STS-121: Launch target May, 2006 - Griffin

[frodo1008]

I have a certain amount of skepticism myself. But what makes you and others like you always say such things anyway? Do you have some kind of magic crystal ball that no one else has? If it is legitimate and not just anti NASA feelings, then why make such general statements without any evidence at all?<br /><br />If NASA is to give up manned space flight as you and others seem to think, just how long do you think it is going to take private (for profit) efforts in human space flight for tourism sakes to even get us into LEO again? No less an expert than Burt Rutan himself (quite probably the only person to even have a real chance at this kind of effort at this time) estimates that it is going to take such efforts at least another decade. And that, like NASA's own efforts, if only with relative perfection!<br /><br />If you think that NASA can be set back far by an accident, then wait until such a thing happens with for profit operations ( and knowing the probabilities, it will happen at some point)! This is why it is going to take such operations far more time to get into LEO than it ever did governmental efforts back in the 1960's.<br /><br />So you are either even more against the manned efforts of space than askold ever was, or you just don't understand the problems involved?<br /><br />I am not trying to be nasty here, I would just like some of the negativists to realize what they are saying. <br /><br />While having some degree of relativistic skepticism myself, I will always prefer to be optimistic in this activity! After all, in the long run it IS the future of humanity on THIS planet (our Earth bound resources are NOT unlimited) that is at stake here! <br />

 

[jschaef5]

Things are starting to sound really good for the July 1st date. I hope they can keep it up and for everything to work out as planned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[askold]

Except that everything depends on the flight readiness review on 6/16:<br /><br />A decision is not expected until NASA's formal flight readiness review, a two-day discussion that begins June 16. At that point, shuttle program manager Wayne Hale said today, the engineers studying the issue will say "yes, this structure will hold together or no, it won't. And if the answer is 'no, it won't,' well, we're not going anywhere. We have some confidence that it will, but you don't know until you do the math and get the numbers."<br /><br />

 

[bpcooper]

Please provide a source or link to where that quote is from. <br /><br />http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts121/060428icefrost/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[jamie_young]

<font color="yellow">At 11:00am there will be a breifing on the status of STS-121 and the ET. It sounds like they are going to fly it as is even though many engineers are saying no. This could get interesting.<br />The breifing will be on NASAtv.<br />Good Article on it over at : http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4472" </font><br /><br />Here's why there's a large amount of people saying the tank is still a problem.<br /><br />MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4474 which is an amazing article that's been linked everywhere.<br /><br />Also, they have internal processing charts and information for STS-121 and STS-115, plus ET shipping updates etc.<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4476 which is positive news.

 

[llivinglarge]

SG, if time and money were not an issue, what changes and modifications could've been made to ET?

 

[askold]

But, they're not going to fly it if the engineers say "no" - see Hale's comment in my post, above. Nobody's going to stick their neck out. The easiest option is to not fly.

 

[llivinglarge]

I would rather lose a billion dollar ISS investment than lose a Shuttle crew...<br /><br />I SAY "**** THE ISS!"<br /><br />Let it meet the same fate as Skylab.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I would rather lose a billion dollar ISS investment than lose a Shuttle crew.</font>/i><br /><br />Obviously, since it is the astronaut's lives that are at risk, they (and their families) should have the greatest say. As long as they are given full information, I say, let them decide.<br /><br />Since there has been some recent discussion about astronauts not wanting to voice concern for fear of being punished some how, I would be interested in seeing an anonymous poll of all the astronauts (and a second poll of their families) as to <ol><li>whether they are comfortable with the safety of the Shuttle to fly in it <li>whether the value of ISS is great enough to fly ~18 more missions <li>if time/schedule wasn't a factor, would they prefer to go into orbit in the Shuttle or CEV.</li></li></li></ol></i>

 

[lbiderman]

Something tells me that you don't like the ISS.... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />Going back on subject, the engineers that made the tank said that they were allowed to express their opinion freely. They are not jelling "it's a death trap!!"<br />Not being an engineer, I believe that if people like Griffin and S_G tells me that it is OK to fly as is, probably it is.

 

[jschaef5]

It's not really an engineers decision though. The engineers get the numbers and run the tests and give the numbers to someone who hopefully has a degree or atleast knows something about risk management because the shuttle is not perfect and it's about flying it at minimal risk (while also factoring in cost and time issues). My friend is actually going to college for actuarial science/risk management while I am going for engineering and we have varying views on stuff like this quite often. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[askold]

"It's not really an engineers decision though."<br /><br />Listen to what Hale is saying: "Wayne Hale said today, the engineers studying the issue will say "yes, this structure will hold together or no, it won't. And if the answer is 'no, it won't,' well, we're not going anywhere." "<br /> <br />NASA management is not going to step up to the plate and make an executive decision. They're going to let the engineers make the call.

 

[jschaef5]

Yes but I am refering to the decision to fly at all without the ice ramp... the huge discussion last thursday...<br /><br />Duh this one will be an engineer decision, they can't fly it if it won't hold up... ha<br /><br />But the decision to try and fly without a fixed ice frost ramp was a huge risk anaylsis decision based on the engineers data. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

As I have said (and I think that you agreed) they either fly THIS year, or dump the shuttle program entirely. <br /><br />If they do this it is still going to take at least some money to finish the ISS, as they are going to have to find some way to get the rest of the equipment that has already been built for the ISS, and only awaits launching up the to the ISS. There is at least several billion dollars worth of such equipment stored at the Cape. <br /><br />Also, as we would then not fly the shuttle it is still going to take at least some six to seven years before we would have a vehicle capable of taking at least four people (and even better at least six people) up to the ISS. That is going to be a whole lot of Soyuz flights! The bullk of which are going to hav eto be paid for by the US.<br /><br />So I would really expect that NASA is going to fly the next flight this year (maybe not July, but absolutely by December 31!) regardless of what external tank problems remain! And as I also stated before, they will be going up to the relatively safe haven of the ISS anyway, so I don't see why they couldn't get at least one flight up this year. If they don't the American taxpayer is not going to want to pay for ANY more shuttle flights, and will quite probably let his congressional representative know this!<br /><br />So it is NOT just going to be an engineering decision, it IS going to have to be a program decision!

 

[llivinglarge]

Does the CEV and HDLV have the ability to finish the ISS if the Shuttle fails?

 

[askold]

"So it is NOT just going to be an engineering decision, it IS going to have to be a program decision!"<br /><br />We'll see.<br /><br />I think the decision-making process leading up to the shuttle launch (or lack of a launch) is going to be more interesting than the decison itself. Rather than aggregating information up and making the decision at the top, I think NASA is going to drive the decision downward - until it's in the hands of the lowly engineers.<br /><br />And, of course, they're going to say no, becasue engineers are risk-averse by nature.<br /><br />In the next 2 months were going to learn if there's any leadership left at NASA, or not.

 

[drwayne]

So the tanking for the flight becomes the test in that scenario?<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]

"that did not understand how dangerious the test was. "<br /><br />Why do I find that both surprising and not at the same time?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[montmein69]

>as they are going to have to find some way to get the rest <br /> /> of the equipment that has already been built for the ISS,<br /><br />I'm affraid there is no solution especially for the european and japanese laboratories.<br />Big mass, big diameter and no system to automatically mate to the ISS.<br />The construction of the ISS is definitly depending on the Shuttle flights.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I am definitely in agreement that the shuttle SHOULD fly and finish the ISS! <br /><br />All I am saying is that I am willing that if NASA does drop the ball here to see it picked up elsewhere. If it came down to either finishing the station with some other means than the shuttle, or not ever finishing the station at all, a means would be found to finish the station! Pehaps not right away nor at any savings at all over the shuttle, but it would be done as too much has already been invested for the powers that be to admit to such a hugh mistake!<br /><br />Where there is a will (and there certainly would be that) there will be a way!

 

[erioladastra]

<br />Unfortunately no. There really is no other way in under N years where N would be large. And the money would be huge as well. The ESA and JAXA programs are hanging on by a thread. This is why NASA is killing itself to move their modules up one flight (you have no idea how much pain and risk that adds to the assembly of ISS). One whole flight. If they don't go soon their programs would very likely kill the modules. With the modules killed their would be no "agreement" driving ISS to completion. You also have to keep in mind that saying you will wait 5 years for someone to develop the means of launching the modules doesn't help either because ISS will be breaking down as well and by the time you got something up, even private financed, you would be to near the end of ISS life to get a reasonable return.

 

[frodo1008]

Then if the ISS is truly that delicate, and the shutttles are too then, perhaps those of us that have always supported these programs and NASA itself were indeed wrong to do so!<br /><br />If the shuttle can't continue and take the rest of the ISS up, and the ISS itself is doomed because of that, then the entire program has indeed been a sham, and we really should disband NASA entirely and turn the whole thing over to people like Burt Rutan.<br /><br />I have no problem with this as long as humanity is still going to get into space and start to truly exploit the resources of the moon and nearby objects to go even further out into the solar system. It would be fine by me! And I HAVE made that statement before!<br /><br />But I really would feel sad for all those that have put their very lives and livelyhoods on the line for these programs! <br /><br />Not only that but this would mean that NASA HAS to fly the shuttles even if the engineers feel it is unsafe to do so, as NASA's very existance is on the line here!<br /><br />So I do indeed find it very difficult to believe that the situation without the shuttle is as bleak a you say it is, without the shuttle there would then be no NASA and no way to even begin to finish the ISS, and as it stands now it might as well be either totally turned over to the Russians, or even brought down as some of the most negative people on these boardss have said!!<br /><br />I don't like saying these things, but as well as being a left over technological dreamer from the 1960's I am also far too much of a realist not to say them!

 

[drwayne]

Why does that sounds like management I have worked for?<br /><br />One year, for a while, there was a test flight scheduled at WSMR for December 23....<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>All I am saying is that I am willing that if NASA does drop the ball here to see it picked up elsewhere. If it came down to either finishing the station with some other means than the shuttle, or not ever finishing the station at all, a means would be found to finish the station!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I continue to believe that, short of another catastrophic failure of the STS, it will see out the core completion of ISS. Another four years of relatively 'trouble-free' operations will generate the kind of data-set to inspire confidence in Shuttle.<br /><br />If they are a couple of missions shy of getting the work done, I believe they will risk it and keep flying. The money will be found, and no doubt there will still be plenty of volunteers in the Astronaut Office. It's the next RTF mission and the 2-3 following that are going to be the critical ones for ISS. Get the foam under some kind of control and I believe we're good to go right through to Core Complete. <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>

 

[frodo1008]

For NASA's Sake I certainly hipe so! God knows there are enough critics ready to kill the entire program!