Author Topic: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind  (Read 24575 times)

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #60 on: 12/04/2007 11:04 am »
Quote
Jim - 4/12/2007  12:50 PM

Who says AMS is more deserving of those funds?

From a scientific point of view, each of those missions deserve funding...

But AMS has already been developed and built. And millions of Dollars have already been paid for it. To cancel it now would be a realy big waste of money.


Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #61 on: 12/04/2007 11:10 am »
Quote
clongton - 4/12/2007  6:49 AM

IF NASA revises its plans and builds the Jupiter-120, EVERYTHING that has been left behind and/or been cancelled or placed on the back burner will become viable again, including the AMS, Promethius, Lunar probes and landers, etc. The determining factor at that point will be funding, not the launch vehicle. If it weighs 47mT or less, the Jupiter-120 can place it into orbit.

I guess the question is, if NASA builds Jupiter 120 instead of Ares I, does that save enough money to pay for these post-2010 "finishing touches" for ISS? No matter what, I think we have to assume fixed budget size (and hopefully not shrinking!).

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #62 on: 12/04/2007 11:10 am »
Quote
MKremer - 3/12/2007  9:30 PM

Cupola will already be attached to Node 3 nadir port at launch. So not flying the Cupola would mean not flying Node 3 altogether.

This is incorrect, Node 3 could fly without the Cupola (as did Harmony). Also I doubt the Cupola has already been attached to Node 3. And even if this is true, it does not prevent you from detaching it.

But: Flying Node 3 without Cupola would not allow AMS to be launched. It is much heavier than the Cupola.

Jim will disagree, but I make a prediction here: One or two shuttle flights will be added beyond STS-133 (using ET-138 and 139). AMS will be launched by the shuttle. No, I have no prove, this is just my opinion based on how (technical and political) things work. Mark me.

Analyst

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #63 on: 12/04/2007 11:17 am »
Quote
Skyrocket - 4/12/2007  7:04 AM


From a scientific point of view, each of those missions deserve funding...

But AMS has already been developed and built. And millions of Dollars have already been paid for it. To cancel it now would be a realy big waste of money.


It happens to programs sometimes.  Cheaper to keep them of the ground vs flying them.  It will cost at least 500 million for an ELV launch

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #64 on: 12/04/2007 11:23 am »
Quote
Skyrocket - 4/12/2007  7:04 AM

But AMS has already been developed and built. And millions of Dollars have already been paid for it. To cancel it now would be a realy big waste of money.
The construction cost of this module is not millions; it is $1.5 billion, most of which has already been expended.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #65 on: 12/04/2007 11:35 am »
Quote
Jim - 4/12/2007  1:17 PM
It happens to programs sometimes.  Cheaper to keep them of the ground vs flying them.  It will cost at least 500 million for an ELV launch

Yes, but i find it much harder to argue, why 1.5 Billion USD shoud stay on the ground, when 25% more allow you to get the scientific results from the program.

The cost/benefit-ratio is much better, when you spend 25% more, while you get nothing for 1.5 Billion USD, when it is cancelled.


Offline avollhar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #66 on: 12/04/2007 11:38 am »
Quote
Jim - 4/12/2007  12:50 AM

Quote
avollhar - 4/12/2007  2:02 AM

http://science.hq.nasa.gov/missions/phase.html

Cancel one or two in the column 'under study', which are low priority (not JWST, as this has to urgently replace Hubble, as we know). Given the price tag of such missions of few hundred million USD, this should be enough to convert AMS to freeflyer.


Who says AMS is more deserving of those funds?

It's 95% complete and a large part of the money already spent. This should be argument enough. Again, what would people think, if this would not be AMS but JWST? I bet I know the answer..

Just because it's not astronomy or earth observation does not mean it's less important.

Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #67 on: 12/04/2007 01:26 pm »
Quote
Jorge - 3/12/2007  5:40 PM

Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 3/12/2007  3:17 PM

Quote
redgryphon - 3/12/2007  8:45 PM

Looking at the shuttle manifest, I see that there are three flights, each with 2 EXPRESS Logistics Carriers (ELCs): ULF 3, 4 and 5. However, only 5 ELCs are being built. ELC 1 is being flown on ULF 3 and 5. From what I can see on the Nasa website, the ELCs are to be installed on the ISS truss. I assume that ELC 1 will not be installed permanently on the truss on ULF 3, but will have its contents moved somewhere (an ESP, perhaps), and then brought back to KSC and prepped for ULF 5.

What I would like to know is the trade-off between flying ELC 1 twice on the one hand, and installing ELC 1 on ULF 3 and flying AMS in its place on ULF 5 on the other. The loss would be one sixth of the total ELC manifest. Could that one-sixth be comprised of the smaller ORUs launched via other means? Is the lowest priority sixth of the ELC manifest more valuable than AMS?

If that bottom sixth is truly more valuable, then I would like to know why AMS is still under construction and still expected to be shipped to KSC.

If AMS is completed, and not flown to ISS, I would hope it will be stored, with the chance of being picked up "as is" to fly as part of a new mission of some kind, similar to the 2001 Mars Lander. Subject, of course to the competiton on scientific merit.

I do not believe ELC5 is flying, as the current schedule for ULFs is:

STS-129/ULF3 - ELC1 & ELC2
STS-131/ULF4 - ICC-VLD & DCM
STS-133/ULF5 - ELC3 & ELC4

You are correct. Only ELCs 1-4 are flying, and none of them are planned to be re-flown. Therefore replacing an ELC with AMS will cut the ELC manifest by one-fourth, not one-sixth.

The initial post-accident 28-flight manifest had far more logistics flights and did contain some ORUs/logistics that could be flown on other vehicles. After the post-114 delay, the manifest was reduced to 20 flights and the ORUs/logistics were scrubbed down to the things that could only be carried by the shuttle. There is not enough "fat" left to cut to make room for AMS, just muscle and bone.

This still is no answer to the orginial question. Why is flying one of the EXPRESS payloads (which are on contingency flights anyway and thus are per se not essential to the operation of th ISS) preferable to flying AMS instead?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #68 on: 12/04/2007 01:36 pm »
Quote
avollhar - 4/12/2007  7:38 AM

1.  It's 95% complete and a large part of the money already spent. This should be argument enough. Again, what would people think, if this would not be AMS but JWST? I bet I know the answer..

2.  Just because it's not astronomy or earth observation does not mean it's less important.

1.  That still isn't a good enough reason.  Other spacecraft have been left on the ground.   The cost of launch has not been spent

2.  Has nothing to do with the type of science, it has to do with the relevance wrt other science

Offline bobthemonkey

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1056
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #69 on: 12/04/2007 01:51 pm »
Quote
mr.columbus - 4/12/2007  2:26 PM
This still is no answer to the orginial question. Why is flying one of the EXPRESS payloads (which are on contingency flights anyway and thus are per se not essential to the operation of th ISS) preferable to flying AMS instead?

How did you come to the conclusion that the EXPRESS payloads are not essential to ISS operations? They contain the spare parts that the ISS needs to function through to 2016, and can only be launched on shutte.

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #70 on: 12/04/2007 01:54 pm »
Quote
Jim - 4/12/2007  3:36 PM
Other spacecraft have been left on the ground.  

But IIRC pretty few, which are in the AMS price class.


Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #71 on: 12/04/2007 02:02 pm »
Quote
bobthemonkey - 4/12/2007  3:51 PM

How did you come to the conclusion that the EXPRESS payloads are not essential to ISS operations? They contain the spare parts that the ISS needs to function through to 2016, and can only be launched on shutte.

Less than a year ago, the two (then called) contingency flights have only been this: contingency flights. Many users here were sure they will never happen nor are they needed. Now they are so important not a single EXPRESS carrier full of ORUs out of 4 can be spared to launch AMS. What a difference a year makes. Lets see what will change in the next year.

Edit: Don't forget ICC-VLD flies on ULF-4. It will probably carry 6 batteries for P6 and some other ORUs too. And the MPLM flights can carry some ORUs too on the LMC.

Analyst

Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #72 on: 12/04/2007 04:11 pm »
Quote
bobthemonkey - 4/12/2007  9:51 AM

Quote
mr.columbus - 4/12/2007  2:26 PM
This still is no answer to the orginial question. Why is flying one of the EXPRESS payloads (which are on contingency flights anyway and thus are per se not essential to the operation of th ISS) preferable to flying AMS instead?

How did you come to the conclusion that the EXPRESS payloads are not essential to ISS operations? They contain the spare parts that the ISS needs to function through to 2016, and can only be launched on shutte.

Analyst has already answered this. STS-131 and STS-133 which shall carry 4 EXPRESS payloads were contingency flights until recently - I actually thought until Analyst's post that they still are contingency flights...

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #73 on: 12/04/2007 05:12 pm »
Quote
mr.columbus - 4/12/2007  6:11 PM

STS-131 and STS-133 which shall carry 4 EXPRESS payloads were contingency flights until recently - I actually thought until Analyst's post that they still are contingency flights...

I don't know if they are still *called* contingency flights officially. My point is: They were something remotely possible at best a year ago (contingency), now these flights are needed and flown almost for sure.

Analyst

Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2125
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #74 on: 12/04/2007 07:57 pm »
At the STS-122 confrence, someone asked Mike Sufferendi (can't spell it!) if AMS is flying. He said he cannot confirm it will put they are going to have a platform available for it with all the data connection ready so that the ISS is capable of having it.


But when? That is the only problem.. :)

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #75 on: 12/05/2007 04:04 am »
There seems to be quite a bit of political momentum growing behind the AMS like HST before it and I wouldn't be surprised if a way was found for it to go up soon. Of course it's more important than an ELC rack (!) attempting to find fundamental information about anti-matter and dark energy because there is no doubt Astrophysics have hit major roadblocks there. The ISS and NASA should be about Science too not just Exploration and perhaps when this pointless Ares I rocket is finally discarded a  better balance will be established.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #76 on: 12/05/2007 04:25 am »
Senator Nelson keeps pestering Griffin over it ;) . Just add another Shuttle mission with the flexibility that extending Atlantis gives you. The money can come out of the extra all the politicians are trying to get for NASA and if it doesn't well take it from the Exploration budget, it's not as if one extra Shuttle mission will make much material difference to that big well of money and schedule and they can even bring up more logistics with it ;) .

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #77 on: 12/05/2007 04:55 am »
I'm always amazed at how easy these decisions are for people who have no idea what is actually going on...

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #78 on: 12/05/2007 07:11 am »
Quote
Blackstar - 5/12/2007  6:55 AM

I'm always amazed at how easy these decisions are for people who have no idea what is actually going on...

Then please inform us unknowing people. :) What is going on?

As much as I like the inside knowledge of many persons posting here, sometimes I believe being inside the loop and working on specific details gets people loosing the big picture: politics, international affairs etc. AMS will be at KSC, ready for launch by early 2009. After an $1.5 billion investment. There will (and already is) much pressure to launch it.

Analyst


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #79 on: 12/05/2007 02:43 pm »
Quote
Analyst - 5/12/2007  2:11 AM
Then please inform us unknowing people. :) What is going on?

As much as I like the inside knowledge of many persons posting here, sometimes I believe being inside the loop and working on specific details gets people loosing the big picture: politics, international affairs etc. AMS will be at KSC, ready for launch by early 2009. After an $1.5 billion investment. There will (and already is) much pressure to launch it.

Read my previous posts.  There are established procedures for space science missions.  There is a detailed and time-proven method for determining which missions have the highest priority.  This process is, to the best extent that it can possibly be, not political.  Isn't that the way it should be?  Don't you want a system where _scientists_ rank scientific priorities and missions are not approved simply because some scientist has the ear of a member of Congress?  

AMS bypassed much of that process.  And--this is the key part--there is not a consensus among scientists that this is the mission most deserving of the money.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0