Shuttle Endeavour's launch slip to mid-July is having a ripple effect, pushing back the planned early August flight of a follow-on International Space Station assembly mission a week-and-a-half.
But target dates set by senior NASA officials on Friday remain subject to change as a result an ongoing investigation into gaseous hydrogen leaks that triggered back-to-back launch scrubs for Endeavour this month.
NASA still is trying to ferret out the root cause of the leaks and engineers are uncertain about what repairs might be required and how long they might take to execute.
NASA program managers firmed up July 11 as the target date for Endeavour and seven astronauts on a mission to deliver the third and final segment of the $1 billion Japanese Kibo science research facility to the International Space Station.
Liftoff time that day would be 7:39 p.m.
The managers selected Aug. 18 for the launch of Discovery on an International Space Station outfitting mission. Flying up in an Italian-built cargo carrier in the shuttle's payload bay will be new crew quarters for the Kibo lab and a treadmill named for comedian Stephen Colbert.
"Colbert" garnered the most votes in a NASA contest to name what the agency ultimately dubbed the U.S. Tranquility module. The "Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill" -- or "C.O.L.B.E.R.T." is a new exercise machine that will be hauled up aboard Discovery.
Liftoff time on Aug. 18 would be 4:25 a.m.
Space news and analysis from Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral 
4 comments:
I would be willing to bet that this will be traced back to the factory. When the tank arrived at KSC, techs noted a mis-installation of the flange where the leak is happening. The hydrogen vent port flange is rotated .65 degrees off center. The fact that LM either missed this defect, or sent NASA a tank out of spec is an abomination. Just over half a degree may not sound like much, but this is rocket science and a mistake like that is monumental. LM needs al lesson in Quality Control. Remember the $327 million dollar Mars Climate Observer? lost thanks to a math error a high school student should've seen. What about the estimated $400 million in damage done to NOAA-N Prime after LM techs failed to fallow procedure and dropped it 3 feet. Depending on how much this costs...it may push the bill for LM's messups to near a BILLION.
Now heres the real question...This tank was the rescue shuttle(STS-400) for the Hubble mission. If LM knew of this error it shows a disreguard for the safety of the astronauts, risking 7 aboard Atlantis plus 4 aboard Endeavour.All because building it right the first time was either inconveinent or too expensive.
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/current.html supports this. A lesser misalignment could explain the problem with the previous launch.
I expect they would have launched a rescue mission anyway, and accepted a slightly higher risk.
I agree with first post. A monumental Error. Lockheed should build a new whole tank at their own expense. Could NASA fix it? maybe. but they shouldn't have to. Tribal Engineering has no place in manned spaceflight. I hope the parties responsible at both the tank factory and NASA are held responsible.It seems clear the tank maker failed to deliver a tank within specs as called for in contract and should not be paid for the tank in question.
I cannot wait for the presidential review to point nasa in a new direction. Time to drop the overpriced shuttle system and move on to something with a less expensive workforce. EELV is the way to go-then we can stop paying the welfare for union USA workers,who seem to be more apt at breaking things than flying spacecraft.I cant seem to remember a recent launch that wasn't delayed in processing because of a dumb mistake. An Delta IV could launch a capsule for half the cost- or better yet SpaceX will do it for a smaller fraction.
in response to conor----right.... launch an unsafe orbiter---And run short of fuel on the uphill climb...or had a blowtorch of burning Hydrogen trailing behind, working its way up and into the tank.... didn't challenger teach us anything?
This is not a small problem. the potential for a detonation starts at 5% with hydrogen.....thats why the safety rules exist.
Post a Comment