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

"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.

"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

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.

"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.