Panel Challenges NASA Over Shuttle Safety

Uttini writes "NASA skipped some shuttle safety improvements as it tried to meet unrealistic launch dates for the first flight since the Columbia tragedy, some members of an oversight panel said in a scathing critique. Poor leadership also made shuttle Discovery's return to space more complicated, expensive and prolonged than it needed to be."

Comments

Hey

[PunkOfLinux]

They need to keep people thinking that their program is deserving of taxpayers' money. The best way to do that is to launch the shuttle, especially after something like columbia.

They did what they with what they had; the government keeps cutting nasa funding, and THAT is what lead to columbia -- too little money, too much to do.

Re:Hey

[Raelus]

NASA isn't a magic organization. They can't turn turds into space shuttles in a week. There's really no news here, we knew that NASA was underfunded and overpressured to get this done.

Re:Hey

[Stonehand]

Cutting NASA funding? No, it's been increasing -- if slowly.

Graph on budget

It is true, however, that priorities have been shifting away from the shuttle program.

Re:Hey

[Vellmont]

That or the space shuttle is inherrently flawed. Let's scrap the shuttle and make something better, before the next crew dies.

The shuttle may be "flawed" as you put it. Or maybe spaceflight is just dangerous? Do we really have reason to believe the next generation craft is going to be safer? If so, how much safer? Life is risky you know. Hell, we can hardly build a bridge or a skyscraper without SOMEONE dying.

There is one thing that's not disputed, and that is that the shuttle flights are way too expensive. The shuttle IS set to be scrapped, but we have to complete the space station before that can happen. For the moment the shuttle serves a purpose that can't be quickly replaced.

I think they should be doing exactly what they are, and that is get the damn ISS built, then scrap the shuttle since it's purpose will have been served.

Re:Hey

[s0meguy]

Try reading this for some provocative reasons why ity's a big waster of time: http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhe re.htm "In the thirty years since the last Moon flight, we have succeeded in creating a perfectly self-contained manned space program, in which the Shuttle goes up to save the Space Station (undermanned, incomplete, breaking down, filled with garbage, and dropping at a hundred meters per day), and the Space Station offers the Shuttle a mission and a destination. The Columbia accident has added a beautiful finishing symmetry - the Shuttle is now required to fly to the ISS, which will serve as an inspection station for the fragile thermal tiles, and a lifeboat in case something goes seriously wrong."

Re:Hey

[demachina]

Mike Griffin summed this up pretty well in his congressional testimony before he became administrator. Back then he only really supported Shuttle and ISS if Congress would give NASA buckets of money to do it and fast track CEV, and unless they redirect all the money being squandered on Iraq, its unlikely NASA will get buckets of money to do both. Maybe now that he is administrator he has to be more diplomatic and support the Shuttle and ISS more.

"But the more important question is whether the return to be obtained from the use of ISS to support exploration objectives is worth the money yet to be invested in its completion. The nation, through the NASA budget, plans to allocate $32 B to ISS (including ISS transport) through 2016, and another $28 B to shuttle operations through 2011. This total of $60 B is significantly higher than NASA's current allocation for human lunar return. It is beyond reason to believe that ISS can help to fulfill any objective, or set of objectives, for space exploration that would be worth the $60 B remaining to be invested in the program."

"Equally important is the delay in pursuing the President's vision. Respecting present budget constraints, we return to the moon in 2020, thus accomplishing in 16 years what it required eight years to achieve in the 1960s. This is not because the task is so much more difficult, or because we are today so much less capable than our predecessors, but because we do not actually begin work on the task until 2011. I do not need to point out to this body the political pitfalls endemic to such a plan."

"I, and others, have elsewhere advocated that the shuttle should be returned to flight and the ISS brought to completion, if only because the program's two-decade advocacy by the United States and commitment to its international partners should not be cavalierly abandoned. But, if there is no additional money to be allocated to space exploration, this position becomes increasingly difficult to justify. It is worth asking whether our international partners might judge the issue similarly."

Re:Hey

[ptbarnett]

No, the L1 point is where the forces between the Earth and the Sun are balanced. We have a number of spacecraft there... ACE, SOHO, WIND, etc...

L1 is a point between two massive bodies orbiting around a common center of mass. There is one between the Earth and the Sun. There is also one between the Earth and the Moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point

Teleporter?

[Anonymous Coward]

All these spacecraft seem like such an awkward and impractical way of transporting things through space. Wouldn't it be much easier to develop teleporter technology like you see in the science fiction shows and just send objects and astronauts to other planets that way?

You can get all sorts of things over the wireless internet these days, music, movies, all kinds of software. Since dna is just information too, it seems to me that it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to broadcast people and things from one place to another. NASA should get to work on this instead of silly space shuttles.

Re:Teleporter?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Something tells me there was a carrier loss when they transmitted your DNA...

Re:NASA needs a shake-up

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Suits are always pinheaded and defensive. That's why they call them PHBs.

I was contracting for a Rockwell division the day the Challenger blew up, and 20 minutes after it went down, we had an office pool going: "How long will it take them to figure out that it was caused by some middle-manager (somewhere in the supply chain) screaming "Whaddaya mean I can't ship on schedule??!!??""

Routine is not necessarily so great...

[thc69]

If we simply are 100% as perfectly careful as possible, fearing to tread anywhere but our exact previous footsteps, taking forever to inspect and re-inspect, we will never learn how to do it differently.

It is through our mistakes that we learn. Anybody willing to go up in a space shuttle knows they run a strong risk of death. Personally, I'd be excited to have the chance to risk my life in that noble work. Instead, for the sake of those who love me (okay, and for lack of ability or opportunity), I toil with my daily work, contributing my bit to the economy, so indirectly supporting the space program.

Re:What if there had been no foam loss?

[furiousgeorge]

>>> What if that one chunk hadn't fallen off
>>>right in view of the camera?

Dude.... they are using HUNDREDS of cameras now.

It didn't fall right in view of '*the* camera'. They just relesed the best view to show what happened.

>>The return-to-flight mission would have been
>>declared an outstanding success. Regular
>>launches would have resumed. We would be back
>>on track again.

So if you don't see the problem it doesn't exist? Sounds like you're NASA material!

$1 Billion and No Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone notice that NASA spent $1 billion to fix the foam problem that caused the destruction of the Columbia shuttle? Yet, after spending $1 billion, the foam problem manifested itself again during the launch of Discovery.

The failure of Columbia was not a failure of engineering. Successful rocket launches occur often in Japan, Europe, and Florida.

The failure of Columbia was a failure of management. Managers wanting to show results to their superiors ignored the "grunt" engineers when they warned of a potential problem with tragic consequences for Columbia. The warnings became reality.

Re:$1 Billion and No Solution

[MrFlannel]

ROCKET launches. And thats it. We too can launch ROCKETS. The shuttle is NOT a rocket.

Even the most advanced cargo rockets we have now cannot carry something as large as the shuttle. Let alone people AND cargo.

Someone else mentioned that russia hasnt had a fatality since 1971, but all the soyuz missions do is launch people (or supplies), they dont launch both, with a nice big arm, and a huge bay for storing large things that simply will not fit anywhere else.

Get a clue people, the shuttle has no suitable replacement as far as other space programs go.

Let NASA make up their own minds about risk

[ip_freely_2000]

People seem to forget that space travel is freaking dangerous. The whole concept of a lit rocket attached to your ass is probably never going to be as safe as walking to the store.

At some point, NASA will do as much as can be reasonably be expected and allow a volunteer to climb in the shuttle and hope for the best.

People who can, do. People who can't, sit on committees and complain.

Those people need to get out of the way and let NASA do their job.

*Grumble*

[Y-Crate]

To think, the inherent problems with the shuttle have finally snowballed to the point where launching is next-to-impossible now that they are finally trying to hurry up and get something done (ISS).

Kinda makes you even angrier about the countless, 600 million dollar "We're growing some more fucking crystals, dammit" missions we've had for the past 20 years. Talk about time wasted. Let's not even get started on how the constant redesigns of the ISS have left it borderline useless (and how the costs of the redesigns and the station we have now equal the cost of the original proposal)

Old vehicles are trouble no matter what type!

[GecKo213]

How many of you drive old cars, trucks, vans, or SUV's that say they are a joy to drive and run like the day they were brand new? No one would say that. Why NASA is using a shuttle that is 20 years old is beyond me. When I was 16 my parents gave me the old family '81 Datsun 310. I was grateful and even a bit excited to have it. I even thought I was "the man" because I had a car and most of my friends didn't, but it was a 13 year old car by the time I got it and had plenty of quirks. It had more than 300K miles on it when I got it. It ran pretty well and didn't cause me any major malfunctions, (Other than a clutch) but as soon as I could afford it I got a newer car! The car made it a year or two for my brother before giving up. I think it finally died in '97 with well over 400K miles on it. Those Damn shuttles have TONS more miles on them than that stupid car. Plus they are in a tad more hostile condition than the local freeways and roads. It baffles me that they are still willing to send astronauts up in them? Beyond that, I'm just as perplexed by the fact that there are astronauts blinded by the "I'm going to be in a text book one day" mentality that they are willing to ride up in the damn thing! Just plain stupidity if you asked me. It's time to produce something new with new seals, gaskets, and gap filler, and maybe a satelite dish. (Weather shouldn't affect their picture up there being so close to the satelites themselves.) If they plan on putting a man on Mars they've got a long way to go with those shitty shuttles they're still nursing along.

I mean, how many of you would really rather be sitting at say a 20 year old computer right now versus the one you're on reading /. on at this moment? I mean c'mon, be honest with yourself!

-- My Rant is now over, we'll return you to your regularly scheduled blah.

Re:Jump On The Bandwagon...

[toddbu]

I heard a news report that said that gap fillers had been known to come loose in the past and no one worried about it too much. We're now hyper-sensitive to any damage to the tile system, probably way beyond what we should be. The fact that it took them so long to decide whether to go out and fix the problem shows that the associated risk was low, especially when compared to the risk of screwing something up if they accidentally pulled off a tile during the repair.

First off, these people ARE NASA...

[jd]

...and second, NASA stated prior to the mission that (a) the foam problem had been fixed to the point where no large fragments would fall off, and (b) that fragments larger than a certain size could cause a catastrophic disaster.

In light of that, I can see no reason for NASA's own safety panel to NOT issue these kinds of complaints. That is what they are paid to do - look at what is going wrong and SAY something. They looked, and they spoke.

Now, as for anyone else - you've a point. Outsiders don't have the information needed to make the kinds of observations needed. Well, to an extent. There were several teams that had offered NASA solutions that would have guaranteed zero foam loss, but received no feedback from NASA. Those teams went public and I can understand that. Again, that's their area of expertise.

Now, do I think NASA should have chosen those solutions? I don't know. The safety panel didn't mention them, so maybe there were good reasons for declining. On the other hand, as a public organization, NASA might help themselves (and us) a lot by saying WHY those solutions were declined.

There's Dumb Risk versus Unavoidable Risk.

[mbkennel]

Unavoidable risk: a rocket is an enormous explosive just barely controlled by exotic, expensive and difficult technology.

Avoidable risk: doing stupid things in your design to endanger lives.

The laws of physics, and many realities of engineering, are exactly the same today as they were in 1960.

For instance: what is the right place to locate the humans?

On the very top, because then they are the furthest away from the really dangerous bits. And delicate stuff needed for re-entry can be shielded and be far away from the immensely violent launch and debris and whatever is coming out of the ground and shaken off the rocket.

Corollary: where do you put the fuel tanks? On the rear end, dummy.

There's lots of reasons the Saturn V looked like it does. And how it looks like a whole lot of other rockets, except the shuttle. Ain't a coincidence.

These problems were known and solved, and the shuttle un-solved them.

Obviously, we need some more Nazi rocket scientists.

So a plane which can fly back is supposed to be 'cost effective'. But why does it have to be so big? You generally take big fat cargos up and then work on them. So take them in a big fucking can, which sits UNDER your small, human sized space plane which re-enters and holds the people, tools and control bits. You throw away the can. And under the cargo, you put the fat ass rockets.

You make them as cheap as possible, with metal-wrangling shipbuilding level technology, not ultra-high tech fancy pants stuff. That stuff is use 'once or twice', if it's still OK when you get it back off the ocean. Only the engines are the big monetary per-launch loss, but even now they have big solid rocket boosters which are one-use only.

They should make a big Saturn V style launcher with cheap ass solids strapped around the bottom for the initial heavy lift, like the Soyuz, then a cheap ass liquid booster module. Then a cargo can, and on top, the orbital and re-entry vehicle.

And also put that doohickey on the very top like with the Saturn V. What's it for? It's a little escape pod rocket and parachute to get the people the fuck away from the big explosive bits if something really bad happens.

If the Challenger worked like that, the crew might have been able to walk away, depending on circumstances.

Re:There's Dumb Risk versus Unavoidable Risk.

[AJWM]

I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted. Even though I think re-usable vehicles are the way to go rather than expendables, I agree totally with you that the Shuttle is just Designed Wrong -- and isn't very reusable anyway.

As for "make a big Saturn V style launcher with cheap ass solids strapped around the bottom for the initial heavy lift", there's no need for the solids. A Saturn V could put the equivalent of four full Shuttle payloads into LEO (Low Earth Orbit) in one shot, or a complete Shuttle Orbiter. Or, for that matter, Skylab. Or a fully fueled S-IVB stage, LM, and CSM, all set for a trip to the Moon. That thing (the SV) had 7.5 million pounds of liftoff thrust, the Shuttle has about 5.

The original plan was only for Shuttle to replace medium-lift launchers, retaining the Delta at the low end and Saturn V at the high end. NASA quickly scrapped that plan (along with the Saturn V stacking capability in the VAB and the Saturn V launch towers) when they realized that the existance of a working manned and heavy lift capability (Apollo-Saturn) meant it would be politically easy to cancel Shuttle if (when) that hit budget overruns.

Is environmentally-friendly foam flawed?

[geoffrobinson]

I keep hearing that if they used environmentally unfriendly foam (CFC's I would suppose). Does anyone know the veracity of this or shed any light on the situation with the foam?

Can the Shuttle Fly Itself?

[THotze]

Alright, I've got a question that I haven't seen addressed, at all, anywhere.

We've spent God knows how many hundreds of millions of dollars trying to make the shuttle safe enough for human spaceflight. Maybe that just isn't going to happen. Not with the shuttle, not with the fact that we're looking at band-aids and not limb replacement solutions here.

So, what would it take to make the shuttle run on autopilot? Rockets fly to space all the time, Russian Progress vehicles even dock with the space station, although I'm not sure if they do it alone or via teleoperation.

Either way, why not invest a certain amount of money in an autopilot (or teleoperation) system so the shuttle could fly up, dock with the station, and then could be entered by ISS crew who could use the shuttle's robotic arm, etc., to set up the next component of the station. If manpower's an issue (and with 2 on board the station, it probably is) you could do it when there was a crew change and there were more people at the station, or you could really, really hurry with the CEV and wait until you could have enough people at the station to do the job.

Or, for that matter, you could just HOLD on station construction until the CEV was ready and you could squeeze enough people into the station to make this work.

This would solve the main issue: that the shuttle isn't safe for humans due primarily to reentry problems. In the future, you could even have the CEV dock with an in-space, unmanned shuttle and complete shuttle missions, such as a Hubble servicing mission, then undock, let the shuttle make its way home (or, in an unfortunate, but no longer life-threatening event, crash) and the CEV, with crew, would return to earth safely (as I can't recall a SINGLE EVENT where a capsule has burned up and people have died in reentry.)

Anybody know why this hasn't been suggested, at all? I think it may be cheaper and faster, certainly if we'd done this after the Columbia disaster, but even fi its not, it allows us to keep on using the shuttle for YEARS relatively cheaply.

Tim

Anything with tits or wheels

[HermanAB]

sooner or later gives you shit... ;-)

My dream job...

[Ingolfke]

is to sit on a panel and bitch and complain and nitpick and attack people who actually do work.

This is a shake up

[WindBourne]

Most of this work was under O'Keefe. Griffin will take a while to get hold of all this and change it, but the shake up is occuring. Thank God. O'Keefe was a disaster as he appointed a bunch of managers/politicians (read PHBs) under him rather than engineers.

Re:As A Matter Of Fact I Did Google

[virtual_mps]

So why do so many News sites report exactly what I am saying?

1. Because most "news sites" simply regurgitate (or flat-out copy) stories from other "news sites". The amount of real investigative journalism is approaching zero; rumor and hearsay become self-perpetuating.

2. Because there is a major ideological incentive for environmental controls to be "the cause" of the Columbia disaster. There is a large consumer population that is eager to hear confirmation of what they already knew--that the big bad EPA causes more problems than it solves. Providing that population with the product they're looking for sells more papers and leads to a satisfied "told you so" and a happy consumer.