Author Topic: Progress M-04M launches to cost-cutting ISS – STS-135 addition removed  (Read 4574 times)


Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Oh, here is the dedicated thread.

I posted this over on the other STS-135 thread:

Quote
STS-135 cull roundup:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/02/progress-m-04m-launches-to-cost-cutting-iss-sts-135-addition-removed/

Good article. This is the key quote in there in my opinion: "“For now, adding the LON as actual flight will end unless a compelling need arises.” A "compelling need" is a cargo upmass shortage of any kind. That compelling need may just come sooner than NASA is thinking which puts them back on baselining the mission again. I hope Falcon 9 succeeds in its test flight, but it might fail and put a potential additional one year delay to the first CRS flight into the ISS program.

For now I don't really understand NASA's decision. The much more prudent way of moving on would be to baseline STS-135 as both a LON and a "compelling need" flight aka upmass shortfall / required spares flight until known otherwise. Well, maybe there are too many troubles to work out with the Russians regarding a Soyuz rescue.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline Peter NASA

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1085
  • SOMD
  • Liked: 1979
  • Likes Given: 57
Someone's advised the White House we don't need shuttle for an ISS extension. We needed shuttle even for a 2015/16 end date.

Demoralizing.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17011
  • Liked: 1183
  • Likes Given: 515
Someone's advised the White House we don't need shuttle for an ISS extension. We needed shuttle even for a 2015/16 end date.

Demoralizing.
Ouch.

Offline theonlyspace

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 242
  • Rocketeer
  • AEAI Space Center, USA
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 94
We don't need a way there.  The ISS will keep orbiting without us. We just don't use it!!!
Such a Waste.

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Someone's advised the White House we don't need shuttle for an ISS extension. We needed shuttle even for a 2015/16 end date.

Demoralizing.

It's a risky proposition to go forward, indeed.

But so was relying on the Shuttle in the first place. Cargo upmass should have been planned for by a mix of IP's automated vehicles and US ELVs w\ unmanned US cargo vehicles in the first place, after all Europe, Russia and Japan are providing cargo to the ISS this way.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6057
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2051
  • Likes Given: 701
Someone's advised the White House we don't need shuttle for an ISS extension. We needed shuttle even for a 2015/16 end date.

Demoralizing.

Out of curiosity (I haven't been following the ISS program very closely), could you give me a brief summary of why we need shuttle for an ISS extension?  And how long we would need it for?  Are there spares that are too big to be lofted by any of the planned replacement vehicles?  Or is it just worries over upmass capabilities?  Or something else entirely different?

~Jon

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2191
  • Florida
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 913
Someone's advised the White House we don't need shuttle for an ISS extension. We needed shuttle even for a 2015/16 end date.

Demoralizing.

Out of curiosity (I haven't been following the ISS program very closely), could you give me a brief summary of why we need shuttle for an ISS extension?  And how long we would need it for?  Are there spares that are too big to be lofted by any of the planned replacement vehicles?  Or is it just worries over upmass capabilities?  Or something else entirely different?

~Jon

I'm not Peter, but the ISS needs shuttle for one reason: Logistics.
AKA, ELC's and MPLMs.

Orbiter
Attended space missions: STS-114, STS-124, STS-128, STS-135, Atlas V "Curiosity", Delta IV Heavy NROL-15, Atlas V MUOS-2, Delta IV Heavy NROL-37, SpaceX CRS-9, SpaceX JCSAT-16, Atlas V GOES-R, SpaceX SES-11.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Someone's advised the White House we don't need shuttle for an ISS extension. We needed shuttle even for a 2015/16 end date.

Demoralizing.

The White House seems to be getting and accepting its Space advice from a bunch of happy drunk cadets at a Star Trek convention. Commiserations on now being led by donkeys, you and the rest of your colleagues deserved much much better for your great contributions to manned spaceflight and history.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9592
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Out of curiosity (I haven't been following the ISS program very closely), could you give me a brief summary of why we need shuttle for an ISS extension?  And how long we would need it for?  Are there spares that are too big to be lofted by any of the planned replacement vehicles?  Or is it just worries over upmass capabilities?  Or something else entirely different?

The expressed worry here is not based on actual facts. Although it would be great for ISS to be supported by Shuttle forever, the reality is that Progress, ATV and HTV plus the commercial stuff will do just fine. The people who claim that the loss of Shuttle is fatal for ISS will also claim that ATV and HTV are shaky; in other words, they invoke facts not in evidence.

IMHO, any shortfall in ISS logistics without Shuttle is called "a market".


Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Out of curiosity (I haven't been following the ISS program very closely), could you give me a brief summary of why we need shuttle for an ISS extension?  And how long we would need it for?  Are there spares that are too big to be lofted by any of the planned replacement vehicles?  Or is it just worries over upmass capabilities?  Or something else entirely different?

The expressed worry here is not based on actual facts. Although it would be great for ISS to be supported by Shuttle forever, the reality is that Progress, ATV and HTV plus the commercial stuff will do just fine. The people who claim that the loss of Shuttle is fatal for ISS will also claim that ATV and HTV are shaky; in other words, they invoke facts not in evidence.

IMHO, any shortfall in ISS logistics without Shuttle is called "a market".



The ISS Program Manager and head of SOMD might have something different to say about that.  But hey, you're the expert. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline cb6785

  • First Officer A320 / Simulator Instructor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1194
  • EDDS/STR
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Out of curiosity (I haven't been following the ISS program very closely), could you give me a brief summary of why we need shuttle for an ISS extension?  And how long we would need it for?  Are there spares that are too big to be lofted by any of the planned replacement vehicles?  Or is it just worries over upmass capabilities?  Or something else entirely different?

The expressed worry here is not based on actual facts. Although it would be great for ISS to be supported by Shuttle forever, the reality is that Progress, ATV and HTV plus the commercial stuff will do just fine. The people who claim that the loss of Shuttle is fatal for ISS will also claim that ATV and HTV are shaky; in other words, they invoke facts not in evidence.

IMHO, any shortfall in ISS logistics without Shuttle is called "a market".



I guess the problem is not upmass...but no vehicle in active service today provides more then just a few kilos of downmass. No chance to get bigger science samples,whole experiments, failed components(, not to speak of racks) down after they have been used.
You know, if I’d had a seat you wouldn’t still see me in this thing. - Chuck Yeager

-------------------------------------------------------
Carsten Banach

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27162
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7116
  • Likes Given: 4942
OV-106, is there really no way to send up ORUs? Isn't there an unpressurized version of Cygnus and room for unpressurized cargo in the Dragon spacecraft's trunk, for instance?

Surely, there are options. I'm just curious.

As far as significant down-mass, the only near-term hope after Shuttle is that the Dragon capsule works as planned. (crosses fingers)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17783
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 448
  • Likes Given: 3488
Out of curiosity (I haven't been following the ISS program very closely), could you give me a brief summary of why we need shuttle for an ISS extension?  And how long we would need it for?  Are there spares that are too big to be lofted by any of the planned replacement vehicles?  Or is it just worries over upmass capabilities?  Or something else entirely different?

The expressed worry here is not based on actual facts. Although it would be great for ISS to be supported by Shuttle forever, the reality is that Progress, ATV and HTV plus the commercial stuff will do just fine. The people who claim that the loss of Shuttle is fatal for ISS will also claim that ATV and HTV are shaky; in other words, they invoke facts not in evidence.

IMHO, any shortfall in ISS logistics without Shuttle is called "a market".



I guess the problem is not upmass...but no vehicle in active service today provides more then just a few kilos of downmass. No chance to get bigger science samples,whole experiments, failed components(, not to speak of racks) down after they have been used.

The problems are:

#1 the GAP (until COTS flies)
#2 a vehicle, funded like COTS, capable of sending large ORUs up
#3 If desired (and it very often is) to return failed ORUs to either be refurbished, or failure modes learnt to build better ones. That part is critical for future spares, especially with ISS to 2020.

Apparently SPaceX can return cargo, though not all that much, and not demostrated yet. Until then, we just HOPE.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline seawolfe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 551
  • South of Seattle and east of Tacoma
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 183

Apparently SPaceX can return cargo, though not all that much, and not demostrated yet. Until then, we just HOPE.

Well.... we got "Change" and now we have "Hope"   ;)

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 0
OV-106, is there really no way to send up ORUs? Isn't there an unpressurized version of Cygnus and room for unpressurized cargo in the Dragon spacecraft's trunk, for instance?

Surely, there are options. I'm just curious.


HTV has some unpressurized cargo capability, and was being considered as the vehicle to carry the LIDS docking adapters to ISS.
JRF

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Someone's advised the White House we don't need shuttle for an ISS extension. We needed shuttle even for a 2015/16 end date.

Demoralizing.

Strange.  I think there is probably ample evidense to the contrary.  I think one could also point to the time between STS-107 and STS-114.  As you know, we had to take the crew to 2 and most of their work was maintenance.  Today the station is much more complex, has additional labs, additional crew and HTV and ATV were already planned into the support schedule assuming shuttle.  So something has to fill that gap

How do they expect us to do it?
« Last Edit: 02/03/2010 11:23 PM by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
OV-106, is there really no way to send up ORUs? Isn't there an unpressurized version of Cygnus and room for unpressurized cargo in the Dragon spacecraft's trunk, for instance?

Surely, there are options. I'm just curious.

As far as significant down-mass, the only near-term hope after Shuttle is that the Dragon capsule works as planned. (crosses fingers)

Eventully, there will probably be options.  None exist yet.  I point to what happened to ISS during RTF.  Today the station is much more complex.

As for downmass, I assume you've seen pictures of Dragon.  The MPLM's which were designed and built for the upmass and downmass purposes could probably nearly hold the entire Dragon spacecraft itself.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Someone's advised the White House we don't need shuttle for an ISS extension. We needed shuttle even for a 2015/16 end date.

Demoralizing.

Strange.  I think there is probably ample evidense to the contrary.  I think one could also point to the time between STS-107 and STS-114.  As you know, we had to take the crew to 2 and most of their work was maintenance.  Today the station is much more complex, has additional labs, additional crew and HTV and ATV were already planned into the support schedule assuming shuttle.  So something has to fill that gap

How do they expect us to do it?

They don't know, don't care and don't really care to know. If there is a problem they can just blame the original decision to cancel Shuttle.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2010 11:42 PM by marsavian »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
They don't know, don't care and don't really care to know. If there is a problem they can just blame the original decision to cancel Shuttle.

I fear you're right and then try to blame the Bush administration, which of course has become SOP.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
They don't know, don't care and don't really care to know. If there is a problem they can just blame the original decision to cancel Shuttle.

I fear you're right and then try to blame the Bush administration, which of course has become SOP.

The important thing is to cut all operational costs for the new Nirvana R&D workshops. Hey, get with the plan already and think happy space cadet thoughts whilst doing so and then you will get an idea of your political leaders mindset :(.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2010 11:44 PM by marsavian »

Offline ETEE

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 233
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
May I just add that it is indeed a sad end to a great vehicle.  I really thought and hoped that Shuttle would continue until 2015 albeit at a reduced rate.  Unfortunately it all has to be paid for and there isn't anything left in the piggybank.  It took the biggest recession for 75 years to stop the Space Shuttle, the greatest flying machine that the world has ever seen.

Sorry for being slightly off-topic.
Echo Tango Echo Echo

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9592
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
OV-106, is there really no way to send up ORUs? Isn't there an unpressurized version of Cygnus and room for unpressurized cargo in the Dragon spacecraft's trunk, for instance?

HTV can send up most unpressurized ORUs. Most pressurized ORUs can be carried aboard ATV.

If Dragon flies successfully, then most logistics issues diminish significantly.

If Cygnus flies successfully, many logistics issues diminish.

If both fly successfully, stowage becomes a bigger problem at ISS.

« Last Edit: 02/04/2010 09:08 PM by Danderman »

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

1. If Dragon flies successfully, then most logistics issues diminish significantly.

2. If Cygnus flies successfully, many logistics issues diminish.

3. If both fly successfully, stowage becomes a bigger problem at ISS.

1. No. Dragon would have to fly up to 7 times per year to meet all upmass requirements alone. You need to have the HTV, ATV and both commercial providers deliver their contracts on time to not get into trouble.

2. Yes, if both Dragon and Cygnus fly successfully and even more importantly without big delays for their first flights, logistic problems diminish.

3. That's laughable. You never get up more up there than you need. That's the whole point of frequent flights of 2-2.5mt of pressurized cargo per flight!

Anyway, not sure whether your post was directed against the addition of STS-135, but one thing is clear, it's a matter of when Dragon and Cygnus come online. Right now it looks like both will have serious delays for their CRS flights, which means the USOS part of the ISS will run into shortages during 2011.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9592
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462

1. If Dragon flies successfully, then most logistics issues diminish significantly.

2. If Cygnus flies successfully, many logistics issues diminish.

3. If both fly successfully, stowage becomes a bigger problem at ISS.

1. No. Dragon would have to fly up to 7 times per year to meet all upmass requirements alone. You need to have the HTV, ATV and both commercial providers deliver their contracts on time to not get into trouble.

2. Yes, if both Dragon and Cygnus fly successfully and even more importantly without big delays for their first flights, logistic problems diminish.

3. That's laughable. You never get up more up there than you need. That's the whole point of frequent flights of 2-2.5mt of pressurized cargo per flight!

Anyway, not sure whether your post was directed against the addition of STS-135, but one thing is clear, it's a matter of when Dragon and Cygnus come online. Right now it looks like both will have serious delays for their CRS flights, which means the USOS part of the ISS will run into shortages during 2011.

I was and am assuming that the supplies delivered by Dragon/Cygnus would be in addition to those being delivered by existing vehicles. Of course, if you start assuming that ATV and HTV will disappear, then all sorts of new requirements would emerge.

BTW, none of my statements has any impact on the proposed STS-335, as both Dragon and Cygnus would not actually deliver cargo until long after shuttle retirement.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17783
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 448
  • Likes Given: 3488
OV-106, is there really no way to send up ORUs? Isn't there an unpressurized version of Cygnus and room for unpressurized cargo in the Dragon spacecraft's trunk, for instance?

HTV can send up most unpressurized ORUs. Most pressurized ORUs can be carried aboard ATV.

If Dragon flies successfully, then most logistics issues diminish significantly.


And in doing so, removes one of the main reasons WHY they are there: to fly science to the ISS.

The HTV is 'supposed' to be flying science payloads for its 'front porch'. With essentially 1/year, Japan loses the capability to utilize its own science facilities. (yes I know, or lose all with poor functioning ISS, the problem we are hoping to change).

Same for ATV: valuable space for science is taken up by spares.

Both Japan and ESA planned their vehicles to meet their own science needs. Now it seems NASA would be holding out a can collecting donations for flights to maintain America's major contribution. Poetic? Or Pathetic. I'm not sure just yet.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
BTW, none of my statements has any impact on the proposed STS-335, as both Dragon and Cygnus would not actually deliver cargo until long after shuttle retirement.

I was assuming your statement was related to the thread title (STS-135).

The CRS contract awarded about 14 months ago assumes the first CRS contract flight to take place in December 2010 for SpaceX and the first CRS contract flight for OSC in October 2011. That's not long after shuttle retirement. I agree, however, that in reality these dates will be pushed to the right quite extensively, which will become more and more apparent in the next 6 months, which will force NASA to baseline STS-135 in order to avoid a cargo upmass shortage in 2011 and early 2012.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Tags: