Nasa Still Planning Launch
According to the AFP, the launch of the shuttle Discovery is still moving ahead. They are trying to resolve the small crack they found in the insulation of the external fuel tank.
"Right now we have a good shot of launch tomorrow if we can clear this particular issue," shuttle launch director Mike Leinbach said Monday.
NASA announced the discovery of the crack one day before shuttle's planned liftoff with seven astronauts on a crucial mission for US space ambitions.
Inspectors found the crack overnight after the tank was emptied of its liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuel, following the second straight launch delay Sunday.
The orange-hued fuel tank's foam insulation has perplexed NASA ever since the 2003 Columbia disaster, which was caused by loose foam that pierced the shuttle's heat shield during liftoff and doomed its return to Earth.
The US space agency spent more than a billion dollars to fix the problem, only to see a piece of foam fall off Discovery's fuel tank in the first post-tragedy launch in July 2005. The debris missed the shuttle, however.
Prior to the current planned launch, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin expressed confidence that no large chunks of foam would shed from Discovery's second mission since Columbia.
The crack was about one-eighth to one-quarter of an inch deep and five inches (12.5 centimeters) long, NASA spokesman George Diller said. It was found in the insulating foam on a bracket that holds an oxygen feed line.
My understanding is that repairs to flaws like this have been accomplished before.
By Norman Rogers, Monday, 3 July , 2006 @ 3:00 pm
Of course, NASA never had these problems before some jackass decided to use a reformulated foam for insulation — one that didn’t use CFC’s.
And, of course, NASA didn’t worry that the new formulation might flake off — because the old one didn’t.
Back in the glory days, NASA attracted the best and brightest. Now NASA has managers and contractors — and since our youth is now enamored of landing jobs in business or in the media, the contractors all speak English with accents and have no ownership of problems.
And you wonder why NASA keeps killing people?
By Gaius, Monday, 3 July , 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Yeah, I mentioned the non-CFC foam several times in earlier posts. The worst thing is, they had no reason to go to the non-CFC foam.
By Norman Rogers, Monday, 3 July , 2006 @ 7:47 pm
There was a reason to switch to non-CFC foam — the Montreal Protocols. The problem with NASA is that management is all suits.
I don’t know if you had the opportunity to watch Richard Feynman on CSPAN at the hearings following the Challenger disaster. He dipped a piece of the gasket material used to seal the sections of the solid fuel rocket moter in a glass of ice water and demonstrated how rigid it became. His point was that the management of NASA was clueless about risk analysis. They hadn’t had an accident — therefore the shuttle was safe.
NASA really needs to be divested of all operational authority. Launches and missions should be privatized. That’ll get some smart people involved again (maybe).
By Gaius, Monday, 3 July , 2006 @ 8:24 pm
Private companies would likely do it better than government. Let’s face it, government does few things really well, by it’s very nature.
By Shawn, Monday, 3 July , 2006 @ 9:39 pm
“Let’s face it, government does few things really well, by it’s very nature.”
Amen to that! Hence my belief in small government.