STS-121: Launch target May, 2006 - Griffin

[askold]

Does anybody know what he really said!?!? Or meant?<br /><br />The poster claims: Launch target May, 2006.<br /><br />NASAspaceflight says: Discovery set for May launch, and: he expects STS-121 to launch in May, 2006, and "We're looking at May," <br /><br />The Washington Post says: Michael D. Griffin said yesterday the next space shuttle flight will probably not launch until May 2006<br /><br />Is it "set", a "target", "we're looking", "expects" or "probably"? Lord, this statement is getting more spin than a Whitehouse briefing ...

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Easy, one is a quote from Griffin, one is a writer.<br /><br />We used Griffin - so that's actually what he said. "We're looking at May."<br /><br />American media tend to want to have the writer tell you the story. We let the quotes do the talking. Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[askold]

That does clear it up.<br /><br />Then maybe your post subject should be "We're looking at May - Griffin" and not "Launch target May - Griffin".<br /><br />While all human languages are somewhat imprecise, I think that "target" denotes more certainty than "we're looking".<br /><br />I may be looking to lose 10 lbs by Thanksgiving, but saddly, it's not a target.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

So you're not targetting a loss of 10lbs by Thanksgiving? <br /><br />You note that you "may" - a dilution of your statement - have the potential of losing the 10lbs, as you note.<br /><br />There was no "We may be looking at May" quote from Griffin. He said "We ARE (we're)" - automatically a positive.<br /><br />I don't wish to put a negative or positive stance on a straight quote from Griffin as I have no grounds to do so - and we don't do opinion, we do news. <br /><br />PS All the best with STS-Askold (WL)'s Thanksgiving Mission <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[askold]

Not to put a too-fine point on it ...., but - Griffin would serve his cause better by being more plain-speaking. Nobody talks like this in the real world:<br /><br />We're looking at Rita to be no less than a category 1 storm ...<br /><br />I'll pick you up for dinner not earlier than 5:00 ....

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Well he's a rocket scientist with more degrees than me and my five mates who all went to Uni have <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. It might be a bit unfair to pick on issues of presentational grammar.<br /><br />Have to add that I do like him - from a media standpoint (I like him already from a "running NASA" standpoint). There's a few managers, engineers and astronauts who really come across as accessible and give good quote stock for different reasons. Griffin is very quotable.<br /><br />Commander Eileen Collins is excellent - perfect for the media during the high-profile STS-114.<br /><br />Commander Steve Lindsey (STS-121) - has already come out with some excellent comments around the time he was on stand-by for STS-300.<br /><br />Flight Director Paul Hill. Brilliant - right down the barrel (as we say) during STS-114 (and at the end of his working day when I'm sure his bed was more appealing than a press conference).<br /><br />And Griffin - who we have to remember is not a PR guy. He does come out with some technical terminology that I'm sure goes over the heads of half the media in attendance (note the press conference on RCC leading edge repair techniques), but he's really proving to be a decent speaker, especially compared to his opening conference when he took over the role.<br /><br />Of course, that's got nothing to do with their actual jobs (some argue dealing with the media is, but we should cut them some slack on that issue)....so I'm just adding this as how they come across purely to the media, imho.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>The target date will be set by the PRCB "Program Requirements Change Board" which is the official approval process. <<br /><br />Can I ask what the usual timeline is for the PRCB to carry out such a task?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>They meet once a week to review change requests.<<br /><br />Interesting. Didn't know that. Thanks.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>As for Gap Fillers:<br />The program gave us some new requirements on how to install gap fillers including a better test method to ensure they are properly bonded.<<br /><br />Shot in the dark, but this just came up on the wires and I'm just throwing it your way to see if by chance it's Gap Filler related, that you know of?<br /><br /> />Epoxy Adhesive passes NASA outgassing tests<<br />http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/467211/rss/1

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Thanks, that would be very much appreciated.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

> NASA managers will brief media about the status of the Space Shuttle Program<br />at noon EDT, Friday, Oct. 14. The news conference is live on NASA TV and the Web<br />from the Johnson Space Center, Houston. <<br /><br />Fantastic.<br /><br />Couple of questions for you SG:<br /><br />1) Is there a date being mentioned for the estimated departure of ET-120 and arrival of ET-119 and ET-120? I take it that both ET-119 (for STS-121) and ET-120 (for Atlantis' STS-300 requirement) have to be back and ready at KSC for Discovery's launch?<br /><br />2) The 2005/06 Manifest has STS-121 and STS-115 listed with specific target dates, but no mention of the third (which I'm assuming will be Endeavour - given the mentions before of "being processed for a launch late in 2006). The speculation is it wasn't listed as they won't be able to note a "no sooner than date" until STS-121 gets closer to a finalised window?<br /><br />Thanks.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Bumping the question <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Thanks, I am trying to catchup with all the posts, I have not even had time for dinner yet !<<br /><br />Price of fame, Dave. Wait till they get you signing your autograph on to T-shirts and random USA mechandise <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Had to bump this as it fell to page three, not shocking given the interest in the STS program on here......zero.<br /><br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>From the PRCB briefings scheduled for today: <<br /><br />Cool.<br /><br /> />ET-119 will fly on STS-121<br />Current delivery date of the ET to KSC does not support the opening of the May window<br />but may support the middle of the window). <<br /><br />Interesting. I've seen all this (what you posted, linked up and copied over to our forum) and I asked MAF. They say that's nothing to do with them, they'll get ET-119 back well in time to support the May launch. Now that could be a case of "don't look at us" and/or the effect the ET-120 return date will have for STS-301 requirements.<br /><br /> />ET-120 will fly on STS-115/301 in July. (LON (STS-301) is estimated to be NLT 60 days<br />after STS-121 based on ISS consumables for 9 people. <<br /><br />Then they say ET-120 will make the July window, so now I'm a bit confused to the problem with the start of the May window. Notice they switched back again on the STS-300 (was 301, then back to 300 because 300 wasn't used, now back to 301).<br /><br /> />Next launch window after July is in August. Then possibly as late as March 2007 due to ET and<br />Orbiter on orbit photo requirements. <<br /><br />Ok, so there's a window for STS-115 in August if July isn't reached. But then they say March 2007...because....<br /><br /> />OV-105 launch NET Oct 1, 2006 (schedule is threatened by budget and man power)<br />Also the Oct. launch window may not be usable due to ET and Orbiter photo requirements.<<br /><br />Budget and man power! That's going to need explaining on the press conference. Chances of any of the media asking the question are slim I bet <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br /> />4 in CY 2006<br />6 in CY 2007 <<br /><br />Why would they say four, when they point to an absolute maximum of three - and the third being unlikely?<br /><br />Six in 2007 - but do they have the cash, given they feel they are short on cash for making three in 2006.<br /><br />And this:<br /><br /> />Possible plan to end of the program:

 

[spaceiscool]

"<br />Had to bump this as it feel to page three, not shocking given the interest in the STS program on here......zero."<br /><br />So stop boring us with questions about these rusting death traps. People who like Shuttles are sad and ned to get a live. You and Shuttle Guy might as well PM coz interest in shuttles is like taking interest in terrorists coz they both kill for money.

 

[nacnud]

Thanks for that eloquent and informative post <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I'd love to answer that post of yours, Spaceiscool. However, I don't speak fluent ****, so I'll have to pass.

 

[spayss]

Askold:<br /><br />"Not to put a too-fine point on it ...., but - Griffin would serve his cause better by being more plain-speaking. Nobody talks like this in the real world: <br /><br />We're looking at Rita to be no less than a category 1 storm ... <br /><br />I'll pick you up for dinner not earlier than 5:00 .... "<br /><br /> So true. I thought the 'target' date was March. I guess if one is nebulous then there is no expectation of results. No accountability. Will May be July? NASA is setting itself up for some fat trimming by Congress. I suppose if you put a 'safety' label on everything then incompetency is forgiven.

 

[yurkin]

Nasa aims for May Shuttle Launch<br />CNN<br /><br />"It appears that the May launch window is something that we can begin to work toward now," said Wayne Hale, the shuttle program manager.<br />

 

[giofx]

thanks for the updates sg!

 

[spaceiscool]

maybe well care when you say these death traps are being put under a circular saw.

 

[dobbins]

He's trolling to get a reaction out of you, his goal is to disrupt the board rather than contribute to it. When you reply to his garbage you are giving him what he wants. Trolls are even lower on the food chain than Spammers who are just deadbeats that are too cheap to pay for ads.<br /><br />

 

[erioladastra]

Actually, he won't even reply to specific questions or post specific data; he just rants. So don't let him get to you and just ignore his posts like I do.

 

[henryhallam]

Thanks for these updates Dave, they're very interesting.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Will bring plan to PRCB on how to instrument T-0 umbilical to close out IAT concerns; have agreement in community that we have correct instrumentation set to validate finite element model and understand motions of plates; is half million investment </font><br /><br />Can you tell us what these IAT concerns are/were? I don't even know what IAT stands for <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[drwayne]

Fascinating.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>