If foam punches too big a hole in shuttle, crew will wait in space station

[DeepModem Mom]

for rescue. This is the only reason the NASA safety chief didn't appeal, or resign in protest, over the July 1 launch go-ahead, to which he objected. This entire article is worth reading. It sounds like typical Bush-style "governance" in operation at NASA.


Discovery is set to launch from Kennedy Space Center on July 1.

CNN/AP: Safety chief: Shuttle launch 'a done deal'
Wednesday, June 21, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- NASA's top safety official objected to the agency's decision to press ahead with the launch of Discovery next month without fixing a potentially catastrophic foam-shedding problem, but said he won't appeal -- and won't resign in protest -- because he does not believe the shuttle astronauts' lives are in danger.

"It's a done deal," chief safety officer Bryan O'Connor said in a Monday night interview with The Associated Press.

O'Connor, a former shuttle commander, said he was uncomfortable with going ahead with the launch on July 1 but accepted the decision because NASA has plans in place to have the crew take refuge in the international space station and wait for a rescue mission if foam punches too big a hole in the shuttle's heat protection system.

He and shuttle program manager Wayne Hale, who have spent decades in the program, said they could not recall a previous instance in which a launch proceeded over the objections of the safety office....

***

On Tuesday, NASA released a copy of the Certificate of Flight Readiness for Discovery. On the document, (NASA Chief Engineer Christopher Scolese) and O'Connor crossed out sections where it says they concur with the decision to launch. They wrote out their objections by hand....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/06/21/shuttle.safety.ap/index.html

[ret5hd]

1. So what's so damned important about this particular flight...

that it absolutely has to happen now?

My guess: Satellite that intercepts the financial data that they couldn't steal/buy in all those mysterious "data thefts" over the last couple of years.

[knitter4democracy]

2. When the engineers are ticked, why doesn't Bush listen?

NASA and JPL engineers are some of the best and brightest in the country. If they don't like sending the shuttle up, then we shouldn't send it up. Period. Let's fix the dang problem where it's easier to fix--here on Earth, not up in space.

God, I don't think we can lose another crew. They'll axe NASA for sure, and we'll lose all that knowledge, all that experience, all that research. It would really be awful for us.

[MadHound]

3. I fully support the space program,

And yet still I think that continuing reliance on twenty, twenty five year old shuttles is the utmost in foolishness. There have been other reusable space vehciles in the works for years now, why not start building them? I know, I know, all the money is going for war purposes, not space.

Sad, really sad, NASA and the space programs had so much promise, yet it has all been frittered away and militarized.

[Up2Late]

9. It takes a long time to work out all the different engineering problems

The shuttle took over 10 years, I think it was actually closer to 15.

The shuttles have been upgraded about 4 or 5 times over the years.

What they need to do is Paint the External tank, and I bet that would fix the foam shedding problem.

We talked about this in the Science forum, and the reasons that they stopped painting the tanks were to save time, and since the shuttles were not on the pads (out in the Weather) for very long after the first one, they didn't think they needed to paint them anymore.

[roamer65]

4. Wouldn't it be a hoot

if a Russian Soyuz has to bring them down from the space station. HOWEVER, I absolutely agree that the shuttle SHOULD NOT be going up if engineers are not ok with it. I hope they come back safe and sound!!!

[DeepModem Mom]

5. Indeed, roamer -- and welcome to DU!

[MadMaddie]

6. What the * wants out of this is a successful launch to push

their poll numbers up.....and if there is a disaster they will point the finger at the scientists.....

and they will say....

"No one could have predicted a hole in the foam could cause a shuttle to malfunction"...

[bananas]

7. "No go" used to mean exactly that i.e. "no go". Now it apparently means...

A comment from the editor at nasawatch.com:

"No go" used to mean exactly that i.e. "no go". Now it apparently means something else. Either O'Connor and Scolese meant what they said or they did not. If they had concerns but were OK to allow the launch to go ahead (what their position was, in effect) then why say "no go"? Why not say "we have concerns but we agree to move ahead with the launch"?

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/06/oconnor_and_sco.html

[DeepModem Mom]

8. Interesting -- thanks for adding this. nt