Conference 7.286::space

    My thoughts of the moment...
    
    I don't think that NASA nor the investigating committee will fall
    into the trap of asking that 'every las conceivable problem' be
    addressed and fixed.  That task would fall into the file marked
    "Not Possible".  However, you should expect some serious investigation
    into the STS as a whole system in an effort to uncover any oversights
    that may not have been seen as oversights in the past.
    
    As for cutting bugets...   ...that would be classic as well as tragic!
    I can hear the congressional gears ticking away:
    
    	> "Let's see, we didn't provide them with enough of a budget
           to do it right the first time.  I know!  We'll cut their
           budget!!  That'll teach 'em!  They'll never do that again!"
    
    God help us...
    
    set mood/optimistic
    
    The '67 APOLLO fire resulted in a reshuffling of NASA's upper echelon
    as well as a many-month delay to the APOLLO program and a redesign
    of the space craft.  It also resulted in a safer space craft and
    and the most successful 8 years that MAN IN SPACE has ever seen,
    from the Nov. 9, 1967 unmanned flight of APOLLO 4 to the July 17,
    1975 APOLLO-SOYUZ test project.
    
    While the loss of the Challenger 7 is a shock, I am optimistic that
    the result will be a more stable, successful, and advancing MAN
    IN SPACE program the likes of which we have never seen before.
    As individuals, we can help this happen.
    
    jim
    

    set mood/not_so_optimistic
    
    I can see lots of moneys being diverted to help NASA, but not for
    manned space exploration, etc.  I am a definite supporter of manned
    space flight, but the guys in congress are not what you'd call hi-tech
    government employees.  They are informed as far as the lobbyists
    inform them.  And yet they hold the purse strings.  I could very
    easily see congress say - "Well, we didn't give them enough money
    to do the job, so we give them a bit more - BUT.  No more of this
    dangerous people-in-space hijinks.  *Isn't seven lives enough?!*"
    
    Congress is a reactionary body.  They'll give money because public
    sentiment is pushing that way (for now *and* later, I think), but
    they'll start cutting back on man-in-space efforts for a while.
    Of course, that will kill alot of public sentiment.  After all,
    who cares if the such-and-such probe can take infra-red images of
    Ganymede?  Let's see some astronauts floating around and doing tricks!
    
    The point I'm making here is that the change may come in the direction
    that space efforts move.  It's a debatable and fine line between
    manned and unmanned exploration of space.  We'll see.

    set /hghlyptmstc=mood
    	^-- I can't help it, I've been with MCR for 11 years now.
    
    This is a terrific lead-in to a note I was going to add. I can't
    see things ending or declining at all, unless you and I let them.
    
    I've been watching the PBS series "Spaceflight" on tape this evening
    while I copy a friend's copy.
    
    One thing is clear. The history of spaceflight is painted with
    problems. From Glenn's problems with possible heat shield damage
    to the loss of mission 51-L, few if any missions have been without
    a hitch. In all but one case, most of the mission has been saved.
    Why? Because human beings, capable of unplanned thought, inspiration,
    and action have been there on every occasion. During Apollo 13 we
    literally redesigned the spacecraft and the regimen to save the
    crew. Had all these missions been unmanned, the cost in lost hardware
    would be immense. One need only look at the Soviet success with
    lunar missions to believe that men must accompany craft on such
    flights to insure success. We brought moon rocks back on the first
    try, Russia left several unmanned probes on the service which wouldn't
    return.
    
    In addition, there are practical constraints. We can't produce an
    economical launch system other than the shuttle in less than 10
    years time. The shuttle must fly again. And it will.
    
    It is our responsibility to push the government. To let them know
    that we believe we should continue manned exploration. Life is like
    DEC. He who proposes disposes. If you don't push for the program,
    don't complain about the outcome.
    
    I find it slightly comforting that the disaster of 51-L has pushed
    us space types closer together. I haven't checked, but I suspsect
    half of this file by bulk has been generated since the accident.
    Let's get excited over this and do something.
    
    						-Brian
    

    The gov'ts reaction should also be reassuring. Reagan, for all his
    faults, backs manned space flight.
    
    After Apollo I, NASA waited 2 years and fixed literally thousands
    of problems in the program before another launch. Reagan has declared
    that that won't happen here. He's said that the board must report
    in less than four months.  When it does, what will happen? 
    
    The program has more successes to its credit than Mercury, Gemini,
    and Apollo together, or close. We know it works. The SRBs have a
    problem. The management of NASA has a problem. Don't confuse that 
    with the program having a problem. NASA is thousands of individuals 
    who share "the dream" with you and I. The problems which destroyed
    51-L will be repaired, and we will fly again.
    
    							-Brian 

Yes, Reagan backs manned space flight, and yes, the board has four months to
report its findings, but it's the contents of those findings that will
determine how much effort will be require before the program continues.

From the tone of some of the informed people from various portions of NASA
who contribute on the USENET,  I'd be very suprised to see another shuttle
in the next 9-12 months.  i think that the least that will come out of the
commission is a mandate to review ALL of the SPFs (single point of failure)
and some serious analysis of what would be required to provide a means of
providing some type of escape/rescue for the astronauts during the first
two minutes of flight (regardless of the current opinions on feasability).

This isn't intended to be pessimistic, just realistic.  You gotta know that
they're not just going to add the backup O-ring and say that everything's
okay now. Whether they modify the section interconnects or replace the
SRB completely with a seamless design, there will be design time, fabrication
time, tests, retests, and more tests, analysis of the results of each and
probably a report to the commision or a Senate subcommitee detailing what the
corrective action achieved.  Add a little burecratic red tape and you're
probably looking into 1987...

Then again, I could be wrong! 8-)

							Rick

    Re: .5
    
    I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'd like to point out that there is
    another "realistic" slant to all this: 
    
    As much as I hate to believe it, there may be a determination that the
    decision to launch was flawed.  If the shuttle system was launched OUT
    OF SPEC (I'm referring to the "cold SRB" theory here), then there may
    be NO redesign, etc. needed.
    
    Some people may have made the wrong decision, but the system may be
    deemed flightworthy (as it can be). From this we may get a far more
    cautious launch team (hence more delays), and more sensors in new
    places. 
    
    It all depends on what really happened - and we just don't KNOW that
    yet... 
    
    - dave
    
    [P.S. I haven't caught up on my USENET traffic, but most of it has been
    absolute junk (which surprised the heck out of me).  NASA-based
    comments are few and far between...] 
    
    

re .5:

>    As much as I hate to believe it, there may be a determination that the
>    decision to launch was flawed.  If the shuttle system was launched OUT
>    OF SPEC (I'm referring to the "cold SRB" theory here), then there may
>    be NO redesign, etc. needed.
    
I tend to agree, but so much material questioning the basic design of the
SRB's has come out as a result of the investigation that I think some sort
of SRB re-design before any more flights is inevitable, even if not necessary.
Which is a pity.

That's why I wish I knew more about the different SRB's designed for the
Vandenburg launches.  Even if they are more expensive, they might permit
a quicker resumption of flights.  But I assume that they would be acceptable
to congress only if the joining/sealing design were substantially different.

(Note the word "different".  We don't know that a given new design would be
better, or not have some other flaws, until there is flight experience. This is
especially true since it really isn't even known if seal failure was the
primary cause of the accident.  This is one reason why wholesale redesign of
components should be avoided -- it increases risks without a great deal of
testing.  The difference between 51L and Apollo 1 is that the Apollo craft at
that time was essentially an untested unknown quantity anyway.  Challenger and
its launch cluster were well-tested and understood (though not perfect)
designs.  Only incremental changes should be allowed in the shuttle system.)


re .3:

Funny you should mention Apollo 13.  This morning on the Today show some
interviewee pointed to the "six successful moon missions" as some sort of
example of what NASA should be expected to be able to continue doing.  People
forget (actually, most never knew) how close that flight was to a gruesome
disaster of astronauts stuck in lunar orbit or suffocated on the way home. They
were VERY fortunate.  Imagine how different things would have been for Apollo
if just the third lunar landing mission ended in disaster.

Bob 

I don't think that we will see a new space system developed to replace the
Shuttle.  In view of the terrible budget deficits that we are struggling
with, I just don't see this as a possibility.  Even if such a project were
proposed, it would be under tighter budget constraints than the Shuttle.
Would anybody want to risk that?

As for giving up on the Shuttle -- I also don't think this will happen.
The Russians are going ahead with building a permanently manned space
station and you can bet that we are not going to sit back a let them have
space all to themselves.

However, to have the Shuttle program continue I think that we are going to
have to overcome the problem of cold weather launches.  This may mean an
expensive redesign of the SRBs.

	Mike

>However, to have the Shuttle program continue I think that we are going to
>have to overcome the problem of cold weather launches.  

Weather that cold is very uncommon in mid-Florida (and I assume Vandenberg) --
only one or two days a year.  Although as most mid-Florida citrus growers have
learned, their frequency has been increasing (it used to be in the category of
"almost never").  Frost in a place that doesn't expect it can cause a lot
of damage. 

If we could assume that the problem would never show up in warmer weather, it
would be easy to fix the problem by just avoiding cold launches. Unfortunately,
there seems to be evidence that the SRB's joints are marginal and that the
cold weather just pushed them over the edge. 

(Has it ever occurred to you that if only that handle-bolt hadn't frozen the
day before...?  Or if NASA hadn't been so cautious about the RTLS cross-winds
the day before...?  For want of a nail....)

Bob

    Having lived for a decade in central California, I can assure you
    that I never saw icesicles there. There are a few (say 5 to 10)
    evenings per year where the temperature drops below 35.
    
    PS: I worked for about a year at the tracking station at Vandenberg.

Re: .9

>(Has it ever occurred to you that if only that handle-bolt hadn't frozen the
>day before...?  Or if NASA hadn't been so cautious about the RTLS cross-winds
>the day before...?  For want of a nail....)

Yeah, the thought crossed my mind.  But it didn't last.  If my understanding
(limited though it is) of the SRB construction is correct, the problem was
probably a defect in the seal that MAY have been accelerated by the cold.
I understood that the fuel was a solid mass that was cored from end to end.
If that's the case, the pressure built up in the center of the fuel would have
had to been intense enough to displace the O-ring and the fuel in order for that
puff of smoke to have appeared at launch.  In which case, I would think that the
smoke/flame would have been visible during the entire flight, not just at launch
time.  From what the media and "informed sources" have been saying it would
appear that most everyone involved suspects that the O-rings were involved in
the problem.  They may have been the point of failure, but there are other
factors other than the temperature that may have been the actual cause of the
problem.  Unless enough pieces of the SRB are recovered to answer the questions,
NASA and the contractors are left with the alternatives of either redesign of
the SRB section interconnects or trying to recreate the conditions that existed
on another SRB (fully equipped with sensors) and determine what needs to be
modified/added/corrected/redesigned.


More fuel to the "more flights soon" fire.  I heard a report that the SRB
recovery may take from 4 to 6 months.  I think that that's probably a worst
case number, but it means that it will be at least that long PLUS the
evaluation time before the decision is made on what to do for corrective
action.

Also on the USENET this week was some info that the DoD may be purchasing(?)
seamless SRBs to use for their missions.  No idea what the time frame for
implementation would be though...


									Rick

    Re the new solids:  Their joints are of the same design.  The cases
    are made of composite material, but the joints are steel.  That
    also introduced yet another joint (the composite/steel joint) to
    possibly cause trouble.
    
    Re Weather at Vandenberg:
    
    According to a wire services article a couple days ago, V'berg will
    have a heating system composed of two jet engines producing hot
    blow-by gasses to blow on the shuttle and keep it warm.  Such a
    system was consisdered for KSC, but was rejected because of the
    low incidence of cold days.
    
    Burns