#1
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times Accuracy?
In the NY Times article
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/na...partner=GOOGLE the headline reads "NASA Says It Can't Meet Board's Goals". From the article, " Although the tile repair is fairly advanced, repairing the composite, reinforced carbon-carbon, needs much more work, Mr. Poulos said. Astronauts might be able to work on just small breaches, not gashes the size of the one believed to have doomed the Columbia. Although there is a chance that such a method will be ready, NASA managers said they could not guarantee that. " Also, I watched much of the Return-To-Flight briefing, yet no where did I see anyone say that they cannot meet the board's goals. When asked if the next shuttle flight will include tile repair kits for all ranges of damage, Steve Poulos said he was not prepared to say yes or no on that issue. So, a couple of points he 1) Isn't the NY Times making a false claim in their headline? 2) Did Mr. Poulos take the right tack in declining to say "yes"? My concern is that if NASA does not take the time to handle this issue before the next flight, they will again be seen as succumbing to schedule mandates, despite their statements to the contrary. -stmx3 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times Accuracy?
"stmx3
the headline reads "NASA Says It Can't Meet Board's Goals". Mr. Poulos said. Astronauts might be able to work on just small breaches, not gashes the size of the one believed to have doomed the Columbia. Is the ability to repair a gash the size that ocurred on Columbia one of the Board's recommendations? I was under the impression that they only wanted NASA to be able to repair holes in the RCC that were the size of a coin. NY Times may be holding NASA to an re-stated standard. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times Accuracy?
"Kent Betts" writes:
"stmx3 the headline reads "NASA Says It Can't Meet Board's Goals". Mr. Poulos said. Astronauts might be able to work on just small breaches, not gashes the size of the one believed to have doomed the Columbia. Is the ability to repair a gash the size that ocurred on Columbia one of the Board's recommendations? I was under the impression that they only wanted NASA to be able to repair holes in the RCC that were the size of a coin. I believe to board said that a 2 part solution would be OK: 1) Fix the tank/etc. so only small dents are possible 2) provide a way to fix these small dents. This seems like a very reasonable approach. It would be expensive and difficult to avoid all possible damage, and likewise very hard to fix any possible breach. As long as you can fix whatever damage you might get, then it should be safe(r). Lou Scheffer |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times Accuracy?
Kent Betts wrote:
"stmx3 the headline reads "NASA Says It Can't Meet Board's Goals". Mr. Poulos said. Astronauts might be able to work on just small breaches, not gashes the size of the one believed to have doomed the Columbia. Is the ability to repair a gash the size that ocurred on Columbia one of the Board's recommendations? I was under the impression that they only wanted NASA to be able to repair holes in the RCC that were the size of a coin. NY Times may be holding NASA to an re-stated standard. From the report, recommendations for TPS: R6.4-1 "For missionts to the ISS, develop a practicable capability to inspect and effect emergency repairs to the widest possible range of damage to the TPS, including both tile and RCC, taking advantage of the additional capabilities available when near to or docked at the ISS. For non-Station missions, develop a comprehensive autonomous (independent of Station) inspection and repair capability to cover the widest possible range of damage scenarios...." Also, related to this: R3.2-1 "Initiate an aggressive program to eliminate all ET TPS debris-shedding at the source with particular emphasis on the region where the bipod struts attach to the ET." Both of these are RTF (Return-To-Flight) requirements. So, my take on this is that if NASA launches the next shuttle without the capability to repair a large hole, then they are not meeting the boards recommendation. Then again, NASA may say they've eliminated the source (foam bipod) and so they don't expect to get a large hole in RCC again. My *question*, then, is NASA justified in launching without a "large-hole" repair capability? My *opinion* is that if they are pursuing such a capability, then they shouldn't launch until this capability is ready and in place. Otherwise, they will be seen as being driven by schedule yet again. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times Accuracy?
"stmx3"
So, a couple of points he 1) Isn't the NY Times making a false claim in their headline? 2) Did Mr. Poulos take the right tack in declining to say "yes"? My *question*, then, is NASA justified in launching without a "large-hole" repair capability? My *opinion* is that if they are pursuing such a capability, then they shouldn't launch until this capability is ready and in place. Otherwise, they will be seen as being driven by schedule yet again. First of all, meeting schedules is a top priority. All the kiss-ass administrators saying that it is not a factor does not change the fact they want to return to flight ASAP. The Columbia accident was not a schedule induced accident anyway, They have had the same problem for 20 years. The shuttle will fly again without a full menu of repair capability. For one thing it is outside of available technology. For another there are failure scenarios that fall outside of expectations, for example, loss of multiple RCC panels due to space debris. NASA will put together a "small damage' repair capability, fix the bipod ramp, write some memos about improving communications, and return to flight. That is what their job is. It is what the public wants, and even what the CAIB wants. NASA has not been required to make space flight a low risk activity. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nexus Rocket Engine Test Successful; 10 Times More Thrust Than Deep Space 1 Engine and Lasts 3 Times Longer (10 years) | [email protected] | Technology | 5 | December 30th 03 07:44 PM |
NY Times Accuracy? | stmx3 | Space Shuttle | 5 | September 20th 03 03:27 PM |
Hubble images being colorized to enhance their appeal for public - LA Times | Rusty B | Policy | 4 | September 15th 03 10:38 AM |
LA Times: Critic says Space shuttle is "Inherently Unsafe" | ElleninLosAngeles | Space Shuttle | 94 | September 12th 03 01:30 PM |
Dittemore said if shuttle crippled nothing could be done - LA Times erroneously reports | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 5th 03 11:39 AM |