MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

In article ,
(Stuf4) wrote:

(But I'm open to considering alternative explanations as to why NASA
scaled back to five member crews post-51L.)

You've already been given the best alternative explanation and
disregarded it.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous

Jack O'Neil wrote:
[snip]

STS-114 is not a first msision. It is just a continuation of the shuttle
programme. After an orbiter had undergone a major maintenance period that
involved big changes (such as new Block engines etc) did they reduce crew size
? no. They crewed it according to the needs of a mission.

I thought the CAIB report pointed out that the shuttle should not be
thought of as an "operational vehicle". Rather, it continues to be a
developmental test platform. NASA continues to refine, modify, upgrade
a variety of shuttle systems, in response to failures, degradations,
obsolescence, need to increase safety margins and reliability, etc.

Since it is clearly not "operational", would it not be prudent to
minimize risk to life at least in the first return to flight launch?

Personally, I can see good arguments for both cases and I remain undecided.

From Herb Schaltegger:
(Stuf4) wrote:

(But I'm open to considering alternative explanations as to why NASA
scaled back to five member crews post-51L.)

You've already been given the best alternative explanation and
disregarded it.

"Best" is a subjective term. Consideration of alternatives doesn't
require adoption. Along with that, I am certain that you and I have
not covered all possible aspects to this issue.


~ CT

From stmx3:
Jack O'Neil wrote:
[snip]

STS-114 is not a first msision. It is just a continuation of the shuttle
programme. After an orbiter had undergone a major maintenance period that
involved big changes (such as new Block engines etc) did they reduce crew size
? no. They crewed it according to the needs of a mission.

I thought the CAIB report pointed out that the shuttle should not be
thought of as an "operational vehicle". Rather, it continues to be a
developmental test platform. NASA continues to refine, modify, upgrade
a variety of shuttle systems, in response to failures, degradations,
obsolescence, need to increase safety margins and reliability, etc.

Since it is clearly not "operational", would it not be prudent to
minimize risk to life at least in the first return to flight launch?

Personally, I can see good arguments for both cases and I remain undecided.

The way I see it, NASA has sent up a trial balloon. They've "dipped
their toes into the deep end" offering statements to the effect that
two/three others will be added to the crew, while "playing in the
shallow end" taking the STS-114 official crew photo with only the four
of them.

As is probably clear by now, I don't see good arguments for packing
the crew. I'd say that 5 is the most that would be prudent.

....which brings an interesting point regarding all those crews of 5
that NASA has launched. It must have a very interesting psychological
aspect for the one person stuck downstairs all by themself. Entry and
especially launch must be stressful enough when you have other people
to look at. Going it alone staring at a wall must have an extra level
of eerieness to it.


~ CT

(Stuf4)

The way I see it, NASA has sent up a trial balloon. They've "dipped
their toes into the deep end" offering statements to the effect that
two/three others will be added to the crew, while "playing in the
shallow end" taking the STS-114 official crew photo with only the four
of them.

And of course, they "way you see it" has little to do with reality.

The STS-114 crew photo was taken before February 1. It has been custom for
ferry crews to have a separate photo from expedition crews.

Do your homework, before playing "in the deep end".

DF

(Stuf4) writes:

...which brings an interesting point regarding all those crews of 5
that NASA has launched. It must have a very interesting psychological
aspect for the one person stuck downstairs all by themself. Entry and
especially launch must be stressful enough when you have other people
to look at. Going it alone staring at a wall must have an extra level
of eerieness to it.

The upside is that you're the closest one to the emergency exit. ;-)

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Stuf4 wrote:
[snip]

As is probably clear by now, I don't see good arguments for packing
the crew. I'd say that 5 is the most that would be prudent.

For me, a good argument is...

No significant changes are being made to the shuttle (aerodynamics,
propulsion, control, etc.) that would change its performance
characteristics. Since the shuttle has already been proven flightworthy
in the past and concerns that doomed Columbia are being addressed, then,
given the high launch and operations costs, the shuttle should be
utilized as intended to the maximum extent possible...with full crew
complement if required by the mission.

If, however, significant changes were made...e.g. new cockpit, new main
engines, new external tank design...then a "check flight" would be
warranted, with minimal crew.


...which brings an interesting point regarding all those crews of 5
that NASA has launched. It must have a very interesting psychological
aspect for the one person stuck downstairs all by themself. Entry and
especially launch must be stressful enough when you have other people
to look at. Going it alone staring at a wall must have an extra level
of eerieness to it.



I suppose...if you're feint hearted. I wonder if any of the remaining
Mercury astronauts would take that seat.

~ CT

From stmx3:
Stuf4 wrote:
[snip]

As is probably clear by now, I don't see good arguments for packing
the crew. I'd say that 5 is the most that would be prudent.

For me, a good argument is...

No significant changes are being made to the shuttle (aerodynamics,
propulsion, control, etc.) that would change its performance
characteristics. Since the shuttle has already been proven flightworthy
in the past and concerns that doomed Columbia are being addressed, then,
given the high launch and operations costs, the shuttle should be
utilized as intended to the maximum extent possible...with full crew
complement if required by the mission.

I'd say that you are putting the cart before the horse. Full crew is
not required by the mission. Rather, the mission requires limited
crew.

The line of reasoning you present looks sound to me. What it lacks is
conservatism. A similar argument could have been made with the 12
flights after -51L. I'm glad they didn't pack those crews. Trust
requires confidence, and confidence requires performance.

The bottom line is that I don't share your confidence in the shuttle
because of failure in it's demonstrated performance.

Now if you were to say that 12 flights at a reduced crew is overly
conservative, then I would agree.

If, however, significant changes were made...e.g. new cockpit, new main
engines, new external tank design...then a "check flight" would be
warranted, with minimal crew.

You may have heard that on top of Return To Flight, there is a current
push within some JSC communities (such as CB) to launch -114 with a
brand new untried software load, known as "OI-30" (which stands for
Operational Increment #30, or something like that).

Not the most conservative approach. Bugs are found in each rev. I
guess their hope is that the bugs that get through aren't the
"Texas-size flying cockroach" kind of bugs.

This new software, ironically, capitalizes on the advantages of MEDS.

...which brings an interesting point regarding all those crews of 5
that NASA has launched. It must have a very interesting psychological
aspect for the one person stuck downstairs all by themself. Entry and
especially launch must be stressful enough when you have other people
to look at. Going it alone staring at a wall must have an extra level
of eerieness to it.

I suppose...if you're feint hearted. I wonder if any of the remaining
Mercury astronauts would take that seat.

I'm sure that without exception they all would. For two reasons: I'd
say that they would be tempted by the prospect of recapturing their
fame as John Glenn did. Also, for the reason that when you're as old
as they are, you don't have as much to lose. The "bang/whimper"
thing.

But I don't see it as an issue of being feint hearted. Each and every
seat in the shuttle is a terrifying place to be on launch day.


~ CT

From Jeff Findley:
...which brings an interesting point regarding all those crews of 5
that NASA has launched. It must have a very interesting psychological
aspect for the one person stuck downstairs all by themself. Entry and
especially launch must be stressful enough when you have other people
to look at. Going it alone staring at a wall must have an extra level
of eerieness to it.

The upside is that you're the closest one to the emergency exit. ;-)

....and get to drive the tank!


~ CT

Stuf4 wrote:
From stmx3:

Stuf4 wrote:
[snip]

As is probably clear by now, I don't see good arguments for packing
the crew. I'd say that 5 is the most that would be prudent.

For me, a good argument is...

No significant changes are being made to the shuttle (aerodynamics,
propulsion, control, etc.) that would change its performance
characteristics. Since the shuttle has already been proven flightworthy
in the past and concerns that doomed Columbia are being addressed, then,
given the high launch and operations costs, the shuttle should be
utilized as intended to the maximum extent possible...with full crew
complement if required by the mission.


I'd say that you are putting the cart before the horse. Full crew is
not required by the mission. Rather, the mission requires limited
crew.

Are you saying that the upcoming mission does not require a full crew
and NASA is planning on assigning more than necessary? That's hard for
me to believe but I'm not well-versed on the politics of crew selection.
But if it is true, then the additional crew members will be placed
needlessly at risk. Perhaps this thread should be revived once final
crew selection is made.


The line of reasoning you present looks sound to me. What it lacks is
conservatism. A similar argument could have been made with the 12
flights after -51L. I'm glad they didn't pack those crews. Trust
requires confidence, and confidence requires performance.


According to a response to your post regarding the crews for the 12 post
Challenger flights, the missions changed and consequently required
smaller crews. That indicates NASA was sensitive to not unnecessarily
risking lives. Something happened after those 12 flights...a creeping
complacency?...that gave NASA reason to believe they could start doing
more with the shuttle. I don't know if they passed a certain safety
upgrade milestone or if they fell under budgetary or schedule pressures
or if they slowly became blinded to the risk.

The bottom line is that I don't share your confidence in the shuttle
because of failure in it's demonstrated performance.

Now if you were to say that 12 flights at a reduced crew is overly
conservative, then I would agree.

Where do you draw the line, then? 6 flights? 3? At what point do you
start to consider that the shuttle is "operational"? I say that if you
accept the risk and have a history of experience and no major non-flight
tested changes are made, then go all out and do the missions that have
been previously planned, with a full complement if necessary.

But don't say 12 flights is too conservative while 1 is not conservative
enough...risk does not decrease with each successful launch.

That being said, there is public perception and politics to deal with,
and these may be justification for flying smaller crews for a time (that
time being based on the half-life for the storm to die down).



If, however, significant changes were made...e.g. new cockpit, new main
engines, new external tank design...then a "check flight" would be
warranted, with minimal crew.


You may have heard that on top of Return To Flight, there is a current
push within some JSC communities (such as CB) to launch -114 with a
brand new untried software load, known as "OI-30" (which stands for
Operational Increment #30, or something like that).

Not the most conservative approach. Bugs are found in each rev. I
guess their hope is that the bugs that get through aren't the
"Texas-size flying cockroach" kind of bugs.

No, I haven't heard. I'm not sure what the software testing program is
like. I have heard that it was a major component of getting ISS off the
ground, with many one-one's with G. Abbey every Saturday...

If you told me that the MEDs screens come to life with the MS Windows
logo, I'd say we should start evacuating Titusville!


This new software, ironically, capitalizes on the advantages of MEDS.


...which brings an interesting point regarding all those crews of 5
that NASA has launched. It must have a very interesting psychological
aspect for the one person stuck downstairs all by themself. Entry and
especially launch must be stressful enough when you have other people
to look at. Going it alone staring at a wall must have an extra level
of eerieness to it.


I suppose...if you're feint hearted. I wonder if any of the remaining
Mercury astronauts would take that seat.


I'm sure that without exception they all would. For two reasons: I'd
say that they would be tempted by the prospect of recapturing their
fame as John Glenn did. Also, for the reason that when you're as old
as they are, you don't have as much to lose. The "bang/whimper"
thing.

But I don't see it as an issue of being feint hearted. Each and every
seat in the shuttle is a terrifying place to be on launch day.


No doubt...acquiring that much kinetic energy in such a short time takes
guts. If you don't come to grips with that, you should get out of the
program. Besides, there are worse ways to die.


~ CT