Lucky or Smart
EmailNASA, given heavily to acronyms, even has one for death: LOCV. It actually stands for Loss Of Crew/Vehicle, and there were passing references to it as mission managers debated what to do about that now-famed gouge mark beneath Endeavour’s tail. Early on, John Shannon, the deputy shuttle program manager, made it clear he’d be more concerned "if we were in a Loss Of Crew/Vehicle situation." They decided shuttles had survived worse tile damage–they had "a rich history" of it, he said–but they worked the problem for nearly a week. Inch-deep holes rarely receive as much attention. Now Endeavour is safely on the ground in Florida, and we’ve had our first look at the spot after the heat of re-entry. I’ll leave it to others to decide if NASA was more lucky than smart. Your thoughts on that–or other matters technological or scientific–are, as always, welcome. With STS-118 over, I’m going to take some vacation. I hope you’re getting some time for rest too. See you after Labor Day.
Space Station Flies Over Eastern U.S. at Night 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
I wish the 2nd photo were rotated 180 degrees, so that it (nearly) matched the angle of the first. Personally, it seems to me that the “gouge” took absolutely no additional damage during re-entry.
Posted by: JimPettis | August 21, 2007, 6:04 pm 6:04 pm
“Lucky or Smart”?? Interesting how Mr. Potter once again castigates NASA for being thorough and coming through with the exact results that they stated that they would after landing and post tests. Making attempts to make a mountain out of a molehill is what he is getting better at. What a shame he is taking the tack ofthe tabloid. Cheap stuff Ned, real cheap.
Posted by: wergo | August 21, 2007, 7:55 pm 7:55 pm
I think the title ‘Lucky or Smart’ was quite appropriate. The damage should have been repaired before re-entry while docked at the Space Station. One of the tricks to playing the Game of Life successfully is to ‘err on the side of caution’ and NASA has the worst track record of doing that, I think there is. It looks like, when its time to consider human life, they flip into military mode and consider the mission above all every time. If they don’t change their thinking we will have more space calamities, just like a speeder collects more speeding tickets.
Posted by: rpgivpgmr | August 21, 2007, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm
I’m pleased to see that the tile damage wasn’t worsened by Endeavour’s re-entry and that the shuttle made a safe landing. When it comes to the title of today’s blog entry, Ned, I think both adjectives apply in this situation: “lucky” that no LOCV happened; “smart” that no repairs were made which could have made things worse. Have a great vacation!
Posted by: masked avenger | August 22, 2007, 8:20 am 8:20 am
I think NASA really played the safe side on this one. The location of the damage made it much less critical (hence the term of not being in a LOCV situation). Columbias damage was in a more critical point but even worse, was on a leading edge where the heat drives straight in like a blow torch. This damage was on the underside where the heat blows over the damaged area instead of driving into it. There’s still risk of damage but much less so. Remember the early flights where shuttles landed with tiles missing completely, a whole tile could be missing in this area and the ship could still land ok. Good to see NASA really looking at everything. I hope the vigilance continues, it’s when you get relaxed and over comfortable that the problems can occur. I look forward to great things from NASA in the decades to come.
- phil
Posted by: pgdion | August 22, 2007, 11:35 am 11:35 am
you should really check into the facts prior to posting knee-jerk reactionary statements such as you did. When did you get your degree in rocket science anyway? The only time NASA gets into trouble is when it ignores it’s own rules. Face it, they did the right thing by not repairing.
Posted by: wergo | August 22, 2007, 6:03 pm 6:03 pm
I kind of agree with Wergo’s last post. As a former military man, we don’t place the mission first over all else. Safetey of the soldier, and crew (if your a pilot like I was) was first and foremost, then came the mission.
Glad to see the shuttle made it back in mostly one piece. I don’t think NASA could recover from the loss of another shuttle. Good thing the civilian sector is starting to delve into space travel. That is who, in my opinion, will make most of the progress. Not hampered by the government, with budgeting and such. Although they’ll probably have some of the same problems.
Posted by: Lawrence | August 23, 2007, 8:23 am 8:23 am