Author Topic: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight  (Read 26968 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« on: 04/30/2006 10:02 pm »
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4474

Selected slides from a series of (SSP/MSFC/PRCB) presentations that have been on L2 for a few days. It's taken that long to produce an article out of them.

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Zachstar

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2490
  • Washington State
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #1 on: 04/30/2006 10:06 pm »
This is bad...

Real bad...

People we need to bombard congress and nasa to HOLD the flight before we do somthing we will really regret!!

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #2 on: 04/30/2006 10:07 pm »
Zach, please. I've not even published the full article yet. That's not the case at all...you'll see both sides to the story in the article.

Series of slides from L2, sorry if they aren't in order. More to follow after these couple.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #3 on: 04/30/2006 10:11 pm »
Image one: This is now to be expected on STS-121 on Option C:

Image two: What this led to at HIGHER psf (which are not psf numbers that will be reached during STS-121's ascent)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #4 on: 04/30/2006 10:14 pm »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #5 on: 04/30/2006 10:56 pm »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Jamie Young

  • This custom rank is currently being decided on
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1327
  • Denver
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 151
RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #6 on: 04/30/2006 10:59 pm »
Been following this for the past few days on L2 and that was a hell of a lot of information to take it, so thanks for the article, and thanks for taking a few days to write the article, as opposed to rushing it out.

Are you still thinking we should fly in July?

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #7 on: 04/30/2006 11:06 pm »
Quote
Jamie Young - 30/4/2006  11:59 PM


Are you still thinking we should fly in July?

Yes.

1) We're seeing due process here. That's the whole point of the article. MSFC bring their opinion to the table, NASA adds it to their consideration.

2) I trust in Wayne Hale. He has one hell of a hard job to do and you do get to the point where you wonder where the line is. He's there to draw the line.

3) There's some good points about making too many changes to the tank in one go.

4) Almost a year now, but I don't think there was all that much wrong with ET-121. The PAL ramp liberation matches a repair patch area, and I personally feel that was responsable - not a fault with the tank. Too many people I trust say that was the case, and I've seen so much evidence to prove that.

5) Space flight is risky. Doesn't matter how much you work on the tank, it's still risky. Let's go fly.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline James (Lockheed)

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Huntsville
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #8 on: 04/30/2006 11:15 pm »
As I said on L2. You wrote a balanced article and while I support the move to Option A, I think you did all sides a lot of justice there.

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #9 on: 04/30/2006 11:16 pm »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 30/4/2006  6:06 PM

Quote
Jamie Young - 30/4/2006  11:59 PM


Are you still thinking we should fly in July?

Yes.

1) We're seeing due process here. That's the whole point of the article. MSFC bring their opinion to the table, NASA adds it to their consideration.

2) I trust in Wayne Hale. He has one hell of a hard job to do and you do get to the point where you wonder where the line is. He's there to draw the line.

5) Space flight is risky. Doesn't matter how much you work on the tank, it's still risky. Let's go fly.

Those three points are exactly right.

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10390
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 1415
  • Likes Given: 171
RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #10 on: 04/30/2006 11:45 pm »
Quote
Zachstar - 30/4/2006  6:06 PM

This is bad...

Real bad...

People we need to bombard congress and nasa to HOLD the flight before we do somthing we will really regret!!

Nothing personal - but open information has a downside too... In the "old days" I'm sure many of these debates took place, some probably more heated. But nobody ever found out about them outside the inner circle. Now "everybody is an engineer" and has more insight than those in the process (check the slashdot threads on NASA if you ever doubt that.) It amazes me how quick those with no shuttle analysis time under their belt can hammer the process...

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #11 on: 05/01/2006 12:43 am »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 30/4/2006  7:06 PM
 Let's go fly.

Gotta tell me how happy I was to see these three words..:)

Offline Pete at Edwards

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #12 on: 05/01/2006 01:19 am »
Great article. Very understandable, while techincal.

Offline astrobrian

  • NSF Photographer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2922
  • Austin Texas
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 112
RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #13 on: 05/01/2006 02:16 am »
Well written, even keel, and good explanation of all the options.


Offline shuttlefan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1608
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 4
RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #14 on: 05/01/2006 02:19 am »
Love your article!!

Offline Shuttle Man

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • KSC
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #15 on: 05/01/2006 02:25 am »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 30/4/2006  6:06 PM

4) Almost a year now, but I don't think there was all that much wrong with ET-121. The PAL ramp liberation matches a repair patch area, and I personally feel that was responsable - not a fault with the tank. Too many people I trust say that was the case, and I've seen so much evidence to prove that.

Remind me?
Ex-Apollo, waiting for NASA to finish what we started.

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #16 on: 05/01/2006 02:34 am »
Quote
Shuttle Man - 1/5/2006  3:25 AM

Quote
Chris Bergin - 30/4/2006  6:06 PM

4) Almost a year now, but I don't think there was all that much wrong with ET-121. The PAL ramp liberation matches a repair patch area, and I personally feel that was responsable - not a fault with the tank. Too many people I trust say that was the case, and I've seen so much evidence to prove that.

Remind me?

Ok.

REMEMBER PEOPLE, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ET-119:

These are images from MAF (they are official images, all pointers and notes are orginal, we added nothing).

They are images of ET-121 at MAF, soon after TPS was removed to access "the crotch area/below main intertank area" and replaced, then sprayed over.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline astrobrian

  • NSF Photographer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2922
  • Austin Texas
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 112
RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #17 on: 05/01/2006 03:00 am »
that last picture is worth a thousand words. Validates the cause being the repair too.

Offline Jamie Young

  • This custom rank is currently being decided on
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1327
  • Denver
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 151
RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #18 on: 05/01/2006 03:01 am »
Wow, no one picked this up. Didn't see it on any other site??

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: MSFC claim: ET unacceptable for flight
« Reply #19 on: 05/01/2006 03:03 am »
A couple of smaller sites stole the story, but we were only a few months old then.

Anyway, let's stick with ET-119.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1