Jim - 4/12/2007 12:50 PMWho says AMS is more deserving of those funds?
clongton - 4/12/2007 6:49 AMIF 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.
MKremer - 3/12/2007 9:30 PMCupola will already be attached to Node 3 nadir port at launch. So not flying the Cupola would mean not flying Node 3 altogether.
Skyrocket - 4/12/2007 7:04 AMFrom 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.
Skyrocket - 4/12/2007 7:04 AMBut 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.
Jim - 4/12/2007 1:17 PMIt 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
Jim - 4/12/2007 12:50 AMQuoteavollhar - 4/12/2007 2:02 AMhttp://science.hq.nasa.gov/missions/phase.htmlCancel 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?
avollhar - 4/12/2007 2:02 AMhttp://science.hq.nasa.gov/missions/phase.htmlCancel 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.
Jorge - 3/12/2007 5:40 PMQuoteShuttleDiscovery - 3/12/2007 3:17 PMQuoteredgryphon - 3/12/2007 8:45 PMLooking 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 & ELC2STS-131/ULF4 - ICC-VLD & DCMSTS-133/ULF5 - ELC3 & ELC4You 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.
ShuttleDiscovery - 3/12/2007 3:17 PMQuoteredgryphon - 3/12/2007 8:45 PMLooking 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 & ELC2STS-131/ULF4 - ICC-VLD & DCMSTS-133/ULF5 - ELC3 & ELC4
redgryphon - 3/12/2007 8:45 PMLooking 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.
avollhar - 4/12/2007 7:38 AM1. 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.
mr.columbus - 4/12/2007 2:26 PMThis 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?
Jim - 4/12/2007 3:36 PMOther spacecraft have been left on the ground.
bobthemonkey - 4/12/2007 3:51 PMHow 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.
bobthemonkey - 4/12/2007 9:51 AMQuotemr.columbus - 4/12/2007 2:26 PMThis 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.
mr.columbus - 4/12/2007 6:11 PMSTS-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...
Blackstar - 5/12/2007 6:55 AMI'm always amazed at how easy these decisions are for people who have no idea what is actually going on...
Analyst - 5/12/2007 2:11 AMThen 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.