Tuesday, June 27, 2006
NASA's LOV Roulette
458 comments - Click for BlogSTS-121 Discovery
Launch Pad: 39B
Launch Date: July 1, 2006
Launch Time: 03:48 p.m. EDT | 19:48 UT
Landing: July 13, 2006
Duration: 12 days
Orbital Insertion Altitude: 122 nautical miles
Orbit Inclination: 51.60°
Countdown begins: T-43 hours
In a few days, Discovery is scheduled to return to space for an extended rendevouz with the International Space Station ISS. This will be Discovery's 32nd flight. According to NASA,
"The crew of space shuttle Discovery will continue to test new equipment and procedures that increase the safety of space shuttles during the STS-121 mission to the International Space Station. It also will perform maintenance on the space station and deliver more supplies and cargo for future station expansion.
This mission is to carry on analysis of safety improvements that debuted on the Return to Flight mission, STS-114, and build upon those tests."
So it would seem that NASA's 'Holy Grail' of Safety is of paramount importance...or is it? It seems that this idea being fostered is not quite the universal reality. The following document was received from 'X', and it shows that there is some disagreement about the state of Flight Readiness.
STS-121 Certification of Flight readiness
In this document dated June 17, 2006, B.D. O'Connor, Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance, states:
"I am no-go based on loss of vehicle risk (ice frost ramps). Based on appeal to Administrator I have no intention to appeal his risk acceptance and concur with proceeding with mission".
Later that same day there was a STS-121 Post Flight Readiness Review Briefing held at Kennedy Space Center and broadcast on NASA-TV. To NASA's credit, there was significant discussion regarding Mr. O'Connor's reservations and the risk involved. But the end result is summed up in Administrator Griffin's statement that:
"So the question is can we fly a few times with this ice/frost ramp without probably incurring a hazard, and based on the data I have seen, I believe that we can."
A curious statement, no doubt, and made more so by the briefing charts which amazingly include a photographic presentation of NASA's Top Ten Ice/Frost Ramp Foam Loss Events! WTF?
Administrator Griffin says about this:
"This is fully what we expect to se, potentially on STS-121 when we get some of our external photography back. We expect to see losses in these regions, pretty much similar to what we have seen here......
So, when we see this in flight and you get this data down, we should not be surprised."
Well, now this could, as is stated, be the result of balanced, reasoned judgement and review...or could it be something else? Are we being carefully prepared to accept the harbinger of a dangerous situation if or when it happens?
Well, it does seem that more than one person at NASA thinks so. The following is a statement from NASA Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer Bryan O'Connor, again and Chief Engineer Chris Scolese delivered on June 19th concerning the decision to launch the Space Shuttle Discovery in July, despite reservations:
"Crew safety is our first and most important concern. We believe that our crew can safely return from this mission.
"We both feel that there remain issues with the orbiter -- there is the potential that foam may come off at time of launch. That's why we feel we should redesign the ice/frost ramp before we fly this mission. We do not feel, however, that these issues are a threat to safe return of the crew. We have openly discussed our position in the Flight Readiness Review -- open communication is how we work at NASA. The Flight Readiness Review board and the administrator have heard all the different engineering positions, including ours, and have made an informed decision and the agency is accepting this risk with its eyes wide open."
Due to the availability of emergency contingencies such as the ISS, CSCS, Launch-On-Need and even Russian Soyuz, the Administrator feels that Crew risk is minimized and he distinguishes Crew Risk from Programmatic Risk. At this juncture, the Program is to complete the ISS within the next 4 years. the Programmatic Risk is another catasrophic or near-catastrophic Shuttle flight, jeopardizing the goal of completing ISS. Of course, the question then is "Of what value, ISS?". Is ISS worth the risk?
As a final note, an additional task of STS-121 is the transport of the crew of ISS Expedition 13 crew!
British born astronaut Piers Sellers will replace Carlos Noriega on the STS-121 mission. This is due to an undisclosed, temporary medical condition.
Thomas Reiter was scheduled to be dropped off at the ISS to join the other Expedition 11 crew members (A position previously planned to be filled by Sergei A. Volkov (Russia)), but since the launch of STS-121 was pushed back until at least July 2006, he will be joining the Expedition 13 crew. The addition of Reiter's will result in three crew members being left on the ISS. Since the Columbia accident and the grounding of the shuttle fleet, only two people have been residing on the ISS.
The other day I asked the question "Could global warming/coming cataclysm be the communication telling mankind that it is now time to move mankind to the stars? Are we being told to 'man the lifeboats?" There was no response, but then maybe I didn't couch the thought correctly. Maybe because it's hard to express, so let me just put it like this. I'm beginning to think that we are being communicated with, just not the way SETI planned it. And I think that the communication is exhorting mankind to do something NOW, that we need to be establishing a self-sufficient, permenant presence in outer space. Most of us in my generation always thought we would...so, what happened?
Some folk think that the 'aliens' had a little sit down with a US president and warned us away from space. Could be! but I don't think so. I think there are more earthly forces that do not want us to be in space. Their fortunes, their plans, their power stand to be disrupted and eroded by a Great Diaspora of Civilization to the Stars. For a large-scale effort to space takes up resources...money, minerals, educated minds and muscle...all currently being directed to the waging of war and furthering the enslavement of humankind under a fascist corpocracy which has gained riches and power since 1947.
I say that Mankind's highest priority is to move into Outer Space.
And I say that there certain parties on Planet Earth that, rather than have a safe and successful Space program, stand to gain by the result of this game of Loss-of-Vehicle Roulette.
UPDATE: A development related to this blog. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4004817.html
Sources
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts121/index.html
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/news/121frr_oconnor_scolese.html
www.nasa.gov/pdf/150494main_frr_brief_20060617.pdf
www.nasa.gov/pdf/150416main_FRR%20Briefing%20Charts.pdf
p.s. There are no ritual numbers in this blog.