backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 16 comment(s) - last by SandmanWN.. on Feb 23 at 1:27 PM
NASA will likely have to wait a few more weeks before launching its first shuttle mission of 2009

NASA has been forced to delay its first manned shuttle launch of 2009 for the fourth time, saying it needs additional time to learn about a damaged valve.

Shuttle Discovery was scheduled to launch sometime in the next five days, but engineers decided to delay the launch after a 13-hour meeting in Cape Canaveral at the Kennedy Space Center on Friday.

Engineers are working on the problem, and another follow-up meeting is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, February 25.  Other valves will also be inspected after the meeting, with engineers optimistic they'll be able to launch the shuttle.

The three valves located in the shuttle engine compartment are under higher scrutiny after one recently cracked during the shuttle's latest flight.  NASA wants to be 100% positive that the seven-man Discovery crew will be safe if a valve breaks again.  The valves are responsible for directing gaseous hydrogen into the shuttle's fuel tank.

NASA will have until mid-March to launch the shuttle -- if they are unable to do so, then NASA will have to wait as a Russian Soyuz space craft is scheduled to launch to the ISS with the space station's new crew.  NASA will have to wait until April 6 to launch Discovery if it can't do it in mid-March.

Discovery's 14-day mission aims to install a new set of solar arrays on the ISS so power for research is increased, and the station will be able to support more crew members.

Flight managers are unsure when the U.S. space agency will be able to launch shuttle Discovery towards the International Space Station (ISS).  NASA is running out of time, as it hopes to complete construction on the ISS before it retires the current fleet of space shuttles next year.

The U.S. space agency now has nine manned shuttle launches to go before the ISS is finished and the fleet of shuttles is retired for good.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
bureaucracy at its finest
By SandmanWN on 2/23/2009 10:40:24 AM , Rating: 4
Bureaucracy at its finest. Surprised it only took a 13 hour meeting to discuss delaying the flight. Wonder how many hours its going to take to discuss replacing some valves. Followed by many more hours on how best to perform the pressure tests on the replaced valves. And of course at least another 12 hours to discuss the next launch date.

Damn thing has been flying for 28 years. How much discussion do you really need? If one cracked then most likely the others are fatigued as well. Replace all three, perform the tests, and lets fly for crying out loud.




RE: bureaucracy at its finest
By chmilz on 2/23/2009 11:02:53 AM , Rating: 2
The more scribbling they do on whiteboards while drinking coffee, the longer they can attempt to justify their jobs in these tough times.

Gotta love government, runs like a clogged toilet.


RE: bureaucracy at its finest
By SandmanWN on 2/23/2009 1:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
I just find it striking once again that an orbiter has made it to the launch pad just to find out something was obviously missed during inspection and we have a broken part on the shuttle.

Seems a bit PR cover-up'ish at this point to have all these meetings and tests run on an old valve design thats been doing the job for over a quarter century.


RE: bureaucracy at its finest
By cjc1103 on 2/23/2009 11:07:04 AM , Rating: 2
We obviously can't second guess NASA, they are the experts on the Space Shuttle. When you are talking about a multi-billion dollar system, you need to be very cautious about changes. They were performing an engineering analysis to determine why the valve cracked in the first place. Perhaps there is a fatigue or age problem with the valves, replacing them all with the same design may not help. Perhaps there is not enough time to replace all three. But just like when an airliner crashes, they have to make sure they have really fixed the problem, not just applied a band aid solution. If they launched without a proper root cause analysis, another valve failed, and the shuttle was destroyed, I'll bet you would be the first in a long line of folks with pitchforks and torches wanting heads to roll at NASA.


RE: bureaucracy at its finest
By geno1362 on 2/23/2009 11:11:54 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with your assessment. Prudence requires a second, third, and fourth look if necessary; this isn't about justifying a position but rather what is the best course of action for the program. Success demands it.


RE: bureaucracy at its finest
By SandmanWN on 2/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: bureaucracy at its finest
By goz314 on 2/23/2009 11:19:06 AM , Rating: 2
I'm glad you aren't making the final decisions on when to fly. Dare I say that the attitude you convey in your comment is the type of attitude that led to the Challenger disaster. Not listening to the engineers about such a critical aspect of the overall operation of the shuttle launch system would be a fatal mistake on the part of the asociated program managers. Likewise, spare parts to replace faulty or fatigued components can't just be picked up from Ace hardware on a whim.

It's easy for someone from the outside to criticize the procedures and processes that have been put in place when launching the most complex spacecraft ever built. I agree that there may yet be some opportunity to breathe some new ideas for efficiency into those procedures. They are in place, however, for good reasons based on nearly 30 years of collective experience in flying the shuttle as well as 20 years of manned spaceflight prior to that.

That said, I understand it's frustrating for the general public to stand back and observe delay after delay. I share that frustration, but it's not the end of the world. Patience and understanding are virtues in this case. Putting the shuttle into orbit, even after 28 years of service, is still difficult. It's not like dusting crops. The shuttles themselves, despite all of the flight hours each have logged, are still rated as experimental.


RE: bureaucracy at its finest
By SandmanWN on 2/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: bureaucracy at its finest
By CheesePoofs on 2/23/2009 11:44:31 AM , Rating: 2
A) they didn't know the tiles were broken (because engineers who wanted to take a look were shot down)

B) they didn't have repair techniques ... they would have had to use the ISS as a lifeboat and wait for another shuttle launch to return them home.


RE: bureaucracy at its finest
By SandmanWN on 2/23/2009 12:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
A) The launch video showed the ice strike. They should have checked it out.

B) Given the choice between knowing and not knowing whether it would survive re-entry, I would have spent a few months on the ISS waiting for a repair crew to replace the tiles.


RE: bureaucracy at its finest
By Brainonska511 on 2/23/2009 1:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
Hey moron, get your shuttle disasters right.

1) Challenger exploded about 18s after liftoff because of a faulty O-Ring in the booster rocket. The cold weather of the morning caused it to freeze and crack, allowing hot gases to get out and ignite, resulting in a an explosion.

2) Columbia was the shuttle that had the damaged tiles. They might have seen the foam strike during lift off, but I doubt they thought much of it, as foam fell off during many of the previous launches. They probably didn't realize that it could cause the damage it caused.

The rest of your posts screams "blah blah blah" and says you should never be put in charge of a large, complex project like the space shuttle, because if you were, you'd probably get everyone killed.


RE: bureaucracy at its finest
By SandmanWN on 2/23/2009 1:19:31 PM , Rating: 1
Hey moron I corrected the Challenger/Columbia mix up an hour ago.


RE: bureaucracy at its finest
By SandmanWN on 2/23/2009 12:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
we've gotten off topic a bit. Challenger was very early on in the program. I am assuming you meant Columbia as early design flaws like Challenger were to be expected as we didn't have 30 years of experience back then.


RE: bureaucracy at its finest
By CheesePoofs on 2/23/2009 11:42:37 AM , Rating: 2
Please do your research first.

The problem isn't with whether or not the valves are broken (and if they should be replaced). The issue is that during the last flight something came lose inside one of the fuel lines, and there is a fear that if this were to happen again it could damage the valves during flight, causing catastrophic failure.

This isn't bureaucracy at it's finest, it's the engineering process at its finest.


RE: bureaucracy at its finest
By SandmanWN on 2/23/2009 12:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
Something came lose? As in what exactly? Since you've done so much research, do tell... If that is the case, then why all the discussion on simple broken valves?

Common man, we've been sending the same vehicle up in the exact same way for 30 years. This is a little ridiculous.

Honestly it scares the crap out of me that we have a brand new space craft in the works many many times more complicated than the shuttle and they can't figure out the 30 year old models design flaws.


Better safe then sorry...
By UsernameX on 2/23/2009 11:09:49 AM , Rating: 3
Obviously there's something wrong with our system if we have to keep delaying over and over again. However, I'm not going to complain when some of our brightest are at stake...




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki