DailyTech - Two NASA Shuttle Launches Pushed Back

Submit News

Science Two NASA Shuttle Launches Pushed Back
Michael Barkoviak - August 31, 2008 10:01 AM

E-mail

del.icio.us

10 comment(s) - last by psychmike.. on Sep 1 at 12:24 AM

The shuttle Atlantis gets lowered onto mobile launcher platform. Its flight may be delayed, due to mechanical difficulties. (Source: NASA/Dimitri Gerondadakis)

NASA has been forced to delay two manned launches it has scheduled before the end of the year

NASA was forced to delay two manned shuttle launches because it has taken longer than expected to finish building the shuttle's external fuel tank, which must undergo additional safety checks because of the shuttle Columbia disaster.

The shuttle Atlantis mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope was originally scheduled to launch yesterday, but has been pushed back to October 8 at the earliest. Specifically, a metal guide pin unexpectedly jammed while flight crew prepared to connect the liquid hydrogen line from the fuel tank to the shuttle.

NASA will roll the shuttle out to its launch pad on Tuesday, Sept. 2. It's possible the launch could be pushed back an additional two or three days, with NASA selecting Oct. 10 or 11 as viable launch dates. A final decision will not be made until Atlantis and its payload have safely reached the launch pad.

The seven-man crew will carry out the final repair mission for Hubble before it ends its successful deployment in space. Gyroscopes and batteries will be replaced, and new instruments and equipment will be installed during the 11-day mission, although NASA has not shut the door to possibly extending the mission an additional day.

The shuttle Endeavour launch is scheduled to take place on Nov. 10 on a mission to deliver food and supplies to the International Space Station (ISS). NASA will rely on the Endeavour to be a rescue shuttle in case Atlantis has heat shield damage when it exits the Earth's atmosphere.

A rattling sound was heard when the Endeavour fuel tank was raised into a vertical position, which is a serious safety risk as the item could be sucked into the engines during launch. NASA is currently looking into the issue and weighing its options.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

For resupplying the ISS...

By daftrok on 8/31/2008 12:02:10 PM , Rating: 2

Is there really any reason for these shuttles to be manned? Its pretty much automated until it reaches orbit. If there were any problems, people at the ISS can simply fix it. Really it saves alot of money not to fill that shuttle with oxygen, food, water, etc. for the astronauts.

RE: For resupplying the ISS...

By Digimonkey on 8/31/2008 12:32:05 PM , Rating: 2

That's assuming it'd make it as far as the ISS. Besides that Nasa would probably get a lot of heat if the shuttle went rogue and crashed into the ISS.

Parent

RE: For resupplying the ISS...

By Kode on 8/31/2008 12:33:24 PM , Rating: 2

Well, it's still people that do repairs/operate some machines to do research and stuff like that. It also serves as a shuttle to the ISS, which transports people. So yes, they should be manned.

Parent

RE: For resupplying the ISS...

By daftrok on 8/31/2008 1:42:56 PM , Rating: 2

I suppose that since its not a sole mission but a primary one, it makes sense to man the shuttles. Switching crews is of course a requirement I forgot about that part.

Parent

RE: For resupplying the ISS...

By Expunge on 8/31/2008 1:58:52 PM , Rating: 2

You sir have no concept of what you are talking about. The ISS and Hubble are in completely different orbits to start with. Not to mention what vehicle are you going to use from the ISS? Last I looked all it has is 1 capsule attached to the space station which is certainly not the right vehicle to conduct a mission of this scope and complexity.

And if your thinking of launching the shuttle to the ISS to pick up astronauts to then do this mission your really wrong.

It takes months if not years of training to do one shuttle mission. You can't improvise your way 100% through a mission. Plus you still need a crew on the ISS to run the daily maintenance. And last while it might save on food and o2 it definitely would not save on fuel. In fact it would consume far more fuel.

Last, while yes the Shuttle is fairly automated during launch it still takes Astronauts to dock with the Hubble and to repair/upgrade the satelite once it is secured in the shuttles bay.

I live 5 minutes from JSC,(Johnson Space Center) my father works at JSC dealing with the shuttle program and his boss is an Astronaut, and I have had the privledge to meet and talk to him and several other Astronauts at length. And words do not do justice on describing these great people. Suffice to say they really are the best and brightest of us all IMO.

And the Hubble telescope.. just to give you a idea of how massive this satelite is, next time you are at a railroad crossing look at the box cars, that will give you a pretty good comparision of the size of this satelite. It is massive.

Next time daftrok, think before you actually make a statement like this..

Parent

RE: For resupplying the ISS...

By daftrok on 8/31/2008 9:15:06 PM , Rating: 2

I meant solely for supplies not crew transfer. Like an automated ship that can launch from Earth, supply the ISS and then re-enter. You don't have to be a jerk about something you disagree with. And what's this whole Holy Astronaut and Hubble telescope size rant? That has nothing to do what I'm talking about.

My point was that if the sole purpose of the mission was to supply the ISS then maybe an automated ship can do the job. But obviously that's not the case what with research, experimentation and most importantly transferring astronauts so I STAND FREAKING CORRECTED.

Parent

RE: For resupplying the ISS...

By psychmike on 9/1/2008 12:24:13 AM , Rating: 3

I agree with you, the people are exceptional. There is, however, something really wrong with the institution. Take their new plans for the Ares I and V rockets. Originally, they were supposed to leverage shuttle technology to get to the moon (and eventually Mars) cheaply. Originally, they were going to use the 4-segment Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) and Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs).

But now, they've figured that they need a 5-segment SSRB with a thicker casing, new fuel grain, and fuel fin-configuration. Even the new booster may not meet performance requirements so they're considering ditching the recovery hardware making the booster expendable. Ares I is also inherently more risky due to the inability to test the rocket before launch (several shuttle flights were aborted after abonormalities in SSRB start up were detected) and higher dynamic loads. But now, they're RS-68 and J-2X engines instead of the SSME. I kid you not, the only part of the shuttle that might make it aboard Ares is the SSRB fuel ignitor. So much for leveraging shuttle technology.

All of this to get back to where we were 40 years ago.

Parent

Date incorrect

By hellokeith on 8/31/2008 5:23:28 PM , Rating: 2

Even while the last STS was still in progress, there was NO launch date for the Hubble repair any earlier than October. This was discussed in length during the briefing meetings, as Shuttle Program managers were encouraging their people to go on vacation in August.

If there was a delay, it was decided in early June or earlier, as an October servicing mission to Hubble was discussed in length during the last STS media events.

Muffler Bearings?

By Fnoob on 8/31/2008 9:14:58 PM , Rating: 2

"A rattling sound was heard when the Endeavour fuel tank was raised into a vertical position"

Could have been some misplaced ball bearings, or a can of 3in1 oil? It's all ball bearings these days!