View Full Version : Return to Flight/STS-114
Insomniac
08-03-05, 10:45 AM
Back on topic...
They easily removed the dangling strips. Now they are considering another space walk friday to "fix a protrusion in an insulating blanket outside the shuttle commander's window".
Funny headline at drudge 'One Small Pull for Mankind' :laugh:
Really glad he didn't have to go after the gap filler with the hacksaw or scissors. Using sharp tools while in a pressurized space suit seems like a really bad idea to me.
there's not much serious heating up there so the blanket isn't expected to become a big issue at this point
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v612/Ankf00/Umbilical_5068_Anotated.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v612/Ankf00/STS114_Handheld_ET20Damage.jpg
Ank, have you heard anything about how long it may take to fix the insulation on the PAL Ramp?
JLMannin
08-04-05, 12:48 PM
there's not much serious heating up there so the blanket isn't expected to become a big issue at this point
I read an article on www.newscientist.com (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7788) where they said the issue was not heating upon reentry, but if the blanket could be ripped off and strike the orbiter, causing damage.
Ank, have you heard anything about how long it may take to fix the insulation on the PAL Ramp?
they looked at a metal shield option as well as no shield option apparently, both bad... the turbulence just tears apart the lines unless they're covered according to the wind tunnel or so they're saying... re-design will take a long time, re-orienting it such that the bipod sits polar opposite to the PAL ramp will take a long time, I think they also removed that section of foam for some repairs then re-applied it, so they're looking at it to see if the failure mode just existed on that tank or if it's a process/application problem. to date they believed the only failure mode for that section was the "popcorn" issue from the new foam process due to the freon change, so now they're trying to find if and what another process failure mode might be. remember that the launch vehicle goes supersonic, the outside foam is melting, the inside is so brittle because of the cold tank, and it's everything else inbetween on the inside, so it's an easy issue to model and handle
also, some memo was leaked today and is on the Times website about application problems and a rush to flight...
I read an article on www.newscientist.com (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7788) where they said the issue was not heating upon reentry, but if the blanket could be ripped off and strike the orbiter, causing damage.
Yea, apparently that's the deal, flight director's still saying it's highly unlikely but as always still a possibility they'll run a 4th EVA to fix that
Former Apollo Flight Director Eugene F. Kranz
Former Apollo Flight Director Eugene F. Kranz
's Op-Ed in the Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/opinion/03kranz.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20 Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fContributors)
www.bugmenot.com if you want a free l/p
"Houston
TO read and listen to the coverage about the space shuttle, you would think NASA's mission team has taken careless risks with the lives of the seven astronauts who went into space on the Discovery last Tuesday. During the launching, foam fell off the external tank. For the risk-averse, the only acceptable thing to do now is retire the shuttle program immediately and wait for the divine arrival of the next generation of spacecraft. I am disgusted at the lack of courage and common sense this attitude shows.
All progress involves risk. Risk is essential to fuel the economic engine of our nation. And risk is essential to renew American's fundamental spirit of discovery so we remain competitive with the rest of the world.
My take on the current mission is very straightforward. The shuttle is in orbit. To a great extent mission managers have given the spacecraft a clean bill of health. Let us remember that this is a test flight. I consider it a remarkably successful test so far.
The technical response to the Columbia accident led to a significant reduction in the amount of debris striking this shuttle during launching. Mission managers have said that the external tank shed 80 percent less foam this time than on previous launchings. Only in the news media, apparently, is an 80 percent improvement considered a failure. Rather than quit, we must now try to reduce even more the amount of foam that comes off the tank.
The instruments and video equipment developed to assess the launching and monitor debris falling from the tank worked superbly. For the first time, the mission team knows what is happening, when it is happening and the flight conditions under which it occurred. This was a major mission objective, and it is an impressive achievement...
...Having spent more than three decades working in the space program, I know that all of the flights of the early days involved some levels of risk. Some of those risks, in hindsight, seem incomprehensible by today's timid standards. If we had quit when we had our first difficulties in Project Mercury, we would have never put John Glenn on the Atlas rocket Friendship 7 in 1961. Two of the previous five Atlas rockets test-fired before Friendship 7 had exploded on liftoff.
On Gemini 9, 10 and 11, all in 1966, we had complications with planned spacewalks that placed the astronauts at risk. Rather than cancel the walks, we faced the risks and solved the problems. These set the stage for Gemini 12 later that year, during which Buzz Aldrin spent more than five hours outside the capsule and confirmed to NASA that spacewalks could be considered an operational capability..."
Ank, have you heard anything about how long it may take to fix the insulation on the PAL Ramp?
they looked at a metal shield option as well as no shield option apparently, both bad... the turbulence just tears apart the lines unless they're covered according to the wind tunnel or so they're saying... re-design will take a long time, re-orienting it such that the bipod sits polar opposite to the PAL ramp will take a long time, I think they also removed that section of foam for some repairs then re-applied it, so they're looking at it to see if the failure mode just existed on that tank or if it's a process/application problem. to date they believed the only failure mode for that section was the "popcorn" issue from the new foam process due to the freon change, so now they're trying to find if and what another process failure mode might be. remember that the launch vehicle goes supersonic, the outside foam is melting, the inside is so brittle because of the cold tank, and it's everything else inbetween on the inside, so it's not an easy issue to model and handle
also, some memo was leaked today and is on the Times website about application problems and a rush to flight...
I read an article on www.newscientist.com (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7788) where they said the issue was not heating upon reentry, but if the blanket could be ripped off and strike the orbiter, causing damage.
Yea, apparently that's the deal, flight director's still saying it's highly unlikely but as always still a possibility they'll run a 4th EVA to fix that
Former Apollo Flight Director Eugene F. Kranz's Op-Ed in the Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/opinion/03kranz.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20 Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fContributors)
www.bugmenot.com if you want a free l/p
"Houston
TO read and listen to the coverage about the space shuttle, you would think NASA's mission team has taken careless risks with the lives of the seven astronauts who went into space on the Discovery last Tuesday. During the launching, foam fell off the external tank. For the risk-averse, the only acceptable thing to do now is retire the shuttle program immediately and wait for the divine arrival of the next generation of spacecraft. I am disgusted at the lack of courage and common sense this attitude shows.
All progress involves risk. Risk is essential to fuel the economic engine of our nation. And risk is essential to renew American's fundamental spirit of discovery so we remain competitive with the rest of the world.
My take on the current mission is very straightforward. The shuttle is in orbit. To a great extent mission managers have given the spacecraft a clean bill of health. Let us remember that this is a test flight. I consider it a remarkably successful test so far.
The technical response to the Columbia accident led to a significant reduction in the amount of debris striking this shuttle during launching. Mission managers have said that the external tank shed 80 percent less foam this time than on previous launchings. Only in the news media, apparently, is an 80 percent improvement considered a failure. Rather than quit, we must now try to reduce even more the amount of foam that comes off the tank.
The instruments and video equipment developed to assess the launching and monitor debris falling from the tank worked superbly. For the first time, the mission team knows what is happening, when it is happening and the flight conditions under which it occurred. This was a major mission objective, and it is an impressive achievement...
...Having spent more than three decades working in the space program, I know that all of the flights of the early days involved some levels of risk. Some of those risks, in hindsight, seem incomprehensible by today's timid standards. If we had quit when we had our first difficulties in Project Mercury, we would have never put John Glenn on the Atlas rocket Friendship 7 in 1961. Two of the previous five Atlas rockets test-fired before Friendship 7 had exploded on liftoff.
On Gemini 9, 10 and 11, all in 1966, we had complications with planned spacewalks that placed the astronauts at risk. Rather than cancel the walks, we faced the risks and solved the problems. These set the stage for Gemini 12 later that year, during which Buzz Aldrin spent more than five hours outside the capsule and confirmed to NASA that spacewalks could be considered an operational capability..."
Looks like they have decided not to bother with the thermal blanket.
Thanks for the info Ank. Hope they figure out a fix pretty soon.
How about a really large condom over the ET? :gomer:
How about a really large condom over the ET? :gomer:
I always thought the ET looked good in white. Hopefully they wouldn't go with a colored condom. ;)
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/STS1/10060318.jpg
Insomniac
08-04-05, 05:31 PM
I always thought the ET looked good in white. Hopefully they wouldn't go with a colored condom. ;)
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/STS1/10060318.jpg
I think all that white paint weighed ~6000 pounds. Now they stick with the primer.
I think all that white paint weighed ~6000 pounds. Now they stick with the primer.
That plus the cost of painting the tank was >$100K/flight, IIRC.
-Kevin
Yep. The white paint wasn't the best design decision.
But it looked cool.
P.S. The foam is its natural red color - there is no primer.
plus it's something like $10K/LBM to reach Low-Earth Orbit...
Return to Earth slated for 4:46am ET.
Thoughts and prayers for a safe return, crew.
-Kevin
they passed over central texas at 6:15am this morning, tomorrow morning they come over central america into florida, they should be waaaaay more than okay barring further incident....
1/3 the previous tile damage, nothing impacted the leading edge which is where you first hit hypersonic.
good luck to the crew, with a most competent pilot and a most competent commander, she may not be as hot as Dr. Karen Nyberg was my last night in Houston, but honestly, who can be as hot as Karen in tshirt and jeans playing darts at Boondoggle's;)
Delayed until Tuesday due to weather in Florida.
An interesting read on the next gen vehicles:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/07/MNGJSE4CAS1.DTL&type=science
-Kevin
TKGAngel
08-09-05, 08:29 AM
Shuttle has landed. :)
Welcome home Discovery :cool:
indyfan31
08-09-05, 10:08 AM
Got up and watched the landing on TV, didn't hear the sonic booms in my area though. Considering that thing is falling like a rock when it's coming in I'm completely amazed that Mission Control can predict touchdown right to the minute.
pfc_m_drake
08-09-05, 10:33 AM
Considering that thing is falling like a rock when it's coming in I'm completely amazed that Mission Control can predict touchdown right to the minute.
Hey...those guys do good work!
And welcome home Discovery!!
Got up and watched the landing on TV, didn't hear the sonic booms in my area though. Considering that thing is falling like a rock when it's coming in I'm completely amazed that Mission Control can predict touchdown right to the minute.
Now, if they can only adapt that technology to the airlines :rofl:
An interesting read on the next gen vehicles:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/07/MNGJSE4CAS1.DTL&type=science
-Kevin
http://www.safesimplesoon.com/default.htm
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1040
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zl.html
supposedly L-M submitted a worked over version of the orbital space plane, ergo Boeing/Northrop's rumoured apollo style capsule should win CEV...
according to the editor, L-M thinks CEV will be just another paper spaceship like X-33 and X-38 and didn't care to submit a real proposal, then again, the RFP was weak as hell and epitomizes the utter stupidity of appointing an accountant as NASA chief, apparently the RFP contained very specific financial and time goals, the technical aspects however, completely blank....
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zl.html
supposedly L-M submitted a worked over version of the orbital space plane, ergo Boeing/Northrop's rumoured apollo style capsule should win CEV...
according to the editor, L-M thinks CEV will be just another paper spaceship like X-33 and X-38 and didn't care to submit a real proposal, then again, the RFP was weak as hell and epitomizes the utter stupidity of appointing an accountant as NASA chief, apparently the RFP contained very specific financial and time goals, the technical aspects however, completely blank....
Requirements? We don't need no stinkin' requirements.... :gomer: (welcome to my world) :shakehead
-Kevin
Requirements? We don't need no stinkin' requirements.... :gomer: (welcome to my world) :shakehead
-Kevin
:rofl: we're getting to write some of our own at the moment
that article also says that with inflation the Apollo program was spending ~$16B, manned flight now is about ~$8B
Discovery on her way home:
http://www.space.com/images/h_discovery_sts114_ferry_02.jpg
That sight always amazes me.
$1,000,000 down the drain... too bad.
I always laugh at the soccermom sized arse they stick over the Shuttle Main Engines for drag reduction... some lipo is in order!
I'm not sure if it is as much drag reduction as it is a way to have more stable airflow around the tail of the 747.
oddlycalm
08-19-05, 02:16 PM
the utter stupidity of appointing an accountant as NASA chief, apparently the RFP contained very specific financial and time goals, the technical aspects however, completely blank.... Hey, it worked for General Motors didn't it? Ooooops, almost forgot, it didn't work for GM.
We have our wonderful business schools to thank for this. The prevailing wisdom that is dispensed from them is that a good manager can manage anything. Unfortunately, whether it's NASA, GM, Maytag, Onan, or any other outfit that actually has to make something, the evidence is that this prevailing wisdom is deadass wrong. US trained biz school grads can't seem to do much of anything other than outsource when it comes to making things. They try to hide behind justifications like labor cost, but dirty little secret is that they have no idea how to do their job and this is a prime example. They don't even know what the questions are, they just know how much they intend to pay and when they need it. :shakehead
This is exactly why the US is "moving to a service based economy" as our fearless leaders are fond of putting it.
oc
$1,000,000 down the drain... too bad.
Thanks for the info, I wondered how much it cost but hadn't gotten around to looking.
No flights until March '06 @ the earliest. :(
The RtF oversight board blasts NASA for its failures before, during, and after the Discovery mission:
In stinging comments Wednesday, seven members of a return-to-flight oversight group said the best solutions for improving Discovery's safety were not always pursued because of "this false schedule pressure."
They also blasted NASA for still exhibiting many of the same behavioral problems that contributed to the Columbia tragedy, poorly assessing shuttle risks and making the shuttle's return to space more complicated and costly than it needed to be.
-Kevin
or any other outfit that actually has to make something, the evidence is that this prevailing wisdom is deadass wrong. US trained biz school grads can't seem to do much of anything other than outsource when it comes to making things. They try to hide behind justifications like labor cost, but dirty little secret is that they have no idea how to do their job and this is a prime example. They don't even know what the questions are, they just know how much they intend to pay and when they need it.
ocNot just manufacturing anymore, oc.
(currently training my "replacements" for overseas development) :shakehead
Not just manufacturing anymore, oc.
(currently training my "replacements" for overseas development) :shakehead
Interestingly, I caught a bit on the news the other day about a report by ??? (Gartner?) discussing the actual savings from offshoring. The reality is that ~10% is saved vs. the 40-50% co$t savings that were projected due to additional co$t$ for travel, telecom, etc. IMHO, history will show this to be a cyclical blip and not a long-term trend.
-Kevin
Interestingly, I caught a bit on the news the other day about a report by ??? (Gartner?) discussing the actual savings from offshoring. The reality is that ~10% is saved vs. the 40-50% co$t savings that were projected due to additional co$t$ for travel, telecom, etc. IMHO, history will show this to be a cyclical blip and not a long-term trend.
-KevinLoss of productivity is HUGE, as well.
I'm not sure if it is as much drag reduction as it is a way to have more stable airflow around the tail of the 747.
yea you're probably right, less drag's just a benefit
Not just manufacturing anymore, oc.
(currently training my "replacements" for overseas development) :shakehead
heck, there's consulting firms in bangalore doing high end stats analysis even...
bow chick a wow wow... chick a woooooooow wow...
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/MikeEddy/Boeingboing.gif
And Discovery returns home. Grab a Snickers boys and girls, it's gonna be awhile before she flies again. :(
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/TECH/space/08/21/discovery/story.ksc.nosegear.jpg
-Kevin
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.