Author Topic: AMS Flight Bill update  (Read 30118 times)

Offline quickshot89

  • Member
  • Posts: 95
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #40 on: 06/23/2008 09:44 pm »
AMS is about jobs, not Science.
 

your kidding right? the AMS is the 2nd largest physics project apart from the LHC

at least in my eyes it is

its all about the science

Offline Waterfalldescender

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #41 on: 06/23/2008 10:35 pm »

 My apologies, I should have placed /STS 134 Flight Bill in my post.

 I'm not in favor of the 134 mission. I would rather see the money going to the new program. It is about the jobs(134)...Adding another flight just increases the gap instead of closing it.

 

 




 

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #42 on: 06/24/2008 07:11 am »
Its about launching AMS. Was STS-31 about jobs in your opinion? Your last two sentences are wrong.

Analyst

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #43 on: 06/24/2008 11:52 am »
This was discussed a little bit at the Port Canaveral hearing yesterday.  NASAWatch has a transcript of some of the Q&A, with a few on adding a flight for AMS:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/06/ksc_rallyhearin.html

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #44 on: 06/24/2008 11:57 am »
Interesting: "We are not hardware limited" (but fiscal).

Analyst

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #45 on: 06/24/2008 12:14 pm »
Interesting: "We are not hardware limited" (but fiscal).
Yes, as was Griffin's deadline estimate of February.  If that's the case, it doesn't seem to give the next Congress or administration much time to decide.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #46 on: 06/24/2008 12:30 pm »
The February "deadline" comes from the September 2010 deadline (18 months), which itself can (and probably will) be redecided by the next Congress or administration. In the end: plenty of time, not hardware limited.

Analyst

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #47 on: 06/24/2008 12:48 pm »
The February "deadline" comes from the September 2010 deadline (18 months), which itself can (and probably will) be redecided by the next Congress or administration. In the end: plenty of time, not hardware limited.
We disagree on the certainty of that policy change; I'm more pessimistic.   

Was going to throw away the video, but went to see if there was anything additional in the exchange.  The statement about hardware came after Senator Nelson followed up with the statement/question about the "spare" external tank that is already funded.  My inference from what Mr. Griffin and Mr. Gerstenmaier said is that given the money to fly this additional flight after the so-called CLFs and before the end of FY 2010, they would fly it without a LON shuttle.  In the case CSCS became necessary, they'd get the shuttle crew home another way.  I believe Mr. Gerstenmaier said something to the effect of alternate methods of CSCS being studied...

If the next administration more drastically alters the policy (such as to drop the FY 2010 deadline), then those logistics and fiscal issues would be shifted away from the shuttle program, probably towards Constellation.  (Congress is unlikely to craft the policy, but it will definitely vote on endorsement of it.)

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089

Offline marshallsplace

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
  • UK
    • music website
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #49 on: 06/24/2008 08:24 pm »
The Senate's authorization bill is different:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=b5f84adf-fb01-40f3-93dc-4e74d8af12b0&Month=6&Year=2008

More confusion ensues. :P


Bigger than this thread alone:

"The bill includes a number of provisions to ensure the United States has uninterrupted human access to space. Specifically, the bill would prevent the Administrator from retiring the Shuttle in 2010"

"The bill requires the agency to develop a plan to support the operations of the International Space Station beyond 2015 and to ensure the Station’s scientific capabilities are utilized to the maximum extent"

Is the reality of the gap starting to sink in?

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #50 on: 06/24/2008 08:46 pm »
Is the reality of the gap starting to sink in?
Maybe.  It depends on how strong these gestures are, and we may not know that until and unless these bills go to conference.

It has already been stated that appropriations bills for agencies such as NASA are unlikely to even be voted on this year.  Were Congress to pass this over the President's objections without any corresponding appropriations, it would just push the gap off by probably a fiscal year as it would probably end up forcing NASA to operate the shuttle through FY 2011 at the expense of Constellation.

It's definitely clear that Congress wants voters to know they strongly support NASA.  But it doesn't look like they are going to pay for it this year.

Offline marshallsplace

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
  • UK
    • music website
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #51 on: 06/25/2008 12:42 pm »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #52 on: 06/25/2008 12:48 pm »
Here's the Orlando Sentinel story:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa2508jun25,0,5874069.story

Haven't seen the text of the Senate bill yet (or the bill number)...anyone got a link?

Offline William Graham

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4183
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #53 on: 06/25/2008 01:59 pm »
This has probably already been asked, but I can't find it. Could AMS be converted to a free-flyer, and launched by a heavy ELV?

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #54 on: 06/25/2008 02:31 pm »
This has probably already been asked, but I can't find it. Could AMS be converted to a free-flyer, and launched by a heavy ELV?

Yes, with enough money (nearly) everything is possible...

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #55 on: 06/25/2008 03:37 pm »
A major problem would be the vehicle that delivers AMS to the station as it would have to meet ISS visiting vehicle requirements.  The only American vehicle that can do that is Shuttle, except for the ones that are waived.  COTS vehicles are still going through the design and verification process.  Theoretically, if any of them have the throw for such a huge payload, they could haul it up.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2125
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #56 on: 06/25/2008 04:01 pm »
AMS was designed to fly in the shuttle's payload bay. It cost enough $$$ to begin with, so modifying it would be even more awkward. The simplest soloution is to add another flight and fly it with ELC5 which is no longer on the manifest...

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #57 on: 06/25/2008 05:17 pm »
The Senate's authorization bill is different:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=b5f84adf-fb01-40f3-93dc-4e74d8af12b0&Month=6&Year=2008

More confusion ensues. :P


Bigger than this thread alone:

"The bill includes a number of provisions to ensure the United States has uninterrupted human access to space. Specifically, the bill would prevent the Administrator from retiring the Shuttle in 2010"

"The bill requires the agency to develop a plan to support the operations of the International Space Station beyond 2015 and to ensure the Station’s scientific capabilities are utilized to the maximum extent"

Is the reality of the gap starting to sink in?

Neither really has much to do with the "gap". The first paragraph continues with "...if additional missions are remaining on the manifest". So if all ISS missions are done, then it doesn't look to apply to me. It seems more a reaction against the supposedly rigid deadline for the Shuttle's retirement. Second, extending the life of the ISS beyond 2015 is an independent issue of whether there is US manned space flight in the 2010-2015+ period.
Karl Hallowell

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #58 on: 06/25/2008 07:12 pm »
From the Sentinel article, a Senate staffer says:
Quote
"We don't think that it's a decision that should be made in the near term that could affect our $100 billion investment [into the space station]."

Could someone please educate the idiotic media - and now our own Congressional staff - that $100B is not the amount of American investment in the Space Station?  If there's any shred of accuracy in it at all, one would have to include the expenditures by all of the international partners to get that amount - and probably round up a few times.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: AMS Flight Bill update
« Reply #59 on: 06/26/2008 02:25 am »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1