Still No Fix for U.S. Space Shuttle
Aug. 26, 2004 By Broward Liston
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - One year after a highly critical
report urged NASA to develop the means to fix a broken space shuttle
in orbit, the U.S. space agency still could not repair a hole the size
of the one that doomed the seven Columbia astronauts, NASA said on
Thursday.
A piece of foam that broke off Columbia's external fuel tank 81
seconds after liftoff left a gash in the left wing and caused the
100-tonship to break up as it re-entered the atmosphere in February
2003.
Since then, NASA has experimented with various patches but has found
none that could resist the 3,000 degree F temperature of re-entry,
said Bill Parsons, the shuttle program manager, who spoke to reporters
on the anniversary of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's
report.
"We've made a lot of progress, but we've not been able to come up with
an over-wrap in this time frame that would allow us to fix a large
hole," said Parsons. "Our expectation is that we'll fix the tank and
there won't be anything like that we'll have to deal with."
This month, officials at the New Orleans plant where Lockheed Martin
Corp assembles the $40 million fuel tanks said they were certain the
same accident would not occur again because they would, on future
missions, remove the 1.5-pound piece of foam that broke away during
Columbia's ascent.
But these officials made clear that they had not yet met the exacting
standards set by the accident board that require nothing heavier than
a fraction of an ounce of foam to come off the tank after liftoff.
Most shuttle flights, since the program started in 1981, have resulted
in at least some foam breaking off.
The fuel tank for the return-to-flight mission in 2005 is due to be
sent from New Orleans to the Kennedy Space Center launch facility in
Florida in early November.
Despite the obstacles, NASA officials said they remain upbeat that the
shuttle Discovery will make a launch window next year that runs from
March 16 to April 18.
The accident investigation report released last year excoriated the
agency for a number of failings, including an operating culture that
suppressed dissent.
Thomas Krause, president of Behavioral Science Technology Inc., a
consultant brought in by NASA to help transform that culture, said
there was ample evidence that employees were no longer afraid to speak
up about safety and engineering issues.
But he acknowledged that there was "no clear cut answer" to
determining what is acceptable risk.
Once the shuttles are flying again, NASA hopes to keep an ambitious
schedule averaging five flights a year until construction of the
International Space Station is complete and the shuttle fleet is
retired in 2010, but that date could slip if the launch schedule does.
"The milestone is the completion of the International Space Station,
not the end of the decade," said Bill Readdy, NASA's associate
administrator for the shuttle and space station programs.
The moon and Mars initiative announced by President Bush in January
will not begin flying until funding for the shuttle and space station
can be shifted to it.
Brian Gaff - 27 Aug 2004 12:47 GMT
Reading this release, I'm tempted to say that it is not beyond the bounds of
possibility that there could be a bird strike on the leading edge, and
surely the way to go here, ought to be to have enough strength in the design
in the first place, to accommodate impacts, rather than try to invent a
patch for fixing it later, which in itself will be a bit of a risky
undertaking.
Risk is a difficult thing. It cannot really be quantified when there are so
many variables. With hindsight, after a design that appeared safe has bitten
you badly, it is easy to be wise, but you cannot get rid of risk. Many
people are afraid of flying, but habitually take risks crossing roads
against traffic.
Brian

Signature
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
____________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
dave schneider - 27 Aug 2004 18:50 GMT
> Reading this release, I'm tempted to say that it is not beyond the bounds of
> possibility that there could be a bird strike on the leading edge, and
> surely the way to go here, ought to be to have enough strength in the design
> in the first place, to accommodate impacts, rather than try to invent a
> patch for fixing it later, which in itself will be a bit of a risky
> undertaking.
Ah, but what are the relative velocities of birds and the Shuttle at
altitudes where their paths would cross? Probably not 500 Kts IAS.
In addition, there is quite a bit of effort at the Cape to keep birds
away from the launch area.
Kim et al, I believe this includes moving nests, but does it also
include some sort of pre-launch "obnoxious noise" to drive
passing-though birds away from the site?
/dps
Alan Erskine - 28 Aug 2004 02:34 GMT
> > Reading this release, I'm tempted to say that it is not beyond the bounds of
> > possibility that there could be a bird strike on the leading edge, and
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> /dps
Alan Erskine
funny
Brian Gaff - 28 Aug 2004 17:19 GMT
What a great idea, they could use one of the development beam weapons to fry
the birds as they cross near the shuttle, instant food as well!
Brian

Signature
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
____________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
> > > Reading this release, I'm tempted to say that it is not beyond the bounds of
> > > possibility that there could be a bird strike on the leading edge, and
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> funny
Nick Hull - 29 Aug 2004 12:38 GMT
> Reading this release, I'm tempted to say that it is not beyond the bounds of
> possibility that there could be a bird strike on the leading edge, and
> surely the way to go here, ought to be to have enough strength in the design
> in the first place, to accommodate impacts, rather than try to invent a
> patch for fixing it later, which in itself will be a bit of a risky
> undertaking.
If you had ever watched a launch 'up close' you would have noticed that
as soon as any engine ignites all the birds in the area take off and fly
away from the loud noise.

Signature
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
hunkahunkaburninluv - 28 Aug 2004 09:00 GMT
> Still No Fix for U.S. Space Shuttle
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Since then, NASA has experimented with various patches but has found
> none that could resist the 3,000 degree F temperature of re-entry,
http://www.alternativescience.com/flame-proof.htm
If this stuff is real, it should be up to the job. I think NASA should
approach the inventor and try to buy the rights to it.