NASA May Face Shuttle Worker Shortage, Report Says

NASA May Face Shuttle Worker Shortage, Report Says

May 19, 2004 By Broward Liston

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - NASA's efforts to return its aging
space shuttles to flight will siphon so many workers away from
operations to work on safety that the program could be plagued by a
worker shortage in the future, an oversight group warned on Wednesday.

Since the fatal Columbia crash in 2003, NASA has created three new
departments focused on safety and engineering, making them independent
of the shuttle program and its concerns about budget and on-time
flights.

But those new departments are being staffed by workers drawn from
other shuttle operations who are not necessarily being replaced, said
the Return to Flight Task Force, which is charged with verifying
whether the space agency has complied with post-Columbia safety
mandates.

"At some point, the ability of the Space Shuttle Program to carry out
its mission may be hampered by personnel shortages," the task force
wrote in an interim report.

The new departments are still being organized and the report did not
identify the number of workers involved, nor did it offer a
recommendation.

NASA's three remaining shuttles are scheduled to fly until
construction of the International Space Station is complete, around
the end of the decade. The job could require as many as 30 flights
although that number is likely to be reduced.

The space agency's efforts generally got good marks from the task
force, co-chaired by Apollo astronaut Thomas Stafford and retired
shuttle commander Richard Covey.

With the first post-Columbia flight now scheduled for March or April
2005, NASA has given itself time to actually implement some safety
measures where the Columbia Accident Investigation Board had only
required plans, the task force said.

NASA has cleared three of 15 preflight requirements, by task-force
estimates, while making "substantial progress" on the remaining 12.

But the report concluded that NASA may never be certain it has solved
the problem that doomed Columbia, which was foam debris breaking off
the external fuel tank and striking the orbiter with tremendous force.

In Columbia's case, it gouged a large hole into the leading edge of
the wing that made the spacecraft break apart as it re-entered the
atmosphere.

The kind of statistical studies of in-flight accidents needed to
complete a debris study may not be finished before the shuttles are
retired, the report said.

While President Bush's plan to mothball the fleet and shift NASA's
focus to exploration of the moon and Mars "has obvious implications
for the long-run use of the shuttle," the report concluded that "no
matter how long the shuttle is used in the future, it must first be
safely returned to flight."

Many experts have posted here that the Shuttle can never be made to be
safe. Therefore it must be flown as is, in its dangerous configuration.
This is actually an acceptable approach perfectly consistent with
contemporary ethics. There is because there is no substitute lift vehicle
available for the ISS components and the job must get done, no matter what.

There is no need to spend zillions in an exercise in futility to make
something safe when it can't be done. The machine will have to be flown
knowing that each has a number and will sooner or later self-destruct and
take out its crew at the same time. Every astronaut knows that every
blast-off could literally be one.

There is no moral dilema here. Simply placard the hatchway with "Fly at
your own risk" and any astronaut brave enough to ride does so knowing the
eternal consequences. Actually, it doesn't make much difference anyways;
we are all on a one way trip to oblivion. It just takes some of us three
score and ten and others a five minute reentry.

It is puzzling to me why men still want to risk their necks for Earth
orbit. The shuttle is just going to go 'round and 'round, just like Yuri
did way back when. Everybody remembers the first guy: Yuri Gargarin and
Neil Armstrong (poor guy flubbed his 11 words but he's still okay in my
book), but who of you out there can tell me, without a Google search, the
THIRD man to walk the Moon?

Any chance they will build a new shuttle? Enterprise, can it be made
operational versus a test bed?

Mike


Don Corleone wrote:

NASA May Face Shuttle Worker Shortage, Report Says

May 19, 2004 By Broward Liston

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - NASA's efforts to return its aging
space shuttles to flight will siphon so many workers away from
operations to work on safety that the program could be plagued by a
worker shortage in the future, an oversight group warned on Wednesday.

Since the fatal Columbia crash in 2003, NASA has created three new
departments focused on safety and engineering, making them independent
of the shuttle program and its concerns about budget and on-time
flights.

But those new departments are being staffed by workers drawn from
other shuttle operations who are not necessarily being replaced, said
the Return to Flight Task Force, which is charged with verifying
whether the space agency has complied with post-Columbia safety
mandates.

"At some point, the ability of the Space Shuttle Program to carry out
its mission may be hampered by personnel shortages," the task force
wrote in an interim report.

The new departments are still being organized and the report did not
identify the number of workers involved, nor did it offer a
recommendation.

NASA's three remaining shuttles are scheduled to fly until
construction of the International Space Station is complete, around
the end of the decade. The job could require as many as 30 flights
although that number is likely to be reduced.

The space agency's efforts generally got good marks from the task
force, co-chaired by Apollo astronaut Thomas Stafford and retired
shuttle commander Richard Covey.

With the first post-Columbia flight now scheduled for March or April
2005, NASA has given itself time to actually implement some safety
measures where the Columbia Accident Investigation Board had only
required plans, the task force said.

NASA has cleared three of 15 preflight requirements, by task-force
estimates, while making "substantial progress" on the remaining 12.

But the report concluded that NASA may never be certain it has solved
the problem that doomed Columbia, which was foam debris breaking off
the external fuel tank and striking the orbiter with tremendous force.

In Columbia's case, it gouged a large hole into the leading edge of
the wing that made the spacecraft break apart as it re-entered the
atmosphere.

The kind of statistical studies of in-flight accidents needed to
complete a debris study may not be finished before the shuttles are
retired, the report said.

While President Bush's plan to mothball the fleet and shift NASA's
focus to exploration of the moon and Mars "has obvious implications
for the long-run use of the shuttle," the report concluded that "no
matter how long the shuttle is used in the future, it must first be
safely returned to flight."

Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
wrote:
[...]
It is puzzling to me why men still want to risk their necks for Earth
orbit. The shuttle is just going to go 'round and 'round, just like Yuri
did way back when.

Because a) it is still space travel, and b) they are hoping to
contribute to being able to do more adventurous space flights, and c)
they are hoping to contribute useful information for groundlings.

Everybody remembers the first guy: Yuri Gargarin and
Neil Armstrong (poor guy flubbed his 11 words but he's still okay in my
book), but who of you out there can tell me, without a Google search, the
THIRD man to walk the Moon?

Well, my grey cells are beginning to poof at the effort, but I'll go
with Al Bean.

/dps

"dave schneider" wrote in message
om...

Everybody remembers the first guy: Yuri Gargarin and
Neil Armstrong (poor guy flubbed his 11 words but he's still okay in my
book), but who of you out there can tell me, without a Google search,
the
THIRD man to walk the Moon?

Well, my grey cells are beginning to poof at the effort, but I'll go
with Al Bean.

bzzzzzt

hint: "whoopee, man that might have been one small step for Neil, but it's a
heckuva big one for me"...

--
Terrell Miller


"At one point we were this Progressive edgy group and we can't really equate
that with Brother Bear so I don't know really."
-Tony Banks

In article ,
Abrigon Gusiq wrote:
Any chance they will build a new shuttle?

No. Not when the whole shuttle system has only a few years of operational
life left -- a new orbiter would only just be entering service by that
time, and it would cost several billion.

Enterprise, can it be made operational versus a test bed?

Not quickly or cheaply. It would be a bit easier than starting from
scratch, but only a bit. Enterprise does not have a spaceworthy cabin,
for example, and not only would you have to build one, you'd have to split
the structure open to get it in. Same story: it would cost too much and
it wouldn't be ready in time to be very useful.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"Terrell Miller" wrote in message ...
"dave schneider" wrote in message
om...

Everybody remembers the first guy: Yuri Gargarin and
Neil Armstrong (poor guy flubbed his 11 words but he's still okay in my
book), but who of you out there can tell me, without a Google search,
the
THIRD man to walk the Moon?

Well, my grey cells are beginning to poof at the effort, but I'll go
with Al Bean.

bzzzzzt

hint: "whoopee, man that might have been one small step for Neil, but it's a
heckuva big one for me"...

I think it's Pete Conrad... Thank god I watched my DVDs of From The
Earth to the Moon last night ;-)

In article ,
says...
"Terrell Miller" wrote in message ...
"dave schneider" wrote in message
om...

Everybody remembers the first guy: Yuri Gargarin and
Neil Armstrong (poor guy flubbed his 11 words but he's still okay in my
book), but who of you out there can tell me, without a Google search,
the
THIRD man to walk the Moon?

Well, my grey cells are beginning to poof at the effort, but I'll go
with Al Bean.

bzzzzzt

hint: "whoopee, man that might have been one small step for Neil, but it's a
heckuva big one for me"...

I think it's Pete Conrad... Thank god I watched my DVDs of From The
Earth to the Moon last night ;-)

Give that man a cigar!

Actually, Terrell quoted Pete saying, in an interview 20 years after
Apollo 12, what he had *intended* to say. Pete actually said "Whoopeee!
Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but it's a long one for
me!"

Doug

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Abrigon Gusiq wrote:
Any chance they will build a new shuttle?

No. Not when the whole shuttle system has only a few years of operational
life left -- a new orbiter would only just be entering service by that
time, and it would cost several billion.

Enterprise, can it be made operational versus a test bed?

Not quickly or cheaply. It would be a bit easier than starting from
scratch, but only a bit. Enterprise does not have a spaceworthy cabin,
for example, and not only would you have to build one, you'd have to split
the structure open to get it in. Same story: it would cost too much and
it wouldn't be ready in time to be very useful.

Another ding against using Enterprise is the structure. If I recall
correctly, she has the same basic structure that Columbia and Challenger
had that is is heavier than the others. After the first couple of flights
by Columbia the last two (later three) spacecraft had redesigned wings that
were stronger and lighter. therefore, If they did make Enterprise flight
worthy it would not help for ISS servicing missions. Have to check with
old timers here for details.

"washer of kegs" wrote in message
...

Another ding against using Enterprise is the structure. If I recall
correctly, she has the same basic structure that Columbia and Challenger
had that is is heavier than the others. After the first couple of flights
by Columbia the last two (later three) spacecraft had redesigned wings
that
were stronger and lighter. therefore, If they did make Enterprise flight
worthy it would not help for ISS servicing missions. Have to check with
old timers here for details.

Yes, it was built to the same spec as Columbia. Note, Columbia had been
penciled in for a station flight.

It couldn't carry some of the heaviest loads, but it could carry some
lighter loads there.