Friday, June 23, 2006
Florida Today Catches Up With You
You, the loyal and dedicated readers of Andromeda, already knew that NASA was jes' joshin' about the "Launch on Need" (LON) rescue mission by Atlantis (as STS-300) in the event Discovery (STS-121) is unable to return due to damage to its tiles from a foam hit. You knew that it was a mythical option since Tuesday. Now, Florida Today has teased an explicit admission out of NASA:
But wait, then, why did Safety Office Bryan O'Connor and NASA Chief Engineer Christopher Scolese, who voted "NO GO," decide not to "lie in a flame trench" over this?
But what are the "many options"?
Well, even Administrator Griffin called those repair capabilities rudimentary (pdf, page 36), and you just said the rescue mission could not be launched in time! And Contingency Shuttle Crew Support (CSCS) was the reason Scolese hand wrote (pdf, page 8) for not appealing the launch decision. Has everyone lost the capacity for logical thinking?
A "tough call"? Let's just follow this line of thinking through. Nine people packed in the ISS based upon the third unanticipated serious foam strike in the last three missions. Previously, slow, methodical repairs resulted in failures. Previously, thorough testing still did not prevent the very failures they were testing for. And now, rushed repairs, with no testing, will send at least two more crew members up?
NASA could not fix a serious foam-shedding problem in time to launch a rescue mission if Discovery suffers severe damage during its July 1 launch, the agency's top safety officer said Wednesday.
But wait, then, why did Safety Office Bryan O'Connor and NASA Chief Engineer Christopher Scolese, who voted "NO GO," decide not to "lie in a flame trench" over this?
"Given the fact that we do have many options available to us to protect the crew and the orbiter, the (engineering) community is not against the decision to fly," Scolese said.
But what are the "many options"?
Discovery's astronauts could try to make repairs or stay on the station until a rescue mission could be launched.
Well, even Administrator Griffin called those repair capabilities rudimentary (pdf, page 36), and you just said the rescue mission could not be launched in time! And Contingency Shuttle Crew Support (CSCS) was the reason Scolese hand wrote (pdf, page 8) for not appealing the launch decision. Has everyone lost the capacity for logical thinking?
O'Connor said a decision to put another shuttle and another crew at risk would be a tough call.
"At the very least, there would be a big discussion about whether we are ready to go do that," he said. "But we would have people we would need to bring back. So I'm sure that would color our discussion as well."
A "tough call"? Let's just follow this line of thinking through. Nine people packed in the ISS based upon the third unanticipated serious foam strike in the last three missions. Previously, slow, methodical repairs resulted in failures. Previously, thorough testing still did not prevent the very failures they were testing for. And now, rushed repairs, with no testing, will send at least two more crew members up?
