 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / August 2004Discovery Milestones Set Stage for Return to Flight
Melissa Mathews Headquarters, Washington August 18, 2004 (Phone: 202/358-1272) Jessica Rye Kennedy Space Center, Fla. (Phone: 321/867-2468) Kyle Herring Johnson Space Center, Houston (Phone: 281/483-5111) June Malone Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. (Phone: 256/544-7061) RELEASE: No. 62-04 DISCOVERY MILESTONES SET STAGE FOR RETURN TO FLIGHT The pace of preparations for Return to Flight is picking up, with several key milestones in recent weeks marking important progress in readying the Space Shuttle Discovery for its next mission. Discovery is progressing after the completion of extensive wiring for Return to Flight, as well as the transition from its modification period to more regular processing at Kennedy Space Center. Meanwhile, the first piece of Discovery's twin Solid Rocket Boosters was moved to a processing facility on site and workers are installing several important components. Though Discovery appears unchanged from the outside, the orbiter is very different on the inside. The power-up on July 27 follows safety improvements and modifications to enhance vehicle monitoring during flight. Technicians have installed cabling for wing leading edge sensors and to support a digital camera to document the External Tank as it separates from Discovery. Wiring also has been installed to support a boom extension for the Shuttle's robotic arm, which will provide the ability to inspect nearly all of the outside areas of the orbiter's Thermal Protection System in detail. On August 9, the first segment of the Solid Rocket Boosters designated for Discovery's flight was moved to the Rotation Processing and Surge Facility at KSC. The aft skirt -- the bottom, skirt-shaped section of the boosters -- will have two other components installed: an aft motor segment and an External Tank attach ring. Next month, the structure will move to the Vehicle Assembly Building for stacking operations. Engineers and technicians have applied many of the modifications laid out in NASA's Implementation Plan for Space Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond. "The Vision for Space Exploration begins with safely returning the Shuttle to flight and resuming assembly of the International Space Station," said Michael Kostelnik, Deputy Associate Administrator for International Space Station and Space Shuttle Programs. "These processing milestones show we're moving toward that goal." Eighty-eight sensors will be installed on each wing. Sixty-six will measure acceleration and impact data and 22 will take temperature data during Discovery's climb to orbit. Ongoing tests have demonstrated these sensors can detect very small impacts. Wiring has been added to the umbilical well under Discovery to accommodate a digital camera, which will transmit External Tank photos to the ground quickly. When the tank is separated from the Shuttle, an automatic sequence will capture 24 images at one frame every 1.5 seconds. These images will be downlinked to Mission Control at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston for review and analysis. "The Program's first line of defense was to redesign the External Tank so that debris of a critical size never impacts the orbiters again," said Bill Parsons, Space Shuttle Program Manager. "We have done that. Combined with ground, airborne and onboard cameras and lasers, the addition of sensors will provide more detection and inspection capability than the Program has ever had." The visible progress in Florida and other locations around the country parallels work by the Space Shuttle Program and its many contractor and subcontractor teams in response to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's recommendations. NASA's Space Flight Leadership Council is the internal body reviewing the Shuttle Program's work, and the Stafford-Covey Return to Flight Task Group provides independent, external oversight. NASA is working toward a launch planning window for Discovery that opens in March 2005. Since September 2002, Discovery has been in a regularly-scheduled Orbiter Major Modification period for maintenance and upgrades. In addition to the Return to Flight work, more than 100 modifications have been performed, including the addition of the Multi-functional Electronic Display System, or "glass cockpit." "Along with the power up, we have passed several significant milestones during the last few months with the installation of the Forward Reaction Control System, the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon nose cap and wing leading edge panels," Discovery Vehicle Manager Stephanie Stilson said. "I am very optimistic we are moving toward a launch next spring." -end- -- --------------------------- Jacques :-) www.spacepatches.info WTG! Yours, Doug Goncz ( ftp://users.aol.com/DGoncz/incoming ) Student member SAE for one year. I love: Dona, Jeff, Kim, Mom, Neelix, Tasha, and Teri, alphabetically. I drive: A double-step Thunderbolt with 657% range. > Eighty-eight sensors will be installed on each wing. Sixty-six will measure > acceleration and impact data and 22 will take temperature data during > Discovery's climb to orbit. Ongoing tests have demonstrated these sensors > can detect very small impacts. Surely they will do this on re-entry as well as during ascent? Bruce > > Eighty-eight sensors will be installed on each wing. Sixty-six will > measure [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Surely they will do this on re-entry as well as during ascent? Maybe the idea's to take date to determine if it's _possible_ to re-enter.  SignatureAlan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years, not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge Alanterskine1@bigpond.com > > Eighty-eight sensors will be installed on each wing. Sixty-six will > measure [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Bruce blkhtrykey i hope so > Melissa Mathews > Headquarters, Washington [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > www.spacepatches.info What if Discovery were to be damaged in the exact same way as Columbia? Would the changes put in place since Feb. 2003 allow it to survive? > What if Discovery were to be damaged in the exact same way as > Columbia? Would the changes put in place since Feb. 2003 allow it to > survive? The crew would likely survive. The orbiter would not. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > > What if Discovery were to be damaged in the exact same way as > > Columbia? Would the changes put in place since Feb. 2003 allow it to > > survive? > > The crew would likely survive. The orbiter would not. Could it be docked at the space station until a repair mission could be made? "hunkahunkaburninluv" <some@where.come> wrote in news:2p4nlkFguisaU1@uni- berlin.de: >> > What if Discovery were to be damaged in the exact same way as >> > Columbia? Would the changes put in place since Feb. 2003 allow it to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > Could it be docked at the space station That's the plan. > until a repair mission could be > made? No, a rescue mission. The crew will first attempt to repair the damage. But with a Columbia-size hole, there will be almost zero confidence that the repair will hold through entry. NASA would be very unlikely to risk the crew on it. So the crew will remain on ISS, salvaging orbiter consumables until depleted, to hang on until the rescue flight can be launched. However, ISS can only accommodate one orbiter at a time. The damaged orbiter will be undocked unmanned, then remotely commanded to a destructive deorbit over the Pacific. The orbiter is not yet capable of landing unmanned, and NASA considers it more important to protect innocent third parties from debris risks than to attempt to recover the orbiter intact. The rescue shuttle would be launched after the damaged orbiter is destroyed, dock with ISS, and bring the stranded crew home. This answer applies only to the early flights after return-to-flight. NASA is developing an unmanned orbiter landing capability, but this will not be ready for return-to-flight. Once this capability is available, NASA would attempt to land a damaged orbiter at a site that does not pose significant public overflight risk from debris. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > "hunkahunkaburninluv" <some@where.come> wrote in news:2p4nlkFguisaU1@uni- > berlin.de: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > attempt to land a damaged orbiter at a site that does not pose significant > public overflight risk from debris. Why couldn't a repair kit be sent in orbit? > Why couldn't a repair kit be sent in orbit? All flights will carry a repair kit. But, *one* *more* *time*, with a Columbia-size hole there is almost zero confidence that the repair will hold throughout entry. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > ...with a > Columbia-size hole there is almost zero confidence that the repair will > hold throughout entry. To clarify, the exact nature of the damage to Columbia is unknown. Mike Scott USA Space Shuttle Flight Design and Dynamics >>...with a >>Columbia-size hole there is almost zero confidence that the repair will >>hold throughout entry. > > To clarify, the exact nature of the damage to Columbia is unknown. Yes, but the hole must have been at least of a certain size in order to get the inferred rate of heat flow into the wing. Paul "Paul F. Dietz" <dietz@dls.net> wrote in news:bPSdnS-n6pqNVrDcRVn- tQ@dls.net: >>>...with a >>>Columbia-size hole there is almost zero confidence that the repair will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, but the hole must have been at least of a certain size in order > to get the inferred rate of heat flow into the wing. Correct. Also, the hole must have been at least of a certain size in order to cause the aerodynamic effects that were observed. Interestingly, both lead to the same empirical result: a hole 6-10 inches in diameter, on the lower surface of RCC panel 8L. A hole of such a size is also consistent with the radar evidence from the flight day 2 "mystery object". It is true that the exact nature of the damage is unknown (and will never be known), but all the available evidence is consistent, with no contrary evidence found to date. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > >>...with a > >>Columbia-size hole there is almost zero confidence that the repair will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Paul As I remember, Shuttle is planned in "two-plane configuration" at first and booster plane was only later changed with more cheap ET + solid boosters. Both Challenger and Columbia crashed as result of problems in ET + boosters combination, not in space plane itself. Can we made conclusion that turn from booster plane to ET+boosters combination was fatal failure? Is it possible, that, thanks to change in configuration, ET and boosters are simply designed in a hurry and less carefully then orbiter itself? Best, Vello > > >>...with a > > >>Columbia-size hole there is almost zero confidence that the repair will [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > possible, that, thanks to change in configuration, ET and boosters are > simply designed in a hurry and less carefully then orbiter itself? Do the plans for the flyback booster still exist? Should NASA consider building it for Shuttle and whatever replaces it? > Do the plans for the flyback booster still exist? Should NASA consider > building it for Shuttle and whatever replaces it? Things didn't get quite far enough for actual plans; more like concepts. As for building it for anything, I doubt it's needed. The Shuttle's replacement will be much smaller than the Shuttle and will used either the Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V or both. That's simply cheaper than building a new booster for only one payload as the D-IV-H and A-V are already flying and very reliable. SignatureAlan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years, not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge Alanterskine1@bigpond.com > > Do the plans for the flyback booster still exist? Should NASA consider > > building it for Shuttle and whatever replaces it? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Alan Erskine Does it look like the Shuttle replacement will be for crew use only, while the payloads will be orbited with an expendable booster? > Does it look like the Shuttle replacement will be for crew use only, > while the payloads will be orbited with an expendable booster? That's the way I see it. Delta IV Heavy isn't big enough for anything like what would be needed for a dual-role return vehicle, but the same _type_ of booster can be used for both missions - only the return vehicle would need to be designed and built. SignatureAlan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years, not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge Alanterskine1@bigpond.com > > Does it look like the Shuttle replacement will be for crew use only, > > while the payloads will be orbited with an expendable booster? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Alan Erskine What would they use for a payload arm? It would have to be attached to the same vehicle as the payload. > Do the plans for the flyback booster still exist? Should NASA consider > building it for Shuttle and whatever replaces it? The current Shuttle design essentially postdates the flyback booster concepts; by the time it was decided on, the wonderful "second plane" was a half-forgotten dream. There's some very, very good stuff in Jenkins on this (when isn't there?), which I commend to you. There were later plans, by I think Boeing, to come up with "aftermarket" flyback boosters, essentially as a replacement for the SRBs. The cost would have been nontrivial, though, and as they were larger, bulkier, and liquid-fuelled, the infrastructure would have needed massively reworking. It's likely not worth it, not now, and arguably not then. From the beginning, perhaps... but those development costs were pretty strangled. The Shuttle replacement is intended to fly on the EELVs, or a vehicle bearing more than a passing resemblance to them; NASA are, it seems, moving out of the launch vehicle business (which is probably a good thing). If someone goes and builds a flyback booster with the same performance, sure, it can fly on that, but it's not likely soon... Signature-Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk > Do the plans for the flyback booster still exist? Should NASA consider > building it for Shuttle and whatever replaces it? Building it for the shuttle doesn't make sense. The shuttle will only continue flying until ISS assembly is complete. A flyback booster probably could not be developed much before the fleet is retired, so it won't be used enough to pay for its enormous development costs. The design of the shuttle flyback booster was specific enough to the shuttle that adapting it to a replacement vehicle doesn't make much sense either. It would be better to start from scratch. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > As I remember, Shuttle is planned in "two-plane configuration" at first and > booster plane was only later changed with more cheap ET + solid boosters. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > possible, that, thanks to change in configuration, ET and boosters are > simply designed in a hurry and less carefully then orbiter itself? But there were many problems with the shuttle itself that could have led to disaster. The mission with the electrical short that took out redundancy in the engine controllers was bad and led to tearing down each orbiter and inspecting as much of the wiring as possible. Note that this was a general problem with the wiring that needed fixed across the board. The mission with the bad sensors in the SSME's could have led to a dangerous abort had the crew not been instructed to "inhibit" shutdown of the remaining two engines, which allowed them to abort to orbit. There was the incident of the fire in the engine compartment during landing (I'm guessing this could have been very bad had it happened during ascent rather than on the ground). There were the hydrogen leaks which had the potential to cause an explosion. There was the drag chute cover that hit one of the SSME's on ascent. There was the mission with the airlock door that wouldn't open, which eliminated the possibility of a contingency space walk (e.g. to close the payload bay doors manually if they failed to close automatically). Before Challenger, the brakes were marginal and there was no nose wheel steering, which could have led to very bad things happening when landing in high crosswinds. The RCC testing and inspection after Columbia showed problems with corrosion of the RCC that really cried for regular non destructive testing. The list goes on and on. The shuttle has had serious problems independent of the ET and SRB's. Jeff > There was the drag chute cover that hit one of the SSME's on ascent. A great example of some of the unintended consequences of adding in a new system that is supposed to improve safety, but instead added a whole new slew of potential failure points. The next time someone brings up rebuilding the shuttle orbiters with ejectable crew seats, and or the whole crew module compartment, they should look very closely at this event. -Mike > Is it possible, that, thanks to change > in configuration, ET and boosters are simply designed in a hurry and > less carefully then orbiter itself? No, the change occurred early enough that there was no hurry. The orbiter (specifically, the SSMEs and TPS) remained the "long pole" in development even after the change. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > > Why couldn't a repair kit be sent in orbit? > > All flights will carry a repair kit. But, *one* *more* *time*, with a > Columbia-size hole there is almost zero confidence that the repair will > hold throughout entry. I understand that the repair kit that will be sent up won't be up to the job, but is there any reason that a specialized repair mission couldn't be set up to do the same kind of repair job that would be done on the ground? Could they manufacture replacement tiles and install them using the same procedures that would be done on the ground? > "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message > > "hunkahunkaburninluv" <some@where.come> wrote in \> > > > > Why couldn't a repair kit be sent in orbit? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Could they manufacture replacement tiles and install them using the same > procedures that would be done on the ground? Tile repairs that are done on the ground are time-consuming, require specialized tools that would be difficult to handle in 0 g, involve the use of solvents that might not perform well in vacuum (for instance, they might "boil off" too fast to keep the adhesive from setting before the new tile is in place), and involve clearances that spacesuit gloves can't handle. However, tile repair isn't the big problem. RCC panels, such as the Wing Leading Edge, are attached mechanically, and because there are fewer of them, easier to stockpile. However, the need for solvents and tools that can be used in vacuum, in 0 g, and in tight tolerance locations while working with spacesuit gloves make this difficult again. A specialized mission to carry out the repairs would require significant training and planning, as well as the material logistics issues. The lead time for such a mission might well exceed the time available on station, even with scavenged o2, h2o, and other consumables. The lead time for Soyuz, Progress, and probably ATV is likely to be long enough that they wouldn't be much help in providing additional supplies or bringing down a part of the crew to extend the time available to the remainder of the crew. /dps >> > Why couldn't a repair kit be sent in orbit? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > install them using the same procedures that would be done on the > ground? Tiles and RCC panels aren't repaired on the ground; they are replaced. The replacement techniques are not amenable to EVA. And you still have the problem that ISS can only accommodate one orbiter at once. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.