Author Topic: STS-120 FRR for October 23 launch date (Read 27712 times)

Chris Bergin · « **on:** 10/16/2007 05:37 pm »

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5255 - based on L2 live info.

Will be an approval for launch on October 23 very soon. Flight rationale for the RCC issue has been approved.

dsmillman · « **Reply #1 on:** 10/16/2007 06:51 pm »

Has the FRR ended? Will the press conference start at 3PM?

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #2 on:** 10/16/2007 06:52 pm »

Might be a bit late. They need to get their slides and such ready.

Looks like we'll have to ensure this god-awful NASA TV, which is currently showing a dodgy video on Delta II with a terrible soundtrack :bleh:

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #3 on:** 10/16/2007 07:03 pm »

Going to be on NASA TV at 4pm.

ChrisC · « **Reply #4 on:** 10/16/2007 07:22 pm »

Thanks Chris for the update, which allows me to go work on something else until 4pm

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #5 on:** 10/16/2007 07:32 pm »

Will be later than that. Might be about 5:30pm now.

Ford Mustang · « **Reply #6 on:** 10/16/2007 09:32 pm »

Now NET 6:00 PM EDT.

Johnny Rönnberg · « **Reply #7 on:** 10/16/2007 09:48 pm »

Now NET 6:30 PM EDT.

ChrisC · « **Reply #8 on:** 10/16/2007 09:55 pm »

Thanks guys! You're helping me make more decisions

Writer · « **Reply #9 on:** 10/16/2007 10:02 pm »

Won't be until about 7pm ish. Lots of yawning here.

mtakala24 · « **Reply #10 on:** 10/16/2007 10:19 pm »

Yawning here too, its soon 01:30am and eagerly waiting to hear the news. I'm prepared to wait untill 03:00am

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #11 on:** 10/16/2007 10:34 pm »

PAO don't have the man hours to go much further, one of the reporters at KSC noted, so probably will be tomorrow for the presser. Plus the FRR guys will be getting tired for sure.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #12 on:** 10/16/2007 10:41 pm »

Ooo, looks like they are going for it at 7:30-8pm ish, but will be tonight.

Ford Mustang · « **Reply #13 on:** 10/16/2007 11:11 pm »

NET 8 PM EDT now.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #14 on:** 10/16/2007 11:17 pm »

Well,

After watching the bilge that NASA TV now has on I am reassured that there could be not possibly be any funding problems. Otherwise they wouldn't have wasted my tax money on such a piece of garbage.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #15 on:** 10/16/2007 11:45 pm »

40 minutes yet, is the latest (8:30pm).

ChrisGebhardt · « **Reply #16 on:** 10/16/2007 11:57 pm »

Are they still in the meeting or are we just waiting for the PAO office to get all the slides and presentations in order?

landofgrey · « **Reply #17 on:** 10/17/2007 12:01 am »

When Discovery rolled out to the pad, NASA planned on having a pad viewing media opportunity that morning. Since rollout was delayed and didn't start until about the time we were all supposed to be there for the viewing, PAO closed up shop when Discovery was only about halfway to the pad and kicked us all out... no pad viewing. The explanation I was given was that it was due to employee overtime hours. There's definitely funding concerns for now and the near-term future. Everyone's posturing for the end of shuttle in 3 years.

landofgrey · « **Reply #18 on:** 10/17/2007 12:03 am »

post-meeting discussions, then they get all the materials, if there are any, ready for the briefing, then deliver the material to the PA TV guys and web team and get it all prepped, then everyone drives over to the News Center and then the brieefing will start. It takes up to about an hour sometimes, almost as long as my run-on sentences.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #19 on:** 10/17/2007 12:16 am »

The FRR is over...and it's the 23rd as noted.

When the presser will be......about 8:45 ish.

I think they will go as "not unanimous" because of the stink NESC kicked up, a bit like 121 (not that it was NESC that time).

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #20 on:** 10/17/2007 12:20 am »

Coming up any moment.

Scolese, Hale, Gerst, Coats at the presser.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #21 on:** 10/17/2007 12:35 am »

Chief Engineer - who is related to NESC - dissented launch.

ChrisC · « **Reply #22 on:** 10/17/2007 12:37 am »

Is this going to be on the media channel only, or public channel also?

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #23 on:** 10/17/2007 12:40 am »

Quote

ChrisC - 17/10/2007 1:37 AM

Is this going to be on the media channel only, or public channel also?

Good question. Everyone keep your eyes peeled. Apparently there's only Bill Harwood and Todd from Florida Today there! At least the questions will be good as a result.

Ford Mustang · « **Reply #24 on:** 10/17/2007 12:41 am »

rcaron · « **Reply #25 on:** 10/17/2007 12:42 am »

Public/DirectTV just went to the FRR slide. Finally!

ChrisGebhardt · « **Reply #26 on:** 10/17/2007 12:42 am »

IT's up on the public channel.

Andy_Small · « **Reply #27 on:** 10/17/2007 12:42 am »

yeah it looks like both Public and Media

Ford Mustang · « **Reply #28 on:** 10/17/2007 12:45 am »

Andy_Small · « **Reply #29 on:** 10/17/2007 12:46 am »

poor guys all look tired

psloss · « **Reply #30 on:** 10/17/2007 12:47 am »

Quote

Andy_Small - 16/10/2007 8:46 PM

poor guys all look tired

Probably because they are...

ChrisC · « **Reply #31 on:** 10/17/2007 12:47 am »

Just to note it, it's on both public and media channels. I had a lipsync problem on the media channel, which went away when I switched to the public channel (Windows Media feeds).

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #32 on:** 10/17/2007 12:47 am »

There's a few more journalist there I see. They've pulled Ralph Roe out there! :cool:

psloss · « **Reply #33 on:** 10/17/2007 12:49 am »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 16/10/2007 8:47 PM

There's a few more journalist there I see. They've pulled Ralph Roe out there! :cool:

I dunno -- there are often NASA staff in the seats, and more seats available especially as media interest wanes.

psloss · « **Reply #34 on:** 10/17/2007 12:51 am »

Hale now talking about the RCC issue...I think he said that NESC came forward in May...

psloss · « **Reply #35 on:** 10/17/2007 12:57 am »

Ralph Roe noting what Wayne Hale mentioned earlier, that they discussed the RCC issue for at least four hours last week and today...

Ford Mustang · « **Reply #36 on:** 10/17/2007 01:01 am »

Now posted on the NASA.gov STS-120 page:

Discovery is "go" for launch on Oct. 23, with a liftoff time of 11:38 a.m. EDT.

psloss · « **Reply #37 on:** 10/17/2007 01:07 am »

They may be tired, but they're all hanging in there -- the questions and answers aren't short.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #38 on:** 10/17/2007 01:19 am »

The other issue...

..maybe the Advanced Master Events Controller? Guessing from the presentations we have on L2.

psloss · « **Reply #39 on:** 10/17/2007 01:24 am »

These are all long answers, but the 30,000 foot descriptions are helpful. Now throwing the questions to JSC.

Ford Mustang · « **Reply #40 on:** 10/17/2007 01:26 am »

Would take 60 days to do a replacement, and they do have replacement panels, although they are not going to replace them.

psloss · « **Reply #41 on:** 10/17/2007 01:28 am »

Gerstenmeier says they have other panels on other vehicles that have similar measurements, but the question is what should the criteria be for what action...

psloss · « **Reply #42 on:** 10/17/2007 01:32 am »

Good philosophical answer from Hale to Harwood's question: engineers like to have agreed upon rules, but they are still trying to make the rules for this...

psloss · « **Reply #43 on:** 10/17/2007 01:35 am »

Conference over.

Ford Mustang · « **Reply #44 on:** 10/17/2007 01:35 am »

Concluded. Go for launch. Great questions by media, IMO.

shuttlefan · « **Reply #45 on:** 10/17/2007 01:37 am »

So they ARE flying with something they don't understand fully??

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #46 on:** 10/17/2007 01:37 am »

Some key questions were missing there. For one, the NESC comparison on data not being Discovery specific, but a comparison to another vehicle, etc.

psloss · « **Reply #47 on:** 10/17/2007 01:38 am »

Unsurprisingly, Harwood was the only one to press them to explain and the answers improved from start to end.

ChrisC · « **Reply #48 on:** 10/17/2007 01:38 am »

I'd like to know what book Hale was referring to. It sounded like a book about engineering management, written by Diane somebody. I'll see if I can figure it out once John44 upload's his video file.

Ford Mustang · « **Reply #49 on:** 10/17/2007 01:39 am »

Quote

shuttlefan - 16/10/2007 9:37 PM

So they ARE flying with something they don't understand fully??

I believe so. They have an acceptable risk, which is what every shuttle flies with. This is a new program that they are using to look at the RCC panels, and they are still getting used to it.

Flightstar · « **Reply #50 on:** 10/17/2007 01:41 am »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 16/10/2007 8:37 PM

Some key questions were missing there. For one, the NESC comparison on data not being Discovery specific, but a comparison to another vehicle, etc.

No big deal as you already had answered by quotes earlier.

psloss · « **Reply #51 on:** 10/17/2007 01:42 am »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 16/10/2007 9:37 PM

Some key questions were missing there. For one, the NESC comparison on data not being Discovery specific, but a comparison to another vehicle, etc.

I need to go back and re-read the presentations again, but that one note by Gerstenmeier about other panels on other orbiters possibly having this 0.2 measurement is one of the reasons. (Of course, there's also the question of what the measurement means...)

Seattle Dave · « **Reply #52 on:** 10/17/2007 01:42 am »

Some media are going to be negative about it all, but Hale, and especially Gerst, did a good job.

Jorge · « **Reply #53 on:** 10/17/2007 01:43 am »

Quote

ChrisC - 16/10/2007 8:38 PM

I'd like to know what book Hale was referring to. It sounded like a book about engineering management, written by Diane somebody. I'll see if I can figure it out once John44 upload's his video file.

http://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Launch-Decision-Technology-Deviance/dp/0226851761/ref=sr_1_1/105-8351179-5964433?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192585332&sr=8-1

psloss · « **Reply #54 on:** 10/17/2007 01:44 am »

Quote

ChrisC - 16/10/2007 9:38 PM

I'd like to know what book Hale was referring to. It sounded like a book about engineering management, written by Diane somebody. I'll see if I can figure it out once John44 upload's his video file.

Diane Vaughn -- she wrote the famous book The Challenger Launch Decision. The CAIB referred to it often during their investigation.

Edit -- changed link to Google Books for a little variety...

Lee Jay · « **Reply #55 on:** 10/17/2007 01:44 am »

Quote

shuttlefan - 16/10/2007 7:37 PM

So they ARE flying with something they don't understand fully??

A great many things. They always have. Very little in the real world is understood fully (hypersonics are especially poorly understood). The question is, is it understood enough, combined with mitigating circumstances, procedures, and techniques, to drive the risk low enough to go out fly, versus sitting on the ground until you do understand everything fully (forever). And don't forget that a great deal of the information needed to advance the understanding of some of these things can come only from going out an flying.

Understanding is not full, and risk is not zero, nor will it ever be, on anything.

ChrisC · « **Reply #56 on:** 10/17/2007 01:46 am »

Thanks guys for the book info. I knew I wouldn't have to wait long

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #57 on:** 10/17/2007 02:17 am »

I think that the PAO really hung these guys out to dry. There should have been good analogies that could have been used to explain why this decision was reached and it should have been PAO’s responsibility to provide those analogies.

I suspect that cars would have been an excellent analogy.

Q; What is the thermography showing? A; Something like the crazing that you can see under the clear coat on your car’s paint job only at a very early stage.

Q; Why are you flying instead of replacing the worst panels? A; Like taking your car for a long trip taking the shuttle to orbit is an inherently dangerous undertaking. You check the tires, engine, and brakes but you don’t replace the worn tires unless you see an obvious problem. A tire could fail, in the worst case a tire could fail catastrophically and cause a wreck; in the very worst case the wreck could be fatal. Does this mean that you do not take the trip? Does this mean that you replace the tires before each trip? No, what you do is watch your tires; when you get to your destination you check the tires again before returning. We believe that the RCC panels do not need to be replaced at this time, we need to watch them; we need to be aware of the issue while testing to understand the possible problems.

PAO should have spent the last week and a half formulating both explanations for the decision to fly and the decision to not fly. They should have been ready to support these guys with ways of explaining the issue in terms that a layman could understand without reducing the underlying complexity of the issue. If I could come up with the above in a half hour surely PAO could have done a much better job.

rdale · « **Reply #58 on:** 10/17/2007 02:21 am »

I don't think it matters. The only way the public will care about this issue is if the panels fail during reentry and we lose the orbiter. Otherwise, just like the tile issue, it gets some page 6 billing and hype from certain writers, and passes. The best analogies in the world won't stop her from writing a doom-n-gloom story.

jmjawors · « **Reply #59 on:** 10/17/2007 02:29 am »

I don't know about the role of PAO, but I do agree with Norm that NASA (and individual employees, whether they be management all the way to astronauts) do seem to struggle with relating to the "Everyday Joe." They could clear up misconceptions and even generate interest if they were better at this.

That said, I thought Wayne and Co. did a good job tonight. This was obviously a complex engineering issue that they tried to explain to the gathered reporters. Confusing at times, sure, but overall well done. And bringing out the NESC guy was a great PAO move (I'll credit them, why not?)

Peter NASA · « **Reply #60 on:** 10/17/2007 02:37 am »

Quote

jmjawors - 16/10/2007 9:29 PM
And bringing out the NESC guy was a great PAO move (I'll credit them, why not?)

Well, why not, because PAO don't have any role in telling someone to attend the breifings to the media. It is down to the individuals.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #61 on:** 10/17/2007 02:39 am »

Quote

rdale - 16/10/2007 7:21 PM

I don't think it matters. The only way the public will care about this issue is if the panels fail during reentry and we lose the orbiter. Otherwise, just like the tile issue, it gets some page 6 billing and hype from certain writers, and passes. The best analogies in the world won't stop her from writing a doom-n-gloom story.

Maybe, maybe not, but doesn’t it make sense to give your management the best tools to attempt to defuse the doom-n-gloom before it starts? Isn’t it wise to give guys like Bill Harwood the ammunition to write good stories to counter the bad? If you assume that the public doesn’t care and make no effort to engage them aren’t you guaranteeing that they won’t care in the future?

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #62 on:** 10/17/2007 02:46 am »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 17/10/2007 3:39 AM
Isn’t it wise to give guys like Bill Harwood the ammunition to write good stories to counter the bad?

If you're talking about the general public then it's the wire reporters you need to aim at....not anyone else. Only the wire services are mass syndicated and are read by the most amount of general public.

No one has the power of the wire services.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #63 on:** 10/17/2007 02:49 am »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 16/10/2007 7:46 PM
If you're talking about the general public then it's the wire reporters you need to aim at....not anyone else. Only the wire services are mass syndicated and are read by the most amount of general public.

No one has the power of the wire services.

CBS has a pretty big voice.

Stowbridge · « **Reply #64 on:** 10/17/2007 03:01 am »

AP is syndicated to 1000s of major news sites, such as every local newspaper and TV network site. It's a monster.

An amussing twist, guess who's dominating google news,
http://news.google.com/news?oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=STS-120&btnG=Search

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #65 on:** 10/17/2007 03:04 am »

Nice :cool: Although I wish they would allow RSS to update the story when we do. That's the old headline.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #66 on:** 10/17/2007 03:56 am »

What we'll be doing is going back to the live launch processing thread up to the start of S0007 this weekend.

I'll likely be writing several more STS-120 FRR related articles (one more from the two day FRR last week, as there's still some very interesting stuff to get out) and at least a couple of the very large and super duper SOMD FRR presentations we got on L2 today (from today's FRR) - and I'll mix in latest processing news into those articles.

"No sleep 'till wheel stop"

Zoomer30 · « **Reply #67 on:** 10/18/2007 06:04 am »

Discovery has quite a few flights left, seems like a shaky issue when the team was split on whether they needed to fix the 2 panels this time. Every time I hear the words "acceptable flight risk" is just makes me worry. After Columbia I would think there would be very few risks that would be acceptable when talking about RCC health.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #68 on:** 10/18/2007 06:39 am »

Read the thread I've merged it to and the following articles I'll write. The concern was based on worst case assumptions at best.

Analyst · « **Reply #69 on:** 10/18/2007 07:43 am »

Quote

Zoomer30 - 18/10/2007 8:04 AM

Every time I hear the words "acceptable flight risk" is just makes me worry. After Columbia I would think there would be very few risks that would be acceptable when talking about RCC health.

You wouldn't flying if you don't accept risks. You wouldn't do anything at all in life. You would be truely dead.

Analyst

psloss · « **Reply #70 on:** 10/18/2007 10:16 am »

Quote

Analyst - 18/10/2007 3:43 AM

Quote
Zoomer30 - 18/10/2007 8:04 AM

Every time I hear the words "acceptable flight risk" is just makes me worry. After Columbia I would think there would be very few risks that would be acceptable when talking about RCC health.

You wouldn't flying if you don't accept risks. You wouldn't do anything at all in life. You would be truely dead.

At the post FRR press briefing, Wayne Hale made a point of saying (and I'm paraphrasing) "the risk is acceptable to fly...notice I didn't say it was 'safe'".