 |
 | 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 / March 2007Delays threaten station timetable
Delays threaten station timetable Future flights may be scrubbed BY TODD HALVORSON and JOHN KELLY ADVERTISEMENT Post a Comment View All Comments -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NASA does not launch money into space. They launch hardware. The money stays on the ground and flows from the government, back into the hands of working taxpayers. Posted by: destinationspace on Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:04 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh the trials and tribulations of the Gov't funded work/welfare project for aerospace engineers. There is nothing more exciting or humanly fulfilling than to shoot Money into outer space. Posted by: Joe Blow on Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:32 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post a Comment View All Comments CAPE CANAVERAL - NASA's task to fix a hail-hammered shuttle fuel tank creates uncertainties about its ability to resume International Space Station assembly this spring and launch European and Japanese science labs by year's end. A potential three-month delay in the next shuttle flight raises questions about agency plans to finish building and outfitting the station by a September 2010 deadline set by President Bush. But officials hope Atlantis and six astronauts can set sail during a launch period from April 22 through May 21. Otherwise, the crew will not fly before June 8. A recovery plan for the next shuttle mission should be complete late next week. "There's still optimism that we can launch within that window," said Kyle Herring, a spokesman for NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. The window ensures proper temperatures on a shuttle docked at the station. Atlantis and its crew had been scheduled to launch today. But the shuttle's 15-story external tank sustained serious damage during a freak hail storm on Feb. 26. More than two weeks later, inspectors still are mapping damage to foam insulation that covers the tank. And questions about NASA's long-term shuttle launch schedule remain unanswered. NASA plans to launch 16 missions to complete station construction and stock the outpost before the shuttle fleet is retired. Five flights are to launch this year. The last mission will launch in July 2010, and a three-month slip in the Atlantis flight would eliminate the margin in a tight schedule. Further delays could force NASA to cancel flights. Two supply runs would be candidates. Independent safety experts consider those missions crucial to operating the station until at least 2016. They also question whether NASA should press ahead with the $100 billion project if the outpost can't be completed as planned. "The basic ISS objectives would be compromised, thus raising the question of whether ISS operations should be continued," the experts said in a Feb. 27 report. The independent safety task force examined vulnerabilities that could lead to the destruction of the station, compromise the health of its crew members or force astronauts to abandon ship. Even before the hailstorm, the investigators red-flagged schedule pressure as a significant risk to the project's completion. They said the existing schedule represented "a reasonable flight rate if no major problems are encountered that cause launch delays." But they also raised concerns about the possible cancellation of the supply runs. Once the fleet is retired, NASA will have no guaranteed way to launch large spare parts like heavy gyroscopes that keep the station flying properly in orbit. The devices have proven to be prone to failure, and they are just one example of spare parts needed to keep the station flying safely. Also to be hauled up: extra shielding to protect the station from micrometeorite or debris strikes that could penetrate the hull, destroying the outpost and killing all aboard. NASA studies predict there is a 55 percent chance of a penetrating strike over a 10-year period. The chance of a catastrophic strike: nine percent. The extra shielding and other measures would reduce those odds to 29 percent and 5 percent, respectively. The supply runs "are needed to assure the long-term viability and perhaps survivability of the ISS," the investigators said. They urged the White House, Congress and NASA to launch all remaining missions to the station. NASA is in a bind. The agency must retire the shuttle on time so it can afford to build a replacement. Even at this point, the replacement will not be ready to fly before late 2014. However, NASA chief Mike Griffin has a one-word answer for those asking if the agency would keep the shuttle flying after the deadline: "No." >However, NASA chief Mike Griffin has a one-word answer for those >asking if the agency would keep the shuttle flying after the deadline: >"No." Then the man is an idiot and should be moved to somewhere his talents will be fully utilised. Shelf stacking in Walmart seems about right. -- > On 15 Mar 2007 15:52:21 -0700, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -- Its clear the shuttle CANT finish the station in time. Its just impossible, and really always was. I still believe it should be demanned and flown till theres only one left I don't think he actually said a one word answer. The last quote I heard was something along the lines of we have 2010 as a hard date and it is our job to deliver, or similar words. This of course is shorthand fudge for, Bush will not be in office, and neither might I be when the new admin takes over. :-) Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. > >>However, NASA chief Mike Griffin has a one-word answer for those [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -- >I don't think he actually said a one word answer. The last quote I heard was >something along the lines of we have 2010 as a hard date and it is our job >to deliver, or similar words. This of course is shorthand fudge for, Bush >will not be in office, and neither might I be when the new admin takes over. "2010" didn't come originally from Bush. It came from the CAIB. Bush and NASA both accepted CAIB's findings and recommendations. Brian > On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:31:38 GMT, "Brian Gaff" > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Brian That date assumed RTF way before it occured. Such date will get moved back, ITS IMPOSSIBLE to finish station by 2010. One good safety stand down will put it over the edge shortly. Then the question do you continue construction on a station that cant be completed? >>However, NASA chief Mike Griffin has a one-word answer for those >>asking if the agency would keep the shuttle flying after the deadline: >>"No." > >Then the man is an idiot and should be moved to somewhere his talents >will be fully utilised. Shelf stacking in Walmart seems about right. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board said "recertify or retire by 2010". The President of the United States said the Shuttle will be retired in 2010. There is no money or time to recertify the remaining Shuttles by 2010. You seriously expect the NASA Administrator to say anything else? Brian >The Columbia Accident Investigation Board said "recertify or retire by >2010". > >The President of the United States said the Shuttle will be retired in >2010. Your last couple of presidents, have both said some pretty silly things that turned out to be complete and total bullshit - so I don't know how that statement means much. >There is no money or time to recertify the remaining Shuttles by 2010. ... "By executive decree, I hearby declare the shuttle Endeavour recertified until 2014". Next ... >You seriously expect the NASA Administrator to say anything else? Nope. Nick >Your last couple of presidents, have both said some pretty silly things >that turned out to be complete and total bullshit - so I don't know >how that statement means much. It means the President is the one ("the decider", ahem) calling the shots, not the NASA Administrator, who the original poster slammed. >>There is no money or time to recertify the remaining Shuttles by 2010. > >... "By executive decree, I hearby declare the shuttle Endeavour >recertified until 2014". Next ... Not that simple. Congress would hold hearings on how he intends to fly the Shuttle beyond 2010 without the "system and subsystem level" recertification that the CAIB clearly spelled out and both he and NASA previously agreed to adhere to. If they don't like the answer, the President doesn't get the funding, and no Endeavour until 2014. Brian >Not that simple. Congress would hold hearings on how he intends to fly >the Shuttle beyond 2010 without the "system and subsystem level" >recertification that the CAIB clearly spelled out and both he and NASA >previously agreed to adhere to. If they don't like the answer, the >President doesn't get the funding, and no Endeavour until 2014. Hang on, do you really expect us to believe, that your president is powerful enough to send 1000's of people to their deaths, year after year, in some foreign wasteland, but doesn't have the power for a minor administrative over-ride, that will only risk a handful of volunteers? Come on ... pull the other one ... Nick >>Not that simple. Congress would hold hearings on how he intends to fly >>the Shuttle beyond 2010 without the "system and subsystem level" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >administrative over-ride, that will only risk a handful of volunteers? Come >on ... pull the other one ... Up there in the frozen tundra, I guess you aren't aware that Bush's approval rating is somewhere south of 30%, that he's fighting any number of self-inflicted scandals, that his party lost both houses of Congress last year, that the 2008 election campaign is already in full swing, and oh by the way, Congress controls the pursestrings, not him. The Democrats would pounce on this if Bush just ignored yet another independent panel (the CAIB this time.) The Republicans will distance themselves from him even faster than they are trying to at present. No... pull what you will, it won't happen. Brian >>>Not that simple. Congress would hold hearings on how he intends to fly >>>the Shuttle beyond 2010 without the "system and subsystem level" [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Brian And everyone in this thread is ignoring the fact that Bush won't *be* the president in 2010, so the actual decision will be made by an entirely different set of people, even if they are Republican-party people. SignatureMaurice Barnhill mvb@udel.edu [Use ReplyTo, not From] [bellatlantic.net is reserved for spam only] Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716 >> Up there in the frozen tundra, I guess you aren't aware that Bush's >> approval rating is somewhere south of 30%, that he's fighting any >> number of self-inflicted scandals, that his party lost both houses of >> Congress last year, that the 2008 election campaign is already in full >> swing, and oh by the way, Congress controls the pursestrings, not him. >And everyone in this thread is ignoring the fact that Bush won't >*be* the president in 2010, so the actual decision will be made >by an entirely different set of people, even if they are >Republican-party people. I think their argument, though, is to abandon the 2010 cutoff now and fly out the manifest even if it takes until 2011 or 2012. Brian >>>>Not that simple. Congress would hold hearings on how he intends to >>>>fly the Shuttle beyond 2010 without the "system and subsystem level" [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > by an entirely different set of people, even if they are > Republican-party people. Most likely, the decision will be moot by the time the next president takes office. NASA is already moving to terminate shuttle supply contracts once they've provided enough parts to last through the planned manifest. The next administration will find itself in much the same situation with respect to the space shuttle that the Nixon administration found itself in with respect to Apollo/Saturn: a rapidly drying supply pipeline and no easy/cheap way to reopen it. Stretching the current manifest past 2010 will still be possible but adding new flights to the manifest won't be. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > Most likely, the decision will be moot by the time the next president > takes office. NASA is already moving to terminate shuttle supply > contracts once they've provided enough parts to last through the planned > manifest. I think the discussion is that the current manifest cant' be flown by 2010, hence the extension. Not adding to the manifest. In which case those terminations shouldn't be a problem. > The next administration will find itself in much the same > situation with respect to the space shuttle that the Nixon administration > found itself in with respect to Apollo/Saturn: a rapidly drying supply > pipeline and no easy/cheap way to reopen it. Stretching the current > manifest past 2010 will still be possible but adding new flights to the > manifest won't be. Exactly. :-) And I think the termination at this time is the same mistake that the A/S one. Oh well. SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DAB Consulting Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com > Not that simple. Congress would hold hearings on how he intends to fly > the Shuttle beyond 2010 without the "system and subsystem level" > recertification that the CAIB clearly spelled out and both he and NASA > previously agreed to adhere to. Or it could simply argue that the 2010 deadline had been set based on a number of flights. NASA isn't adding more flights, it simply had longer than expected periods of downtime. So, if you interpret the CAIB report as setting limits on number of flight each orbiter could perform before recertification, it becomes easy to allow NASA to operate beyond 2010 provided it doesn't add any more missions to each orbiter. You cannot just keep a blind eye to the need of recertification after a certain point has bene reached. But you can interpret the deadline in a way which does not break the spirit/intents of the CAIB report. >Or it could simply argue that the 2010 deadline had been set based on a number >of flights. NASA isn't adding more flights, it simply had longer than expected >periods of downtime. Except that the CAIB did _not_ say "after x flights" or "after x flights of each Orbiter" (even though both make vastly more sense). They clearly spelled out 2010 and just as clearly didn't justify that date... it is clear they wanted NASA to recertify the vehicle soon and not keep putting it off until after "this next series of very important missions we just HAVE to launch." >So, if you interpret the CAIB report as setting limits on number of flight each >orbiter could perform before recertification, it becomes easy to allow NASA to >operate beyond 2010 provided it doesn't add any more missions to each orbiter. And it becomes just as easy for political adversaries to claim Bush is ignoring yet another independent commission, being reckless with lives and capital, etc. And they'll have the CAIB report on their side, while Bush would only have, "but what the CAIB really MEANT was..." And all it will take is the opposition to find one member of the CAIB to go in front of a camera and say, "No, that's not what we meant. 2010 is 2010." Poof! Yet more mud on the President and another scandal to struggle through. >You cannot just keep a blind eye to the need of recertification after a certain >point has bene reached. But you can interpret the deadline in a way which does >not break the spirit/intents of the CAIB report. You're nuts if you think the current Congress is going to go along with that. Hell, if Bush announces that the sky is blue, the current Congress will insist he's lying and start planning hearings. Brian >>However, NASA chief Mike Griffin has a one-word answer for those >>asking if the agency would keep the shuttle flying after the deadline: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >-- Wal-Mart has standards! On Mar 15, 4:52 pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote: > Delays threaten station timetable > > Future flights may be scrubbed > > BY TODD HALVORSON > and JOHN KELLY ADVERTISEMENT What impresses me Todd is that NASA always comes up with these scehdules that look great on paper but dont have a chance of working. Five a year...that was iffy pre Columbia... Robert G. Oler >What impresses me Todd is that NASA always comes up with these >scehdules that look great on paper but dont have a chance of working. > >Five a year...that was iffy pre Columbia... False. 1995: 7 flights 1996: 7 flights (no flights of Discovery) 1997: 8 flights (no flights of Endeavour) 1998: 5 flights 1999: 3 flights 2000: 5 flights (no flights of Columbia) 2001: 6 flights (no flights of Columbia) 2002: 5 flights (no flights of Discovery) Brian |
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.