Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

You may have been off, but nearly as far off as the wizkids that predicted 2-days after launch, that NASA was going to abandon the Orbiter at the Station. They'll claim NASA gave the impression, and though I think that NASA was quick to "ground the fleet"; that's a far cry from abandoning the orbiter.

Posted by Leland at August 9, 2005 07:15 AM

I watched the Shuttle glide in over Los Angeles from the roof of the Aeronautics building here at Caltech.

It was 5am and still dark; the shuttle looked like a star gliding overhead and sinking behind the hills - a beautiful sight!

Posted by Kevin Parkin at August 9, 2005 02:15 PM

Let's have a poll:

Will NASA launch another Shuttle mission (STS-121 ?) this fall? Yes or no.

My prediction: Yes!

Your prediction?

Posted by David Davenport at August 10, 2005 07:41 AM

My prediction: no. They have to make a fairly substantial change to the PAL ramp. I don't see them jumping through all the paperwork hoops until next year.

Posted by Paul Dietz at August 10, 2005 09:32 AM

It seems to me they can test small portions of improved foam covering in windtunnels at realistic conditions... that is provided NASA still has such tunnels.

So I vote yes.

But there is of course no justifiable reason to continue the Shuttle - it is not the first step to the Moon or Mars, and each Shuttle flight pushes those goals further away.

Posted by Kevin Parkin at August 10, 2005 10:35 AM

Yes.

November or December, not September though.

Mike

Posted by Michael Kent at August 10, 2005 11:23 AM

I'm guessing that they will not be able to sufficiently understand the PAL ramp, and will be forced to remove that foam entirely and use a metal shield to control the airflow there. In this case, I don't see flights again this year, if ever.

Posted by Paul F. Dietz at August 10, 2005 11:24 AM

[ My prediction: no. They have to make a fairly substantial change to the PAL ramp. I don't see them jumping through all the paperwork hoops until next year. ]

Suppose LockMart says, "Very sorry, PAL ramp mods will require at least another calendar year to complete. Maybe two years."

Will NASA and the ISS foreign partners and the vender Shuttle-ISS lobby accept this wait? I doubt it. All the world's news media will be sticking their laughingstock label on NASA. NASA = USA = decline and failure of America! Ha ha ha, fat ugly Americans!

There will be increasing pressure to terminate the Shuttle program entirely. Shouldn't waste more time and money ineffectually tinkering with those stupid External Tanks!

If I were Dr. Griffin, I'd react to these carpers and critics by launching another Shuttle. If I had to wait a year or two to get Lockheed to put a lightweight fairing on the PAL ramp areas, I would think: "We can't wait that long. Might as well launch Atlantis this fall. This mission has a light payload schedukled. There should be room to carry more food, water, and oxygen up to the ISS. They'll appreciate that if they, um, have to stay up there a while. Mybe NASA will even take the ultimate, most draconian drastic step, and reduce the number of supermnumeries going aloft."

[ But there is of course no justifiable reason to continue the Shuttle - it is not the first step to the Moon or Mars, and each Shuttle flight pushes those goals further away. ]

Kevin, you don't understand politics and human psychology. If the Shuttle program ends with an ignominious whimper, that won't necessarily mean additional funding or ANY funding for human missions to Moon and Mars. Instead, the verdict: Shuttle = loser may lead to the verdict: manned spaceflight in general = loser. If the Shuttle program ends disgracefully, the no-humans in space school of thought may win.

Kevin, as I was saying last week, I do think that NASA ought to plan on only seven or eight more ISS trips and one Hubble servicing encore performance mission.

Posted by David Davenport at August 10, 2005 11:42 AM

Remember what I was saying about operating Shuttles sans humans?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/science/space/10shuttle.html

NASA Must Tackle Foam, Fuel Tank and Future of the Program

Chris Carlson/Associated Press

By JOHN SCHWARTZ and WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: August 10, 2005

...

One [ nameless ] NASA adviser ( not I ) raised the possibility of limiting the risk to humans by removing astronauts entirely and turning the shuttles into cargo haulers to the International Space Station - an option the space agency seldom mentions in public, but has quietly studied.

Both the shuttle and the space station would require modifications to achieve automated rendezvous, as the Russians do with robot vessels that dock routinely at the station. And the agency has shunned such a step because of the public appeal of piloted space flight. ( Shuttle autopilots can land the craft already, but let's not dwell on that. )

Still, some [ enonymouse ] experts say the new unease over the shuttle means that such upgrades ought to be considered as a way of eliminating the risk to astronauts.

...

Posted by David Davenport at August 10, 2005 12:05 PM

If I was offering forth a clueless idea like that, I'd want to remain nameless too. How do these geniuses propose getting astronauts to station prior to CEV completion if they fly Shuttle uncrewed? There's no point in launching Shuttle, or continuing the program, if you're not going to put people on it. You might as well just send things up on ELVs. This notion that we can't risk the lives of astronauts is nuts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 10, 2005 12:09 PM

Will NASA and the ISS foreign partners and the vender Shuttle-ISS lobby accept this wait? I doubt it.

Not liking a fact doesn't mean that the fact goes away. If the job that has to be done on the ET is sufficiently complicated, do you think Lockheed wants to cut corners, if that means they're culpable if the fix actually causes an accident? That paperwork exists in large part to cover butts.

Posted by at August 10, 2005 12:38 PM

[ How do these geniuses propose getting astronauts to station prior to CEV completion if they fly Shuttle uncrewed? ]

A mixture of manned as well as unmanned Shuttle launches, plus Soyuz. I think the Rooskies are willing to send up three at a time in a Soyuz, although NASA only approves of two at a time.

Another possibility is to modify Shuttles to stay aloft at the ISS for months at a time, and launch a second, umanned Shuttle, with a maxi-sized cargo, to the ISS while the crewed Shuttle is up there. Crews can choose to return to Earth on whichever Shuttle has the least damaged thermal protection system.

Furthermore, having a long endurance Orbiter at the ISS addresses the space station lifeboat issue.

Besides, this opens up a great opportunity for private entrprise ( as opposed to Boeing or LockMart ) to hurry up and develop a vehicle that can take people to the ISS.

[If the job that has to be done on the ET is sufficiently complicated, do you think Lockheed wants to cut corners, if that means they're culpable if the fix actually causes an accident?]

You're saying that Lockheed has been rilly careful and spread no effort with the External Tank in the past? Ho ho ho har har.

If the proposed PAL ramp fix is to require on the order of two years and many more $ to complete, then one might reasonably decide to forgo improvements to the PAL ramps and choose either of the following:

(a) No more Shuttle flights;

(b) Continue Shuttle missions without big upgrades to the PAL ramp structures.

If option (b) is selected, then why not go ahead and launch Atlantis this fall? Safety fears could be alleviated by announcing that only a small number, perhaps eight, total additional manned Shuttle missions are planned.

And this would not be a mere trick. The best way to minimize probability of mortal Shuttle failure is to minimize the number of manned Shuttle missions remaining.

On the other hand or branch, if NASA decides chooses to have significant fixes done to the ET, and the improved External Tanks do indeed shed much less foam, then we're probably going down a different branch of the decision tree: if we finally have a safe ET, then why not build both side-mounted Shuttle C
and a new manned Shuttle II and build the ISS as big as can be?

Side-mounted Shuttles to 2075, at least!

Posted by David Davenport at August 10, 2005 01:45 PM

Will they? Such a delay often can be more embarrassing to the space agency than to the vendor. It seems to me that in light of the ballooning costs and long delayed schedule of the ISS, these people are quite forgiving in matters of this type.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at August 10, 2005 02:50 PM

I'd say the answer is "no", but I think they will propose to "return to flight" (again) before the end of the year. I'll even take a chance and say they will launch with the currently assigned ET.

Hey, this is Houston, maybe they'll learn something about live TV delays from the Super Bowl. ;)

Posted by Leland at August 10, 2005 03:00 PM

[ Will they? Such a delay often can be more embarrassing to the space agency than to the vendor.]

Good point. Why should the established venders feel em-barr-assed? They get "punished" with more NASA contracts.

{It seems to me that in light of the ballooning costs and long delayed schedule of the ISS, these people are quite forgiving in matters of this type. ]

That's true, up to maybe the present. Maybe I'm projecting my own preferences on to Dr. Griffin, but my, ummm, male intuition says that he wants to make his mark on space endeavors.

If NASA waits two years while Lockheed builds an improved ET before flying again, Dr. Griffin may have less than a year -- the year 2008 -- to oversee any additional Shuttle missions. A Hubble servicing mission will be very unlikely.

It's quite possible that the next President, even if he's a Republican, will want a different NASA director. Think about the calendar. If there's another approximately two year hiatus in Shuttle launches, there won't be that much time left in the Bush II administration, and not that much time left for Mike Griffin as NASA director.

And to return to another point, it may be a mistake to think that a lash-up for the PAL ramps will make Shuttle flights much safer. There are other Failure Modes Effects that can kill a Shuttle.

My conclusion: might as well launch Shuttle Atlantis this fall.

Posted by David Davenport at August 10, 2005 03:36 PM

"Kevin, you don't understand politics and human psychology. If the Shuttle program ends with an ignominious whimper, that won't necessarily mean additional funding or ANY funding for human missions to Moon and Mars.

Instead, the verdict: Shuttle = loser may lead to the verdict: manned spaceflight in general = loser. If the Shuttle program ends disgracefully, the no-humans in space school of thought may win."

David, it is YOU who does not understand human nature.

Manned spaceflight is part of the national identity, and if it were to end people who were once indifferent to it would sense a loss of prowess. I recommend reading "The psychology of persuasion" by Cialdini in order to better understand this; particularly the part about why doomsday cults become more devout AFTER their doomsday predictions do not materialize.

This collective loss felt once the Shuttle program ends will manifest politically as a perceived need to continue the manned spaceflight program.

Back in the 1970s NASA tapped this mechanism when they irrevocably ended the Saturn V program. Rather than ending manned spaceflight, it created the political pressure that sustained the Space Shuttle development even as promises were broken and costs spiralled.

Posted by Kevin Parkin at August 10, 2005 06:47 PM

[ Manned spaceflight is part of the national identity, and if it were to end people who were once indifferent to it would sense a loss of prowess. ]

Yes, and that's one reason why I don't think Mike Griffin will wait another two years to launch another Shuttle.

[ I recommend reading "The psychology of persuasion" by Cialdini in order to better understand this; particularly the part about why doomsday cults become more devout AFTER their doomsday predictions do not materialize. ]

America = doomsday cult? Typical Liberal Arts Lefty B.S.

[ This collective loss felt once the Shuttle program ends will manifest politically as a perceived need to continue the manned spaceflight program.]

It depends on how the Shuttle program ends. If the general perception is that American human space flight is too failure-prone, Congress may not allocate mucho big $ for new manned space vehicles.

[ Back in the 1970s NASA tapped this mechanism when they irrevocably ended the Saturn V program.]

Huh? What mechanism? Saturn/Apollo was a great success, and almost everybody perceived it to be so. The premise was that Saturn/Apollo was great, and the Shuttle was going to be even better.

Congress and the public bought into the Shuttle back then because they trusted and respected NASA.

[ Rather than ending manned spaceflight, it ]

Once again, that "it" was the success of Saturn/Apollo. Not failure, success.

[ .... created the political pressure that sustained the Space Shuttle development even as promises were broken and costs spiralled. ]

But the Shuttle never had that much further development. Its design has been pretty much frozen since Richard Nixon was Prez. Oh, OK, somebody's going to remind us about the lightweight ET's replacing the original External Tanks.

One point of view is that the big broken promise was not making the Shuttle system fully reusable.

"created the political pressure that sustained the [ fill in the blank ] even as promises were broken and costs spiralled..." That's stale, generic cut-and-paste rhetoric.

And are you implying that Dr. Griffin's neo-Apollo capsule atop a Solid Rocket Booster is a parallel to the Shuttle supplanting Sautrn/Apollo? That is not a winning sales pitch for NASA's newer Crew Exploration Vehicle proposals ... or should I say Thiokol's proposals.

Good night, everybody.

Posted by David Davenport at August 10, 2005 08:43 PM

I really was joking about the delay. The risk at getting caught is far greater than the risk of dealing with the hullabaloo of another piece of foam falling. I thought about the delay before, when Rand commented about the perils of improved scrutiny leading to over sensitivity of minor events. Put a few seconds delay in, call any notice of cut-out a glitch, and then analyze the concern "in-house" prior to replaying the full "unedited" version (that was downloaded after launch from an on-board storage system...) later when you have a good story to go along with the visuals.

The fact is: it is beyond unethical and completely unnecessary. IMO, the biggest mistake NASA made in this mission was (in a rush to make a statement hedging on safety about the foam loss) announcing the "grounding of the fleet". People immediately interpreted that to mean, "No more shuttle missions" or worse "abandon the current shuttle in orbit". A day later, the shuttle does a back flip, and no one can figure what the fuss is about. Have no doubt that the EVA was more about proving a repair mission could be performed and bonus for them; they actually had something to do absent any foam damage.

It won’t be long before people wonder how much that “hacksaw” cost rather than worrying about foam shedding. In an effort to head-off complaints of constant budgets without missions flying, the shuttle will launch again.

Posted by Leland at August 11, 2005 07:57 AM

You're saying that Lockheed has been rilly careful and spread no effort with the External Tank in the past?

Not at all. What I was saying was that Lockheed has worshipped at the altar of the Great God Process, sacrificing the required amount of cellulose, so that they have the appearance of being really careful. Whether this actually delivers a better product is entirely irrelevant to the argument.

Posted by at August 11, 2005 10:43 AM

A rough majority herein seems to agree that the Atlantis mission will happen this fall.

My next prediction is that we have years and years of Space Shuttling remaining. NASA will revert to its longer-term mean average behavioral trend.

Shuttles will be operating into the next decade, past 2010, performing more than twenty (20) additional missions to the International Space Station.

If you don't like that, buy a lunar orbital trip in a Soyuz capsule!

Agree or disagree?

Posted by David Davenport at August 11, 2005 04:46 PM

Well, they're going to miss the September window, so they have one chance to launch this fall, in a window lasting a few days in November. They have three months to fix the foam.

Given the stringent constraints on launches that have been added and the reduced fleet size, I don't see how they can maintain their historically averaged flight rate.

Posted by Paul Dietz at August 11, 2005 04:56 PM

Paul, they may be able to enlarge the launch windows this fall by allowing dawn or dusk launch times. I stick with my prediction that NASA badly wants to launch Atlantis before the end of 2005.

As to fixing the foam: I don't think there's enough time to make any significant changes. It'll basically be a repeat of this month's Discovery mission.

Sure does seem like Lockheed's process during the past two years defined some ET foam failure modes out of existence. Apparently, "We goofed," and no one is to be chastised publicly about External Tank problems.

Posted by David Davenport at August 12, 2005 02:50 PM

NASA Watch is now reporting from NASA sources that serious consideration is being given to a March 2006 launch for STS-121.

Posted by Paul Dietz at August 13, 2005 07:33 PM

And now NASA has announced the next launch will be no earlier than March 2006.

Posted by Paul Dietz at August 18, 2005 06:07 PM

Post a comment