Did mission controller abort the countdown when it's reported minor problems

[Pawelk198604]

I just wonder, i play sims 4, i chosen that my sim become rocket scientist, one day he got dilemma(as mission controller) does postpone launch (that master alarm is on and computer report problems) or to launch it anyway, i decided to launch it anyway, and i get message that space shuttle engines shutdown few minutes after launch, the shuttle fall on the ground, and crew reports minor neck injury, and my sim suffer career performance penalty:D

I just wonder what it's is during real mission does NASA or Roscosmos, is ignoring such info, i mean if it's look as something minor?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92993-What-do-you-think-about-the-Sims-4?p=1397835&viewfull=1#post1397835

[Streetwind]

I don't know how it was during the 80s, but nowadays the final launch minute is almost completely computer controlled. Even if the human team makes the decision to hand off control to the vehicle launch computer despite an anomaly, said computer will likely know of that anomaly and instantly abort - unless it is something that only a human could see, such as "hey there is a pink disney balloon tethered to the guidance fin!".

[Red Iron Crown]

Mission controllers are by and large a cautious lot. A launch delay may cause some headaches, but nothing close to the headaches a failed launch would cause. So they generally hold launches when any non-trivial problems are reported, until it can be shown that the risk is acceptable.

[Pawelk198604]

Mission controllers are by and large a cautious lot. A launch delay may cause some headaches, but nothing close to the headaches a failed launch would cause. So they generally hold launches when any non-trivial problems are reported, until it can be shown that the risk is acceptable.

So my Sim liked more like mission controller KSC Kerbal Space Center than real KSC Kennedy Space Center:D

[Moar Boosters]

Mission controllers are by and large a cautious lot. A launch delay may cause some headaches, but nothing close to the headaches a failed launch would cause. So they generally hold launches when any non-trivial problems are reported, until it can be shown that the risk is acceptable.

Well that's the ideal way to do it, but in the past NASA have shown they're pretty bad at assessing acceptable risk. Both shuttle disasters were largely caused by NASA ignoring problems their engineers warned them about. They knew about the o-rings wearing down, but assumed it'd be okay because they'd never worn fully through.... and they knew of the dangers of foam and ice damaging the tiles, but also ignored it because damage had never caused the loss of an orbiter on previous missions. Engineers were begging them not to launch Challenger right up until the countdown, but they were ignored.

Roscomos seem to have forged themselves a reputation for reliability, however that's not necessarily true of the Soviet program that preceded them. They had a very strong testing based approach...... which involved launching loads of unmanned rockets which were basically only half finished, and then figuring out what worked and what didn't. I guess they'd be more likely to push the button on a test design that's designed to fail than a rocket that's carrying an expensive payload or humans.

[Pawelk198604]

Roscomos seem to have forged themselves a reputation for reliability, however that's not necessarily true of the Soviet program that preceded them. They had a very strong testing based approach...... which involved launching loads of unmanned rockets which were basically only half finished, and then figuring out what worked and what didn't. I guess they'd be more likely to push the button on a test design that's designed to fail than a rocket that's carrying an expensive payload or humans.

The Soviet Union. maybe it was a powerful state, but it was not so rich country, at least not like the USA.

NASA had a huge budget and a lot of resources, the Soviet program made ​​up for the shortcomings enthusiasm and fighting spirit. They put the first satellite into orbit, the first pet and finally the first man in space, Yury Gagarin.

[EndOfTheEarth]

Not sure about RosCosmos, but NASA spacecraft don't just produce alarms, they also produce an alarm code that informs mission controllers about the nature of the problem. Mission Control is trained to deal with each alarm type through simulations, and they know which alarms are ignorable vs which ones are life-threatening.

A famous example of this was Apollo 11 and the LEM computer throwing a "1201 Alarm". Mission control had trained for this alarm (and had failed over this particular alarm during the dress rehearsal!), so they knew that the computer was wrong, not the spacecraft, and continued to the first manned moon landing!

You can hear it in the mission audio, at about 27 seconds in this video:

A more recent example was a SpaceX Falcon 9 where the computer screamed for an abort half a second before launch due to a pressure problem in one of the fuel tanks. NASA and SpaceX promptly aborted the launch and discovered a problem that might have blown up the rocket, had it actually flown.

Not sure if this was it, but it's a good video of an abort anyway:

On the ground, the situation is a bit different. There is no rush, and as long as you haven't launched the rocket, you can truck an engineer out to fix it. This is why there are so many delays during launch; the Mission controllers take every pre-launch computer alarm very seriously, and will often halt or abort the countdown if the computer is acting up. Best case scenario, the computer was right and you just saved a 200 million dollar rocket. Worst case scenario, the computer had a faulty program and you may have just saved a 200 million dollar rocket anyway.

Long story short: if it's still on the pad, and something looks off, abort.

[mrfox]

http://www.switched.com/2009/06/22/four-nerve-racking-space-shuttle-launch-aborts/