RTF might be 2006

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletim...ews%2F10790308
03195060.xml

A problem has been found with the speed brakes, moving the RTF from march 2005
another 9 months, thats pushing 2006.

Its good they found this problem, with a speedbrake failure a returnuing
shuttle could come in too fast to land

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletim...ews%2F10790308
03195060.xml

Hey how does this impact keeping ISS manned without shuttle support for so
long?

Thisa stand down might be longer than the challenger one and how does that
impact station completion and the 2010 retirement of the remaining shuttles?

Bob,

We know you have troubles writing, but you also seem to have trouble reading,
to wit:

"Hallerb:
"A problem has been found with the speed brakes, moving the RTF from march 2005
another 9 months, thats pushing 2006."

Huntsville Times:
"If shuttle workers cannot perform detailed examinations and find some type of
replacements, then the planned March 2005 return to flight launch for Discovery
could slip another nine months, Kostelnik said"

In other words, Hallerb says "will", Kostelnik says "could".

Get your facts straight..... again. *sigh*

DF

(Hallerb) writes:

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletim...ews%2F10790308
03195060.xml

A problem has been found with the speed brakes, moving the RTF from
march 2005 another 9 months, thats pushing 2006.

This isn't surprising.

One has to wonder if Enterprise has the same actuators and if they're
still in decent condition. Even if you had to tear them down,
inspect them, and replace seals, this might be a viable way to get
replacement parts.

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

Huntsville Times:
"If shuttle workers cannot perform detailed examinations and find some type
of
replacements, then the planned March 2005 return to flight launch for
Discovery
could slip another nine months,

Note these parts were never intended to be serviced or replaced. Special
production of such parts take lots of time and money

I wonder how many other hidden troubles in the aging fleet havent been found
yet.

Dave Fowler wrote:
Huntsville Times:
"If shuttle workers cannot perform detailed examinations and find some type of
replacements, then the planned March 2005 return to flight launch for Discovery
could slip another nine months, Kostelnik said"

In fairness, if NASA has a precice delay figure of 9 months, instead of just
stating "we have discovered a potential problem with tail actuators which may
further delay the shuttle by a few months", it means that either NASA made up
the "9 months" number, or that they know it will take that long to manufacture
and replace the faulty part.

I find it interesting that in a vehicle designed with so much redundancy to
deal with failure of a single part, that one failed actuator could cripple the
other 3.

I suspect that if they really wanted, they could have another actuator
manufactured within one month.

This outlines one of the big problems for the shuttle: when you stop producing
a vehicle but continue to operate it for many years, you run into problems
with spare parts. This would indicate a management failure at NASA that it
would not have regularly checked and replaced if necessary that part during
orbiter major maintenance periods. If they had included those actuators, they
would have also ensured they had spares available.

In article , says...

snip

This outlines one of the big problems for the shuttle: when you stop producing
a vehicle but continue to operate it for many years, you run into problems
with spare parts. This would indicate a management failure at NASA that it
would not have regularly checked and replaced if necessary that part during
orbiter major maintenance periods. If they had included those actuators, they
would have also ensured they had spares available.

Ah, but recall that NASA contracted for a supply of spare parts, and
then used many of them to build Endeavour after Challenger was lost.
So, while the original plan was to keep a large number of spares
available, the decision to built a replacement orbiter reduced the stock
of spares somewhat. Especially spares of structural members.

Doug

John Doe wrote:

I find it interesting that in a vehicle designed with so much redundancy to
deal with failure of a single part, that one failed actuator could cripple the
other 3.

It's no so much that it will cripple the other three, but that it's
unacceptable to launch in a less-than-perfect condition.

I suspect that if they really wanted, they could have another actuator
manufactured within one month.

And get it a police escort from the place of manufacture to the place
of installation...

They did that with a component from my boat once that had to go by
truck because of it's size. The only facility for re-manufacture of
this part (which had just been overhauled a few months before and
should not have needed it again) was three hundred miles away. They
hired a commercial truck (since government ones have governors), and
drove like a bat out of hell there and back with a police escort.

This outlines one of the big problems for the shuttle: when you stop producing
a vehicle but continue to operate it for many years, you run into problems
with spare parts. This would indicate a management failure at NASA that it
would not have regularly checked and replaced if necessary that part during
orbiter major maintenance periods. If they had included those actuators, they
would have also ensured they had spares available.

Keep in mind the Shuttle is operating 'way past it's original
'sell-by' date. The logistics support needed for something required
to operate for x years is greater than that required for .8x years.

NASA also has essentially zero real experience in this field, and it's
not an easy one to master.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Ah, but recall that NASA contracted for a supply of spare parts, and
then used many of them to build Endeavour after Challenger was lost.
So, while the original plan was to keep a large number of spares
available, the decision to built a replacement orbiter reduced the stock
of spares somewhat. Especially spares of structural members.

Doug

That doesnt excuse the lack of spare parts today. Certinally since the
challenger days some spares could of been purchased.

From Dave Fowler:
Bob,

We know you have troubles writing, but you also seem to have trouble reading,
to wit:

"Hallerb:
"A problem has been found with the speed brakes, moving the RTF from march 2005
another 9 months, thats pushing 2006."

Huntsville Times:
"If shuttle workers cannot perform detailed examinations and find some type of
replacements, then the planned March 2005 return to flight launch for Discovery
could slip another nine months, Kostelnik said"

In other words, Hallerb says "will", Kostelnik says "could".

Get your facts straight..... again. *sigh*


"RTF might be 2006" struck me as very informative. Thanks to Bob for posting this.


~ CT