DaveS - 21/6/2006 12:54 AMI just hope that we'll only see one tanking of ET-119 as we all know what MAF found when examining ET-120 which had two tankings.
James (Lockheed) - 20/6/2006 8:03 PMTypical MSFC. No one knows the tanks better than MAF.
braddock - 21/6/2006 12:44 PMOn Saturday, Griffin said "If we have another major incident in launching a Space Shuttle, I would not wish to continue with the program."how major was left in the air, but loss of vehicle qualified:"If we were to lose another vehicle, I will tell you right now that I would be moving to figure out a way to shut the program down. I think at that point, we are done."If STS-121 is the last flight for some reason, HOW could the Shuttle program be shut down and transitioned to VSE? I assume NASA would have to pay off the USA contractors for early termination...would that be billions?What can those 14,000 Shuttle people do in the VSE when the designs aren't even inked? Or do we just lose all the infrastructure and start over in four years?
rdale - 21/6/2006 12:57 PMGo back to Wayne Hale's last conference - there will never be a clean flight. Clean flights are not the goal. Safe flights are, and most involved think that's possible (and likely.)
braddock - 21/6/2006 9:29 PMCould we adapt the Shuttle to be an unmanned vehicle to ferry all that ISS hardware up, instead of killing the program? I'm sure it wouldn't be easy, but considering the billions upon billions which would be wasted otherwise, a $100 million into robust automation sounds pretty good...an ISS resident could even hop over into the nearby shuttle with a short spacewalk and dock it manually, which would be the hardest part to automate(?).
DaveS - 20/6/2006 6:54 PMI just hope that we'll only see one tanking of ET-119 as we all know what MAF found when examining ET-120 which had two tankings.
zinfab - 30/6/2006 8:25 AMhttp://space.com/includes/iab.html?url=/missionlaunches/060629_newtools.htmlAORP is finally "out there." I saw it on NASA-TV's press conference yesterday afternoon.
I know this is a very old thread, but Wayne Hale has now started a series of blog posts about the STS-121 launch decision:https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/sts-121-the-hardest-launch-part-1/
I remain no go based on potential loss of vehicle however for this mission I have no intention to appeal the decision based upon ISS capability to provide CSCS
I am no go based on loss of vehicle risk (ice frost ramps). Based on appeal to administrator I have no intention to appeal his risk acceptance and concur with proceeding with the mission
I hadn't realised that the doc Wayne references (attached to this post) is the STS-121 certificate of flight readiness with missing signatures (don't know how normal that was) and caveated signatures:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4569From a series of PRCB, SCIM and FRR documents on L2 - and there's likely to be more articles to come as we're still going through some other areas (not foam) for the next article.