Uncategorized

Bill Nelson and a third shuttle mission

In comments yesterday, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) suggested that NASA might have to forego the additional shuttle mission included in the NASA authorization bill because of problems with the external tank currently mated to the shuttle Discovery. “They do have an extra tank, because they always have that third shuttle flight that we have authorized in the NASA bill,” he said to reporters yesterday in a brief exchange about the status of the mission (video of which is available from Central Florida News 13.) “And if worst came to worst, and they felt like that this tank was not safe, they would stand down and, at that point, would only fly two more shuttle flights instead of the three that are authorized.”

NASA shuttle managers will provide an update on the status the next shuttle mission this afternoon, although there’s been no indication that they are considering such a tank swap, instead electing to reinforce aluminum brackets in the tank, where several cracks had been discovered.

66 comments to Bill Nelson and a third shuttle mission

  • Robert G. Oler

    My long post(s) on this subject are in the other thread…but this is the start of the politicians getting nervous about the problems at NASA…

    if NASA loses the shuttle with this tank (if they decide to fly it)…thats the end of the agency in human spaceflight

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    The shuttle program has gone on long enough. Whether there are 3 flights remaining or 2, they will be of little consequence. The ISS is complete and the fiscal ball and chain have been welded to our collective ankle by Nelson and Obama. There is no coherent manned program to follow, nor will there be until there is a new President. My only hope is that the last flights are safe and uneventful. If I had my way I’d launch the final missions unmanned just to prove the capability.

  • Actually, it could be one more flight and not two, because there would be no spare tank for a rescue mission on the second flight.

    Florida Today reports:

    Support beams all around the circumference of the tank’s mid-section will be reinforced, not just a group subjected to the most stress during flight, managers decided Monday.

    The modifications are expected to prevent the type of cracks that have been found on five beams called stringers, and should be completed in time to allow Discovery to launch as soon as Feb. 24.

    I’ve always said I would fly on any vehicle, but I’m not so sure I would ride on this one. It has a chilling similiarity to STS-51L Challenger and trying to deny the obvious flaws with the SRB design at the time.

  • I have to agree with the above comments, even Windy’s (even if he had to ruin it with the usual political hackery).

    If the larger module just has to be launched, reschedule it on a DIVH, or launch it on an unmanned shuttle.

  • Martijn Meijering

    What is Nelson’s concern here? Is he worried that if the Shuttle doesn’t fly really soon now, it will further undermine the case for SLS?

  • Coastal Ron

    The third flight has always been nice-to-have spending. True it would be nice to add more spares to the ISS, but in some ways it might be better to move the focus quicker from depending on Shuttle to doing it with traditional launchers.

    If the ISS is going to be around longer than 2020, we’ll need to figure that out anyways, so might was well get started on it now.

    I think the big question will be what happens with the money budgeted for the 3rd flight if it doesn’t fly – does NASA get to use it for ISS related work (like CRS or Commercial Crew), or does it stay with the Treasury?

  • Justin Kugler

    AMS is too big for Dragon or Cygnus. It would require a dedicated Falcon 9 and transfer bus if not launched on the Shuttle. I would be surprised if AMS could absorb that additional cost.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 10:30 am

    What is Nelson’s concern here? Is he worried that if the Shuttle doesn’t fly really soon now, it will further undermine the case for SLS?………………..

    Martin. IN my view Nelson’s concern here is two fold (and I base this on the words he uses).

    First although he looks like an idiot at times, Nelson actually has a pretty good handle on how NASA works, particularly the thunderheads in shuttle ops…and even he is starting to figure out that this thing has the ability to “literally” blow up in their faces…There wont be a lot of explanations if the tank goes ripping apart and after all the pieces fall to earth someone says “wow we didnt mean to do it”… Nelson and all the pols have been down this road before and they know the ending… Nelson is hearing words like lacking “1/3″ the strength and all and he doesnt under stand how that happened./ Then there are these other variables…what happens if large chunks of the foam come peeling off because of the changes they are making etc…

    The thunderheads who manage the shuttle are not that good at this sort of thing, and they have constantly been behind what the problem is anyway. If they lose the orbiter or its a near miss its the end of the Agency and any claim it has on human spaceflight (“Well we lost three orbiters, the third one we are still picking up the parts from but golly those private spaceflight people need our supervision”)

    Second, as the shuttle keeps stuck on the pad it is spending money at an enormous rate (the 200-300 a month it spends anyway plus whatever the fixes are costing and the delay months) and that is money the program simply doesnt have. If it turns out the other tanks need this fix (and I dont know if that is accurate or not) then thats more money.

    Nelson knows what most of the die hard “teaparty” supporters here cannot graps…there is not going to be a lot more money for NASA…

    better to go out with a whimper in this case then a bang

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 9:35 am

    Stephen…they are in a “dark” place with this tank. They dont know why the cracks are occurring (no “root cause”) they are seeing some of the metal has only 2/3 the strength advertised…they dont have a clue how all this repair interacts with the tank dynamics……they dont have a clue about “foam liberation” as they call it…the whole thing is just in a place that they dont understand.

    and they (the shuttle management people) do not do this sort of engineering really well. The astronauts will go…they simply dont have the courage to bend off of this…its a career buster if they do.

    From the memos I am getting off line from a person in safety (which is not all that great an organization) inside the shuttle system…there are deep worries.

    but no one there has the balls to say “sorry we cant do this”.

    this ride of the hill is going to be far more dangerous then say riding a Falcon…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Nelson et al don’t care whether or not there is actually a third flight, as long as the work force stays in place as long as possible. Not flying wouldn’t save any money until they stop burning a couple hundred million a month on the program.

  • Rhyolite

    Justin Kugler wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 11:14 am

    “AMS is too big for Dragon or Cygnus. It would require a dedicated Falcon 9 and transfer bus if not launched on the Shuttle. I would be surprised if AMS could absorb that additional cost.”

    The $500M you would save by not flying the last shuttle would give AMS a lot of launch options.

  • Mike Snyder

    Robert G. Oler,

    “If it turns out the other tanks need this fix (and I dont know if that is accurate or not) then thats more money.”

    But shouldn’t you though? You make a lot of noise and insults but then claim you don’t even really know what is going on.

    Aren’t you well connected? Aren’t you a “consultant to the CAIB”? Didn’t you remark some time ago that you were in New Orleans getting a look at the “big orange thingy”? For all your rants have you used this claimed access and credibility to do anything? Yawn.

  • Coastal Ron

    Justin Kugler wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 11:14 am

    AMS is too big for Dragon or Cygnus. It would require a dedicated Falcon 9 and transfer bus if not launched on the Shuttle. I would be surprised if AMS could absorb that additional cost.

    I hope we can get the last two official Shuttle flights off safely, and that should take care of AMS too. However we’re going to need a generic “space tug” that can be attached to dumb payloads destined to the ISS or whoever is in LEO (Bigelow for instance).

    In effect we already have the technology, which is incorporated in the HTV and ATV designs, and all we need is to create “tug only” versions that can be sold separately. Ideally these would fit on the top of the payloads, in the pointy part of the payload fairing, so they can maximize the payload volume.

    I can’t see NASA stepping forward to push this type of product/service, as the ISS will be set for the next 5-10 years, but maybe ESA or JAXA will want to use this as an opportunity to create commercial products – or at least license their technology to a company that can do that.

    My $0.02

  • Martijn Meijering

    maybe ESA or JAXA will want to use this as an opportunity to create commercial products – or at least license their technology to a company that can do that.

    Boeing, LM, Orbital and SpaceX could do this without help from ESA/JAXA.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Nelson et al don’t care whether or not there is actually a third flight, as long as the work force stays in place as long as possible.

    That’s what I would have thought, but why then is he urging NASA to drop the last flight if it has to?

  • Justin Kugler

    Yeah, but there’s no guarantee that money would go towards AMS or the tug Ron mentions. I know Orbital was looking at an unpressurized Cygnus variant, so they might be able to do it fairly quickly. We’re almost certainly going to have to figure something like that out if VASIMR ever flies to Station.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mike Snyder wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    I am pretty well connected, however I have been in Africa for quite some time connecting with other people. No time for lunches at the Oriental Gourmet talking to my friends..

    sorry was suppose to be back at the start of this week, but was asked to extend to next week…check out my facebook page for some nice pictures!

    The ones from the Sudan are a tad scary..

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Rand Simberg wrote:

    Nelson et al don’t care whether or not there is actually a third flight, as long as the work force stays in place as long as possible.

    Even if he can stretch the shuttle out for a few more months, the Cape will be a ghost town heading into 2012 when he faces a nasty re-election fight. The beauty of Ares I and V was that they established continuity of the work force and facilities from the shuttle program. They might have been launching Ares in 2013. That plan is now hopelessly disrupted. A smart politician will make him pay for his support of Obama. I can see the protest signs now, “Rocket Scientist, will work for food.”

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rhyolite wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    a tug would not be all that difficult to build and would be a great candidate for re usability…is would also sub as a prop module.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Rhyolite

    Coastal Ron wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    “However we’re going to need a generic “space tug” that can be attached to dumb payloads destined to the ISS or whoever is in LEO (Bigelow for instance).

    In effect we already have the technology, which is incorporated in the HTV and ATV designs, and all we need is to create “tug only” versions that can be sold separately. ”

    Actually, both HTV and Cygnus are modular. They consist of a separate bus section that can be attached to pressurized and logistics containers based on the need.

    For AMS we would need to create payload structure that attaches it to the HTV or Cygnus bus (Cygnus would probably be cheaper) and then launch the combination on a Delta/Atlas/Falcon (I don’t think Taurus II is big enough). That should cost a lot less than another shuttle launch.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
    They might have been launching Ares in 2013. …

    only with photoshop manipulation. there was not a chance that the Ares 1 was going to orbit a vehicle with humans in it, or simply orbit a vehicle by 2013…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Justin Kugler wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    there has to be a new plan for anything that flies to the station in the future and that future might be sooner then anyone thinks.

    It should be to hard to put together something that can do what essentially the Progress does.

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    This is a prime example of the difference between Apollo era management protocols and the brain trust at work within current shuttle managment. They are attempting to employ engineering work arounds with tank ‘modifications’ to placate safety concerns, keep a schedule and maintain a third flight option. Any modification makes this suspect ET a unique piece of hardware and reworks the safety calculus for flight operations with it.

    There’s really no longer any need to debate. This program is winding down. A mission deemed necessary for servicing the ISS has been found to have a flawed external tank. The suspect ET has defects which continue to surface and perplex. There’s a third tank available. Check it out, then change it out.

  • Breaking news … NASA to go ahead with the February 24 Discovery launch.

    Shuttle Program Manager John Shannon is confident in the repairs being made, saying, “we’ve come a long way into how to get this tank to the 100% confidence level.”

    And then there’s this from Rep. Posey, whose district includes CCAFS but not KSC:

    U.S. Rep. Bill Posey (R-Rockledge) said Tuesday morning he believes the delays with Discovery’s launch will not sway fellow Congress members on funding a final flight of shuttle Atlantis, which is now tabbed as a potential rescue mission for Endeavour. It’s also currently set for the last flight of the program.

    His focus, as well as Space Coast economic leaders, is to retain as many of the thousands of soon-to-be displaced shuttle workers as possible.

    Posey still thinks NASA is a jobs program …

    Nothing out of newly elected Sandy Adams, who actually does have KSC in her district. Last fall, Florida Today called her ignorance about NASA “appalling.” A couple weeks ago, she published an opinion column in a Daytona Beach paper where she implied NASA relies on the Chinese to launch our astronauts into space.

    CCDev can’t get here soon enough.

  • DCSCA

    @Mike Snyder wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
    “Robert G. Oler,“If it turns out the other tanks need this fix (and I dont know if that is accurate or not) then thats more money.”But shouldn’t you though? You make a lot of noise and insults but then claim you don’t even really know what is going on.”

    Nothing new there as his low regard for HSF is well known on this forum. Never misses an opportunity to degrade it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    what else did one expect Shannon to say…they have 100 percent confidence in every launch including the two that killed people and the near misses in between.

    Shannon is a third rate manager who if he hadnt come up in the shuttle program would be doing good to handle my favorite Taco Bell on Bay Area BLVD…

    there are a few paths between now and then that they have to screw up their courage to launch.

    Meanwhile new space just keeps on rocking. Next year SpaceX will be flying people…watch

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
    I can see the protest signs now, “Rocket Scientist, will work for food.”..

    or someone will start a web site “Rocket scientist who will work for food” (there already is a “will fly for food” web site).

    Problem of course is that the vast majority of the folks who are losing their job are not rocket scientist…they are either technicians or paper pushers whose skills should either to be able to transfer to something else…or who have let themselves get so narrow that their job slate is useless.

    Most of the people at JSC couldnt get a job doing anything else technical if their lives depended on it. No where else works like the JSC in terms of actually accomplishing task for a budget.

    For example…if SWA tried to fly a 737 that was in the same shape as the ET…the FAA would pull their certificate.

    it is mostly technowelfare.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mike Snyder

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    By all means, please stay safe and have a safe and good trip home.

    That said, I can’t escape the fact that while even in the Sudan you still remarkably find time to post only insults on here. Obviously you have an internet connection and therefore would likely be able to also stay in touch with your “connections” and be able to perform the “CAIB consultant” duties you have reminded us of so often, at least minimally, which of course would be better than nothing. You would want to do that wouldn’t you?

  • Aberwys

    By law, as of 2008, AMS-02 has to go up to ISS. Its lifespan is about 10 years. If memory serves, the language specifies going up by shuttle.

    …and the beat goes on…

  • Mike Snyder

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    When I click on the link you provide, I don’t see the words you placed in italics. If I just go off those italicized words, I honestly do not see how you immediately leap to the conclusion that Posey thinks this is a “jobs program”.

    A possible reading of it is that he would like the “soon-to-be-displaced-workers” to remain in the local area with whatever job they happen to find so as to not totally crush the local economy.

    I tend to agree that CCDev is needed urgently. Given it won’t happen for some time, I would think one could see the need for STS-135 in order to help provide the ISS with critical supplies. Those supplies will go that much further to making ISS what is meant to be so that the immediate and cornerstone destination for commercial vehicles remains and protects to the maximum extent possible those business cases.

  • Coastal Ron

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    Boeing, LM, Orbital and SpaceX could do this without help from ESA/JAXA.

    Well Boeing and LM can probably do anything space related, but the real question is whether they have a business case to do it as a business, and not as a sub-contractor. I don’t see NASA needing this capability anytime soon, so that means someone will have to take this on as a product or service they want to offer.

    My suggestions for the ATV/HTV derivative hardware was because whoever gets into this, there won’t be a lot of money in it to start, so they need to leverage existing systems to keep costs down. I could see ESA or JAXA doing this as an extra service for their existing launch services, and who knows, maybe ULA will want to use build their own too.

    In fact, since we’re kind of talking this through, it may make more sense for the individual launch providers to offer this type of service, since really what we’re talking about is just the ability to delivery to a new destination (LEO rendezvous) instead of the normal launch & release they do now…

  • DCSCA

    @Stephen C. Smith wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
    Breaking news … NASA to go ahead with the February 24 Discovery launch. Shuttle Program Manager John Shannon is confident in the repairs being made, saying, “we’ve come a long way into how to get this tank to the 100% confidence level.”

    Uh-huh. The more things change, the more they stay the same in shuttle management circles. Echoes of: “‘My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch? Next April?’ — Larry Mulloy.”

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mike Snyder wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    We flew to Juba and spent a day checking things out…and meeting the male lead of Peacemaker…who told me what I already know, that the real threat to The Republic from the Chinese is not a goofy moon program or their military it is that they are making inroads into a lot of places in Africa…a continent that far surpasses the mideast in resources…

    But we didnt spend the night there, been to the Ivory Coast and checked out the situation there…

    This is the first night or so that I have had the chance to really kick back and post heavily (on this or my facebook page)…we are sort of taking a break after a fact finding trip to Luwanda Angola…tomorrow is a rest day then we go back to it for the rest of our time here (sometime next week)…

    And the way NASA is most of hte people who send me stuff, like to do it personally…that way there are no “bit flips”…worse our days are your mornings and your days are my nights…and I love my sleep!

    We are always very safe, if nothing else we have the protection of “the flag of The United States” (love that line from The West Wing) and doubtless on the trip back across the pond I’ll do what I did on the trip over, get a little stick time.

    There is a nice picture of our airplane taxing out with the black cars and helicopters following it on my facebook page.I am sort of a trouble shooter for my Uncle. The CAIB has dissolved so there really are no duties there…

    Dont worry when I get home I’ll get up to speed on what the idiots in NASA shuttle ops are trying to pull off. It is amazing they have killed 14 people and learned NOTHING.

    Long Live The Republic

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mike Snyder wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
    I would think one could see the need for STS-135 in order to help provide the ISS with critical supplies…

    no not really, its a make work effort.

    What not having an STS 135 will do is force the issue on commercial resupply…and its going to work…either SpaceX or Orbital or both are going to come up with a successful program and resupply method…and all the 135 mission was going to do was really things that could be done on either of the two commercial vehicles.

    Time to shut the program down before Need Another Seven Astronauts starts up again. REally the goof balls at JSC are going to get some more people killed unless they are very lucky.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bennett

    Mike Snyder wrote:I tend to agree that CCDev is needed urgently. Given it won’t happen for some time, I would think one could see the need for STS-135 in order to help provide the ISS with critical supplies. Those supplies will go that much further to making ISS what is meant to be so that the immediate and cornerstone destination for commercial vehicles remains and protects to the maximum extent possible those business cases.

    But Mike, CCDev is for human transport to the ISS. COTS is for resupply and both SpaceX and Orbital seem very close to achieving the milestones required before they begin delivering cargo.

    They don’t NEED the COTS program to close their respective business cases. Both SpaceX and Orbital are doing just fine with their existing launch manifests.

  • Morganism

    Would love to see a fourth launch, to pick up the astronauts from the 3rd, and leave a shuttle on orbit for emergency use. Either a bail out boat if another carrier is holed, or an emergency hab if a hab connector is damaged.

    Would also be nice to have a transfer vehicle up there if we have to launch an emergency incoming asteroid deflection mission. Since no one seems to want to build a tug.

    Better than sending em out to pasture……

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mike Snyder wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    completely off the record and my own personal opinion.

    We were going through various of the little camps around Juba and just at random (actually because I saw a sign in English about the election) we stopped and I had tea with one of the leaders of a camp which had sort of sprung up there.

    The person who I spentthe most time talking with was a local but had a good knowledge of history and world events…and the question that rings in my ears even now is the one he posed “Why do you Americans waste your power so badly?”

    After he had explained how he thought we were wasting our power and I thanked him and got up to leave he reminded me “History moves on, countries that spend their power badly become part of history no longer making it”

    I’ve cleaned up his english a tad but the point rings true.

    you guys and gals at NASA spent 10 billion dollars on Cx and have nothing to show for it.

    you folks are on the verge of trying to launch a space shuttle on a tank which no other organization in the US government would consider safe.

    You folks are part of the problem.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mike Snyder wrote:

    When I click on the link you provide, I don’t see the words you placed in italics.

    I posted it at 3:40 PM EST. The article at the link says it was “updated” at 4:05 PM EST. So they excised the text from the revision.

    If I just go off those italicized words, I honestly do not see how you immediately leap to the conclusion that Posey thinks this is a “jobs program”.

    He said his priority is to save Shuttle workers’ jobs. Can’t be more plain than that.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
    Meanwhile new space just keeps on rocking.”
    Rockers display motion but go no place fast, Oler.

    “Next year SpaceX will be flying people…watch.”
    Watch? ROFLMAO you mean ‘tick-tock, tick-tock.’ Dream on.

    It’s January, 2011, nearly 50 years after the Soviets first orbited Gagarin and the U.S. lofted Alan Shepard on his suborbital flight. SpaceX STILL has flown NOBODY.

  • Robert G. Oler wrote:

    Shannon is a third rate manager who if he hadnt come up in the shuttle program would be doing good to handle my favorite Taco Bell on Bay Area BLVD…

    I really don’t think there’s a need to belittle these people. They certainly have more knowledge about space engineering than I’ll ever have.

    I see it more as the same institutional pressures that led to Challenger and Columbia. They have to prove they can fly. They have Congresscritters breathing down their necks. They don’t want to admit they let a bad tank get this far in the process.

    These pressures are not unique to NASA. I saw them in the private sector in my last job that thankfully ended in 2008. Mistakes are made and then people spend more time on coverups and fingerpointing than solving the problem.

    For example … At my last company, Information Systems was forced to spend millions of dollars buying a mainframe application because the CEO was chums with the company, even though it didn’t meet our needs. Tens of millions of dollars more were spent over the next few years trying to rewrite it to meet our needs. When I left, they were about to spend millions more to buy a new system to replace the kludged one.

    I’m about done reading a book about Wernher Von Braun. There were many examples of where he rewarded a manager or employee for coming forward to report a mistake. He understood that honesty and transparency were necessary for a successful enterprise, public or private. It’s always seemed simple to me, but I guess for some people their agenda lies elsewhere.

    Hopefully Charlie Bolden, being a former astronaut, takes a good look at the external tank data before authorizing this flight. He’s the last person who would jeopardize the safety of a crew.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    I know it is the thing you post all the time…it is sort of your talisman that you tend to throw up.

    and that must mean you think it is important and I dont.

    See who is correct in the next two to three years. It will come as a sadness to you as it did to folks like Whittington that I will be correct and you will be wrong.

    It is annoying I know but that is why I do what I do and you dont.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Morganism wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Would love to see a fourth launch, to pick up the astronauts from the 3rd, and leave a shuttle on orbit for emergency use. Either a bail out boat if another carrier is holed, or an emergency hab if a hab connector is damaged…

    none of that is at all possible…really its not.

    A shuttle at the station ends up being a dead bit of mass useless except as a debris shield…and rather quickly.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mike Snyder

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 5:32 pm

    Wow. Still see you have that internet connection in Africa to make insults. Yet this time I get to be included in the group. Do you know me? Have we ever met? Can you tell me why I am “part of the problem”?

    I have consistently asked you to take responsibility for the comments you have made and to provide some sort of back-up to your claims with the credentials you have mentioned you supposedly have. I also note you consistently ignore that and generally insult more.

    How do you know “no other government organization” would consider it safe? You just admitted earlier in this thread you do not have all the data by saying you don’t know the status of the other two tanks and if they need to be repaired or not. Therefore, it seems logical that you are more interested in tearing people down instead of actually being a supposed “CAIB consultant” and using those supposed connections to make sure a vehicle is as safe as it could be. It’s sad really.

  • Mike Snyder

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Ahh, I see. I’m sure you can understand how I said what I said, given also it was not in your italicized remarks.

    Oh well, I’m sure you also logically understand he is a member of Congress and I have never seen a member of that body openly cheer for jobs to be taken away from their district for whatever reason.

  • Coastal Ron

    Morganism wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Would love to see a fourth launch

    There aren’t enough parts left to do that, and there is no money/interest from Congress.

    leave a shuttle on orbit for emergency use

    The Shuttle was never designed for long-term duration in space, especially unmanned. Although maybe you’re proposing a massive new program to make an orbital museum for one of the Shuttle orbiters? That would be one way to create demand for commercial space flights… ;-)

    Since no one seems to want to build a tug.

    Says who? Have you contacted a sample of possible customers?

    The tug capability already exists as built in to a variety of payloads, so making one a product in itself is not hard, and just awaits an actual market need.

    For your mythical asteroid deflection mission, most likely larger existing boosters like Centaur would be used. A Shuttle orbiter only has limited maneuvering engines once in orbit, so using an orbiter for an asteroid deflection mission would not work.

  • Byeman

    “leave a shuttle on orbit”

    Completely not feasible.

  • Vladislaw

    “The astronauts will go…they simply dont have the courage to bend off of this…its a career buster if they do.”

    Until we have commercial crew services there is not going to be much work for astronauts at NASA. For the next five years 4 – 5 astronauts per year at the ISS?

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
    “See who is correct in the next two to three years.”

    Now it’s ‘two or three years…’ not ‘next year’ per your own earlier post. Why not a decade– or five decades. A ‘sadness’- no. A ‘surprise’- yes. Particularly given the reticence to publish flight data as there’s no independent verification and/or post-flight analysis from the recent test flight- or on the survivability of an orbital flight for a crewed Dragon or if there’s an operation/relable ECS. If there is, please share w/t class as private investors, capital markets and the global space community would like to know. And, of course, if you don’t think getting a crewed Dragon up, around and down safely is ‘important’ you wouldn’t use it a ‘go-to’ line from the comfort of your rocker to begin with.

    It’s clear who’s correct– SpaceX has flown NOBODY. A truth that remains valid, verifiable and unchanged. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

  • DCSCA

    @Stephen C. Smith wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
    “I really don’t think there’s a need to belittle these people. They certainly have more knowledge about space engineering than I’ll ever have.”

    Then they should know better or at least demonstate the capacity to learn from their ‘mistakes.’ Given the periods of, to be kind, ‘less than stellar management’ on display to the world at NASA during the shuttle program’s 30 year history, there’s nothing wrong with rattling their cages and challenging their conclusions. If you wish to characterize that as ‘belittling’ then so be it. Belittle the heck out of them; lives and property are at stake. Oler’s wary comments seem quite appropriate. The ‘wise’ move would simply be to swop out the tanks, keep to schedule as best as possible and work on any remedy in the bad tank w/o a schedule pressure pushing for a fix. The ‘work around’ stories bubbling up are red flags, disturbing and smack of the same management protocol that led to the loss of two orbiters and 14 astronauts.

    “I’m about done reading a book about Wernher Von Braun.”

    Which title/author- might want to pick it up if not already in my library.

    @Byeman wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    “leave a shuttle on orbit””Completely not feasible.” <- And there we have the 'NASA mind set' of 2010 in a nutshell. Rattle those cages. Time for the agency to clean house.

  • Vladislaw

    We can be confident now because Shannon called it “a very simple, elegant fix to the problem.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110111/ap_on_sc/us_space_shuttle

    “Cracks occurred in five of the 108 aluminum alloy struts in the center of the tank, which holds instruments. The damaged struts have been patched. Technicians will reinforce the remaining struts as a safety precaution, using thin 6-inch strips of aluminum.

    Shannon said a batch of the material used for some of the 21-foot support struts, through heating, ended up more brittle.

    In addition, weaknesses were introduced during assembly of the pieces.”

    Looks like the problem is solved.

  • Mike Synder wrote:

    Oh well, I’m sure you also logically understand he is a member of Congress and I have never seen a member of that body openly cheer for jobs to be taken away from their district for whatever reason.

    Which has been my point from the day I joined this site about a year ago. NASA is not a jobs program. But it’s treated as one. And that’s why it’s in such a sad and sorry state.

    I have a friend who works on Constellation. Their meetings now typically revolve around making meaningless little design changes just so they can comply with the Congressional direction to keep working on a cancelled program. They all know it’s stupid and morale is about what you’d think it would be. This is a colossal waste of tax dollars, created by members of Congress who just want to brag they brought home the bacon instead of doing what’s right for the nation.

  • I really don’t think there’s a need to belittle these people. They certainly have more knowledge about space engineering than I’ll ever have.

    That doesn’t mean that they have more knowledge about it than anyone has…

  • Coastal Ron

    Vladislaw wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    Looks like the problem is solved.

    A problem was identified and fixed, but whether it was “the problem” is hard to assess without more data points.

    Of course one data point would be how the “fixes” perform during the next Shuttle launch, but unless there is a visible failure, partial failures will probably not be seen. Until they find the true root cause (i.e. how this happened after 30 years of serial production), I would still be concerned.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
    “See who is correct in the next two to three years.”

    Now it’s ‘two or three years…’ not ‘next year’ per your own earlier post.

    ……………………

    we might be on just some semantics here.

    “next year” to me means about two years. We are at the start of 2011 and the end of 2012 is essentially 23 or so calender months away from that…so its “two years”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • An updated article on Florida Today. Some new tidbits:

    Most of the stringers, each 21 feet long, were found to have been made from an aluminum-lithium alloy that was less resistant to fractures than expected, though still strong enough to meet flight requirements.

    Combined with small stresses that built up during manufacturing and bending when the tank was fueled with supercold propellants, the cracks resulted.

    What’s new is the theoretical STS-135 tank may suffer from the same problem:

    Stringers on the tank slated to fly the final mission, which still is awaiting funding, are believed to be made from a similar material to Discovery’s and are likely to need stiffeners.

    The other tank, targeted to fly in April, was built years earlier. A tanking test and X-ray scans of stringers covered by insulating foam could be performed to confirm their condition.

    So now we know why they want so badly to use the current tank. The spare tank might be bad too.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ January 11th, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    I really dont think that there is all that much pressure. The program is winding down, if they came out and said “this tank is not safe to fly” (which it is not) it would be the end of the program, but its ending. And with the news on the heavy lift…the SDV effort is ending.

    But if they are succumbing to pressure then they need to be belittled even more.

    Assuming one is simply “not careless or reckless or any of those bad things” the difference in aviation and a lot of other things is dealing with pressure. There is a report out today (at least here on this side of the prime meridian) about the crash which killed the Polish Prime Minister and his family etc. Ultimately bad airmanship is to blame (ie high sink rates off the instrument vertical path) but all indications from the cockpit tapes are that the crew was under enormous percieved pressure from the head of the Polish Air Force to “make the landing”.

    That is when well trained pilots or managers fall back onto the rules and say “forget good judgment, these are the rules (or in the case of the ET…good engineering) we cannot start the approach until the weather is X and Y…these are the rules”.

    It should not cost you your job…those are the rules and superiors should understand that…but if it does cost you your job then thats where the notion of personal integrity and honor come in.

    The problem at NASA of course is that the “rules” are meaningless. They waive flight rules like I change underwear…effortlessly. They “Pound flat” the objections to waiving the rules and most of the time get away with it…

    The pilot flying AF One has a title “Aircraft Commander” and not even the President can overrule him/her…by law.

    Everytime NASA has killed people or came close to it…they had “pounded flat” all the objections to their waiving of the rules…and in my opinion had done so only because of internal pressure. Not outside pressure.

    So if Shannon thinks he is working under pressure then he needs to be belittled. Because that is never an excuse for ignoring poor engineering doctrine or safety.

    Robert G. Oler

  • byeman

    “- And there we have the ‘NASA mind set’ of 2010 in a nutshell.” <- And there we have another example of clueless people making posts about topics they know nothing about. If any housecleaning is needed, it is to remove idiotic statements on this board coming from posters like DCSCA.

    Leaving an orbiter in orbit is not feasible, especially as a lifeboat is not feasible, plain and simple. The term "feasible" also describes cost aspect.

    And the fact that DCSCA challenges this shows another hole in his knowledge about spaceflight.

  • Das Boese

    The question that comes to my mind is how the subpar batch of material even got into production in the first place. I mean… don’t they do basic QA testing at LM? Or anywhere in the entire supply chain? Isn’t NASA supposed to review or verify that data?

    You know, rigorous QA testing throughout multiple steps of manufacture is only standard, oh, in every major, modern industrial production process all over the world.

    Oh yeah, found yesterday on spaceflightnow:
    In any case, engineers are proceeding cautiously in the wake of an incident in which a technician, working to drill out a stringer fastener so a cracked segment could be removed, inadvertently drilled into the underlying skin of the liquid oxygen tank. The damage was minimal and technicians were expected to simply buff out the blemish. But as a result, NASA managers have decided to leave each stringer’s top-most fastener in place and to install radius blocks over fasteners two through seven instead.

    “It’s tricky working in the area when they’re that close to the tank,” an official said. “So they decided not to worry about fastener No. 1 on any of these stringers.

    IMHO to even think about flying this tank, unless it’s taken back to LM and completely rebuilt… is insanity.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Das Boese wrote @ January 12th, 2011 at 9:19 am

    yeap you have hit all the high points…I would add to it that they have no root cause for the problems that they are having…

    Shannon and all the other folks have simply tossed good engineering management out the window…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Das Boese

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 12th, 2011 at 9:44 am

    I would add to it that they have no root cause for the problems that they are having…

    Well, the article I linked says they’ve identified the root cause: a batch of sub-par alloy was used in the manufacture of a majority of the stringers. Kinda what made me wonder about QA at LM and its suppliers, and how NASA is involved.

    That it is now known to be a material flaw they want to fix with bolt-on support structures makes it all the more scary.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Das Boese wrote @ January 12th, 2011 at 11:26 am

    yes but as you point out what they dont have is a root cause as to how the sub par alloy got into the manufactor of the stringers…

    that root cause is the ultimate problem (as you note).

    What one doesnt know is that if sub par metal got into the tank at one place…where else is it?

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 12th, 2011 at 7:14 am
    ‘Next year’ means next year.

    @ byeman wrote @ January 12th, 2011 at 7:32 am
    Uh huh. It has taken years to flush out the ‘can’t fail’ mind set out of a ‘can do’ agency and ‘can’t doers’ have to go. If you feel ‘belittled’ then ‘be gone.’ Bye-bye, byeman.

  • Coastal Ron

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 12th, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    What one doesnt know is that if sub par metal got into the tank at one place…where else is it?

    That’s the big question – why did their 30 year old processes break down? If they failed for this part, who’s to say it didn’t fail on some other hidden part of the ET?

    The symptom has been treated, not the problem.

    Getting back to Das Boese point, you don’t just grab whatever material is laying around when you’re manufacturing meaningful products. The raw stock is identified by material, and the bills of material and floor work orders call out for the specific material.

    And since the material is inventoried by material type and size, one of the many double-checks should have been that they had too much of the right material, and too little of the wrong material. Who OK’d the inventory corrections? Where is the accountability?

    This being one of my areas of expertise (Production & Inventory Management), this leads me to believe that they lost control of their manufacturing system long before they finished the last ET. They need to go back to Michoud and do a full audit to determine what else might be bad.

    Anywhere else in our economy, this would merit a recall. This is scary.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ January 12th, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 12th, 2011 at 7:14 am
    ‘Next year’ means next year. ..

    yeap and that is either 12 or 23 months away.

    this is a goofy argument…sometime in 2012 Space X will in my view fly a person…take that

    Robert G. Oler

  • Das Boese

    I’d like to add that in especially critically applications, it’s common to not just trust that the supplier has sent you the right material, unless you’re really familiar with their QA and logistics and trust them. But usually, you go and test some samples of your own, or have them tested, so you can be sure the stuff is up to spec.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 12th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
    Goofy indeed. You’re ‘arguing’ w/yourself.

Leave a Reply to Martijn Meijering Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>