The entire drive up from Boca Raton to Titusville, I was listening to the radio, wondering why they were still talking about the failed ECO sensor as a potential flight issue, and hoping that they weren't going to scrub on account of it, but if they were, I wished the entire way up, with every mile, that they would do it now, so we could stop wasting time and gas. What I couldn't understand was what the MMT expected to change in the hours leading up to flight that would make them suddenly decide that they were going to follow the (absurd) flight rule.

They knew in the early morning hours that they had a problem. There was no reason to think that it was going to fix itself prior to launch. So if it was a violation of the launch commit criteria to fly with a failed sensor an hour before launch, why wasn't it eight hours before launch? Why did they put the crew in the vehicle, and have them sit on their backs for hours, why did they let everyone drive from all over the place to attend the launch, if they weren't going to fly with it?

The only possible excuse that I could come up with was that they were waiting for the best possible weather report for a next-day launch. If the weather was deteriorating for Saturday, then they might have made a last-minute decision to waive, and flown on Friday. As it turned out, the forecast for Saturday was good (and in fact better than existing conditions on Friday), so they may have decided that, since they'd have one more shot, they might as well do a tank drain, see if the problem cleared up, and do it then.

Nonetheless, it's not the decision I'd have made. A delay of another day lost them a day of contingency at ISS, and it risked something else going wrong in the recycle. They were all ready to go on Friday, other than the failed sensor, and that shouldn't have kept them on the ground, since the new rule was an overreaction to Columbia, anyway, and they should change it back to what it always was--fail operational (i.e, only two sensors are needed, and the other two are available for redundancy). When I was at KSC yesterday, I talked to one of the briefers in private after a status briefing, and said that they were crazy not to launch Friday. He agreed that they've overconstrained the system to make it almost impossible to meet scheduled objectives, and done so in a manner that makes little contribution to true safety--settling for appearances instead.

Sheesh, Rand, you want a little cheese to go with the whine? At least YOU got to see a launch, an experience shared by a relative few.

From my perspective in Illinois, I would rather that NASA take WHATEVER time they feel necessary to make a quality decision. I'm not in the know, so I have to trust their process. Do you have complete knowledge of the process they followed? If so, share it or link it, so we can all understand the problem. If not, you just sound like you're complaining about your personal inconveniences, for which I have NO sympathy.

...the new rule was an overreaction to Columbia... settling for appearances...

After the national attacks of second-guessing that followed Challenger and Columbia, I doubt there's any way out of that corner for NASA. Until we fly often enough that mishaps are mishaps rather than triggers for Bob Haller syndrome, they're going to be looking fearfully back over their shoulder all the time.

Yet another argument for private spaceflight: those who die can be seen as crazy daredevils (but daredevils on their own time and their own dime) rather than National Martyrs.

No, I wasn't in the MMT. I'm simply using common sense, which as Monte points out, NASA is not allowed to use. And it's not just my personal convenience. It's a burden on the entire launch team, including the astronauts, and every day that we delay getting this bird into orbit costs over ten million dollars.

they've overconstrained the system to make it almost impossible to meet scheduled objectives, and done so in a manner that makes little contribution to true safety--settling for appearances instead.

...and this ladies and gentlemen is a mouse, built to government specifications. In our next exhibit we'll see a monkey wearing a tuxedo, which turns him fully and completely, into a man.

Dave G., it actually is a pretty serious issue. If they overconstrain the flight rules, they can paralyze the system through overcaution. (The ECO sensor problems have been heavily discussed & documented on-line, b.t.w. If you look at someplace like spaceflightnow.com, for instance, you should find a clear description of the issues.)

That said, I'd prefer if the launch constraints were relaxed sometime other than the morning of a launch attempt. :)

All the more reason for 2010 to hurry up and get here.

On Friday, the didn't know 100% for sure that the problem was the ECO sensor. There were (granted remote) a few other possibilities for the signature they were seeing. And there are tests they can run only with the tank dry that exonerate those other possibilites.

Sean

It might have had something to do with this.
Damn kids!! Get off my launch pad!!

So if NASA had launched with 3/4 what was pre-Columbia and there had been an accident, then NASA admin. would have been toasted for violating saftey rules. If NASA waits for 4/4, you toast them for being too conservative? I would rather have them be a little conservative and have the shuttle to fly another day. Had they not, and NASA had lost a shuttle--->No more NASA manned space flights till 2014!

And the shuttle has docked!

Can someone please point me to a web page that describes in depth the scientific work they expect to do on the ISS?

I tried esa.int but found only a few pages with very limited information. Also, I found the esa website confusing to navigate, NASA's is much better.

TIA

Interesting, opinion....