After three launch attempts for STS-127, and three scrubs, the same ol' people begin the same ol' litany. After all these years, you'd think they'd get tired of it themselves, realizing it needs something new added. The same answers are given...and pass through the same ol' dull heads. I suppose that's why "they" need to ask the same questions again, rant the same rant.
Why does NASA have so many problems? Why can't they ever launch on time? Don't they know what they are doing? Why is this so hard?
Well, whoever said that launching a space vehicle was easy? If a launch attempt goes flawlessly on the first try, that is not blind luck. It is the result of a great number of people having done their jobs correctly and thoroughly. And because a launch scrubs does not mean that these people didn't do their jobs. It doesn't mean that they don't know what they are doing.
One thing that NASA has taken a hit for in recent years is...safety. And then when they correctly apply all safety systems and requirements and those all work, then NASA takes a hit for that. I must be missing something. Which way do "they" want it? Should NASA be safe, or should NASA relax safety so a launch can go on time. That is if the vehicle makes it off the pad.
Because that is what is at stake, people. Safety doesn't just mean that the vehicle makes it off the pad. It also means seven astronauts made it off the pad too, and will come home safely...if NASA continues to correctly practice safety.
Yes, there was a problem with the Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate (GUCP), which led to a hydrogen leak. It took two tries to correctly repair the problem. But this is not only about a hardware failure. It is also about leak monitors in place and working and engineers monitoring them to realize there is a leak, and engineers making the correct and safe decision to halt a launch because that concentration of hydrogen is a fire/explosion risk. If there were a big pocket of hydrogen around the vehicle and the engines ignited, so would that hydrogen. That is the rocket engine fuel. Can you say BOOM?
Holding up a launch to check out the electrical system after a lightning strike hit the lightning mast on the tower is safety, people. That's to be certain that nothing electrical got blown out by the fields generated. Oh, right...explanation needed. If the lightning didn't strike the shuttle...then what is the problem??? Because lightning generates electrical fields that affect things around the object it strikes. Yes, the lightning protection system protects the vehicle from direct strikes, but unless the vehicle is totally encased in protection, the fields can't be stopped. Why doesn't NASA do that then? Well, then you'd have to move the vehicle out of the protection. Sort of like rolling it out of the VAB. Once you stick the vehicle on the pad, you have to accept some risk. You cannot protect it from everything when it's out there in the open air environment. And don't forget, there was no damage to Endeavour's electrical system.
And lastly, I really don't think I need to explain the scrub with thunderstorms moving into the launch pad area. Apollo 12 was hit by lightning shortly after it lifted off the pad. There are several places where you can read about this. Wikipedia has a good summary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_12 Yes, Apollo 12 was able to recover and finish its mission, but I think this summary demonstrates that putting a vehicle in direct danger of a lightning strike is dangerous and not safety wise.
It's safety, people.
Why does NASA have so many problems? Why can't they ever launch on time? Don't they know what they are doing? Why is this so hard?
Well, whoever said that launching a space vehicle was easy? If a launch attempt goes flawlessly on the first try, that is not blind luck. It is the result of a great number of people having done their jobs correctly and thoroughly. And because a launch scrubs does not mean that these people didn't do their jobs. It doesn't mean that they don't know what they are doing.
One thing that NASA has taken a hit for in recent years is...safety. And then when they correctly apply all safety systems and requirements and those all work, then NASA takes a hit for that. I must be missing something. Which way do "they" want it? Should NASA be safe, or should NASA relax safety so a launch can go on time. That is if the vehicle makes it off the pad.
Because that is what is at stake, people. Safety doesn't just mean that the vehicle makes it off the pad. It also means seven astronauts made it off the pad too, and will come home safely...if NASA continues to correctly practice safety.
Yes, there was a problem with the Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate (GUCP), which led to a hydrogen leak. It took two tries to correctly repair the problem. But this is not only about a hardware failure. It is also about leak monitors in place and working and engineers monitoring them to realize there is a leak, and engineers making the correct and safe decision to halt a launch because that concentration of hydrogen is a fire/explosion risk. If there were a big pocket of hydrogen around the vehicle and the engines ignited, so would that hydrogen. That is the rocket engine fuel. Can you say BOOM?
Holding up a launch to check out the electrical system after a lightning strike hit the lightning mast on the tower is safety, people. That's to be certain that nothing electrical got blown out by the fields generated. Oh, right...explanation needed. If the lightning didn't strike the shuttle...then what is the problem??? Because lightning generates electrical fields that affect things around the object it strikes. Yes, the lightning protection system protects the vehicle from direct strikes, but unless the vehicle is totally encased in protection, the fields can't be stopped. Why doesn't NASA do that then? Well, then you'd have to move the vehicle out of the protection. Sort of like rolling it out of the VAB. Once you stick the vehicle on the pad, you have to accept some risk. You cannot protect it from everything when it's out there in the open air environment. And don't forget, there was no damage to Endeavour's electrical system.
And lastly, I really don't think I need to explain the scrub with thunderstorms moving into the launch pad area. Apollo 12 was hit by lightning shortly after it lifted off the pad. There are several places where you can read about this. Wikipedia has a good summary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_12 Yes, Apollo 12 was able to recover and finish its mission, but I think this summary demonstrates that putting a vehicle in direct danger of a lightning strike is dangerous and not safety wise.
It's safety, people.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment