NASA Grounds Shuttle Fleet While Probing Columbia Disaster

voanews.com ^ | 02 Feb 2003, 01:22 UTC | David McAlary

[George W. Bush]

Israel was very proud of their astronaut and happy to participate with the American space program. They will be more than pleased to continue, especially considering the sacrifices made by all parties.

Did you notice that in their first official statement they expressed a sorrow for the loss of the crew but they said that after we bury our dead, that Israel looks forward to continuing its participation in manned exploration. Very sensible. And a very kind remark to us as well. They're not blaming us. They want to keep going. That's what makes Israel great. I think we should offer them a seat on the next shuttle mission if they have a qualified astronaut.

[snopercod]

It has stopped preparing orbiters for flight at the Kennedy Space Center launch site, including the one that was scheduled to exchange crews at the International Space Station in early March.

Brilliant. Only in a bureaucracy like NASA do you order people to sit on their hands for two years every time there is a problem.

Did it ever occur to those morons that we should press on and have a shuttle ready to launch in case of problems on the ISS? Hell, if a generic problem is found, they can always destack and fix it.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

The more complex a system is, the more things there are that can go wrong. Given that in the space program, "things that can go wrong" include massive amounts of highly explosive propellants, the deadly vacuum of space, and fierce re-entry temps, it really is amazing that we have had as few catastrophic failures as we have. Nevertheless, we have not been able to drive the probabilities down to zero, and probably never will. In the case of the shuttle program, we have had two catastrophic failures now in around hundred flights (suggesting a catstrophic failure rate probability of approximately 1:50), and have now lost 40% of our five-vehicle fleet.

A smaller spacecraft that was only tasked for transporting people and not cargo would mean a lot less complexity throughout. A smaller spacecraft would mean smaller rockets, and it would mean fewer tiles. We don't fly airliners that carry maybe a dozen pasengers plus several tons of FedEx parcels -- why should we think that what doesn't make sense for routine terrestrial air transport should make sense for what is supposed to become routine space transport?

[Magnum44]

...but grounding the entire fleet is uncalled for. It isn't like they are going to find an inherent problem with all the shuttles that only shows up after 107 shuttle missions.

From a pilots perspective, you comment needs reconsideration. Understanding failure mechanisms in a complex system is crucial to reducing risks, even more so when lives are at stake. I can almost guarrantee you that of those 107 flights, not a single one was launched under identical conditions, with exactly the same hardware at the same stage in its life cycle, with identical software builds, same temperature exposures to tiles and adhesives, carried identical payloads that structurally stressed the airframe, etc. A system like the shuttle is dynamic over its life, and what was safe on flight one may not be safe on flight 28.

The proper course of action is to ground the fleet. The obvious problem with the grounding is that it will be many months, if not years before we can 'safely' fly again.

[Ivan Ivanov]

As far as I know, the cost of one launched kilogram consist:
Space Shuttle - more than 20,000$
Russian rocket - no more than 5,000$
Russian system MAKS (http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya6.htm) - no more 1,000$

I would like to ask you, why nobody mentioned about American project X-38 - Crew Rescue Vehicle (http://members.lycos.co.uk/spaceprojects/x-38.html) which was cancelled in 2001 by reason of cutting NASA' budjet?

[Magnum44]

These two posts are related to your comments:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/834209/posts?page=8#8

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/834209/posts?page=37#37

I'm focusing less on the actual end system rather than the means to get us there.

[Magnum44]

Boran was mostly stolen design, and never man rated. Its infrastructure is in decay. And we would have to pay Billions to have a chance to revive it. The money is better spent in our own Aerospace Industry developing the next US Space Transpotation System.

[Ivan Ivanov]

Today Feb 2, the automatic cargo ship "Progress - M47" by 16:09 (Moscow time) was launched to the orbit by rocket of middle class "SOYUS-U".

February 4 at 17:50 of the Moscow time it must arrive to the International Space Station, and to deliver about 2,568 kilograms of a cargo, including fuel, containers with food for astronauts, parcels, and sets of the documentation.

Besides in connection with probable suspension of flights of the American space shuttles to ISS, connected with Columbia accident, "Progress - M47" must to lift station's orbit, by work of the engines of Russian rocket.

It is the 100-th start of the cargo space ship "Progress - M47".

[Mark Felton]

Debris Photos (post them here)

[Mamzelle]

Nasa isn't just a self-serving bureaucracy, but will not serve its stated vision of exploration without losing the mindset which is being the focus on the Shuttle...the Astronaut Mystique.

By the mid-seventies, Nasa was run by astronauts wanting rides, not by scientists exploring space. After the Challenger disaster, astronauts resigned quickly because their hopes of a ride were gone for the foreseeable future. We will see something similar shortly.

If Nasa can't get back to focusing on exploration, instead of providing ponies for jockeys, I say shut it down completely.

Robotics have emerged by leaps and bounds--little cameras will make openheart surgery no longer open heart. If cameras can crawl around your body, why can't they crawl around Mars? We could send them to Mars by the dozens for what it costs to send John Glenn on a sentimental Shuttle journey. If we got these out of work IT engineers reeducated, the technical problems could be solved. THINK of the spinoffs! Right now, the ISS does experiments about the level of a high school science fair. Maintain the ISS as a future docking point for sending masses of unmanned craft into the solar system. So what if most of them fail? It'll still be cheaper than these pointless joyrides.

[Mamzelle]

re: Brilliant. Only in a bureaucracy like NASA do you order people to sit on their hands for two years every time there is a problem. )))

If the flights were unmanned, they'd shrug with disappointment, but move on quickly. This will be Nasa's third prolonged period of mourning. Think how much farther we'd be if we took the focus off manned flight for unmanned.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

Nasa isn't just a self-serving bureaucracy

I disagree with that statement. If they were in it for the pure science of space flight, they wouldn't fight independent private sector efforts in this country in space travel technology. NASA wants to control everything about America's space technology because they fear loss of power and jobs. They want to protect and control turf to protect and control their federal budget dollars. It's the classic government bureaucracy.

[Truth29]

If the shuttle program is canceled, the space program will die. Human exploration fires the imagination of the citizenry. Robots and other automated probes will not generate support and mass politics will win out. The funds (and tolerance for risk) needed for a program to Mars or back to the moon are beyond the private sector. This is truly a role for big G government. Without the vision, excitement and potential of manned exploration and colonies, the US will only have a LEO capability for satellite launches and other near earth uses. Manned space flight and shuttle type vehicles may not be the most cost effective, but their absence would restrict space activities to narrow, short-term, projects only IMHO.

Now is the time to brace up our political leaders to support not only a return of the shuttle fleet to service ASAP, but also the development of a new generation spacecraft to replace the shuttles as a national priority. NASA has tried and failed to develop such a replacement several times, but a combination of techical difficulties and lack of funding has doomed each such effort. Now is the time to decide that we are serious about our space capabilities and put sufficient effort and funding into the program to succeed.

[Magnum44]

By the mid-seventies, Nasa was run by astronauts wanting rides, not by scientists exploring space. After the Challenger disaster, astronauts resigned quickly because their hopes of a ride were gone for the foreseeable future.

You've obviously never met, talked to, or worked with the professionals that man the astronaut corp. Your comments with regard to good, decent human beings whom you have never met are incorrect, rude, and especially today, insensitive and very much out of line.

NASA has always had a professional 'tension' between its manned and unmanned side. This occurs in any organization that has competing interests for resources. In addition, like it or not, NASA is a political tool, used by congress and administrations as a carrot to other nations, incentive to join us in partnerships, and a symbol of national power. Scientifically, a robotic mission to mars is worth a lot. Politically, manned presence in space is worth 100 robotic missions.

[Destro]

I hate to burst your bubble--the space shuttle is not a space exploration vehicle--it is a badly designed cargo deployment ship with passenger room. NASA has zero manned space exploration vehicles.

[Truth29]

Oh, my bubble is not burst. I know exactly what the shuttle is. And it IS a badly designed truck, but it is an essential part of our overall space program, including the ISS, satellite deployment and repair, as well as a research platform in its own right. If the politics of this are not handled correctly, there will be no program of any type beyond NEO and an occasional robot probe, and we will simply spend the money on such noble black holes as NEA public education, welfare, social services for illegals, etc. No money will be saved and our future will be greatly diminished.

[Beenliedto]

nuclear rockets

Sounds like a bad idea....

especially after seeing what happened yesterday.

[RightWhale]

launchers can put hundreds of tons into orbit in a single lift. In just 3 launches, they could put up the entire space station instead of our 38 shuttle trips. These boosters could put 30 tons in Mars orbit on a single launch.

That is the essence of the BDB [Big, Dumb Booster.] The Space Shuttle would be in that league if they dropped the Shuttle itself and used just the motors with a multiton payload on top. It is already of the same order as the Saturn V, just a little less.

[VietVet]

What can I say? My heart is broken. I wanted to be an astronaut myself, when I was young. It is as if my own brothers and sisters had died.

But that is no reason to stop the manned flight program, and for the immediate future, that means the Shuttle. The Shuttle and the Soyez are the only manned space craft at this time.

The investigation into the causes has already begun. Quite probably a change in procedures, such as requiring an EVA inspection before each descent from orbit will be instituted. Engineering changes to the remaining Shuttle craft may be recommended. But like a rider who is thrown from a horse, we as a nation must get back in the saddle as soon as possible.

There is no perfect technology. Accidents will happen, and brave men and women will die. That is why we treat the astronauts as heroes.

IMO, Congress must fund a program to replace the shuttles as soon as possible. The new shuttles ought to incorporate everything we have learned about structure and materials in the last 30 years (yes, the Shuttles' basic design is that old), but otherwise should be as much off-the-shelf as possible; there isn't time at the moment for R&D and exotic new designs, which might take years to work out. The Shuttle is a proven design, with 20 years of 98% accident free service behind it.

Indeed, let us build 20 new shuttles, three right away (and I am perfectly aware that 'right away' means years of work; I mean start right away): the Enterprize II, the Challenger II and the Columbia II. And after that, we can build one every year (or however fast we can) to replace the existing fleet: the Grissom through the Ramon.

This would revive our Space Program. The increased number of Shuttles, closer to the original concept of the number which would be used, would permit the accomplishment of many projects on "hold", and some in danger of abandonment, for lack of launch vehicles and payload capacity.

Replacing the lost and aging Shuttles with existing technology is only the start. The next step would be designing and building new space craft to do the Shuttle's job, and to do new jobs. The first such new design might be an orbit to orbit shuttle, a craft never intended to re-enter Earth's atmosphere, but to go from the ISS to other sattlites, even those in high earth or geosynchronous orbit, carrying supplies and technicians to repair and replace malfunctioning sattlites and remove no longer needed ones. A second new design might be a smaller shuttle, intended to use existing Atlas-Centaur, Titan II or Soyez launch boosters. If the Shuttle is a truck, this would be amore of a space going mini-van. One of its principle missions might be to ferry personnel to and from the ISS, as well as carry smaller amounts of supplies. These projects could use existing technology.

The third, and truely long-term project would be to develop a new vehicle and system, using new technologies, which would replace the Shuttles. We could restart some of those programs which were cancelled because "the technology did not exist yet." We could refurbish the Russian's Buryan space craft. We could revive the idea of launch from aircraft, and single stage surface to orbit projects, and laser powered launches.

We can change NASA from a budget driven bureaucracy back to a goal oriented active agency. This would revive our high tech industry at a time when it is floundering, not because of technical problems, but because of business problems. And it will proclaim to ourselves and to the World, that America does not let such tragedies set us back. Rather they inspire us to try harder to go farther.

"Ad astera per ardua"

VietVet

[Regulator]

And you, Mr. Bush, get the prize. The Energia booster in its stacked configuration can put 400,000 lbm into LEO. The 3 launch scenario for the Space Station is accurate, and could have been done with no humans on board. They could have come up in vehicles designed to do one thing: move humans.

Unfortunately, though, the Energias that were being stored at Baikonur were significantly damaged just a few months ago when the roof of their old assembly building caved in. I know of no plans that they have to try and resurrect them.

At this point, RKK Energia is using the engines from the Energia booster as the basis for the Angara rocket. This will be Energia's competition for the Khrunichev Proton M / Briz M combo. Read all about it here: Energia history

Especially interesting is the box about the decision by Bhrezhnev and Ustinov to build the Buran as a shuttle copy; it's about the middle of the link page. Note that the Russian engineers disagreed with this at the time.