Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Shuttle Launch Delayed

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the it's-raining-in-space dept.

fizzix writes "Weather has delayed the launch of Discovery to tomorrow (Sunday the 2nd), but not everyone thinks it is ready to go. CNN reports both the chief engineer and the chief safety officer gave it a 'no go' for launch. Despite their reservations, barring inclement weather the shuttle is planned to liftoff at 3:26 ET." Update: 07/02 05:00 GMT by Z : I said launch not lauch. Fixed headline.

4 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. I don't get it. by Carnage+Pants · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Two people who are obviously very high up on the pecking order around there say, "No-go," and and yet it's still decided the shuttle is going to launch. Is it just me, or are we asking for another disaster?

  2. From the article ... by Sonic+McTails · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Earlier Saturday mission managers decided a problem with a thermostat in one of Discovery's thrusters, which was showing a reading in the 80s when it should have been in the 60s, was not dangerous and it could be fixed once the shuttle was in orbit."

    Given the fact that foam striking the side of the Columbia during takeoff wasn't considered dangerous, I'm suprised they didn't stop to recheck everything before hand. When it comes down to rechecking everything and delaying the mission for a little longer vs. the millions lost and the following PR hit, the answer pretty obvious. You could say "it could never happen", but try and tell that to the crews of the Changeller and the Columbia.

    --
    This signature was left intentionally blank.
  3. Chief Safety Officer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the chief safety officer can't cancel a launch due to safety concerns, what's the point of having a chief safety officer?

    1. Re:Chief Safety Officer by evanbd · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, the CSO didn't choose to appeal the decision. Basically the CSO and chief engineer are worried about the loss of the vehicle, but not the crew. Everyone agrees the crew will be safe, since they plan to check out the tiles etc in orbit, and keep the crew in the ISS and land the shuttle remotely if it looks bad.

      Griffin is taking a calculated risk -- he knows the shuttle might be lost, but has taken steps to make sure the crew isn't.

      So basically, they object and think it's the wrong decision, but they believe that having gone on record as saying that is sufficient -- they don't think there's a need to override the person in charge of risk assessment since what's at risk is only the spacecraft and not the crew. Whether to risk the craft is legitimately a monetary / political decision, not a safety one, since the crew should be fine either way.