Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Shuttle to head for launch pad
Topic Started: Apr 6 2005, 12:21 PM (431 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

Source

Quote:
 
Primary mission will be to test new safety methods
By Michael Coren
CNN
Wednesday, April 6, 2005 Posted: 11:31 AM EDT (1531 GMT)

Discovery was attached to the fuel tank and rocket boosters March 29.
     
(CNN) -- Thousands of people have spent the past two years working to make the space shuttle into a safer vehicle since the loss of the Columbia in 2003.

That vision will inch closer toward reality Wednesday when Discovery leaves its hangar for an eight-hour, four-mile journey to the launch pad at Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida.

"We feel very comfortable that this will be a very safe mission, and we would not launch if we didn't feel this would be a very safe launch," said Jessica Rye, a NASA spokeswoman.

As Discovery approaches its May 15 launch date, the shuttle carries a heavy burden.

NASA is attempting to regain its footing following the loss of Columbia when it was castigated for safety lapses and complacency about risks to the shuttle.

Discovery's launch will be NASA's first manned space flight since Columbia.

"We understand from an engineer's standpoint that [the shuttle] is a developmental vehicle and will be until the last flight," said LeRoy Cain, the NASA flight director who oversaw Columbia's abortive re-entry.

"We have taken a very hard look at ourselves. ... [The mistakes] are very easy to see now, but rather than dwell on that we're moving forward. We understand what is we're about to go do."

NASA was forced to change its safety culture and re-evaluate the shuttle's flight worthiness after Columbia burned up over the skies of Texas in 2003.

Damaged thermal insulation on Columbia's left wing allowed superheated gases to penetrate and destroy the vehicle with all seven astronauts onboard.

Since then, Discovery has had 286 modifications, including 41 recommended by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, or CAIB, the independent panel that examined the disaster.

It has also benefited from a suite of new imaging technology.

Discovery can launch from May 15 to June 3. If it misses this period, the next launch opportunity occurs between July 12 and 31 when lighting conditions allow NASA to photograph the shuttle's daylight ascent, another CAIB recommendation.

"We have scheduled the 15th of May as our targeted launch date," said Michael Kostelnik, deputy associate administrator for international space station and space shuttle programs.

"But it should be clearly understood that this is a 'not earlier than' date, which gives us the earliest opportunity we can bring all of the processing elements together and have a credible window to get to the international space station."

Despite their optimism, NASA officials cautioned that the launch date could be pushed back if difficulties crop up -- as they did last week.

Vital paperwork for the shuttle to resume flight was not filed on time, according to the task force monitoring the agency's efforts. NASA said it might require two weeks before the approval process is completed.

Mission: Safety
Discovery's mission, and the one after it, will focus almost exclusively on safety. The space agency will test safety hardware and shuttle maneuvers designed to prevent problems like the one that struck Columbia.

Exquisitely precise radar systems and long-range cameras will be trained on the orbiter. The shuttle will carry a repair kit for its protective thermal tiles and an orbiter boom sensor system on its robotic arm to scan the shuttle with cameras and lasers.

Discovery will even perform a pirouette in view of the international space station to inspect its delicate underbelly. As a last resort, a second shuttle will stand by on the ground in a rescue mission is needed.

All of this is part of NASA's drive to reconstitute a "safety culture" that had eroded since the Challenger accident almost two decades earlier, according to the CAIB report, issued in August 2003.

"NASA's organizational culture had as much to do with this accident as foam did," the CAIB report stated.

Columbia was doomed during launch when a chunk of foam the size of a briefcase and the weight of a typical plastic foam cooler slammed into Columbia's left wing at high speed.

The impact punched a hole in the leading edge, breaching the protective covering of reinforced carbon-carbon. When the shuttle re-entered Earth's atmosphere, superheated gases destroyed the craft.

At the time, top shuttle managers were aware of the foam problem but had dismissed it as a threat. Lower-level engineers worried it might endanger the shuttle, but their concerns reportedly never reached mission managers.

The CAIB said NASA's intolerance for dissent, relaxed safety standards, tightened budget and slipshod management all contributed to the disaster.

| Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Safety is very important. I will never forget sitting there and watching TV while the Challenger exploded before my very eyes. Imagine being a family member out at Cape Canaveral that day. :(

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
There has been a delay in the rollout.

http://www.local10.com/news/4352820/detail.html

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
digifan2004
Member Avatar
Electronic genius
NASA officials had concluded the crack on the foam casing is minor and will pose no danger to the shuttle or the crew. The countdown to the launch had resumed.

Wasn't it a similar defect that caused the Challenger diaster more than fourteen years ago? :ermm:

EDIT - This is my five hundredth post! Amazing! :wow:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Richman
Member Avatar
Captain
Nope, the Challenger problem was in the 'O' Rings on the rocket boosters...although foam impacting on the heat shield is what caused the Columbia disaster.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

24thcenstfan
Apr 6 2005, 06:38 PM
Safety is very important. I will never forget sitting there and watching TV while the Challenger exploded before my very eyes. Imagine being a family member out at Cape Canaveral that day. :(

Same here. I was too young to remember Challenger, but watching Columbia was awful.
| Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Well I'm glad to see them back in action, but what happened to the X-33?, Shuittle design needs to be redone from scratch, the other ones aren too old.

(The X-33 is/was the NASA developement prototype as seen in the ENT intro)

Posted Image
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Richman
Member Avatar
Captain
The shuttle is definately overdue for a replacement program. If you look at the past NASA programs (Mercury, Apollo...) They all built on eachother and were replaced after a few years; meanwhile, the Shuttle is almost 30 years old. It's time for NASA move forward.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Agreed. You don't keep a car for 30 years (Well, mostly people don't) so why keep something that gets battered every time it takes a trip?

| Quote | ^
 
digifan2004
Member Avatar
Electronic genius
I think the reason NASA officials kept the current shuttle design is because it had been proven as a highly efficient design. Why mess with something that had been proven with an excellent work record?

AAR May 15th is the scheduled launch date for Discovery to return to the ISS. NASA engineers had completed a series of critical tests on the shuttle's safety and fuel systems.

IMO I really wish NASA would consider modifying the shuttle prototype and bring the Enterprise into the stars. It would be an excellent tribute to Gene Roddenberry and Trekkies everywhere just in time for the fortieth anniversary of one of the world's most enduring franchises. :yes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
digifan2004
Member Avatar
Electronic genius
Update - The mission to the ISS had been pushed back a week due to the imcompletion of paperwork. :blink: How typical. :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
digifan2004
Member Avatar
Electronic genius
Now the launch had been scrubbed and push for a July launch date while the shuttle get a new fuel tank. :headscratch:

I don't get it. What if the ISS run out of supplies? Who will go up there to help the astronaunts onboard this space station?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Darthsith
Ensign
24thcenstfan
Apr 6 2005, 05:38 PM
Safety is very important. I will never forget sitting there and watching TV while the Challenger exploded before my very eyes. Imagine being a family member out at Cape Canaveral that day. :(

I remember this as well, they had as all watching in school because the first teacher was going into space. We where all in the auditorium watching it on the TVs they put up.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
That was a very sad day indeed. I was at work I believe, and the television was on....
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
cptjeff
Captain of the Enterprise-J
captain_proton_au
Apr 14 2005, 07:14 PM
Well I'm glad to see them back in action, but what happened to the X-33?, Shuittle design needs to be redone from scratch, the other ones aren too old.

(The X-33 is/was the NASA developement prototype as seen in the ENT intro)

Posted Image

I had a conversation with the guy in charge of that back in febuary (next genereation shuttle orbiter project) and that design has been scrapped in favor of a smaller design. I posted some of the things that they have going at this point (or as of febuary) and my comments on them.... *digs up link*

http://sistertrek.net/index.php?showtopic=7146

enjoy.


oh, and to digifan's comment about the Enterprise,
that would be possable, but not likely. it would be extermly expensive, and it's pretty likly that the spaceframe has deteriorated soem without any maitainance for the past 20 years, so it would be an extermly expensive propasition to do that, becase you have to go over every square millimetere of every bit of the frame, and skin, replace a lot of it, check and replace the tiles, give the systems a complete overhaul (still 80's tech on there) and functional full powere engines have never been instaled. It would be much cheaper to build a new one, and if you're going to build a new one, go with the new design that needs no external tank, ect. Those add up too.
I say take it out of the smithsonian and take it for more tests- use it to test new systems, just keep it in the atnoshere. that would be much cheaper, and it would make sense as far as practiacl testing goes.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Science and Technology · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus