NASA Will Have Space Shuttle on Standby for Rescue Mission When Flights Resume

The Associated Press ^ | Feb 19, 2004 | Marcia Dunn

[hopespringseternal]

1. The damage done to the orbiter on launch is the sort of thing that simply can't be engineered away. It was freak, and there will always be a nonzero chance of it happening again.

2. The problem that lead to the breakup was more a failure of management. The problem could have been managed, no attempt was made to manage it.

3. I don't know what technical changes are planned, if any to improve safety. So far the emphasis is on management, as it should be, but those changes should have been quick to identify and quick to implement.

4. The shuttle is a dead system. The compromises made to get Nixon's OMB to fund it removed the very reason to build it in the first place. The real flaws are architectural. No amount of tweaking will make it a fundamentally safe, reliable, or cheap vehicle, so why bother? Risk is not eliminated, just managed. The shuttle risks are well known, and both accidents were the result of boneheaded management.

5. The space station is married to the shuttle and in the wrong orbit. It can't really be lifted with anything else, and its orbit makes it useless for many of the things you would build a station for.

6. All the national second-guessing that follows these accidents is an indication of the problem. How many test pilots have died? You name a street at Edwards after them and move on. But space is treated differently. Every launch is a national event, and rightly so for the portion of the budget it consumes. This is silly. Launches should be so routine than no one notices, and an accident is much less grievous than the loss of an airliner that the world barely hiccups over.

7. We will never go anywhere in space, indeed space will never really be worth doing until we let go of the current paradigm and open it up to the people. Come up with reasonable launch regulations, refute stupid treaties and provide meaningful subsidy for the development of space. End wasteful, national prestige antics and treating every astronaut and vehicle like an irreplaceable national treasure.

[yonif]

Good.

[RightWhale]

What are the Las Vegas odds the Shuttle will never fly again?

[yonif]

thanks for your analysis. So basically you support privatizing NASA?

That sounds good. But my question is wouldn't you think there will have to be some sort of government regulation or monitoring of what private companies will be doing in space? For safety reasons of course.

[jpsb]

"NASA recently canceled one last servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope and consigned it to an early death

The new Republican NASA, Hubble need 1 service mission and does more and better science then the ISS, so NASA decides to dedicate shuttle missions to ISS. Great thinking NASA, way to go. Let your best science instrument burn up while letting the BS ISS burn up our tax dollars.

Space is a dangerous place if NASA doesn't have enough spine to send men into space when men need to go into space then NASA needs to go away and let some other group that still has the "right stuff" take over.

[hopespringseternal]

Most of what NASA does is not going to make a profit, maybe not ever. There is a place for that.

Some things do need to be profit-motivated. Launch services should be profit motivated, and it looks like NASA will be getting out of the launch business. Shuttle was an effort to nationalize the launch business and it works about as well as socialism in general.

NASA should buy launch services. Plenty of companies can provide it.

[alancarp]

Yes, there are freezes - clearly. The mid-80's saw a bunch of them. But just as clearly, launching in January doesn't have to be a death sentence. Recall, for example, that Bill Nelson was on Columbia just before the Challenger launch -- in January 1986.

Yeah -- I saw the groves killed off in the citrus belt, too (I lived among'em!). You're right - it takes about 4+ hours at 28 to damage them. But for starters, it's typically 3-5 degrees warmer at the coast. And USUALLY, low temps are short-lived. But there was indeed a period of 4-5 years that just blasted the groves in the late 80's. It has hardly been that cold since.

The ice you refer to is due to the cryo gasses, which happened in the middle of July, too.

Here's the rub: NASA was stupid to have launched Challenger: this was an abberation that can't be repeated due to new post-Challenger flight rules. Again, I don't think January '05 is their problem. It's a general culture that has repeatedly believed "we engineered this stuff to the max - it couldn't possibly be a problem." They're good -- real good -- but hardly perfect.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I believe they are assuming that the shuttle would be docked on the ISS, inspected, and then if problems were discovered the crew would live on the ISS until the rescue ship arrived.

I believe that is correct and under certain conditions would be a viable solution. However, it still wouldn't have helped the crew of Columbia a year ago because we were told by NASA after the disaster that Columbia could not have reached the ISS because it lacked the fuel to match orbit with the ISS and it also lacked a suitable docking ring for docking with the ISS.

So, NASA...will all future STS missions be sent to the same height as ISS and, if not, will they carry sufficient fuel and docking adapters to attain synchronous orbit with the ISS?

[leadpenny]

Heard on MSNBC about a half hour ago: Discovery will be the first to fly and Atlantis will be on standby to go if need be.
____________________

Allard Beutel
Headquarters, Washington
(Phone: 202/358-4769)

James Hartsfield
Johnson Space Center, Houston
(Phone: 281/483-5111)


Feb. 19, 2004
RELEASE : n04-065


NASA Updates Space Shuttle Return To Flight Plans

Members of NASA's Space Flight Leadership Council, which is charged with the oversight of the agency's Return to Flight efforts, today moved the target window for the next flight of the Space Shuttle to March 2005.

The decision was made at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston after an extensive review of activities surrounding plans to return the orbiter fleet to safe flight.

The council also decided that the Space Shuttle Discovery will carry Commander Eileen Collins and a six-person crew into orbit for the Return to Flight mission, which is designated as STS-114.

Media will be able to ask questions about the latest Space Shuttle decisions during a telephone conference Friday, Feb. 20, at 10 a.m. EST. William Readdy, Associate Administrator for Space Flight and Michael Kostelnik, Deputy Associate Administrator for International Space Station and Space Shuttle Programs, will be available to brief reporters.

The teleconference phone number is 888/810-6755. The passcode for access to the conference is the word "Shuttle." Reporters should dial into the teleconference no later than 9:45 a.m. Media representatives who do not want to ask questions but would like to listen to the conference can use the following "monitor only" phone lines: 321/867-1220, 321/867-1240 or 321/867-1260.

Several issues factored into the decision to adjust the planning window for the mission.

More time is needed to:

assess the condition of the Rudder Speed Brake Actuators on the Shuttle orbiters;

research, analyze and test a larger area of the Space Shuttle's external fuel tank for potential foam insulation loss;

and design and build a new camera/laser boom that would be used by the Space Shuttle's robotic arm to help inspect for possible damage while in orbit.

The new STS-114 launch-planning window, which extends from March 6 to April 18, is designed to focus the efforts of Space Shuttle employees working toward Return to Flight.

"We've said for months that we'd be driven by milestones, not a calendar. When we successfully reach those milestones, that's when the Space Shuttle will return to safe flight," Readdy said. "The reports we got from the Space Shuttle Program today indicate to us we need to change the launch planning window for STS-114. This decision reflects our commitment to taking the time we need to make the Space Shuttle safer."

NASA is working with its international partners to assess the possible impact of the launch window change on the International Space Station. The Station program plans to continue safe two-person crewed operations while preparing for and supporting Space Shuttle Return to Flight. NASA also will discuss plans for an April 2005 Soyuz launch with its Russian Space Station partners, Rosaviakosmos.

The Space Flight Leadership Council is co-chaired by Readdy and Dr. Michael Greenfield, Associate Deputy Administrator for Technical Programs. It also includes the directors for NASA's four space flight centers, the Associate Administrator for Safety and Mission Assurance, Bryan O'Connor and Kostelnik.

Today's changes will be incorporated in the next update to NASA's Implementation Plan for Space Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond.

For more information about NASA's Return to Flight efforts, including the current version of the Implementation Plan visit:


http://www.nasa.gov/news/highlights/returntoflight.html

[leadpenny]

Looks like it's no earlier than March 05.

I'm still thinking 'never.'

[unibrowshift9b20]

hopespringseternal wrote: "Some things do need to be profit-motivated. Launch services should be profit motivated, and it looks like NASA will be getting out of the launch business. Shuttle was an effort to nationalize the launch business and it works about as well as socialism in general.

NASA should buy launch services. Plenty of companies can provide it."

Good point. I think I agree. Is it more cost effective for NASA to make lots of launches to make a CEV in orbit, or to get a contractor to make a bigger rocket that needs fewer launches and redezvous? I would guess that scaling it up would be better aerodynamically, with more volume per surface area.

[unibrowshift9b20]

"I'm still thinking 'never.'"

The only remorse I would have is that manned space flight would be down for 10 years. Unless we buy more soyuz.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Brig. Gen. Duane Deal, a member of the team that investigated the space shuttle Columbia disaster, speaks during a news conference at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo., on Monday. Deal said he fears NASA is laying the framework for another catastrophe by planning a September shuttle launch.

Bryan Oller / The (Colorado Springs, Colo.) Gazette / AP photo

[anymouse]

I hope that you are not correct, but this is a political constraint not a technical one, so it may well be never.