i don't think it's a case of safe or not safe... it's weather the crew is willing to fly and take the chance. knowing what the problems are of course and then deciding for themselves if they want to risk it or not.
Posted on 06/30/2006 2:34:55 PM PDT by Cagey
Key NASA officials who oversee the agency said they don't believe the shuttle is safe for launch, according to a Local 6 News report.
E-mails sent to NASA's administrator from the agency's inspector general's office obtained by the Orlando Sentinel said they didn't believe shuttle Discovery should launch without more work to prevent foam insulation from breaking off the external fuel tank.
NASA already had a "no go" for flight from the agency's top safety official and chief engineer. However, NASA managers went ahead and gave the "go for launch" for Saturday.
Meanwhile, NASA declined Thursday to release documents from a critical safety meeting where managers debated whether to go forward with the shuttle launch.
Local 6 News partner Florida Today and The Associated Press asked the agency to release records from the Flight Readiness Review meetings under the Freedom of Information Act. The records outline the safety issues raised during the June 16-17 meetings at Kennedy Space Center.
'The question that we have at this point is that last year, NASA was able to release the documents that were used during their flight readiness review -- which is the meeting where the decision is made to go forward with launch," Florida Today's John Kelly said. "This year they have decided in the face of the same request to deny release of the records."
The newspaper immediately appealed the decision to NASA Administrator Mike Griffin. AP is assessing the situation.
Liftoff is scheduled for 3:49 p.m. Saturday.
[If the risk is below 10%, by means go ahead.]
The risk for the space shuttle has always been about 1% per flight for a catastrophic failure.
I don't know of any reason for it to deviate much from that number for this launch.
Well, the countdown is in progress. At Spaceflightnow.com:
FRIDAY, JUNE 30, 2006
The shuttle Discovery's countdown is on track today for a launch attempt Saturday at 3:49 p.m., weather permitting. Forecasters continue to predict a 60 percent chance of unacceptable weather Saturday, Sunday and Monday due to electrically charged anvil clouds within 23 miles of the launch area and a possibility of showers.
Thunderstorms Thursday afternoon delayed work to load Discovery's internal tanks with liquid oxygen and hydrogen for the ship's electricity producing fuel cells. But the launch team had eight hours of built-in hold time Thursday to make up for any delays and by this morning, the countdown was back on track.
Based on the actual load, flight controllers now believe Discovery may have enough power generation capability to permit a one-day mission extension - and a third spacewalk to test wing leading edge repair techniques - even if launch is delayed to July 4. Based on earlier predictions, July 3 appeared to be the cutoff for a mission extension, barring extensive crew conservation procedures. In any case, no decision will be made on a possible mission extension until well into Discovery's mission.
If these men have assessed the risks and think they should speak up, they should. What's more, I think they should be listened to.
People spoke up before the O-Rings failed. People spoke up before the foam incident last time.
If the mission doesn't fail, that's not the point. The point is that the shuttles are old and the risks are becoming too high to launch with relative assurance that the crews will return.
In this instance there is a specific problem that STILL hasn't been addressed. We've lost one crew already to this specific problem. I don't see how they can launch now in good concience without addressing the tile & foam issue.
If this weren't NASA, I'd be shocked that they are going to lauch again without fixing the foam problem, but then this is NASA and their track record is crystal clear.
They just don't seem to give a damn.
Feynman's observations on the reliability of the Space Shuttle:
http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/challenger-appendix.html
Since the failure mode that is being discussed is one that would preclude the shuttle from landing, a new procedure and equipment are in place to try to repair the shuttle, and, while the astronauts are safely on the station, to fly the shuttle back by remote. A new cable is being flown for the first time that will enable a connection from the mid deck to the flight deck and allow the shuttle to be flown home without a crew.
Actually, I think NASA is one of the few exceptions to that rule. Therefore; If they aren't using the safest process for application, it's their own bullheadedness. Unfortunately, that is not an unknown commodity in that agency.
Thanks for the heads up, I didn't know that site existed, got it booked.
You have to understand that the concern is not for problems on launch but on landing. If something happen to the shuttle on launch it will make it to orbit and the crew would wait to another shuttle picked them up. The MSM can't get the facts straight.
There may be many forms of payback associated with successful shuttle flights. Bragging rights, national prestige, dominance of space for future military purposes, and/or scientific and engineering discovery and development.
But if the risk is 10%, implying that every tenth shuttle is lost, then the program will not meet public acceptance. A 1% loss rate is possibly acceptable to the public.
The problem I see is that we live in very interesting scientific times. The money being burned up by NASA could be supporting genetic research, alternative energy development, or (please don't laugh) left in the hands of the taxpayers to pursue what they believe will benefit them personally the most (like a secure retirement in the face of a failing Social Security system).
The whole shuttle program hangs by a thread. Another lost shuttle in the next ten years will probably end the program.
as for safety, where were the NASA guys when it was being designed, keeping the shuttle as simple as possible in order to be safe at this point in its lifecycle?
smacks me as the typical, predictable CYA response from the bloated bureaucracy NASA has sadly become.
that said, the astronauts going up in these next few flights are brave indeed!!
When the schedule says it is ready, it's done. Maybe it is time to retire the shuttle; but I think it is past time to retire NASA. Sometimes you have to fire everybody and start over.
" These people are paid to evaluate safety so I believe they should be listened to."
But they are ENGINEERS!
That means when management disagrees with them it is standard operating procedure to just ignore them.
Sherman, of course. And I didn't have to go way back in my memory for that one.
Takes a special breed to strap on those solid rocket boosters and allow themselves to be shot into space.
Me! Me! I'll drive all night just to get there !!!
Top O'the World MA!
It's been a good site for several years. Usually something fresh every day.
The new "Eco Foam" has a tendency to "popcorn" off the tank as it rapidly heats from aerodynamic heating and the draining away of the super-cold liquid. The old Freon-based foam could take the rapid temp change, but the new stuff can’t vent fast enough as the liquefied air in the foam (as opposed to Freon) turns back into a gas, so it “popcorns" off, blowing out chunks of foam.
Immediately after they switched to the new Eco foam (my term), the hits to the shuttle’s belly tiles jumped to over a hundred and fifty per trip. One trip, the shuttle came back with over 350 foam strikes to the belly tiles. Some were read dooseys too--like six inches long and at least half the depth of the tile(s). They treated it as a maintenance item.
For the record though, the piece of foam that took out Columbia wasn’t this Eco stuff.
i don't think it's a case of safe or not safe... it's weather the crew is willing to fly and take the chance. knowing what the problems are of course and then deciding for themselves if they want to risk it or not.
The 220-page report, while mostly positive, included a minority report signed by seven of the task group’s twenty-six members blasting NASA’s return-to-flight effort, citing “a cycle of smugness substituting for knowledge” and faulting NASA for, among other things, setting unrealistically early launch dates. Griffin responded:
“We’ve worked hard at NASA over the last two and a half years to improve that situation that led to the loss of Columbia. But we don’t suppose that we’re done, and one of the reasons why I was very receptive to the minority report was because we can’t get done unless we’re willing to listen to all of the hard truths.
Here's the link: http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive05/Stafford_082205.html
It seems that NASA has learned absolutely nothing since this report was released and that Griffin did not really mean what he said about listening to hard truths. If something bad happens to this upcoming flight, then he will have blood on his hands...
Ping for I hope your right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.