clone of this site, we did aim to be different, and there's room for both, with crossover (we don't do those monster threads on the MERs for example, we're very specific to launch vehicles). <br /><br />I would also be the first person to say that you're in great hands here with Shuttle Guy, as I know only too well from the time I was here (more regularly).<br /><br />Again, thanks for your kind words and I'll also end it at that to allow this to stay on track with 120. Looking like there's a good chance of a launch in a week and a half! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Best,<br />Chris.
I understand that the cracks are just in the top coating. Can this coating be reapplied without manufacturing a whole new panel?<br /><br />If there are spares, I would have replaced the cracked ones with the spares, then get the old ones recoated, if that can be done.<br /><br />NASA's statements that "this has never been a problem before" came out with both the Challenger and the Columbia disasters. As Richard Feynman said in his excellent report on Challenger (paraphrasing) <font color="yellow">if it is not working as expected, something is wrong</font>
The main argument for repair seems to be that what the engineers thought was causing this slight damage, is infact not the cause. So basically they dont know whats causing it so have no real way of knowing if it will get worse
Great if they do, but i really cant be bothered with another media frenzy throughout the mission again
For what it's worth:<br /><br />"On Tuesday and Wednesday, a program-level flight readiness review was held at Kennedy. Space Shuttle Program managers concluded the review with a recommendation to proceed toward a targeted launch on Oct. 23. An agency-level review will take place on Oct. 16 at Kennedy, where an official launch date will be decided."<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/news/status-20071012.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>
shuttle_guy,<br /><br />Have you heard any explanation as to why the safety group did not make its conclusions known prior to this?<br /><br />In my opinion, the safety group represents the ultimate bias towards safe operations, while the launch and operations management are the people who look at risk and decide what is reasonable risk. Not the opposite of maximum safety, but putting mission goals, launch dates, payload status, crew personnel, and a 100 other things together to decide what is best. <br /><br />But there is a record of a dissenting opinion, just in case. It has been acknowledged, and examined, unlike during the Columbia mission.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
News Conference Announcement:<br /><br />10.11.07<br />Katherine Trinidad<br />Headquarters, Washington <br />202-358-3749<br />katherine.trinidad@nasa.gov<br />George Diller<br />Kennedy Space Center, Fla.<br />321-867-2468<br />george.h.diller@nasa.gov <br /><br />MEDIA ADVISORY: M07-129<br /><br />NASA ANNOUNCES NEWS CONFERENCE ON STATUS OF NEXT SHUTTLE LAUNCH<br />CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - NASA managers have scheduled a news conference <br />at the Kennedy Space Center, Fla., no earlier than 3 p.m. EDT, <br />Tuesday, Oct. 16, to discuss the status of the upcoming space shuttle <br />mission. The news conference will begin after the conclusion of the <br />Flight Readiness Review, or FRR, which is chaired by NASA's Associate <br />Administrator for Space Operations Bill Gerstenmaier.<br /><br />A two-day preliminary review to assess preparations for shuttle <br />Discovery's mission, designated STS-120, was held Oct. 9-10. Space <br />Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale chaired that meeting and will <br />provide a summary to the Oct. 16 executive-level FRR. The Oct. 16 <br />review is expected to include the selection of an official launch <br />date for Discovery's voyage to the International Space Station. The <br />current targeted launch time is 11:38 a.m. on Oct. 23.<br /><br />Briefing participants are:<br />- NASA Associate Administrator Chris Scolese<br />- Associate Administrator for Space Operations Bill Gerstenmaier<br />- Space Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale<br />- Space Shuttle Launch Director Mike Leinbach<br /><br />The briefing will be broadcast live on NASA Television and the <br />agency's Web site. Media may ask questions from participating NASA <br />locations. Reporters should contact their preferred NASA center to <br />confirm its participation.<br /><br />For NASA TV streaming video, downlink and scheduling information, <br />visit:<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/</safety_wrapper <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
Would they have rolled the stack out to the beach if they thought that the FRR would send them back to the VAB or OPF? I would think that FRR is an ongoing evaluation during several phases of shuttle preperation, not just a few days before launch. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
What is the point of the safety group if management can just overrule them? Im not saying its a wrong decision, but it makes the safety group almost pointless if their recommendations can be ignored
"I would think that FRR is an ongoing evaluation during several phases of shuttle preperation, not just a few days before launch."<br /><br />FRR is the "final" major program review (a side from the LRR/L-2 reviews). It is not a "process" in itself. It is part of the COFR processes and there are other lower level reviews that feed into it.
15 minutes till the NET time for the FRR News Conference..... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 129
-
-
-
-
The great silence: Just 4 in 10,000 galaxies may host intelligent aliens
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 98
-
SpaceX makes Starlink Roam available throughout the US
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 6
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram