NASA Scrubs Launch Due to Faulty Fuel-Tank Sensor

VUSE g-EE-k writes "NASA has scrubbed Wednesday's launch of Discovery due to a faulty fuel-tank sensor in the external fuel tank. They are going to begin the troubleshooting process. They have not released details as to how long this delay will last. The crew have begun to get off the shuttle. For more information, see the NASA TV site. Drudge Report has some initial coverage of the scrub." Reader adefa adds a link to NASA's Space Shuttle launch page with more info.

Comments

Re:Begin the countdown!

[Scoria]

If you scrutinize a vehicle that is several decades old, it's likely that you'll find a number of unforeseen defects. Even vehicles that are well-maintained suffer from the aging process.

Just to play devil's advocate, a conspiracy theorist might argue that this is one method by which to stop space exploration: Emphasize safety in a medium where safety cannot under any circumstance be guaranteed, scrutinize the aging shuttle until a defect is found, and finally decline the funding required to build a replacement. Repeat. ;-)

Re:Horrible Quality

[srw]

> What ever happened to the days when everything NASA was super high quality?

Two things... My roomate's old beater car is three years newer than the Space Shuttle. There's no way in hell you'd catch me trying to drive that thing at mach whatever (if it would even do it.)

Second, (and somewhat more seriously) this was one of four fuel sensors that have to work at -400 degrees (I don't recall if NASA TV said C or F... I would guess C) in liquid hydrogen. That's not a trivial task. Of course, that's why they design redundant systems. They really only need two of the four sensors to work... and they only need them in the case where another failure causes a low fuel situation (which should never happen.) This sensor was part of a backup system to a backup system. So, really, they probably could have gone ahead in full safety. It's just that on this launch, no one wants to screw up.

I'm sure the quality is fine... they're just being super cautious this time.

Re:Horrible Quality

[jridley]

True, back in the 60's in the Apollo days, they tested the bejezus out of everything; that's because they were pushing stuff to almost beyond what technology of the time would do, and they had to have the best of the best to have a chance in hell of pulling off the mission.

They just don't have the budget for that now. I think they just ignored a lot of stuff and got lucky most of the time. They are going to be super-careful this time; they can NOT afford a failure on this launch.

Remember when the air force told NASA to expect something like 1 in 20 missions to blow up, because that was their record with SRBs? NASA has been doing WAY better than that.

These days they're scrubbing when they notice something outside of nominal. I'm happy they are. The Challenger was lost when they were operating outside of nominal and figured they could get away with it. After that event, investigations showed that they were ignoring a WHOLE LOT of stuff. I keep hoping they'll stop ignoring their own rules; we'll see.

Re:Risk averse society?

[Bemopolis]

How the heck did NASA put men on the moon in a decade? They did not have a bunch of high tech crap that they have now, it was the ability to take risks.

Well, they did chicken-fry three astronauts on the ground, which led to significant delay in the Apollo program, including (surprise) Congressional hearings. The accident was largely the result of the cowboy risk-taking you endorse. Do that a few times and public support would evaporate like, well, those very astronauts. Oh wait, we did -- NASA cowboyed the Challenger launch over the heads of the engineers who BUILT the damn SRBs, and the scattering of Columbia over my high school in East Texas was at least in part attributable to the same mindset.
In short, there's "risk" and then there's "pointless risk". Often hard to tell apart until the inquest.

As for "free" enterprise, if they could do it they'd do it already -- and have the taxpayers subsidize it AND insure it for them. And then they'd be chicken-frying citiesworth of people at no risk to them. After all, why do you think they call it "free" enterprise?

Bemopolis