STS-121 Update Thread: Part Two

[earth_bound_misfit]

SG must be busy, no updates for a while.<br />Less than two weeks till lift off, I can't wait. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>No-go from 2 senior managers, but the mission's going to fly. Good idea or not? CYA or a real concern?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well, it always has to be a concern when there are discenting voices, but it does show that the process appears 'healthier' than in times past. Mission managers are encouraged to speak frankly now, without fear of retribution, and these two have.<br /><br />I think it's good. Everybody making the decisions have been on the same page in terms knowing all the concerns. Had everyone been in the loop with Challenger, we might have had a greatly different outcome. With this launch, all the factors for and against are known to everybody. It's been a good decision in my view. <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>

 

[askold]

".. but it does show that the process appears 'healthier' than in times past.."<br /><br />Oh yeah?<br /><br />From the Presidential Commision on the Challenger accident:<br /><br />" ... That testimony reveals failures in communication that resulted in a decision to launch 51-L based on incomplete and sometimes misleading information, a conflict between engineering data and management judgments, ..."<br /><br />Nothing has changed - the engineers don't want to go, but the managers do.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"Nothing has changed - the engineers don't want to go, but the managers do."</font><br /><br />I saw a news conference yesterday on C-SPAN where Dr. Griffin was asked a question implying that the foam falling off was a problem for ascent and he responded by pointing out that it was not a problem with ascent, but a problem with entry. He also pointed out that Discovery is going to the safe haven of the ISS and there are contingencies for inspection, repair and possible rescue that did not exist at the time of Columbia which mitigate the dangers to the crew of Discovery.<br /><br />Apparently, it was his decision to override the engineers. Of course, <b><i>he</i></b> is an engineer as well so I'm not sure that your statement is as relevant as it might have been in the case of the Columbia mission.<br /><br />He also stated that should another Orbiter be lost he would be one of those calling for shutdown of the STS program. I think his attitude is let's get this show on the road and get ISS built or else give up entirely and move on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Well, that's your interpretation of it. The way I see it, two engineers expressed their opinion in the negative for launch. I assume a great many more than two have expressed their opinion in the affirmative for launch.<br /><br />As the Challenger Commission pointed out, not everyone was in the loop at that time and the decision was taken to launch. It would appear to me that such a situation no longer exists. <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>

 

[askold]

I saw the same new conference. It did not inspire confidence.<br /><br />Dr. Griffin seems to be operating under the principle that they may lose the <b>vehicle</b> but not the <b>crew</b> - because the ISS is a safe haven, etc. He made that point repeatedly.<br /><br />Unfortuately, there are many ways to lose the vehicle on ascent - the last accident that happened is not the only accident that can happen. It's time to retire this dinosaur.

 

[montmein69]

> He (Dr Griffin) also pointed out that Discovery is going to <br /> /> the safe haven of the ISS and there are contingencies for <br /> /> inspection, repair and possible rescue that did not exist at <br /> /> the time of Columbia which mitigate the dangers to the <br /> /> crew of Discovery. <br /><br />What should happen if there is a problem with the foam during the launch of STS 121 .... if the design of the ET of Atlantis (the rescue mission) is exactly the same as Discovery's ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">I saw a news conference yesterday on C-SPAN where Dr. Griffin was asked a question implying that the foam falling off was a problem for ascent and he responded by pointing out that it was not a problem with ascent, but a problem with entry. He also pointed out that Discovery is going to the safe haven of the ISS and there are contingencies for inspection, repair and possible rescue that did not exist at the time of Columbia which mitigate the dangers to the crew of Discovery.<br /></font><br /><br />I hope they're taking foam molds of everyone on the mission up there, just incase the ruskies have to come rescue. They probably should also limit all future crews to four, just in case.

 

[baktothemoon]

How would they get seven people off the ISS without the shuttle? Send up three Soyuz? That would take months.

 

[nacnud]

Yes, send up Soyuzs. Remeber the quicker you can get people off the ISS the longer the remaining supplies will last. Currently I think there is roughtly 90 days worth of consumables on the ISS for 9ish people. This doesn't include the elektron for oxygen.<br /><br />

 

[jschaef5]

only 90 days worth of consumables is why they have an STS-300. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

It don't have a problem with taking time to solve a problem, but at some point you have to simply try it. I'm surprised the seagull collision hasn't set things back even further, at least it wasn't an endangered species.<br /><br />If they spend this much time between every launch they might as well just pull the plug and devote all their energy to Shuttle 2.0. Two or three missions will be a huge waste of time and money. <br /><br />I say start speeding things up, three ships should be able to do at least six flights a year or maybe more. The successful launches over a number of years should out-weigh the anal retentive fear of failure that has existed since Columbia. If we don't intend to really try, why waste the money? If we lose another Shuttle Griffins absolutely right, but that's a risk any NASA crewmember has understood since well before Shuttle.<br /><br />The real challenge is developing vehicles with risk closer to airliners. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[subzero788]

I don't think rescue by Soyuz is very likely for a number of reasons. <br /><br />Firstly, none of the shuttle astronauts are qualitfied Soyuz pilots, or have even done any training in the Soyuz (with the exception of Reiter?). Now I assume this could be waved in such an life-or-death emergency.<br /><br />Much more critical is the fact that the Russians wouldn't have the ability to launch 3 soyuz in 90 days. Even is this is logistically possible, I doubt they could have an additional 3 vehicles ready in time. Remember there are only 2 Soyuz launches a year and one has already been this year--so at most they might have one Soyuz that could be ready in time. (By mid-2007 I believe they plan to kept one Soyuz in reserve at all times).

 

[erioladastra]

"Firstly, none of the shuttle astronauts are qualitfied Soyuz pilots, or have even done any training in the Soyuz (with the exception of Reiter?). Now I assume this could be waved in such an life-or-death emergency. "<br /><br />You can't launch and dock a Soyuz without a pilot. As to waiving, it is not a matter of waiving, but that would be like telling Joe the Plumber, its life or death, land the 747. Not that easy.

 

[norm103]

i thoght the souzy docked by the gound like the progess. isnt that why we were bring back the russna computers from mir.

 

[nibb31]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />You can't launch and dock a Soyuz without a pilot. As to waiving, it is not a matter of waiving, but that would be like telling Joe the Plumber, its life or death, land the 747. Not that easy.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />They wouldn't be required to launch and dock, only undock and land. The landing is automatic. Also they would have one month to go through a crash course and a check list and get familiarized with the machine. American astronauts are pretty smart guys, I'm sure they could handle it.

 

[haywood]

Question for SG.<br />Since the mechanism for ET foam cracking due to ET expansion and contraction during tanking/draining is better known now, has this affected the decision to tank or not to tank based on weather contraints?<br /><br />Would you be less likely to tank now, if the weather was going to be marginal, than before?<br />

 

[haywood]

Thanks SG.<br /><br />I was wondering just how much the new knowledge had altered their thinking.<br /><br /><br />Guess that answers it.

 

[scottb50]

Why is this new knowledge? You fill a tank it expands outward and the foam compresses, not a problem. Fill the tank and drain it, the tank shrinks and pulls the supercooled foam either cracking it or debonding it.<br /><br />How long could you keep the tanks full? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

As I understand it (warning, I have a headache and am not thinking all that clearly) it's not the expansion/contraction of the tank that's the problem; it's the formation of liquid gasses in the foam itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

That has been the working theory. I wonder if they have tracked the number of times thetank as been loaded and reloaded for launches. Might be interesting.<br /><br />I keep thinking about the foam ice chests that you buy, they seem to work just great until they crack, then the cracks propogate. The foam is stiff and breaks when bent. I would thing air bubbles and such would not be good but unless they were localized I don't see a lot of affects. Foam pretty much implies air pockets anyway, that's why it's so light and insulates so well.<br /><br />Put 1.4 million pounds of LOX in a tank it's going to expand, even before it is pressurized, the foam has to expand also and being fairly brittle to begin with the lowered temperatures would only make it more so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[steve82]

Strange Happenings at JSC.<br /><br />Charles Carmada, STS-114 astronaut and recently director of engineering, has been fired/relieved/transferred or whatever you want to call it from his duties as director of engineering. He won't be on the STS-121 MMT. Lots of emails flying about and "official" denials that it has anything to do with anybody's position at the FRR or any other gossip. Very bad timing whatever it is:<br /><br /> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4004817.html

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">The weather for Saturday is predicted to be 60% go worse on Sunday.</font><br /><br />Sunday or Monday is better, anyway. That way I can be there to wear my lucky hat. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"The Soyuz and Progress have a auto docking capability, which the primary mode used. The Soyuz has a human pilot as a backup. "<br /><br />Correct - but I would sincerely doubt Russia would launch an unmanned Soyuz. They are already worried that they won't have enough pilots when we go to 2 Soyuz on ISS. Even in a dire situation I would be willing to bet they wouldn't do it. But lets hope we don't face this.

 

[gofer]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> There are no spare Soyuz vehicles just sitting around as spares. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Right. However, current tooling can have up to 4 spacecraft in the pipeline at the same time (components permitting, some of the very archaic components for the Soyuz are becoming hard to come by) Keep in mind, the lead time for each ship is at least 180 days (provided there are enough components). <br /><br />The Samara plant can crank out the Soyuz-U LVs to launch those ships pretty fast. <br /><br />All it takes is marginally more cash. Wink wink <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />The FSA is trying to procure more for this currently. Via tourists and/or other state astronauts (e.g. Malaysian) More than 4 Soyuz per year would indeed require heavy capital investment in tooling lines and ground support personnel.<br /><br />(sorry for the offtop)<br />