NASA chokes again

After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch,
NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back
to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER?

This took two years to figure out?

I swear, Gene Kranz must shake his head in disbelief at what has become
of our space program. Can anyone imagine NASA going to the moon with
this kind of hand-wringing, risk averse management?

Here is the full article:
************************************************** **************

NASA Delays Post-Columbia Flight Again
By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer

NASA on Friday delayed by another two months the first space shuttle
flight since the Columbia disaster, saying it needs more time to ensure
that the fuel tank does not shed dangerous pieces of ice at liftoff.

Discovery is now scheduled for launch no earlier than July 13. The
flight had been targeted for late May.

A large chunk of foam insulation from the external fuel tank punched a
hole in Columbia's wing that led to the shuttle and crew's demise
during re-entry in February 2003. Now, the lingering concern involves
the possible buildup of ice on the tank once it's filled with
super-cold fuel, and the hazard such shards would pose if they came off
during the launch and hit the shuttle.

NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, announced the delay at a
midmorning televised news conference, saying it was the result of
recent launch-debris reviews.

"This is consistent with our overall approach to return to flight,
which is that we're going to return to flight. We are not going to rush
to flight, and we want it to be right, so we're doing what we need to
do to ensure that," Griffin said.

Extra repairs to Discovery's fuel tank will be needed, namely the
addition of a heater, said NASA's top spaceflight official, Bill
Readdy.

The work means that NASA will have to remove Discovery from the launch
pad and return it to the massive Vehicle Assembly Building.

The prime area of concern is a 17-inch-diameter liquid oxygen line that
runs 70 feet down the lower half of the 154-foot tank. Its expansion
joints have produced ice in the past. After the Columbia accident, NASA
devised a foam skirt, or so-called drip lip, to wick moisture away from
the joints. Engineers believe it would reduce ice formation by 50
percent.

Shuttle managers decided a more comprehensive repair was needed.

Technicians will install a heater at the uppermost joint, something
already planned for flights beyond Discovery's. To add the heater on
Discovery, the shuttle will have to be hauled back to its hangar, which
will add days if not weeks to launch preparations.

NASA is also concerned about possible ice formation on the brackets
that hold the oxygen line to the tank.

The shuttle team is dealing with a few other unrelated problems with
Discovery, involving balky engine-cutoff sensors in the fuel tank and
thermal blankets contaminated recently with hydraulic fluid. Readdy
said the extra two months will provide time to resolve all of these
issues, and they will be tackled first while the shuttle is still at
the launch pad.

Another fueling test of Discovery's tank may be necessary, Readdy said.
The test a month ago ago uncovered the intermittent sensor trouble and
a few other problems.

Griffin said he accepted shuttle managers' recommendation to postpone
the flight, to perform the extra work.

"I want to launch as soon as we can," said Griffin, who took over the
top NASA job just two weeks ago. But he added that he wants the launch
to be safe.

"Schedule matters," he said. "It shouldn't matter to the point of
causing people to do dumb things or to take ill-advised actions ... We
want to launch Discovery when we can because the completion of the
international space station depends upon an expeditious launch
schedule. We don't want to launch it sooner than we can."

Columbia was brought down on Feb. 1, 2003, by a gash in the left wing
that was caused by a suitcase-size piece of foam that broke off the
tank during liftoff. All seven astronauts were killed 16 days later
during re-entry.

NASA wants the first two post-Columbia launches held in daylight to
ensure good photography of the shuttle and its fuel tank, which has
been modified to prevent big pieces of foam insulation from coming off.
Daylight also is needed over the North Atlantic in order to capture
good photos of the fuel tank as it drops off eight minutes after
liftoff.

The July window extends from July 13 until July 31. If Discovery does
not fly in July, the next opportunity would come in September. The
12-day mission will supply much-needed supplies and replacement parts
to the space station.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 29 Apr 2005 09:57:14 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com::

After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch,
NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back
to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER?

It sounds like NASA is being laudably prudent. But why these
modifications weren't performed before rolling the shuttle to the
launch pad is curious.


The article mentions:

NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, announced the delay at
a midmorning televised news conference, saying it was the result
of recent launch-debris reviews.
....
Another fueling test of Discovery's tank may be necessary, Readdy
said. The test a month ago uncovered the intermittent sensor
trouble and a few other problems.

Griffin said he accepted shuttle managers' recommendation to
postpone the flight, to perform the extra work.

"I want to launch as soon as we can," said Griffin, who took over
the top NASA job just two weeks ago. But he added that he wants
the launch to be safe.

So it looks like the new administrator is a prudent professional. How
can that be bad?

The real question is, who made the decision to move the shuttle to the
launch pad knowing that had "intermittent sensor trouble and a few
other problems"?

Griffin sounds like just what NASA needs, and I'll bet the crew would
agree.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On 29 Apr 2005 09:57:14 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com::

After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch,
NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back
to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER?

It sounds like NASA is being laudably prudent. But why these
modifications weren't performed before rolling the shuttle to the
launch pad is curious.


The article mentions:

NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, announced the delay at
a midmorning televised news conference, saying it was the result
of recent launch-debris reviews.
....
Another fueling test of Discovery's tank may be necessary, Readdy
said. The test a month ago uncovered the intermittent sensor
trouble and a few other problems.

Griffin said he accepted shuttle managers' recommendation to
postpone the flight, to perform the extra work.

"I want to launch as soon as we can," said Griffin, who took over
the top NASA job just two weeks ago. But he added that he wants
the launch to be safe.

So it looks like the new administrator is a prudent professional. How
can that be bad?

The real question is, who made the decision to move the shuttle to the
launch pad knowing that had "intermittent sensor trouble and a few
other problems"?

Griffin sounds like just what NASA needs, and I'll bet the crew would
agree.

Griffin is a bean counter and it shows. NASA has tremendous internal
problems which Griffin needs to fix before the organization can begin to be
anything approaching effective.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 04:07:05 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in : :

Griffin sounds like just what NASA needs, and I'll bet the crew would
agree.

Griffin is a bean counter and it shows. NASA has tremendous internal
problems which Griffin needs to fix before the organization can begin to be
anything approaching effective.


That seems like a reasonable assessment given what's happened here.

At least Griffin is considering fixing the Hubble telescope. He
sounds like he's trying to do the right thing.

Larry Dighera wrote:
At least Griffin is considering fixing the Hubble telescope. He
sounds like he's trying to do the right thing.

Although I'm a fan of Hubble, it's hard to tell whether fixing it is worth
it, since a replacement telescope is presently being built (James Webb
Space Telescope) which is expected to significantly out perform Hubble. I
think it's really just a matter of a few years where Hubble might fail and
James Webb isn't up yet.


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

Dave Stadt wrote:
Griffin is a bean counter and it shows. NASA has tremendous internal
problems which Griffin needs to fix before the organization can begin to be
anything approaching effective.


The main problem NASA's facing is that funding for all of our existing
projects (especially Earth science), most of which are providing a lot of
good science, is being funneled away into Bush's big waste of
time/money... moving towards putting men back onto the Moon and eventually
Mars. I know a lot of you really want to see people on the Moon/Mars, but
the benefit vs. cost just isn't there. We're better off continuing low
cost use of robotic exploration.


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

In article ,
(Jay Masino) wrote:

The main problem NASA's facing is that funding for all of our existing
projects (especially Earth science), most of which are providing a lot of
good science, is being funneled away into Bush's big waste of
time/money... moving towards putting men back onto the Moon and eventually
Mars. I know a lot of you really want to see people on the Moon/Mars, but
the benefit vs. cost just isn't there. We're better off continuing low
cost use of robotic exploration.

I heard a couple of the Mars Rover drivers talk at a conference
a couple weeks ago. Someone asked them if manned exploration
made any sense vs. the Rovers. They both agreed that a human
would be greatly more capable than a robot.

Mike Beede

Mike Beede wrote:

In article ,
(Jay Masino) wrote:

The main problem NASA's facing is that funding for all of our existing
projects (especially Earth science), most of which are providing a lot of
good science, is being funneled away into Bush's big waste of
time/money... moving towards putting men back onto the Moon and
eventually
Mars. I know a lot of you really want to see people on the Moon/Mars,
but
the benefit vs. cost just isn't there. We're better off continuing low
cost use of robotic exploration.

I heard a couple of the Mars Rover drivers talk at a conference
a couple weeks ago. Someone asked them if manned exploration
made any sense vs. the Rovers. They both agreed that a human
would be greatly more capable than a robot.

Mike Beede


Mike,

while I agree that a human would be greatly more capable than a robot, I
don't think we've exhausted the mining of information robots can give us.
Until we do - until the ONLY way to get more information is to send a
human, I vote for sending eveer more capable robots, and not risking the
human life nor spending the zillions to put the human there. Those zillions
are better spent, in my opinion, on more robots.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Mike Beede wrote:
I heard a couple of the Mars Rover drivers talk at a conference
a couple weeks ago. Someone asked them if manned exploration
made any sense vs. the Rovers. They both agreed that a human
would be greatly more capable than a robot.

Sure, but is it worth the money or the risk?


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

Ok.. so let me get this straight.. The shuttle didn't pass "preflight",
so the flight is being delayed for safety reasons and modify or update
the equipment just a little bit more..

Sure sounds a lot like you are miffed because they are trying real hard
to avoid a case of "get there-itis".

So what if its been 2 years.. the last time it was over 4, wasnt it?

And the first one was a case of "I TOLD YOU SO" regarding the o-rings on
the SRB's..Theres nothing wrong with wanting to get it right..
Astronauts and engineers are professionals, not daredevils with a death
wish.

I would applaud the setback. Just like I would look another pilot in the
eye and say "Good Call" for scrubbing for equipment or weather issues.

Dave

Jay Honeck wrote:

After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch,
NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back
to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER?

This took two years to figure out?

I swear, Gene Kranz must shake his head in disbelief at what has become
of our space program. Can anyone imagine NASA going to the moon with
this kind of hand-wringing, risk averse management?

Here is the full article:
************************************************** **************

NASA Delays Post-Columbia Flight Again
By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer

NASA on Friday delayed by another two months the first space shuttle
flight since the Columbia disaster, saying it needs more time to ensure
that the fuel tank does not shed dangerous pieces of ice at liftoff.

Discovery is now scheduled for launch no earlier than July 13. The
flight had been targeted for late May.

A large chunk of foam insulation from the external fuel tank punched a
hole in Columbia's wing that led to the shuttle and crew's demise
during re-entry in February 2003. Now, the lingering concern involves
the possible buildup of ice on the tank once it's filled with
super-cold fuel, and the hazard such shards would pose if they came off
during the launch and hit the shuttle.

NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, announced the delay at a
midmorning televised news conference, saying it was the result of
recent launch-debris reviews.

"This is consistent with our overall approach to return to flight,
which is that we're going to return to flight. We are not going to rush
to flight, and we want it to be right, so we're doing what we need to
do to ensure that," Griffin said.

Extra repairs to Discovery's fuel tank will be needed, namely the
addition of a heater, said NASA's top spaceflight official, Bill
Readdy.

The work means that NASA will have to remove Discovery from the launch
pad and return it to the massive Vehicle Assembly Building.

The prime area of concern is a 17-inch-diameter liquid oxygen line that
runs 70 feet down the lower half of the 154-foot tank. Its expansion
joints have produced ice in the past. After the Columbia accident, NASA
devised a foam skirt, or so-called drip lip, to wick moisture away from
the joints. Engineers believe it would reduce ice formation by 50
percent.

Shuttle managers decided a more comprehensive repair was needed.

Technicians will install a heater at the uppermost joint, something
already planned for flights beyond Discovery's. To add the heater on
Discovery, the shuttle will have to be hauled back to its hangar, which
will add days if not weeks to launch preparations.

NASA is also concerned about possible ice formation on the brackets
that hold the oxygen line to the tank.

The shuttle team is dealing with a few other unrelated problems with
Discovery, involving balky engine-cutoff sensors in the fuel tank and
thermal blankets contaminated recently with hydraulic fluid. Readdy
said the extra two months will provide time to resolve all of these
issues, and they will be tackled first while the shuttle is still at
the launch pad.

Another fueling test of Discovery's tank may be necessary, Readdy said.
The test a month ago ago uncovered the intermittent sensor trouble and
a few other problems.

Griffin said he accepted shuttle managers' recommendation to postpone
the flight, to perform the extra work.

"I want to launch as soon as we can," said Griffin, who took over the
top NASA job just two weeks ago. But he added that he wants the launch
to be safe.

"Schedule matters," he said. "It shouldn't matter to the point of
causing people to do dumb things or to take ill-advised actions ... We
want to launch Discovery when we can because the completion of the
international space station depends upon an expeditious launch
schedule. We don't want to launch it sooner than we can."

Columbia was brought down on Feb. 1, 2003, by a gash in the left wing
that was caused by a suitcase-size piece of foam that broke off the
tank during liftoff. All seven astronauts were killed 16 days later
during re-entry.

NASA wants the first two post-Columbia launches held in daylight to
ensure good photography of the shuttle and its fuel tank, which has
been modified to prevent big pieces of foam insulation from coming off.
Daylight also is needed over the North Atlantic in order to capture
good photos of the fuel tank as it drops off eight minutes after
liftoff.

The July window extends from July 13 until July 31. If Discovery does
not fly in July, the next opportunity would come in September. The
12-day mission will supply much-needed supplies and replacement parts
to the space station.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"