Shuttle Endeavour: NO repair

[Technoid]

During the ensuing shutdown they developed 3 tile patching methods, all of which they now say are too dangerous to test on Endeavour.

[GT98]

Well she made it home safe:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293881,00.html

[Dr Mordrid]

Now the question is how much damage, if any, was done to the exposed area of the wing. They won't know that 'til they crawl inside and look.

[Jon P. Inghram]

Looking at the before and after photos of the damage, I'd say no damage at all:

[Technoid]

Well she made it home safe:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293881,00.html

Well, thats a relief

Brave those astronauts, I'm not sure I'd be brave enough to let me get blaster into orbit inside one of the shuttles

[Jammrock]

The teacher curse is broken! Barely...

[[GDI]Raptor]

I think the NO repair option was the right thing to do.

Engineers at NASA did several analysis and simulations, they even tested a replica of the damage in a facility called an ArcJet. Even the most conservative numbers showed that "fly as is" was safe!

Doing a repair is not without risks. You have to put two astronauts under the shuttle in a boom called OBSS. The repair they could have used is called STA-54. You don't do a repair if you don't know if the repair will make things worse.

During the ensuing shutdown they developed 3 tile patching methods, all of which they now say are too dangerous to test on Endeavour.

Sure! When analysis and tests shows that it is safe to use "as is", it's more dangerous to do a "repair" that has several unknowns.

Shed pieces of foam knocked off chunks of tiles almost immediately with over 200 hits being recorded on some flights.

Thats true for the tanks before The Columbia Accident. This flight and this tank is one of the cleanest so far, with only one hit. And more improvements are coming. The tank that will fly with STS-124 in spring 2008 (ET-128) has re-designed ice-frost ramps, modified LOX-feedline brackets and several other modifications.


To get a more "non-Tabloid" view of the shuttle program, I recommended NASASpaceflight.com (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com)

[Dr Mordrid]

I have access to non-tabloid info, as in engineers, especially at JSC, who were anything but for this. There was more dissension inside NASA then the public knows.

[[GDI]Raptor]

I have access to non-tabloid info, as in engineers, especially at JSC, who were anything but for this. There was more dissension inside NASA then the public knows.

Realy... I also have access to "non-tabloid" info.

Yes, JSC engineering had dissenting opinions, but they did agree that "use-as-is" was ok, but they wanted to do the repair to try to get even more margins.

Engineers from KSC, MSFS, LaRC and Langley did not want to do a repair.

[Dr Mordrid]

Going with the flow is one thing, heart-of-hearts another. NASA has a long, sorry history of going with the flow engineering.

Personally I think the resources post Columbia would be better spent getting ready for Orion/Ares I/V.

ISS? Screw it. ISS's schedule ends in 2016. 6 years of completed use then what? No ones talking, but as physicist Robert Park said;

"NASA must complete the ISS so it can be dropped into the ocean on schedule in finished form."

Our partners?

Canada and Japan etc. have put in $1.5 billion or less each. It comes to far less than what we spend on pet clothes, so reimburse them.

Russia? Given how they've been misbehaving I'd tell them to stuff it, but OTOH sign it over and let them complete it (they can't) or deorbit it.

Basically no more good money after bad, then divert the funds to support building Ares I and Ares V in parallel instead of one after the other.

One of its big selling points was the ability to grow perfect crystals in microgravity for medical research. That is now moot because a method of growing them in 1G was announced last week. Now what? Most of the really interesting project modules have been canceled and as noted the ISS's mission only runs to 2016.

Also; Bigelow Aerospace is going live with manned expandable space station modules before 2010, so by the time ISS is finished a station that will be even bigger in usable volume could well be under construction with a completion date before Orion is flying humans.

Cost? A tiny fraction of what ISS cost; about $100m per module. Using those you could build a Borg cube for what ISS cost

How far can they go? They have designs for stations > 2,000 cubic meters, moon bases assembled in space then landed intact and spacecraft that use them as habs & command modules, and they're being taken very, very seriously.

Do they need shuttles to be assembled? No, all indications are that assembly is by remote control and, for the first 1,000 cu/meter station, in only 5-6 launches on expendable rockets.

[[GDI]Raptor]

ISS? Screw it. ISS's schedule ends in 2016. 6 years of completed use then what? No ones talking, but as physicist Robert Park said;
expendable rockets.

We'll see about that. Several internal documents from the NASA Constilation program acquired by NASASpaceflight.com shows NASA manifesting to fly two Orion flight per year to ISS until 2020.

As for Ares I & V and "Moon & Beyond"... Let's see what happens after the presidential elections next year. As for now, NASA is having problems with both. Ares I in particular don't have enough performance margin on the ascent.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5167

And to return this thread back to the topic... NASA have now removed the damaged tiles on Endeavour, and it shows NO signs of heat damage at all to the aluminum skin of the shuttle. This clearly shows that all the engineering analysis NASA did that showed "fly-as-is" is the best solution were correct.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5216

[Dr Mordrid]

A 2016-2020 manifest for Orion at ISS has as much meaning as an airline reservation; worthless unless you buy a ticket & get a boarding pass and there are no tickets, or spare parts, budgeted for past 2016.

Transferring it to partner nations raises ITAR issues (tech transfer laws) plus they don't have resources or the ability to maintain it. Soyuz/Progress sure can't do it all, which is why there is a COTS program (ex: SpaceX's Dragon) but that contract would only run until Orion flies...about 2014-2015.

Long NASASpaceFlight.com thread on this subject....

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

Pertinent post by a NASA guy;

I was discussing this very topic with an ISS safety guy this morning. He was saying that the word from on high is that ISS will go on, but no one has actually procured spares, materiel, etc. to keep it running... thus, no one really believes it. I just don't see the others taking over from NASA if we stop in 2016. I don't think it is at all feasible for the aforementioned reasons. Let's also not forget who paid for quite a bit of the Russian hardware, even though they have operational control. I wouldn't be surprised if some in Congress that want to see ISS go decide that having paid for it entitles us to shut it down.

and;

I agree with Jim that the ISS cannot continue without US involvement. It was always a US sandbox and others were invited to bring their toys and play. Because of a national priority shift, the plan is now to discontinue US support for the ISS in 2016. Our international partners have accepted this timetable because they have little choice; they will do the best they can with what they have.

The only thing that can keep the ISS up past 2016 is additional funding to continue NASA ISS MCC and associated operations. Such funding can come from only two places, the US Congress because of another change of priorities, or outside sources.

The only practical outside source is a consortium of the partner states, but since the funding would need to be in the form of hard cash or some other really valuable compensation paid to the US to continue operating the ISS program, it is inconceivable. ESA, JAXA and RSA do not have the kind of investment in the program, or expectation of return, that can possibly justify the kind of increase that would be required.

The Congress will only allocate additional funding for ISS operations if they feel it is to their political advantage to do so. The only thing that makes it to their advantage is if they get paid to keep it which, considering that nobody is making really big bucks from ongoing ISS operations, is unlikely, or a public outcry which, considering that ISS operations are less than enthralling to most people, is equally unlikely. There will be brief outrage at the waste, and oohs and ahhs at the fireballs and plasma trails, and then back to mundanity as usual.