Yes, it's frustrating to wait all day in the hot sun and then not see the space shuttle launch.You've driven up from Melbourne or across the Beachline from Orlando. You sat out on the causeway, or the beach, or Space View Park in Titusville. You dutifully waited all day for the big moment.
You wait, and wait, and wait. Then, just minutes before the space shuttle main engines are to ignite, the news starts to spread through the crowd. "Scrub!"
Approaching thunderstorms twice forced NASA to call off a space shuttle launch late in the countdown last week, after thousands had waited through a July summer day for a special memory. Tired kids probably cried. Dads probably groused about the headache of navigating the traffic home. All around, a disappointing day.
Lives at stake
But that's the space business. It's not safe to launch a rocket into electrically charged skies unless you're willing to gamble with the fate of a multi-billion dollar space vehicle and -- in the case of the space shuttle -- the lives of seven astronauts.
NASA made the right call, repeatedly, when it decided again and again not to launch the space shuttle the past few weeks. First, the culprit was leaking explosive gas from the fueling system. No good reason to launch under those conditions.
Then, lightning struck the launch pad and safety-conscious engineering teams decided they wanted a little more time to look over the spaceship and its ground support systems to make sure nothing got fried by the gigantic bolts of energy.
Then, Sunday and again Monday, the approaching storm clouds wiped out otherwise smooth countdowns. The astronauts were on board the spaceship. All the technical components were working as they should. The crowds were in place.
Anger surprising
I'm always surprised how angry people get. Some comments to our space Web site after one scrub showed the kind of frustration that's out there, and the amount of blame that people place at NASA's feet. Words like incompetent, scared and stupid are tossed about.
In some discussion groups online, some conspiracy theorists were even chatting about how NASA was controlling the weather to purposefully stop the launches to pump more money into the local economy. That one made me laugh.
A couple samples:
"If NASA were in charge of the army we'd still be finding reasons not to land in Normandy," one note to our space blog said.
"Geeze can they PLEASE just launch this stupid thing already," another person wrote.
Some even complained online that they can't wait until the shuttles are retired so they won't be inconvenienced by the tourist traffic.
Most understand
Like I said, I get it. You're frustrated. Caution in launching rockets and space shuttles is a good thing. We're lucky to be close enough to get to enjoy these experiences pretty regularly. Most people here understand the reasons why plans to launch a space shuttle get nixed.
Clearly, thousands don't understand and seem to think that the reason is that NASA's just not good enough to pull it off.
You're wrong about that. Endeavour's launch campaign showed NASA doing its job right. The agency and its space shuttle contractors prepared a space vehicle, tried to launch, found problems, tested the system to find and fix the problem, waited out deadly weather and then blasted a spaceship and seven human beings to a space station orbiting the Earth more than 200 miles overhead and moving at 17,000 mph.
That's pretty good stuff.
12 comments:
Amen John. All those same people who are angry their precious time was "wasted" waiting for the launch will be the FIRST ones in line to blame NASA if there is an accident.
To all those complaining about NASA taking the time to launch safely: How about supporting NASA and giving thanks for all the benefits your lives enjoy due to advances brought about by Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle?
BRAVO John Kelly! Yes launching of a shuttle is not like a drive to the local Wally World as some of the obtuse minded have demonstrated with their comments. People in this age of instant gratification no longer have patients and demand "their show" now and any delay means someone is a dunce, an incompetent nincompoop. NASA has some internal flaws yes, but when it comes to who can get us into space on board the most complicated vehicle ever invented I'll alway put my money on NASA.
I'm sure those are the same kind of people who would've pitched a fit if the headline on January 28, 1986 was "Cold Weather Forces Incompetent NASA To Scrub Yet Another Launch" instead of "Six Astronauts And Teacher Perish In Challenger Explosion"
Agreed John! To the "tourons" who are mad that their vacations were ruined due to a scrub, try having a livelyhood or career dependent on the success or failure of the Shuttle. Maybe then you'll be more understanding when little Johnny is crying that he didn't get to see a launch.
I have traveled from Iowa and experienced scrubs too. I was disapointed too but it's part of man's exploration of the new ocean...If the people don't like the tourist traffic should have done their homework before they moved there...Tourism dollars are a huge part of the economy that is what pays the cops and paves the roads they drive on everyday...
NASA is not in the business of pleasing tourists by risking lives.
Ugh.
John, I'm the one who wrote the Normandy comment, so I have the right to complain that you took my comment out of context. I said the shuttle was a bad design, and I pointed out that Dr. Griffin said as much, and that the constraints were the reason for the delays. I don't blame the NASA person who says "Scrub" if the thunderstorm is too close at launch time - I blame the design. Let's take an example. On Sunday, July 12th, everything was perfect until rain clouds crept to within 20 nm of the landing strip just before launch. So why didn't they launch an hour early and then travel 17,150 mph for 49 hrs rather than 17,500 for 48 hrs? Why is the launch window only plus or minus five minutes? Why in the world can't they launch a few minutes early and then travel just a "little slower?" Why do you design a spacecraft that's supposedly reliable with expressed goal of low cost per pound to orbit and then, with the 20 nm constraints and the "can't fly but one speed" constraint, put the launch pad in Florida and try and launch in the middle of summer at 6 in the afternoon? That's my complaint - that NASA compromised so much with the DoD (supposedly to get funding) that they ended up with a ship that's so cantankerous that they are years behind schedule and billions over budget. NASA did an incredible job with Mercury, Gemini and Apollo and then blew it, in the 70s, with the shuttle design. You can go back and check and I'll bet STS-127 was originally scheduled to launch ten years ago. And don't say, "That's the nature of space travel," because the Moon landing was an eight-year effort that was 100% on time.
John, I really feel you are pandering with this article to a certain segment of your readership. That's your choice. As long as this country allows free speech, I will exercise my right to point out that you are only telling one side of story. Delaying a flight for extremely valid safety reasons doesn't get NASA off the hook for being years behind schedule. And it doesn't bring back all the overrun money that could have been spent on perhaps dozens and dozens of unmanned rockets. We could have mapped out the whole Solar System by now with just the overruns from the shuttle and ISS. Them's the facts and it would be nice if you would tell the whole story rather than just the part you like.
To the person who wrote the Normandy comment:
Orbital mechanics are not as simple as driving to Orlando. You can't launch later and then "go faster for a longer period of time" to rendezvous with the ISS. Even the original Shuttle design didn't provide for the on-orbit fuel your over-simplified "plan" would require.
KSC is in Florida because launching to the east gives the launch vehicle the added inertia of the earth's rotation - the closer you are to the equator, the more inertia you get. In addition, launching over the ocean limits potential hazards to the general public.
On the day they choose for launch, the launch window is predetermined to rendezvous with the ISS, and is designed to get the Shuttle to the ISS with a minimum of fuel usage.
As for weather, ANY launch vehicle will have very specific flight rules - rules that will scrub a launch attempt if the vehicle is in potential danger due to weather.
To blame the scrubs on a "bad design" or budget over-runs is a cop-out. It is obvious you just want to complain about NASA - In reality, they are responsible for a large portion of your quality of life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Spinoff
Delaying a flight for weather, a mechanical or electrical issue, or any thing else the engineers at NASA need to get right before the shuttle or rockets fly is the right thing to do. DUH! When I am on a commerical airline and the airline delays the flight to fix something - when everyone else is grousing and complaining - I am the one thinking, take your time ... fix it right.
To complain about bad design nearly 30 years into the shuttle program is just asinine! Get over it!
Please read again what I wrote...I didn't say to launch later and go faster. I had figured that one out. I said to launch earlier, avoid the clouds and rain, and then go a little slower. Usually when you go slower you expend less fuel. Maybe not in this case.
I'm not complaining about NASA. Please read again. I'm complaining about the shuttle design. If you read what I wrote, you'd have noticed I was very complimentary toward all three rockets from the 60s. And it's not the engineers doing the designing who were to blame - it was Congress and NASA leadership who picked the wrong design in the 70s.
On another subject, I've also been very complimentary on here with regards to the unmanned rockets - look at the rovers on Mars and the pictures we just got back from (?) Saturn's moon and look at all the satellites giving us weather data.
It's the shuttle, just the shuttle and only the shuttle I'm complaining about.
"It is obvious you just want to complain about NASA." Those are your words and, from what I actually wrote, it wasn't obvious at all, because it's not what I said. Maybe what's obvious is you just want to complain about anyone who has anything at all negative to say about your favorite program.
"To complain about bad design nearly 30 years into the shuttle program is just asinine! Get over it!"
Here's what former Admisistrator Griffin had to say:
In an interview with the The Guardian in July 2008 Griffin stated that an opportunity to push on to Mars by extending the Apollo program was squandered by a change in focus to Shuttle and space station programs that only reached orbit: "I spent some time analysing what we could have done had we used the budgets we received to explore the capabilities inherent in the Apollo hardware after it was built. The short answer is we would have been on Mars 15 or 20 years ago, instead of circling endlessly in low Earth orbit."[7].
Maybe you think he is asinine too. I know what you all want - you want a country full of stepford citizens to gasp and point skyward when the shuttle launches and then say, "Oh, my, isn't that wonderful!"
What gets me is the reporter here comes on and makes a story out of ridiculing bloggers who don't support his position. Meanwhile, not one unkind word for those who ridiculously post, "We should keep the shuttle going to keep the workers employed." Excuse me, but had NASA done it right, there wouldn't be 10,000 people still working on this program in 2009. The fact that it's been done wrong is no excuse to keep doing it wrong. Let's get the Augustine report and move forward - with a capsule this time!
It's only common sense to not launch the Shuttle or any other rocket until it meets the mission guidelines.
If you want to see rockets when YOU are ready, go to Hobby Lobby and buy yourself an Estes kit.
Post a Comment