Nasa announces night launches back soon, rescue shuttles temporary

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...804SHUTTLE.htm

CAPE CANAVERAL-- NASA plans to have a rescue shuttle ready for just the first
two post-Columbia missions. After that, they might go back to business as
usual.

If the first two flights make NASA confident the safety fixes to the shuttles
are working, agency managers said they might determine it's no longer necessary
to have a rescue vehicle on standby for future missions.

"After that, we will take a look and evaluate . . . and see where we need to go
from there," said John Casper, a former astronaut now leading NASA's effort to
implement recommendations made by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

When Discovery blasts off on the first return-to-flight mission, as early as
the spring, NASA says Kennedy Space Center will be ready to launch Atlantis on
a rescue mission within 45 days. On the second flight, a rescue shuttle will be
ready to go within 58 days.

That's the amount of time that engineers estimate there would be food, water
and working life support systems aboard the International Space Station to keep
a larger crew of 10 people alive if the shuttle somehow becomes stranded there
on one of the first two flights.

Safety changes, such as reducing the amount of external tank foam debris
battering the orbiters' heat shields, will be tested on those flights.

"We need to understand the fixes that we've done we need to understand how well
the systems work," shuttle program manager Bill Parsons said.

Having a rescue shuttle on standby never was a requirement before Columbia
because the agency was confident it was flying a reliable vehicle, Parsons
said. If the safety modifications work as planned, engineers and managers may
regain confidence that a rescue shuttle is not necessary.

That's not the only post-Columbia change that might only last two launches. A
requirement to launch during the daytime so that tracking cameras can get clear
images of possible debris strikes also may go away after the first two
launches, NASA has said.

Getting rid of those two requirements would be a big boost to meeting President
Bush's directive to finish building the space station and retire the aging
shuttles by 2010. Doing so will require flying four to six times per year, a
rate that was difficult to meet prior to Columbia.

They dismissed suggestions by people inside and outside the agency that a
rescue can't be pulled off, however. "We know it's do-able," Parsons said.

Contact Kelly at 242-3660 or




HAVE A GREAT DAY!

One wonders if it might not be better to pay the Russians for some spare
Soyuz systems instead, and send them up empty to dock one at a time to
evacuate the bulk of the crew, and leave one or two behind to look after the
Shuttle until it can be fixed.

My feelings are here that all of this mess has been caused by the eggs in
one basket syndrome, and the inability to see that their craft cannot last
forever. They should have been flying a replacement by now if the powers
that be had thought it through and got it funded.

Anyway, I suppose its still the only game in town.

Brian

--

Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"bob haller" wrote in message
...

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...804SHUTTLE.htm

CAPE CANAVERAL-- NASA plans to have a rescue shuttle ready for just the
first
two post-Columbia missions. After that, they might go back to business as
usual.

If the first two flights make NASA confident the safety fixes to the
shuttles
are working, agency managers said they might determine it's no longer
necessary
to have a rescue vehicle on standby for future missions.

"After that, we will take a look and evaluate . . . and see where we need
to go
from there," said John Casper, a former astronaut now leading NASA's
effort to
implement recommendations made by the Columbia Accident Investigation
Board.

When Discovery blasts off on the first return-to-flight mission, as early
as
the spring, NASA says Kennedy Space Center will be ready to launch
Atlantis on
a rescue mission within 45 days. On the second flight, a rescue shuttle
will be
ready to go within 58 days.

That's the amount of time that engineers estimate there would be food,
water
and working life support systems aboard the International Space Station to
keep
a larger crew of 10 people alive if the shuttle somehow becomes stranded
there
on one of the first two flights.

Safety changes, such as reducing the amount of external tank foam debris
battering the orbiters' heat shields, will be tested on those flights.

"We need to understand the fixes that we've done we need to understand how
well
the systems work," shuttle program manager Bill Parsons said.

Having a rescue shuttle on standby never was a requirement before Columbia
because the agency was confident it was flying a reliable vehicle, Parsons
said. If the safety modifications work as planned, engineers and managers
may
regain confidence that a rescue shuttle is not necessary.

That's not the only post-Columbia change that might only last two
launches. A
requirement to launch during the daytime so that tracking cameras can get
clear
images of possible debris strikes also may go away after the first two
launches, NASA has said.

Getting rid of those two requirements would be a big boost to meeting
President
Bush's directive to finish building the space station and retire the aging
shuttles by 2010. Doing so will require flying four to six times per year,
a
rate that was difficult to meet prior to Columbia.

They dismissed suggestions by people inside and outside the agency that a
rescue can't be pulled off, however. "We know it's do-able," Parsons said.

Contact Kelly at 242-3660 or




HAVE A GREAT DAY!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 29/07/2004

sounds like NASA has learned *nothing* from either the Challenger or
Columbia accidents. Same old same old, schedule pressure trumps anything
else. In the months after Challenger NASA released the revised flight
mainfest, and it was basically the same as the pre-51L manifest except the
dates were pushed back, the Vandenberg missions were removed, and the
orbiters adjusted. But they *still* were planning the same unreachable
flight rate.

Exact same thing here. Exact same slippage of safety standards and
acceptance of out-of-tolerance conditions that ultimately led to Challenger
and Columbia.

I guess they are gambling that there simply will not be enough flights left
on the manifest this time to have another LOCV accident.

It's time NASA's manned spaceflight program goes bye-bye. We get it.

--
Terrell Miller



"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
One wonders if it might not be better to pay the Russians for some spare
Soyuz systems instead, and send them up empty to dock one at a time to
evacuate the bulk of the crew, and leave one or two behind to look after
the
Shuttle until it can be fixed.

My feelings are here that all of this mess has been caused by the eggs in
one basket syndrome, and the inability to see that their craft cannot last
forever. They should have been flying a replacement by now if the powers
that be had thought it through and got it funded.

Anyway, I suppose its still the only game in town.

Brian

--

Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:

__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"bob haller" wrote in message
...


http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...804SHUTTLE.htm

CAPE CANAVERAL-- NASA plans to have a rescue shuttle ready for just the
first
two post-Columbia missions. After that, they might go back to business
as
usual.

If the first two flights make NASA confident the safety fixes to the
shuttles
are working, agency managers said they might determine it's no longer
necessary
to have a rescue vehicle on standby for future missions.

"After that, we will take a look and evaluate . . . and see where we
need
to go
from there," said John Casper, a former astronaut now leading NASA's
effort to
implement recommendations made by the Columbia Accident Investigation
Board.

When Discovery blasts off on the first return-to-flight mission, as
early
as
the spring, NASA says Kennedy Space Center will be ready to launch
Atlantis on
a rescue mission within 45 days. On the second flight, a rescue shuttle
will be
ready to go within 58 days.

That's the amount of time that engineers estimate there would be food,
water
and working life support systems aboard the International Space Station
to
keep
a larger crew of 10 people alive if the shuttle somehow becomes stranded
there
on one of the first two flights.

Safety changes, such as reducing the amount of external tank foam debris
battering the orbiters' heat shields, will be tested on those flights.

"We need to understand the fixes that we've done we need to understand
how
well
the systems work," shuttle program manager Bill Parsons said.

Having a rescue shuttle on standby never was a requirement before
Columbia
because the agency was confident it was flying a reliable vehicle,
Parsons
said. If the safety modifications work as planned, engineers and
managers
may
regain confidence that a rescue shuttle is not necessary.

That's not the only post-Columbia change that might only last two
launches. A
requirement to launch during the daytime so that tracking cameras can
get
clear
images of possible debris strikes also may go away after the first two
launches, NASA has said.

Getting rid of those two requirements would be a big boost to meeting
President
Bush's directive to finish building the space station and retire the
aging
shuttles by 2010. Doing so will require flying four to six times per
year,
a
rate that was difficult to meet prior to Columbia.

They dismissed suggestions by people inside and outside the agency that
a
rescue can't be pulled off, however. "We know it's do-able," Parsons
said.

Contact Kelly at 242-3660 or




HAVE A GREAT DAY!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 29/07/2004

hallerb wrote:
Getting rid of those two requirements would be a big boost to meeting
President
Bush's directive to finish building the space station and retire the aging
shuttles by 2010. Doing so will require flying four to six times per year, a
rate that was difficult to meet prior to Columbia.

This is exactly what I was afraid of. They are now rushing things to get
done...to finish the damn program all because of a stupid date.

The rescue shuttle idea, fine I can see that being dropped. One orbiter is
usually being prepared for a flight anyway and could likely be ready to go to
rescue an orbiter stranded at ISS anyway (hell, a rescue mission for STS 107
was theoretically possible, and Columbia was just carrying an old EDO pallet).

But it is way too soon to talk about bringing back night launches for the sake
of meeting a schedule to retire a vehicle is insane. They shouldn't even be
talking about this one until a number of missions have been completed with
minimal foam shedding from the ET. Though I do seem to recall reading that
astronauts who had flown as chase pilots for the shuttle noted that the SRB's
do create enough light during launch that possible a chase aircraft with high
powered cameras could photograph for possible foam strikes.

In any case, NASA really shouldn't be so damn concerned about meeting that 2010
date...the President shouldn't...nobody should. That was a bad attempt at
harkening back to Kennedy's "before this decade is out" directive. When ISS is
finished retire the shuttle...if that takes till 2012 or 2013...so be it. NASA
might now be paranoid that if it fails to get all the ISS components up by the
end of 2010 congress or the President may say "sorry, you won't get to finish
it now!"

-A.L.

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Brian Gaff wrote:

One wonders if it might not be better to pay the Russians for some spare
Soyuz systems instead, and send them up empty to dock one at a time to
evacuate the bulk of the crew, and leave one or two behind to look after the
Shuttle until it can be fixed.

It's illegal for NASA to buy Soyuz spacecraft thanks to the Russians
selling nuclear technology to the Iranians. There is also the issue of how
capable the Russian Soyuz spacecraft infrastructure is in ramping up
production, even if the order and money for new spacecraft was placed in
at the soonest possible time.... Say tomorrow. The same is true with
Progress.
-Mike

"Terrell Miller" wrote in
:

Exact same thing here. Exact same slippage of safety standards and
acceptance of out-of-tolerance conditions that ultimately led to
Challenger and Columbia.

Incorrect. The two actions in question are not "safety standards"; neither
would deleting them be an "out-of-tolerance condition".

First, the rescue shuttle. The CAIB issued *no* recommendation regarding
rescue shuttles. This omission was *deliberate* - after discussion, the
proposal was rejected. NASA chose to implement rescue shuttles on their own
for the early return-to-flight missions because those flights will
necessarily serve as testbeds for the actual safety improvements
recommended by the CAIB, so an extra level of safety would therefore be
prudent until these other improvements are validated by flight experience.
Therefore, rescue shuttles are not a safety standard, but an action taken
*above and beyond* safety standards. Eliminating them is therefore not a
"slippage of safety standards".

Second, night launches. The relevant CAIB recommendation (R3.4-1) does not
require daylight launches. R3.4-1 was, in fact, carefully worded *not* to
preclude night launches - only that the imaging system provide at least
three useful views of the shuttle from liftoff to SRB separation. This is
possible at night using the onboard (SRB/ET) cameras and airborne (WB-57)
cameras. Again, NASA restricted itself to day launches *not* because it was
required to, but because doing so would provide a means to verify that the
upgraded imaging systems are, in fact, working. So returning to night
launches is not a "slippage of safety standards", either.

It's time NASA's manned spaceflight program goes bye-bye. We get it.

No, I'm afraid you don't get it. You jumped to conclusions after reading a
shallowly-written Florida Today article, without bothering to examine the
article *in context*. That means understanding what the reporters were
covering in the article (a NASA press conference announcing the release of
their latest return-to-flight planning document), understanding what was
actually written in the document, and understanding that document in the
context of the CAIB recommendations.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 08:27:28 -0400, "Terrell Miller"
wrote:

sounds like NASA has learned *nothing* from either the Challenger or
Columbia accidents. Same old same old, schedule pressure trumps anything
else.

Or to put it differently, the real world reared its ugly head.

Brian

(MasterShrink) wrote in
:

But it is way too soon to talk about bringing back night launches for
the sake of meeting a schedule to retire a vehicle is insane. They
shouldn't even be talking about this one until a number of missions
have been completed with minimal foam shedding from the ET.

Or until they know that alternative imaging methods work. See my earlier
answer to Terrell.

Though I
do seem to recall reading that astronauts who had flown as chase
pilots for the shuttle noted that the SRB's do create enough light
during launch that possible a chase aircraft with high powered cameras
could photograph for possible foam strikes.

From chase planes, or from aboard the stack itself.

In any case, NASA really shouldn't be so damn concerned about meeting
that 2010 date...

They aren't.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

In any case, NASA really shouldn't be so damn concerned about meeting
that 2010 date...

They aren't.

--
JRF

Nasa has every incentive to drag their feet on that date......

The end of the shuttle will bring about wholesale layoffs. no government agency
willing downsizes itself gutting the workforce
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Though I
do seem to recall reading that astronauts who had flown as chase
pilots for the shuttle noted that the SRB's do create enough light
during launch that possible a chase aircraft with high powered cameras
could photograph for possible foam strikes.

From chase planes, or from aboard the stack itself.

From chase planes. No camera to my knowledge has ever been tested on the stack
itself for a night launch.

In any case, NASA really shouldn't be so damn concerned about meeting
that 2010 date...

They aren't.

"Getting rid of those two requirements would be a big boost to meeting
President
Bush's directive to finish building the space station and retire the aging
shuttles by 2010."

This wasn't a quote from anyone in NASA...nor was it suggested in the Florida
today article to even paraphrase the thoughts of someone in NASA, but you still
gotta wonder if that is playing a factor in NASA's thinking. The launch windows
are a lot smaller with only daytime launches.

I agree night launches shouldn't be totally ruled out, but I don't think this
matter should even be seriously considered until some results are seen in terms
of how the modified ET's handle and how the new imaging equipment performs.

-A.L.