No launch today, either. Maybe tomorrow, but I don't think I'll hang around for it--Patricia has to work.

Anyway, I'm guessing that they'll ultimately have to roll back, and launch in January. These sensors seem to be even more flaky than usual.

[Update about a minute after posting]

Yup. I just got a text message that they've decided to give up on it for the year.

[A couple minutes more]

Here's confirmation on the web site. January 2nd at the earliest.

[11:20 update]

Here's more info.

Soooo... ummm...

They're going to fly each one twice next year?

Is there anywhere offering odds on that? Because I smell an easy way to make some money.

After more than 100 launches they still haven't wrapped their heads around the ECO sensor problem. And yet, these same people want billions of taxpayer dollars to design not one but two completely new rockets.

I say retire the shuttle NOW, let NASA come up with specifications for a CEV, let the free market produce it, and start launching materiel and CEVs to the station on Atlas and Delta rockets. And start firing NASA staff by the thousands.

Big fan of this site and its insights and the related hot linked sites

These are the best and brightest right? Rocket Science is at the pinnacle of difficult to do.

The Continued Tolerance of This ECO System Issue is Beyond Perplexing to me.

Why isn't there more commentary (and negative feedback) for the continued reliance on a system design / hardware and operational instructions set that performs a very simple function (which is not rocket science).

To have this system operational verification only happen a few hours before launch is crazy. Let alone not having found an answer or alternate approach

Redundancy rum amok?

Further, to be running so close to the edge on fuel that one can't shut off in plenty time based on calculated flow rate and leave residual in the tank.

These are fairly precise engines right? People having been doing this along time, they should a very good idea of flow/burn rate.

They just look riduculous having to continually roll back to the hanger for a redundant fuel gauge. One would think either pride or a level of embarrasement would drive an alternate solution. Watching the debriefs is just painful.

This has nothing to do with Mission or GO Fever either. A system with this many people attending to it should not be having these kinds of issues. It's almost like "Deer in Headlights" too stunned to do anything other than doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Would someone please put Shuttle out of its misery?!

If its not a faulty fuel gauge, its shedding pieces of styrofoam or it's just too cloudy outside.

Can't we get something more reliable for $5 billion/year?

Ed, you mentioned Atlas or Delta. How about Ariane or Proton?

The point is that the USA does not have the divine right to be the leader in space technology. Keep wasting money and the skills of your people on pork, and sooner or later you won't be. The current spectacle, of trundling major launcher components all over the place, in some cases for thousands of miles, in order to spread the jobs (and of course therefore votes) around is getting more ridiculous by the year.

Ed: After more than 100 launches they still haven't wrapped their heads around the ECO sensor problem. And yet, these same people want billions of taxpayer dollars to design not one but two completely new rockets.

The irony of course is that ARES keeps the ET tank, so it will probably have the same sensors with the same problem.

G: To have this system operational verification only happen a few hours before launch is crazy. Let alone not having found an answer or alternate approach

I agree here, but

Further, to be running so close to the edge on fuel that one can't shut off in plenty time based on calculated flow rate and leave residual in the tank.
These are fairly precise engines right? People having been doing this along time, they should a very good idea of flow/burn rate.

Well, residual fuel is uplifted mass which is unnecessary. However, some NH2 is left in the tank for cooling. The problem is what happens if a leak develops on the way up? Burn rate is well known, but a leak isn't. If you run out of LH2 before LOX, the latter will turn the engine themselves into fuel, very quickly.

Please understand, G, I don't disagree with your sentiment. I just thought you might want to understand the issue.

Leland said:
If you run out of LH2 before LOX, the latter will turn the engine themselves into fuel, very quickly.

Metallic fires are the worst.