Shuttle Launch Delayed

SpaceFlightNow (as usual) has great coverage by xmas2003 · 2006-07-01 15:14 · Score: 5, Informative

STS-121 Mission Status Center - 'nuff said.

--
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease

Check that radar. by Chatmag · 2006-07-01 15:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Here is the link to the radar image for Melbourne, Florida

I'm close enough to see the space shots, and there were some storms west of the Cape this afternoon, a few more out to sea. Forecast for tomorrow is less of a chance of thunderstorms in the area and downrange.

I have my thermos of coffee ready. "I always have coffee when I view radar". (Dark Helmet, Spaceballs.)

--
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com

Slight confusion over the submital by beebware · 2006-07-01 15:47 · Score: 5, Informative

The details in the Slashdot posting are slightly incorrect. Todays/yesterdays launch (the scheduled on on the 1st of July) was postponed at T-9minutes after a 40 minute scheduled hold (if it's scheduled, why didn't they add it into the count down?) and approximately 3 minutes of 5 into an "extended hold" (after they "polled" all the various sections of the launch team). Then the decision was made the "scrub" (abort) the launch due the weather being too unpredictable and there being storm clouds (anvil clouds) within 20 miles of the emergency landing strip (although they have got backup landing strips in France and Spain). They will retry the launch tomorrow, and can abort for any reason up to 31 seconds before main ignition.

At the moment, they are still "go" for the launch tomorrow.

BTW: You learn a lot from watching the live stream on nasa.gov!

Re:Slight confusion over the submital by DarthBart · 2006-07-01 15:52 · Score: 4, Informative

can abort for any reason up to 31 seconds before main ignition.

The folks in the firing room can abort up to 31 seconds before T-0, but the onboard computers can abort anytime before the SRBs light. Once those puppies light, you're going whether you like it or not.
Re:Slight confusion over the submital by endernet · 2006-07-01 16:02 · Score: 5, Informative

The 45 min hold at T-9:00 is standard. It's used for making up time if they take too long on some pre-flight procedures. I think there is a 10min scheduled hold in there at about T-20:00 as well. Why is it not included in the countdown? Because they can chose to use all the 45 min, or only some of it.
Re:Slight confusion over the submital by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-01 16:11 · Score: 5, Informative

storm clouds (anvil clouds) within 20 miles of the emergency landing strip (although they have got backup landing strips in France and Spain)

Just a small correction there; the strips in France and Spain aren't backup strips, the two locations serve different purposes. If there is a failure early in the launch sequence then they can in theory just ditch the attachments, turn around, and land at the emergency strip near the launch site. ("In theory" because this maneuver is so insanely difficult that it's been said to require about seven different miracles to be successful.) Past a certain point the shuttle can no longer make it back to Florida, so then the abort procedure changes to continue approximately on course and land on the far side of the Atlantic. This part is where the sites in France and Spain come into play. There are few, if any, scenarios where either side could be used, so you end up with a weird situation where bad weather in a place four thousand miles away can scrub the launch because you need to be able to abort there if something goes badly wrong.

Today was the opposite. The transatlantic sites were clear but the strip in Florida itself was too cloudy, so they couldn't go.

This is yet another advantage of simpler capsule systems. The abort modes for those are all extremely simple and reliable compared to the Shuttle's. You fire the escape tower, get away from the rockets, ride down and open the parachutes when you get to the right altitude. As long as the weather isn't so horrible that it sinks the capsule in the ocean, everything should be pretty much fine.

Apollo 12 got hit by lightning during launch and still landed on the Moon, but the Shuttle can't launch if there are storm clouds within 20 miles. The wonders of modern technology.
Re:Slight confusion over the submital by FSWKU · 2006-07-01 16:15 · Score: 2, Informative

As the previous reply stated, the launch can be aborted (either by Launch Control at KSC, or by the computer) at any time up until the SRB's ignite. There can be (and have been) aborts between the ignition of the main engines and the ignition of the SRB's. A couple (although the exact missions escape me right now) have been aborted at almost literally the last second, around T-00:00:03 or so. But yeah, once the SRB's are lit, you're leaving the pad wether you like it or not.

You are right that they have emergency landing sites in Europe. However, in order to initiate an RTLS (Return To Landing Site) abort, they have to be beyond a certain point in their ascent, around the 4 minute mark. While they would have passed that point before the weather hit, it still takes time to get rid of altitude and airspeed. It then would take another 25-30 minutes to return to KSC, in which time the weather could already be causing unfavorable landing conditions.

--
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
Re:Slight confusion over the submital by LoveMuscle · 2006-07-01 16:32 · Score: 4, Informative

Just to be clear: T-0 is defined as SRB ignition.

Re:It's a very silly way to do things. by riker1384 · 2006-07-01 15:50 · Score: 1, Informative

The decision is overridden because the crew can camp out in the space station. The "no go" people claim to accept this. (they damn well knew too) So... Why say "no go" in the first place? Why worry about foam damage if you know that you ultimately won't care?

They said that there is little risk to the crew, but there is excessive risk to the orbiter itself.

Re:From the article ... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-01 16:01 · Score: 1, Informative

Huh. The CNN report differs from what NASA TV was broadcasting earlier today. Basically NASA had determined that it was the sensor, not the thruster, which was malfunctioning, and that NASA had ammended the mission plan to simply not use that thruster.

Basically you'll find that the mission plan includes the planned burns for rotation of the shuttle and maneuvering. By firing different thrusters for different amounts of time the same maneuver can be accomplished. Given that the shuttle isn't really flown "free stick" like an airplane but by precalculated burns and corrections having a thruster out changes nothing for the flight crew. Failure of a thruster was something NASA had planned for long long ago, and there are alternate burn plans in place for tons of combinations of failed thrusters. Having a failed sensor on a thruster that needn't be used is not a no-go.

Re:I was there ... by LinuxHam · 2006-07-01 17:19 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm almost surprised they even decided to proceed to the point that they did today

I was about 35 miles to the northwest, flipping back and forth between CNN and NASA TV being fed from my laptop. I was under darker clouds, and was afraid that the clouds were going to block my normally spectacular view. Then they scrubbed it, and I packed up and went over to the track for the race. True Florida vacation, this one.

--
Intelligent Life on Earth

Morning Edition Report by Senor+Wences · 2006-07-01 17:35 · Score: 2, Informative

NPR's Morning Edition did an interesting articleon June 22 about the impending launch:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=5503182

They interview the two senior officials who have reservations about the launch. What I found most interesting were the odds that one NASA employee mentions, which are definitely in favor of the launch and mission succeeding based upon the track record of the shuttles. Yes, it's a dangerous mission and NASA cannot guarantee that falling foam will not damage the shuttle, but in the hundred plus launches only two shuttles have been lost, which isn't a bad track record. However, from the sound of the article, NASA is ready to finish the planned missions and be done with the shuttles. Definitely worth a listen.

--
End of Line

Not 3:26 ET , it's 15:26 EDT by Animats · 2006-07-01 18:00 · Score: 2, Informative

No, they're not launching at 3AM; they slipped all the way to Sunday afternoon.

Re:End the damn program already by ryanov · 2006-07-01 18:08 · Score: 3, Informative

I assume you're actually speaking about Columbia, not the Discovery that's going to launch this week?

Re:From the article ... by glitchvern · 2006-07-01 18:12 · Score: 4, Informative

There's no good reason for NASA to launch the shuttle over the July Fourth holiday weekend

Sure there is, the launch window is 10 minutes a day from June 30 to July 19. The two previous sets of launch windows were March 4 to 19 and May 3 to 22. Nasa missed both of those so now they are trying this one. I am not sure why a launch on June 30 was not tried, but that still would have been part of the 4th of July weekend. Generally speaking you want to try launching early in the set of launch windows so if you have a delay you might be able to launch in the next day's window. More info on launch windows here, here, and here.

Re:Hold on by RedWizzard · 2006-07-01 18:31 · Score: 4, Informative

So if the engineer says no, and the safety officer says no then who is saying yes? Whose opinion could be more important than these two people?

The chief engineer Chris Scolese and the associate administrator of Safety and Mission Assurance Bryan O'Conner are there to advise. That is what they do. The decision is made by the NASA Administrator Mike Griffin. His rationale for proceeding include that there is no undue risk posed to the crew (the crew can wait for rescue at the ISS), no short or medium term fix has been identified, and continued delays may cause greater risk down the line as NASA scrambles to complete the 16 missions they need to before the fleet is grounded in 2010. There is also the feeling that since the external tank redesign they've just done is so significant (biggest change to the aerodynamics since the shuttle started flying), it would be wise to have a flight with that change alone rather than waiting for further redesigns.

Re:End the damn program already by evanbd · 2006-07-01 18:45 · Score: 4, Informative

Commercial efforts so far? Almost, but not quite, recreating a 57 year old X-15 flight, courtesy of a couple of very rich angels. Commercial efforts will get there, but not anytime soon. Gotta satisfy those shareholders.

Don't sell SpaceX quite so short -- they've attempted one *orbital* launch, and will be trying again in a couple months. There's good reason to believe it will work -- the failure was a procedural one, not a design one, and they've added multiple checks to prevent it and similar problems. The current rocket (Falcon 1) is a small TSTO semi-expendable launcher; they have a larger Falcon 9 and some variants also already in production, and a much larger rocket (codename: BFR) and manned (!) capsule in development. I'd lay better than even money they repeat the Sputnik flight (with a useful payload) this year, and even money they do a manned launch in 5.

Commercial will get there, it's just a matter of putting enough investment in to get to the point that there's a market, and SpaceX has already sold 10 launches -- strongly suggesting that there is in fact a market for better, cheaper, more reliable vehicles.

Re:I was there ... by RedWizzard · 2006-07-01 18:46 · Score: 2, Informative

"Weather reports indicated that today was the most likely launch date weather-wise for the next few days. Tomorrow is only rated a 40% chance to have clear weather (today was 60%). They really need to get this shuttle launched so they are taking every potential opportunity."
...sure you dont mean potential risk? im sure these guys arent the kind to put a 'no-go' stamp on a tiny risk... why disregard what they have to say?

The parent was talking about weather specifically. But to address your argument, the advice of Scolese and O'Conner was certainly not disregarded, however their concerns are not the only factor. NASA needs to complete 16 missions before the shuttles are retired in 2010, and the problem in question has no apparent medium term fix. Waiting now will increase pressure on the schedule and could result in more serious risk taking later. Additionally consider that the risk is not to the crew - they can wait for rescue on the ISS. For those reasons (and others) the NASA Administrator has decided to proceed. The two advisors who voted no-go agree that the crew is not endangered and do not object to the flight proceeding, they simply wanted it noted that problems remain with the vehicle.

Real Time Updates vs. News Articles After the Fact by GPHemsley · 2006-07-01 20:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Maybe I'm just naïve (I hardly think so), but I think if you're getting your information about the Shuttle launch and in-flight status solely from news media, you're most certainly not getting the whole story. Last year, there was a news conference after another chunk of foam came off the shuttle (after all the precautions that they went through to prevent it), with all the experts showing the evidence and explaining it. As usual, they opened it up to questions at the end. The question was along the lines of, "Are the remaining missions grounded until this is resolved?" The response was similar to, "Of course the remaining missions are delayed until we figure out what went wrong here again." Despite all of the content of the news conference (which I personally watched in its entirety), the headlines in the newspapers in the next day were, "Shuttle Fleet Grounded". All of the media made it into a much bigger deal than it actually was. Of course they're not going to send more shuttles into space after a reoccurance of what they thought they fixed without reanalyzing the situation (again).

Before you make any comments about the operations of NASA, I suggest you actually follow the status of the mission. NASA TV and Spaceflight Now should be your primary sources. NASA has a multitude of experts, each focussing on a particular area of expertise. Each one gives their opinion on "go/no-go" at various stages of the mission. Today's scrub was based solely on the weather.

Re:My 50 Yen by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-02 00:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually the Japanese have a kickass space program. No manned stuff, but they have quite a few space telescopes and other missions like asteroid rendevous do some great science. Hayabusa, Suzaku, Akari - some very cool stuff.

20 of 146 comments (clear)