Discovery launch date setNASA has
set the date for the launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery to July first. This was over some noteworthy objections:
"... many people spoke their minds on a variety of issues. And near the close of the meeting, about 25 senior managers were asked whether they were "go" or "no go" for launch.
All but two of the managers agreed that the shuttle was ready for flight. The two dissenters were NASA's chief engineer, Chris Scolese, and the head of NASA's office of safety and mission assurance, Bryan O'Connor."
This sort of thing is going to happen for all the remaining Shuttle launches. The bottom line is that it is a bad design. The design decision, made back in the 1970s, to re-use the main engines on multiple launches forced multiple design parameters. First, it forced the side-by-side configuration of orbiter and tank. This meant that the cross-sectional area of the launch system was effectively doubled, and forced a highly energetic fuel (hydrogen) instead of the more compact RP-1 (kerosene). That forced the dimensions of the tank, and also forced the requirements for the Spray-On Foam Insulation, which has caused so many problems. The hydrogen-burning engine doesn't have a high enough sea-level thrust to launch the rocket by itself, so that forced the addition of the solid-fuel boosters, which have caused their own problems. The one bad decision to re-use the main engines formed a cascade of problems, which continue to this day and which will not go away.
Mike Griffin okayed the launch date over the objections of the chief engineer and the saftey officer, because he knows that he can't allow the schedule to slip too far.
"I don't want to get us into a situation whereby being more cautious than I think technically necessary today, we end up having to execute six flights in the last year," he said. "That's not smart. I'm willing as administrator . . . to take some programmatic risk now -- and you'll notice I did not say crew risk -- in order to prevent an excessive buildup of programmatic risk later on. This is, in fact, what you pay me to do."
He's got a schedule to keep. The problem for him is that he has a limited amount of time before the retirement of the Shuttle fleet in 2010. There are 16 more launches necessary to complete the International Space Station, plus possibly two more flights to the ISS, as well as a possible final Hubble servicing mission. Between July of this year and the end of December 2010, there are 54 months remaining. For the 18 missions remaining after the July launch, that is one mission every three months, four missions a year. Some years will have to have five missions, just to allow time for other missions to have some schedule slack.
Can NASA do five shuttle missions in a year? Well, during the 1989 - 1990 period NASA launched 11 flights with only three shuttles (Columbia was gone and Endeavour had not yet been delivered), so it is possible for NASA to do it. However, Discovery and Atlantis are now both 16 or 17 years older since that time, and Endeavour is 15 years old. And NASA is still stuck with the fundamental problems stemming from bad initial design decisions.
Update: Mark Whittington is right, the only way the Shuttle can be made safe is if it never flies again.
And I have stated before that I think that there will be at least one more shuttle loss. It's a risk, yes, and for those whose lives are involved it is a risk they deem worthy to take. It is a risk I would take myself if I had the chance.
Another Shuttle loss would be tragic for the families of those immediately involved. For NASA however, that would likely be the catalyst to fundamentally change the way that the agency operates. NASA has to get away from being a one-stop shop for access to space. Instead of developing and building and launching everything and everyone, NASA has to concentrate on that second A in its name.
NASA has to become an administration along the model of the FAA or the FCC. If any company or government agency wants to launch a spacecraft, they should turn to the private sector to supply that launch service. NASA could help by doing things such as certifying a model of space vehicle the way the FAA certifies planes; such a certification would enable lower insurance costs. NASA could be enabling the construction and certification of spaceports, by gathering all the requirements from agencies such at the EPA and FAA and ensuring that a spaceport complies with those requirements. Eventually NASA would be responsible for some sort of space traffic control as well. NASA could also be responsible for administrating the prize initiatives, modeled after the X-Prize and the Centennial Challenges program.
Getting NASA out of satellite construction, launch, and operation and out of passenger launch will be the only sure way of getting the Vision for Space Exploration initiative implemented. That will force NASA to cut down perhaps 90% of its workforce - a workforce that has thousands of individuals quite capable of putting together their own private space companies. And it is the existing private space firms and all the new ones that would be formed following a downsizing at NASA which would do the bulk of the work in space to achieve the VSE.
Instead of doing this much needed step though, NASA will just keep forging along using the Shuttles to try to complete the ISS before the end of 2010. If they cut down on the number of remaining flights, then they might get lucky and not lose a Shuttle. If they muddle it through without managing to lose another Shuttle, then the much-needed changes at the agency will be further delayed - but NASA will still need to change. As we approach 2010, the need for change at NASA will become more and more evident, hopefully before 2010 and before another Shuttle is lost.
Technorati Tags: Space,
NASA,
Space Shuttle,
Discovery,
International Space Station