Posted on 06/28/2005 9:26:39 AM PDT by Paul Ross
3 safety goals for shuttle missed
The finding that NASA falls short of key recommendations likely will not postpone next month's scheduled launch of Discovery.WASHINGTON --
A divided advisory group concluded Monday that NASA had failed to fully meet three key recommendations for safely returning the space shuttle to flight, including eliminating all critical launch debris and developing a way to repair the ship's heat shielding in orbit.
Although embarrassing to NASA, the findings by the Stafford-Covey Task Group are not expected to postpone Discovery's planned launch in July. Members of the panel who spoke Monday after their final public meeting in Washington lauded NASA's efforts to improve the shuttle and said Monday's verdict did not mean the ship was unsafe.
"[The] recommendations have words in there that say 'thou shall do this,' " panel member Joseph Cuzzupoli said. "They [NASA] have not answered per the words. . . . But from an operational readiness to fly, the data they presented to us so far says it's safe to fly
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
NASA failed to fully meet three of 15 safety recommendations put forth after the Columbia disaster, a task force concluded Monday:
Eliminate all debris that could damage the shuttle during launch.
Be able to fix the shuttle's heat shielding in space.
Make the shuttle more resistant to debris impact during liftoff.
I'll bet one of the twelve goals that were met included airbags for all passengers.
Aye Aye, Captain! We've patched all but three holes in the hull of the ship - we're ready to set sail!
If they'd waited out winter launches we'd have two more flyin' bread trucks ( not that we need'um, but there's cheaper ways to provide firework entertainment).
And larger "no smoking" signs that can be read in 16 languages, including Arabic.
(steely)
Don't forget to put a lock on the cockpit door.
can we all say calculated risk??? give them hazerdous duty pay and be done with it...
(1) The External Tank foam coatings were not restored to original spec, "ozone layer" be damned.
(2)And protective "fairings" were not used as a stop-gap to toughening up the "Criticality-One" external fuselage items like the carbon-carbon leading edges against such impacts. Good grief, molded styro-foam is cheap. Doesn't it just need to hold up through Mach 1 initial turbulence?
There was an image of one of the early shuttles in orbit looking aft through the open cargo doors that showed all kinds of chunks missing from the heat shield foam blocks. No problem, just aesthetics.
agree 100%
Remember this guy?
The Shuttle is supposed to be able to lift off, get into orbit, and carry a crew & payload to do a job.
The White Knight was supposed to be able to reach the scene of a battle, and be able to fight upon arrival.
Turning the shuttle into a white elephant that flies like a pig, and can only carry (most of) the 'safety equipment' that MIGHT be needed once, destroys any semblance to its designed purpose.
AND But from an operational readiness to fly, the data they presented to us so far says it's safe to fly, so even these people admit their "recommendations" are BS.
Now, can we get on with it?
I just hope we aren't someday doing such a broadcast about the Discovery, Atlantis or Endeavor etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.