Their launch postponed until at least Nov. 30, Discovery's crew of six astronauts this afternoon departed Kennedy Space Center on flights back to Houston. NASA scrubbed this morning's launch attempt when dangerous levels of hydrogen gas leaked from a vent line attached to the shuttle's external tank.
Managers decided not to rush repairs to a mysterious problem that has now forced scrubs of four countdowns for three different missions since last year.
In addition to the gas leak, inspection teams at the pad after the scrub this morning noticed a seven-inch crack to external tank foam (pictured above) that will need repair.
It was not immediately clear if the crack, located on a flange between the intertank and liquid oxygen tank facing the shuttle's belly, would have been a launch constraint.
NASA decided before learning of the crack to give up on the possibility of launching Monday, which was potentially the last day of the launch window.
Launching then would have sacrificed mission content, and managers wanted more time to understand the cause of the gas leak and prevent it from reoccurring during the next countdown.
"We want to do the right thing for this vehicle," said Mike Leinbach, the shuttle launch director. "We were presenting an option to the program that might have gotten to Monday, but we all know in our hearts the right thing to do is to take this slowly, understand this issue (and) go fix it."
Discovery has between Nov. 30 and Dec. 6 to try another launch, or else wait until late February.
7 comments:
This seems to be a repetitive problem recently. Is there a higher level of concern about the fueling process than seems to be published? If so, the launch may not occur on 11/30. In that event, will the 2/27 be pushed back or combined?
At this rate we may see a launch happen in 2012. If this mission does get pushed back to February or March, what do they do with Endeavour, which I assume would be mission ready? There must be some lag time.
Nothing like breaking the shuttle for job security. It must be the flex capacitor not working....
Anonymous said...
Nothing like breaking the shuttle for job security. It must be the flex capacitor not working....
12:58 PM
First, if your going to quote Back to the future, learn the word.. It is FLUX Capacitor.
Second: Your comments are sad... We fly we it is safe to do so! It has nothing to do with Job security. The safeguards are there for a reason... If you are not interested in anything but negative comments, perhaps you should go elsewhere to post them... Not fair for those whom believe in space exploration!!
Somehow, I don't think sabotage would be a good path to job security; nobody ever seems to think about that part when they make the "joke" about how someone must be breaking it on purpose to drag out the program. Never joke about somebody doing something for "job security" that could kill people if not caught.
To Calli Arcale @ 11:00AM You're absolutely correct; "Never joke about somebody doing something for "job security" that could kill people if not caught."
Let's look at it this way then from past NASA workers who admitted to their conscious oversights awaiting a disaster to kill people.
“These KSC workers admitted they should have done more to prevent the inevitable fatal Challenger disaster.”
Careless and self-centered are better words to describe some shuttle workers.
From NASA's news after the Challenger Disaster or should we say NASA'S careless blunder:
“I should have done more," the engineer told me, shaking his head. "I could have done more."
That engineer and several others were not surprised when Challenger exploded 73 seconds after liftoff on Jan. 28, 1986. They worked for Morton Thiokol (now ATK Thiokol), the Utah-based NASA contractor which produced the solid rocket motors that lifted space shuttles from their launch pads. Some of those Thiokol engineers expected o-ring failures at liftoff. They knew that cold overnight temperatures forecast before launch would stiffen the rubber o-rings. They knew that stiff o-rings didn't provide a secure seal. In fact, there had been evidence of leakage, what the engineers called "blowby," on an earlier shuttle flight”
Safeguards are there for a reason? Right, Job Security for some & loss of life for others who honestly believe that "all shuttle workers" give a damn about those safeguards.
From NASA's news after the Challenger Disaster or NASA'S careless blunder:
“I should have done more," the engineer told me, shaking his head. "I could have done more."
That engineer and several others were not surprised when Challenger exploded 73 seconds after liftoff on Jan. 28, 1986. They worked for Morton Thiokol (now ATK Thiokol), the Utah-based NASA contractor which produced the solid rocket motors that lifted space shuttles from their launch pads. Some of those Thiokol engineers expected o-ring failures at liftoff. They knew that cold overnight temperatures forecast before launch would stiffen the rubber o-rings. They knew that stiff o-rings didn't provide a secure seal. In fact, there had been evidence of leakage, what the engineers called "blowby," on an earlier shuttle flight”
You did the right thing by scrubbing this flight on designated date until "All" concerns are addressed & can be thoroughly & meticulously cleared.
Post a Comment