Author Topic: NASA managers slip all launch dates in 2009 and 2010  (Read 13957 times)

Online Chris Bergin

SSPTS is interesting to me, as I know it was seriously discussed.

Offline Bubbinski

If they do fix up ET-122, then that brings up a question.  Conceivably, they could fly an STS-135 flight with it if they decide not to do a LON mission and instead use Soyuzes to fly the astronauts home in the unlikely event of being unable to reenter safely. 

The STS-134 talk I've seen on this forum of course talks about flying AMS and ELC-5 on that flight.  If they go for an STS-135 with ET-122, what could they take to ISS?  The CAM would be a non-starter as it's in a parking lot in Japan.  They could take up an MPLM stuffed full of supplies and maybe leave it if it's been suitably modified, that's the only thing I can think of right off the bat.

But is there any real possibility of an STS-135 happening?  If it did, it would be cutting it pretty close to the end of FY 2010 (Sept.), and there is always the possibility of unexpected schedule slips in the earlier flights.

If ET-122 is left on the ground I would hope that the KSC museum could mate its flown orbiter and a pair of inert mockup SRB's to it to stand it up and make an AWESOME display.  I'd fly to KSC just to see it up close.
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: NASA managers slip all launch dates in 2009 and 2010
« Reply #42 on: 07/09/2008 09:30 AM »
Interesting, we get some information on the ORUs going up, in particular on STS-129 and STS-132.

STS-127:
1 SGANT,
1 LDU,
The PM from the baseline is now missing. Mistake?

STS-129:
2 CMGs,
2 NTAs (Why? Complete failure protection? Can't the one on orbit (already replaced) be refilled with bottles carried by Progress, ATV etc.),
2 PMs (total of 3 spares with the one already on ESP-2, 4 with the one on STS-127, The most ORUs of the same kind!),
1 ATA (spare, the ones on orbit right now will be replaced during STS-128 and 131),
1 LEE,
1 TUS,
1 High Pressure Gas Tank.

STS-132:
6 batteries for P6,
1 SGANT,
Dextre Spares.

STS-133 (looks premature):
2 SASAs,
1 High Pressure Gas Tank,
Dextre Spares,
MOD shields.

Leaves a lot of questions:

- Why 3 or 4 PMs? Has the one from STS-127 be demanifested?
- And - compared to the PMs - why only 2 CMGs?
- Why 2 NTAs but only 1 ATA?
- One SASA is going up sidewall mounted on STS-129. Gives a total of 3 spares! Mistake?
- Will the 2 gas tanks be full and mounted on Quest?

Analyst

Offline Peter NASA

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • SOMD
  • Liked: 2354
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: NASA managers slip all launch dates in 2009 and 2010
« Reply #43 on: 07/09/2008 09:03 PM »
This manifest is likely to change again. Refer to the PRCB document from last Thursday on L2.

Online Chris Bergin

This manifest is likely to change again. Refer to the PRCB document from last Thursday on L2.

Added it as part of the latest article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5468

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22509
  • Liked: 839
  • Likes Given: 300
Re: NASA managers slip all launch dates in 2009 and 2010
« Reply #45 on: 07/13/2008 01:25 PM »

The STS-134 talk I've seen on this forum of course talks about flying AMS and ELC-5 on that flight.

If AMS is going to ISS, then ELC-5 cannot.  There are 6 attach points on S3/P3, so there is currently manifested to have 4 ELC's.  People then figure that there are two attachment points, but fail to remember ESP-3 is using one of those points.  So it would be ELC 5 or AMS, not both.

Read this:

http://ams-02project.jsc.nasa.gov/Documents/SDP/Section%205-4.pdf
« Last Edit: 07/13/2008 01:26 PM by Ronsmytheiii »
And this is a good reminder that just because one of your fellow space enthusiasts occasionally voices doubts about the SpaceX schedule announcements or is cautious about believing SpaceX has licked a problem before actually seeing proof that's true, it doesn't mean they hate SpaceX.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17345
  • Liked: 1867
  • Likes Given: 1169
Re: NASA managers slip all launch dates in 2009 and 2010
« Reply #46 on: 07/13/2008 01:51 PM »
If AMS is going to ISS, then ELC-5 cannot.  There are 6 attach points on S3/P3, so there is currently manifested to have 4 ELC's.  People then figure that there are two attachment points, but fail to remember ESP-3 is using one of those points.  So it would be ELC 5 or AMS, not both.

Read this:

http://ams-02project.jsc.nasa.gov/Documents/SDP/Section%205-4.pdf
I can't find any mention in that document saying AMS and ELC-5 can't both be flown.  Looking at the metadata in the PDF file, this revision was circa May 2006.  A lot of water under the proverbial bridge since then...

Whether either or both of these elements fly may have less to do with feasibility than with other factors.

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22509
  • Liked: 839
  • Likes Given: 300
Re: NASA managers slip all launch dates in 2009 and 2010
« Reply #47 on: 07/13/2008 04:40 PM »
I can't find any mention in that document saying AMS and ELC-5 can't both be flown.  Looking at the metadata in the PDF file, this revision was circa May 2006.  A lot of water under the proverbial bridge since then...

Whether either or both of these elements fly may have less to do with feasibility than with other factors.


ELC-5 wont fly if there is not a place to put it.  there are six payload attach sites on the Truss.  By the time STS-134 will fly there will be 5 already used, those being the previous four ELC and ESP-3.  With AMS taking up another that does not leave a spot for ELC-5.

see:  http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/190373main_TP-2007-214768.pdf
And this is a good reminder that just because one of your fellow space enthusiasts occasionally voices doubts about the SpaceX schedule announcements or is cautious about believing SpaceX has licked a problem before actually seeing proof that's true, it doesn't mean they hate SpaceX.

Offline cb6785

  • First Officer A320 / Simulator Instructor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1194
  • EDDS/STR
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA managers slip all launch dates in 2009 and 2010
« Reply #48 on: 07/13/2008 04:47 PM »
Ok....dumb question then: Why did they build five ELC's and one AMS and ESP-3 in the first place when there is one attach site less?

Before MRM1 got its place on the shuttle ELC-5 was scheduled to be launched. What has changed since then with the number of possible attach sites?

Or is it that nobody believed AMS could really get the chance to go up?
« Last Edit: 07/13/2008 04:54 PM by cb6785 »
You know, if I’d had a seat you wouldn’t still see me in this thing. - Chuck Yeager

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

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6182
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA managers slip all launch dates in 2009 and 2010
« Reply #49 on: 07/13/2008 05:45 PM »
Ok....dumb question then: Why did they build five ELC's and one AMS and ESP-3 in the first place when there is one attach site less?

The ELCs were intended to be returned and reused.
JRF

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: NASA managers slip all launch dates in 2009 and 2010
« Reply #50 on: 07/13/2008 06:32 PM »
Why the difference in the number of attach points between P3 and S3?

Analyst

Offline cb6785

  • First Officer A320 / Simulator Instructor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1194
  • EDDS/STR
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA managers slip all launch dates in 2009 and 2010
« Reply #51 on: 07/13/2008 06:43 PM »
Ok....dumb question then: Why did they build five ELC's and one AMS and ESP-3 in the first place when there is one attach site less?

The ELCs were intended to be returned and reused.


Thanks! I always thought of them as structures to be installed permanently and just outfitted with new "payloads" from time to time.
You know, if I’d had a seat you wouldn’t still see me in this thing. - Chuck Yeager

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

Offline The-Hammer

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 410
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA managers slip all launch dates in 2009 and 2010
« Reply #52 on: 07/13/2008 10:14 PM »
The answer to this question is probably no, but I'll bring it up anyway.

Would it be possible to move one of: an ELC, ESP3, or the AMS to the external attachment points on Columbus or Kibo?

Obviously an ELC or the AMS would be easiest since I assume the attachement systems are different. But, would it be possible and feasible?
Grant Imahara: Oxygen deficiency alarm? Is that something I should be worried about?
NASA worker: Only if it goes off.

Tags: