Foam Problems Force NASA to Delay Shuttle Launch

Advertisement (Why?)

NASA has been forced to delay the next launch of a space shuttle until March 2006 because more time is needed to fix a problem with foam flying off the external fuel tank, space agency officials said on Thursday. "From an overall standpoint we think really March 4th is the time frame we are looking at," Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for Space Operations, told a news conference.

The announcement came just a day after some members of an oversight panel accused the agency of compromising safety in the rush to return to flight. NASA is still trying to determine why a large piece of foam broke off the shuttle Discovery's fuel tank during launch last month, Gerstenmaier said. The shuttle Columbia was torn apart when it re-entered Earth's atmosphere on February 1, 2003, after a piece of foam insulation fell off its tank during launch and damaged its wing. All seven of Columbia's crewmembers were killed.

News source: Reuters

What's Included: (new/updated entries are marked like this):

Windows XP SP2 - Critical Updates
KB873333: Security Update for Windows XP
KB873339: Security Update for Windows XP
KB873374: Microsoft GDI+ Detection Tool
KB884883: Security Update for Windows XP v8
KB885250: Security Update for Windows XP
KB885626: Critical Update for Windows XP
KB885835: Security Update for Windows XP
KB885836: Security Update for Windows XP
KB886185: Critical Update for Windows XP
KB888113: Security Update for Windows XP
KB888302: Security Update for Windows XP
KB890046: Security Update for Windows XP
KB890175: Security Update for Windows XP
KB890859: Security Update for Windows XP
KB891781: Security Update for Windows XP
KB893066: Security Update for Windows XP
KB893086: Security Update for Windows XP
KB896358: Security Update for Windows XP
KB896422: Security Update for Windows XP
KB896428: Security Update for Windows XP
KB898458: Security Update for Windows XP
KB901214: Security Update for Windows XP
KB890830: Malicious Software Removal Tool v1.7
KB893756: Security Update for Windows XP
KB896423: Security Update for Windows XP
KB896727: Cumulative Security Update for IE6 for Windows XP SP2
KB899587: Security Update for Windows XP
KB899588: Security Update for Windows XP
KB899591: Security Update for Windows XP

Windows XP SP2 - Recommended updates
KB831240: Update for HighMAT support in the Windows XP CD Writing Wizard
KB884020: Update for Windows XP
KB885222: Update for Windows XP
KB886677: Update for Windows XP
KB886716: Update for Windows XP
KB887742: Update for Windows XP
KB887797: Cumulative Update for Outlook Express for Windows XP
KB888240: Update for Internet Explorer 6
KB888656: Update to enable DirectX Video Acceleration of Windows Media Video content in WMP 10
KB889527: Update for Windows XP v3
KB891122: Update for DRM-enabled Media Players
KB892313: Updates for Windows Media Player 9 and 10
KB893357: Update for Windows XP
KB894391: Update for Windows XP
KB895181: Fix for MPEG4 videos in Windows Media Player 10
KB896344: Update for Windows XP
KB896626: Update for Windows XP
KB898461: Update for Windows XP
KB900930: Update for Windows XP
KB903234: Update for Windows XP

Components
.NET Framework 1.1 (+SP1) (only in Full)
- KB886903: Security Update for .NET Framework 1.1 SP1
MSN Messenger 7.0.0816 (only in Full)
Windows Installer 3.1 (v2)
Microsoft Journal Viewer 1.5.2316.0 (only in Full)
Windows Media Connect (only in Full)
Windows Media Player 10.0.3802 (only in Full)
Windows Messenger 5.1.0680 (only in Full)
Windows Script 5.6 for Windows XP (v5.6.0.8825) (only in Full)
MSN Messenger 7.0.0816 (only in Full)

Add-ons
Adaptec ASPI
Bootvis 1.3.37 (only in Full)
Official Windows XP PowerToys
Copy Profile Tool
DirectX Control Panel
PowerMenu 1.5.1
Startup Control Panel 2.8
New XP Style Wallpapers (only in Full)
New XP Screensavers (only in Full)
New Wallpapers (only in Full)
New AutoPatcher Wallpaper (only in Full)
New Theme: Royale (only in Full)
Macromedia Shockwave Player 10.1 (only in Full)
Sun Java 1.5.0_04 (only in Full)
Google Toolbar 3.0.125.1 (only in Full)

And of course a lot of registry tweaks which improve speed, appearance, functionality and security!

File Size & MD5 Hashes

Sizes & Hashes
English August 2005 Full File Size: 155 MB (163195627 bytes)
English August 2005 Full MD5 Hash: C1C304BE866B8BF6FFA054851F94FA73
English August 2005 Lite File Size: 75.2 MB (78902237 bytes)
English August 2005 Lite MD5 Hash: 5B8F79CCA4D91CE4E88F4DFF9C5B2077

Portuguese August 2005 Full File Size: 151 MB (158833871 bytes)
Portuguese August 2005 Full MD5 Hash: F15953B7D55EAA2C060776ACD618686D
Portuguese August 2005 Lite File Size: 68.1 MB (71504365 bytes)
Portuguese August 2005 Lite MD5 Hash: 4EFFA6E90E0F3046428F9B9A4733759F

Polish August 2005 Full File Size: 143 MB (150135248 bytes)
Polish August 2005 Full MD5 Hash: DA572312391029130D1343752A1578D2
Polish August 2005 Lite File Size: 68.7 MB (72090866 bytes)
Polish August 2005 Lite MD5 Hash: 52D84471F15F15EC1DFEA687CC9F50EC

(3 replies) #1 mzhao on 18 Aug 2005 - 19:43

The delay is actually a good thing; I wouldn't want my safety compromised in favor of a quicker launch. MS, are you reading this?

#1.1 SquareSoft0 on 18 Aug 2005 - 20:24

Wow, how very irrelevant.

#1.2 rm20010 on 18 Aug 2005 - 21:48

Uh huh. A consumer OS claims lives if the company rushes it out quickly to the public.

#1.3 jubber2002 on 21 Aug 2005 - 15:42

Uless of course MS runs the controls to earths weapons and protection from space aliens.

#2 theyarecomingforyou on 18 Aug 2005 - 19:50

At this point it would appear safer tying astronauts to a length of rope and firing them out of a cannon. Perhaps they shouldn't have chosen Snoopy as their lead-project co-ordinator.

(2 replies) #3 niel19_us on 18 Aug 2005 - 19:52

Well I agree with you, but every delay cost us the tax payers money. And I mean millions and billions of dollars.

#3.1 Ravensworth on 18 Aug 2005 - 20:17

The budget for NASA is barely a drop in the bucket compared to what is spent on other things, and personally I think it's much more worthwhile than some of the other ridiculous things the government wastes money on. I think the tiny amount of the budget that goes to them is well worth it, and if it costs a little more to make sure the astronauts are safer than so be it. If you disagree fine but don't act like it's all coming out of your pocket. You probably spent more on lunch today than what you're spending on NASA.

#3.2 Foub on 18 Aug 2005 - 23:18

The war on Iraq has cost the US $200 billion dollars so far. All that based on a lie.

(6 replies) #4 KC on 18 Aug 2005 - 19:52

Maybe instead of trying to fix the shuttle they should divert these funds to a new shuttle program.

#4.1 dandin1 on 18 Aug 2005 - 19:59

It most likely costs less to fix a small problem than to build a whole new shuttle from scratch. And a new shuttle program would mean not going in space untill the new shuttle is ready.

I beleive they are working on a new moon shuttle, it was somewhere in the newspaper.

#4.2 patseguin on 18 Aug 2005 - 20:26

My thoughts exactly KC. From a cost standpoint I suppose it does make sense to fix the problem rather than scrapping the shuttle. I do remember seeing somewhere that they have the next shuttle being designed. I wish I knew how far along that was.

#4.3 david.rothera on 18 Aug 2005 - 21:17

If I remember correctly they are gonna make two diff types, using existing shuttle parts.

The two versions are gonna be a Manned and an un-manned cargo shuttle, both of which look a lot like the old apollo rockets

#4.4 theyarecomingforyou on 18 Aug 2005 - 22:29

NASA is already working on a replacement to the shuttle... however, it won't begin testing until 2008.

#4.5 xpgeek on 18 Aug 2005 - 22:48

Yea they should fix the shuttle, but I agree its time to start seriously thinking about a new one.

#4.6 Foub on 18 Aug 2005 - 23:22

If they had used the original design they wouldn't be having this problem since there would not have been the disposable booster rocket. The original used two manned vehicles. One with the shuttle "piggybacked" on it which took off like a rocket and at a certain altitude would release the shuttle and return itself to the surface while the shuttle boosted itself into orbit. This design cost more to develop, but was far cheaper to maintain and use while what they ended up with cost less to develop and is more expensive to use.

(2 replies) #5 MadDog on 19 Aug 2005 - 02:14

The foam issues started happening after NASA bowed to pressure from environmental groups and changed to a CFC-free foam formulation (although the amount of CFCs used was so small it made little to no impact on ozone). So it's just as easy to say Greenpeace and World Wildlife Federation collaborated to kill the seven astronauts and destroy the shuttle as it is to say the entire Iraq war is "based on a lie."

#5.1 naap51stang on 19 Aug 2005 - 03:04

I agree 100%.........envirowacko groups are responsible for more death and destruction than
they try to protect. Just think of the possibilities if the WTC had been sprayed with abestos
than with the inferior crap it was sprayed with. Perhaps, just perhaps the buildings might have
survived a little longer, allowing more people to escape.
Car brakes...now use "metallic" pads, which get that horrible red crap all over the wheels,
and also they cause the rotors to heat up and warp sometimes. Air conditioners in cars and homes don't get as cold as they use too, and the refrig they use now don't lubricate as well.
So, you have to run the AC longer, using more energy, and then it will break down sooner,
causing you to junk it, or have to have it repaired.
The list goes on and on and on and on of the dangers of the EXTREME side of enviromentalism!

#5.2 Echelon Left on 21 Aug 2005 - 18:40

You are both joking, right?
Either that or you're a typical short-sighted american; if that's the case you need to wake up and smell the global warming.

#6 Kushan on 19 Aug 2005 - 02:55

Why am I not surprised...

(1 reply) #7 tele-fragd on 19 Aug 2005 - 04:48

Considering they seem to have so many problems in recent times, I can kind of understand why people think the moon landing was faked seeing as though they did it on their first try in the 1960s.

#7.1 Garry on 19 Aug 2005 - 08:11

Be fair though; that "first try" was after 10 previous missions which got a little closer every time...

#8 [MATRIX-NEO] on 19 Aug 2005 - 05:24

+++UUU NASA !!! YOU ARE THE BEST !!! ^^;

#9 Mystnight on 19 Aug 2005 - 17:40

they only got 2 shuttles left, I think its time for them to maybe build some new shuttles, sure its millions of dollars of the taxpayers money, but as is, they are already spending that fixing up Atlantis, which is atleast 20 years old, and Discovery, which isnt that old, but has the same problems as all the others, I mean slap some titanium on those things or something.

#10 Echelon Left on 21 Aug 2005 - 18:50

It's painfully obvious that NASA needs to phase out the shutles.
However, the present US administration is obsessed with war, oil, god, oil, china, oil, and a certain moron who shall remain 'dubya. The republicans in Washinton are more interested in pading their own retirement funds than they are in paying attention to NASA.
To put it mildly, NASA isn't high on their priority list right now. That whole "We're going to Mars" show they put on was a farce: Nobody in the White House has any intention of sending anyone to the Moon, let alone Mars. Hell, they're not even trying to complete the ISS on time.
So, as much as we would all like to see a next-gen shuttle, we're all just gonna have to wait untill 'dubya is gone.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net