Shuttle Worries
Nov. 11th, 2007 11:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stickmakerBeen watching videos on a NASA feed of both the recent _Discovery_ mission and the preparations to launch _Atlantis_. Both look very worn. I know that NASA administrators have been consciously deciding *not* to repair minor problems discovered after stacking, but this looks more like long-term neglect.
_Discovery_ I didn't get a good look at until it arrived at the ISS so, yeah, it would be a bit battered from liftoff. But what I saw of _Atlantis_, which is still being made ready for launch, was even worse.
Now, I'm not making a detailed inspection. I'm just noting things in the feed. I doubt very seriously the people working on these vehicles would allow something critical they found go unreported, and doubt something critical which was reported wouldn't be repaired before launch. But given the mistakes made previously by NASA managers (Remember _Columbia_, where managers actively worked against finding out just how bad the damage was?) and the possibility of human error, I worry about what could be missed, or reported and dismissed as inconsequential by people without technical training who are in decision-making positions. (With _Columbia_, the managers flowcharts listed tile damage as a turnaround interval problem, not a safely problem, so they openly dismissed the engineers warnings that the Shuttle could be lost on entry as irrelevant. And then defended their decisions before the accident review panel, stating the engineers never used the specific term which would have told them the problem was serious. A term in their manuals but not in those of the engineers.)
These are old craft. IIRC, _Discovery_ is past it's projected lifespan (though not number of missions). They will be retired soon. You would think all those involved in Shuttle missions would triple-check to ensure nothing goes wrong. And correct even the appearance of problems.
For those who think I'm just a worrywart, I voiced similar concerns for at least three years before _Columbia_.
_Discovery_ I didn't get a good look at until it arrived at the ISS so, yeah, it would be a bit battered from liftoff. But what I saw of _Atlantis_, which is still being made ready for launch, was even worse.
Now, I'm not making a detailed inspection. I'm just noting things in the feed. I doubt very seriously the people working on these vehicles would allow something critical they found go unreported, and doubt something critical which was reported wouldn't be repaired before launch. But given the mistakes made previously by NASA managers (Remember _Columbia_, where managers actively worked against finding out just how bad the damage was?) and the possibility of human error, I worry about what could be missed, or reported and dismissed as inconsequential by people without technical training who are in decision-making positions. (With _Columbia_, the managers flowcharts listed tile damage as a turnaround interval problem, not a safely problem, so they openly dismissed the engineers warnings that the Shuttle could be lost on entry as irrelevant. And then defended their decisions before the accident review panel, stating the engineers never used the specific term which would have told them the problem was serious. A term in their manuals but not in those of the engineers.)
These are old craft. IIRC, _Discovery_ is past it's projected lifespan (though not number of missions). They will be retired soon. You would think all those involved in Shuttle missions would triple-check to ensure nothing goes wrong. And correct even the appearance of problems.
For those who think I'm just a worrywart, I voiced similar concerns for at least three years before _Columbia_.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-11 08:38 pm (UTC)They aren't. They're building what they should have built in the Seventies to follow-up Apollo, only they're platinum-plating them as technology showcases, rather than as practical working vehicles.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-12 07:07 pm (UTC)NASA Getting Worse
Date: 2007-11-12 10:44 pm (UTC)If they were doing what their press office says they're doing, it would be a good thing. But they instead are sacrificing utility and economy and even safety for the fanciest, most cutting-edge tech they can dream up for the application.
For example, they're abandoning the tried-and-true combination of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine (either fifty-fifty or monomethyl) for in-space propulsion. This took us to the Moon and back and is still used by the Shuttle for attitude control and orbital maneuvering. That's not too surprising, since one goal is improved in-space performance, and while that classic combination is good it's not great. However, instead of going for something reasonable like LOX/Methane or LOX/Subcooled Propane they're going for storable LOX/LH2. Which will challenge the technology while adding mass in the form of more insulation and larger tanks for the LH2. Just so they can show off by doing something difficult.
Shuttle information: http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/shuttle.htm
Re: NASA Getting Worse
Date: 2007-11-13 07:19 pm (UTC)