NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
NASA Shuttle Specific Sections => Discovery (Post-STS-133, T&R) => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 06/20/2006 11:20 pm
-
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4569
From 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.
-
Very well explained in the article, that can't of been easy from the huge amount of data on the documents we've seen on L2.
-
I 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.
-
DaveS - 21/6/2006 12:54 AM
I 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.
Speaking of which, I'm going to write up the documents on the prepress issue next.
Who said space flight was easy? No one, cause it ain't!
-
Typical MSFC. No one knows the tanks better than MAF.
-
James (Lockheed) - 20/6/2006 8:03 PM
Typical MSFC. No one knows the tanks better than MAF.
I've heard United Space Alliance people on here saying such things like typical MSFC. What's the problem there, is it historical?
-
MSFC is known for their conservatism. It is not just with NASA at MSFC but a lot of the contractors in the area. Even on non NASA programs. Maybe it goes back to Von Braun.
-
On 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?
-
braddock - 21/6/2006 12:44 PM
On 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?
Doesn't bare thinking about - but it would be a complete nightmare.
-
Doesn't four IFR events make a clean flight impossible?
-
Go 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.)
-
rdale - 21/6/2006 12:57 PM
Go 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.)
I mean clean flight in the style of avoiding major shedding like on the last flight. Shedding that would allow the next flight to go off without a grounding. The four events that MSFC talk about are all over the maxium allowed compared to the allowable small shedding that will happen on all flights.
-
Could 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(?).
-
Running with that idea, which sounds great for keeping the shuttle going, couldn't we use the automated docking like on the Progress craft? At least I dont think they dock those manually, I could be wrong there.
-
braddock - 21/6/2006 9:29 PM
Could 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(?).
I did speak to an engineer the one time, referencing Buran, and he said it could be done, but it'd take a lot of certification = time.
-
How do you certify, if you don't fly.. there allways has to be a certification test in the real world, with multiple launches... or is paperwork .."good enough"?
-
(Edit: It is against copyright law to copy and paste. Chris). oops, sorry!!!
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4004817.html
-
Camarda wasn't against the launch
-
This is very strange. That article certainly IMPLIES that he was against the launch. It also stated that he demanded to stay on the Mission or be removed. Can someone put this into context with the "widespread dissent"?
-
http://space.com/includes/iab.html?url=/missionlaunches/060629_newtools.html
AORP is finally "out there." I saw it on NASA-TV's press conference yesterday afternoon.
-
DaveS - 20/6/2006 6:54 PM
I 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.
Well we've had two tankings and we've had shedding. Not due to launch and not associated with the ice/frost ramps but NASA did attribute it to the two tankings. See http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3125&posts=41&start=1
-
zinfab - 30/6/2006 8:25 AM
http://space.com/includes/iab.html?url=/missionlaunches/060629_newtools.html
AORP is finally "out there." I saw it on NASA-TV's press conference yesterday afternoon.
It was on this site a long time before the above. It was "out there" from that point.
-
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/ (https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/sts-121-the-hardest-launch-part-1/)
-
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/ (https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/sts-121-the-hardest-launch-part-1/)
Ugh, it is a multi-parter with a cliffhanger... :-\
-
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:
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
In my career I have been invovled in (software) safety review/approval meetings (not space-related) but nothing as safety critical as STS. On a much smaller and less critical scale I've had occassion to think hard about whether I was comfortable with known residual risks, but I can only imagine how magnified that dilemma would have been for STS-121. I can fully sympathise with all those involved - irrespective of which personal decision they made as to the acceptability of risk.
Really looking forward to Wayne's future posts (personally and professionally).
-
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:
There are no missing signatures. Page 3 is duplicated, with signatures from different days, and "Associate Administrator for Prime Mission" on page 8 is N/A because it's ISS.
-
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4569
From 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.
Here is the updated link to this article:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/06/dissent-against-sts-121-launch-was-widespread/