Dryden gets report fallout

Antelope Valley Press ^ | August 28, 2003 | ALLISON GATLIN

[BenLurkin]

EDWARDS AFB - Although it is not involved in the day-to-day operations of the space shuttle program, NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base still will feel the effects of Tuesday's released Columbia Accident Investigation Board report. Agencywide reforms are promised by NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe in response to the recommendations of the accident board.

Precisely how those reforms will play out at the individual centers is not yet known, said Bob Meyer, acting deputy director at Dryden.

One way Dryden likely will be affected is by an independent safety organization. This safety center, recommended by the accident board and planned to be based at Langley Research Center in Virginia, will be an umbrella organization over all the agency's projects.

"I would expect it would have some influence over our activities," Meyer said.

The systemic cultural changes recommended by the report likely will have, at least, a trickle-down effect at Dryden, he said.

While he didn't believe that the center has the same difficulties in open communication with management that is described regarding the space program, it is something that will be looked at carefully to determine where improvements can be made, he explained.

Dryden will continue to be an option for shuttle landings, although it is not yet known if it will be a primary landing site for the resumption of shuttle flights.

The early missions following the Challenger accident landed at Edwards as precautionary measures.

While the Edwards site will always be an option as a backup for times when there are weather problems with landing in Florida, O'Keefe said, it carries with it the challenge of returning the orbiters to their Florida base.

"The more you touch it, the more likely the prospect you can damage it," he said.

The West Coast landings cost the agency approximately $1 million to ferry the orbiter cross-country atop the 747 carrier aircraft.

Dryden will continue to play a support role for the shuttle program, possibly including flight tests of any orbiter redesign that may be deemed necessary, he said.

The center will support the Orbital Space Plane program intended to develop a successor to the space shuttle for transporting space station crews.

The X-37, The Boeing Co.'s proposal for such a vehicle, will conduct approach and landing tests at Edwards, using Dryden's B-52 carrier aircraft. These tests are expected for late 2004 or early 2005.

In examining the whole of the space shuttle program, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board looked at the issue of moving the orbiter major modification and regular maintenance from its original site at Boeing's Palmdale facility to Kennedy Space Center, Fla.

Last year's decision to move the operation is expected to save the space agency approximately $30 million for each 18- to 20-month modification cycle.

The savings would be realized by utilizing the existing orbiter processing work force to assist with the maintenance and modification work.

While the accident board recognized the efficiency and cost savings of the decision, "The move also created new challenges: For instance, it complicates the integration of planning and scheduling, and forces the Space Shuttle Program to maintain a fluid workforce in which employees must repeatedly change tasks as they shift between Orbiter Major Modifications, flows and downtime."

The board did not recommend returning the modifications to Palmdale.

Columbia's last major modification was completed in Palmdale in February 2001. The accident board found no errors in this most recent modification that contributed to the accident.

[snopercod]

The accident board found no errors in this most recent modification that contributed to the accident.

The CAIB report totally whitewashed this. The leading edge support system of the Columbia was modified at Palmdale, but the report included no information whatsoever about the need for this modification, or anything else about it.

We, the public, have no idea of what the CAIB looked at by reading their report. We are expected to take them at their word with no evidence presented.