Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
- From: "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Apr 2005 16:30:34 GMT
Pat Flannery <flanner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1176g8lmoi4cb9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>
>>Pat Flannery <flanner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>news:1175v63ea0sr485@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>>>Meanwhile...has the Shuttle Hubble servicing mission returned?:
>>>http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050429/BREAKI
>>>N GNEWS/50429007
>>
>>No, it hasn't returned... read *everything* Griffin said. He is *not*
>>committing to do an HST mission; all he has committed to do (quite
>>rightly, IMO) is to re-examine the decision after return-to-flight.
>>
> It's a lot more alive today than it was a few months ago though, isn't
> it?
Not really, at least in my mind. I always knew that the decision to cancel
HST servicing was O'Keefe's alone, and that it would probably go with him.
In fact, this whole scenario is playing out almost exactly like I predicted
a year ago, the only exceptions being that I thought O'Keefe would have
waited until after the STS-114 landing to resign, and that the robotic
servicing mission would have continued to limp along until NASA's FY07
budget request next February. Things are moving much faster than I thought.
That said, HST servicing is neither more alive nor more dead until Griffin
completes his post-RTF review. It's like Schroedinger's Cat before the box
is opened.
>> The decision to
>>start advance work on the mission *now* was based on two things:
>>first, the latest delay in return-to-flight means that if NASA waits
>>until after return-to-flight to start working on the mission, they
>>won't be ready to fly in time to save HST. Second, Congress earmarked
>>$291 million in NASA's FY05 budget for HST servicing, and Griffin
>>doesn't want to get into trouble by not spending it before the fiscal
>>year is out.
>
> He could just give it back, you know... the Hubble mission just went
> from "absolutely no" to "well...maybe" in one fell swoop.
No, he can't... and for him to do so would incur the wrath of several
powerful senators, especially Mikulski from Maryland, where GSFC is
located. See Herb's reply.
>>>That should cause some interesting remarks on the part
>>>of the CAIB recommendation team, which meets for the last time on
>>>Monday IIRC.
>>
>>You're confusing CAIB with RTFTG (aka Stafford-Covey).
>
> Yeah, I figured that out after I posted and found out the meeting is
> presently hanging in limbo- my mistake.
> I get a sneaking feeling the reason the meeting is presently hanging
> in limbo is the combination of the ET tank test results and the new
> take on a possible Hubble mission.
You're half right. It's all hinging on the ET (and other miscellaneous
shuttle issues). The RTFTG disbands after return-to-flight; HST servicing
is outside their charter.
> Considering what I've read about the split in the RTFTG regarding how
> NASA's handling all this, I don't think NASA would have any problem at
> all with that meeting getting postponed until after STS 114 flies.
If that were the case, I think they would have stuck with May 15 rather
than postpone the launch twice.
> they were dropping hints around a week back that they intended to fly
> no matter what the RTFTG said, or what the members of the CAIB
> thought.
Griffin didn't "hint", he said it outright. What he said was that the RTFTG
is advisory only, and the final decision on launch belonged to him and the
managers who report to him. And that's nothing more than Stafford and Covey
themselves have been saying *all along*. It's written into their *charter*,
fer chrissakes! Why should Griffin be criticized for repeating the
blindingly obvious? As for the CAIB, Gehman has said repeatedly that his
group is not going to "grade NASA's paper."
>> The CAIB disbanded
>>in 2003 after publishing their report. It's RTFTG that will issue the
>>final "report card" on how well NASA is complying with the CAIB
>>recommendations.
>>
>>The HST work has no bearing on RTF at all; Griffin has said all the
>>work will be at GSFC, and not involving personnel also working RTF.
>>
>>The CAIB generally supports a shuttle HST servicing mission.
>>Privately, many of them are quite annoyed at O'Keefe for repeatedly
>>blaming the CAIB recommendations for the cancellation of HST SM-04,
>>when in fact they intended no such thing.
>
> They did say that NASA should develop a effective on-orbit repair
> capability if non-ISS missions were planned.
They did not say "effective." Ponder that particular choice of words for a
while; the CAIB spent quite a lot of time debating the exact wording of
their recommendations. They wanted NASA to have something in place they
could at least *try*.
> Around a week or so back
> the astronauts stated their concerns regarding trusting an in-flight
> repair during reentry rather than seeking refuge on the ISS until a
> rescue Shuttle could arrive.
That was specifically the STS-114 crew, and their concerns make perfect
sense since they and the 121 crew are the ones who are going to be doing
the initial in-orbit tests of the tile repair capability. That capability
will probably be too experimental to use for real on either of those
flights.
> In the case of a flight to the ISS, you al least have the option of
> extending the crew's survival time if they can reach the station after
> a ascent problem or in-flight emergency (fire, etc.).
Interesting that you would use fire as an example. The shuttle uses Halon
fire extinguishers, which can produce toxic by-products; once discharged,
flight rules prohibit opening the hatches between the shuttle and ISS. The
shuttle would go home ASAP in that case.
> In the case of a
> non-ISS mission that's not the case- you lose the ability to abandon a
> severely damaged Shuttle that is beyond its own repair capabilities
> (say major TPS damage, or a explosion in an OMS pod) and seek refuge
> on the ISS. You can have another Shuttle always ready for a fairly
> quick response mission, but that is going to be costly, and also
> interfere with with the processing and loading of cargos for the next
> planned mission.
True, but note that neither ISS safe haven nor a rescue shuttle were among
the CAIB recommendations. So the CAIB members are still justifiably annoyed
that NASA is blaming them for NASA's own initiatives that went beyond the
CAIB recommendations.
> There is also another problem- what if a Shuttle suffers a problem
> during ascent or on-orbit, and you think your rescue Shuttle may have
> the same problem? Do you launch it or not?
That is a valid problem, but it's the same for ISS and non-ISS missions.
ISS safe haven buys you some time, but you are still not going to be able
to fix whatever problem damaged the first shuttle. Therefore this is not a
valid reason for saying that non-ISS flights are riskier than ISS flights.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
- References:
- Shuttle launch delayed until July
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
- From: OM
- Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
- From: Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
- Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
- From: Jorge R. Frank
- Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
- From: Pat Flannery
- Shuttle launch delayed until July
- Prev by Date: Re: IEEE SPECTRUM magazine: Apollo 13, We Have a Solution
- Next by Date: Re: IEEE SPECTRUM magazine: Apollo 13, We Have a Solution <- WARNING! CT Troll Thread!
- Previous by thread: Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
- Next by thread: Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
