NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
NASA Shuttle Specific Sections => Atlantis (Post STS-135, T&R) => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 12/07/2009 04:10 am
-
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/nasa-evaluating-sts-135-addition-to-shuttle-manifest/
-
Oh this makes me smile a bit... :) Thanks for the article... be lovely to see my favorite orbiter be able to close out the SSP program.
-
if crew to be moved from STS 133 to STS 135, hope that Nicole Stott will be a favourite? She came back recently, and if she is moved to STS 135 will have more time for training?
-
This is huge, IMO. Thanks Chris.
For all the touting & pouting about shuttle & safety, to even CONSIDER this, to me indicates that the logistics nightmare of ISS is finally sinking in. I wonder who really sees this high up. Perhaps the thought of a shuttle extension is ever that much closer.
-
One has to wonder why it took so long within NASA to realize the old logistics problem and do something about it. This is not a good sign of strategic planning within the HSF part of NASA, or any planning for the matter. Sadly.
Analyst
-
One has to wonder why it took so long within NASA to realize the old logistics problem and do something about it. This is not a good sign of strategic planning within the HSF part of NASA, or any planning for the matter. Sadly.
Analyst
I don't buy that. They've been talking about this since Columbia, they've been calculating the logistics undersupply during the "gap" pretty much since then as well, they came up with COTS to help alleviate this problem, and they've removed crew and done what they could to increase upmass on the remaining shuttle flights. It's not at all like they didn't know this was coming or that they were just ignoring it.
-
One has to wonder why it took so long within NASA to realize the old logistics problem and do something about it. This is not a good sign of strategic planning within the HSF part of NASA, or any planning for the matter. Sadly.
It wasn't until around May that Obama signaled (http://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/1719586483) he would relax the Bush administration deadline. How much sooner, ballpark, could they have done this?
-
One has to wonder why it took so long within NASA to realize the old logistics problem and do something about it. This is not a good sign of strategic planning within the HSF part of NASA, or any planning for the matter. Sadly.
It wasn't until around May that Obama signaled (http://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/1719586483) he would relax the Bush administration deadline. How much sooner, ballpark, could they have done this?
I think that one will be debated for quite some time, both here and other sites. I would say this has Bolden written on it: taking affirmative action to the impending 'crisis', and crisis is what I call it & believe it is. I hope there is further discussion on exactly what the ISS logistics requirements are, the shortcomings, and making the firm decision to do what is necessary to mitigate this problem.
-
Way sooner, years sooner, in 2005 actually. They could and should have said it to Congress and the administration: "Your plan (2010) means a logistics shortfall of x tons upmass, y tons downmass, the consequences will be
1) a higher probability of ISS failing,
2) much less science being done there,
3) maybe the need for a permanent crew reduction from 6 to z,
4) the damage of our international partnership ...
We don't recommend it. Keep in mind ISS depends heavily on Shuttle. ISS is a long term investment which needs long term support"
They prefered not talking about. They prefered seeing ISS as a liability. They prefered hoping for COTS, for a miracle.
It is like a military commander not asking for the troops he needs, instead saying everything is fine, and running full speed into disaster. Because of not being man enough to ask for the recources he needs to carry out the mission given to him. This is lack of strategic planning, a lack of courage, a lack of responsibility for the country, a lack of leadership within NASA.
Analyst
PS: Could it be the moving of the crew from STS-133 to 135 indicates a move of the major mission content, e.g. the PLM? STS-133 becoming an unpressurized cargo / radiator repair mission.
-
Who actually made the 2010 retirement decision?
-
"...We don't recommend it. Keep in mind ISS depends heavily on Shuttle. ISS is a long term investment which needs long term support"
OK, I assume you're saying that Shuttle retirement policy proposed/announced by Bush in 2004 should have been returned to sender in that time frame. Can't see that flying politically in 2005, let alone now, regardless of how strong an argument it is. It might be nice if this were a rational process, but it isn't.
PS: Could it be the moving of the crew from STS-133 to 135 indicates a move of the major mission content, e.g. the PLM? STS-133 becoming an unpressurized cargo / radiator repair mission.
Assume we'll find out soon enough if this gets the green light.
-
I'd be curious to hear about crew 'rescue' on soyuz. Can the soyuz operate unmanned like the progress? I assume there's some signficant lead time to adding an extra vechile to the production line.
-
Soyuz can fly and did fly unmanned, although they likely woundn't in this case. They would use Soyuz's already planned and built, not extra ones. The chance of LON being needed is pretty much zero anyway.
Analyst
-
Who actually made the 2010 retirement decision?
We'd all love to know that, William!
-
Interesting that they are considering bumping Lindsey back to 135 ... I assume it is because he was promised command of the final shuttle mission?
If they add yet another mission, I guess Lindsey would be bumped back to that one as well?
-
Who actually made the 2010 retirement decision?
We'd all love to know that, William!
The CAIB report recommended that if the Shuttle continued to fly past 2010 that all the Shuttle systems had to be requalified. NASA administrator, Sean O'Keefe, then decided that the Shuttle would not fly after 2010.
-
This short "history" leaves out many important things.
Analyst
-
Interesting that they are considering bumping Lindsey back to 135 ... I assume it is because he was promised command of the final shuttle mission?
If they add yet another mission, I guess Lindsey would be bumped back to that one as well?
I think Steve Lindsey is fairly determined to command the final shuttle mission - whatever, or whenever, it is.
-
Very interesting development. An extra flight at minimal marginal cost -- orbiter processing already paid for, external tank and SRBs already paid for etc. Not sure I'd even call it an extension -- more like making actual use of standby items already budgeted for.
The obvious question then becomes whether this was proposed because the odds of more substantial extension were taken to be low and this was the best way to get approval for an additional shuttle flight?
-
The obvious question then becomes whether this was proposed because the odds of more substantial extension were taken to be low and this was the best way to get approval for an additional shuttle flight?
No, the biggest reason is they are seriously lacking up-mas to the ISS, plain and simple. Even this one shuttle flight doesn't solve it, but it definitely helps.
-
The obvious question then becomes whether this was proposed because the odds of more substantial extension were taken to be low and this was the best way to get approval for an additional shuttle flight?
No, the biggest reason is they are seriously lacking up-mas to the ISS, plain and simple. Even this one shuttle flight doesn't solve it, but it definitely helps.
It'll be nice having that major down-mass availability on the final flight as well. That's why I think the payload order will remain as is - PMM on 133 & MPLM on 135.
-
The obvious question then becomes whether this was proposed because the odds of more substantial extension were taken to be low and this was the best way to get approval for an additional shuttle flight?
No, the biggest reason is they are seriously lacking up-mas to the ISS, plain and simple. Even this one shuttle flight doesn't solve it, but it definitely helps.
Robert,
I was not commenting upon or questioning the operational need for one, three, six, or even 36 additional shuttle flights to the ISS. Rather I was wondering what this says about political/budgetary environment in which the shuttle exists. Sometimes government agencies, or parts of government agencies, start showing interest in specific scaled-down plans when it becomes clear to their leadership that the chances of getting something more are remote or non-existent. Thus my question whether this reflects a new awareness by the senior shuttle folks about the odds of a substantial extension.
MPL
-
The obvious question then becomes whether this was proposed because the odds of more substantial extension were taken to be low and this was the best way to get approval for an additional shuttle flight?
No, the biggest reason is they are seriously lacking up-mas to the ISS, plain and simple. Even this one shuttle flight doesn't solve it, but it definitely helps.
Robert,
I was not commenting upon or questioning the operational need for one, three, six, or even 36 additional shuttle flights to the ISS. Rather I was wondering what this says about political/budgetary environment in which the shuttle exists. Sometimes government agencies, or parts of government agencies, start showing interest in specific scaled-down plans when it becomes clear to their leadership that the chances of getting something more are remote or non-existent. Thus my question whether this reflects a new awareness by the senior shuttle folks about the odds of a substantial extension.
MPL
Oh okay.
Well I think it does, when everything up until the Griffin/Bolden handover seems to have been about continuing down the path to shuttle asset destruction (which is still happening, let's not kid ourselves). What we need, and have always needed, is someone (from within NASA, IE: Bolden) to come out and actually say 'Politicians, we have a problem, and we need to change our short-term focus'.
-
What we need, and have always needed, is someone (from within NASA, IE: Bolden) to come out and actually say 'Politicians, we have a problem, and we need to change our short-term focus'.
I wonder how politically doable that is. If a brand new administrator comes out and says we have a problem of this magnitude, wouldn't that be interpreted as "and it was caused by the last administrator"? How much of a political faux pas is something like that? Not that I'm saying it shouldn't be done....
-
What we need, and have always needed, is someone (from within NASA, IE: Bolden) to come out and actually say 'Politicians, we have a problem, and we need to change our short-term focus'.
I wonder how politically doable that is. If a brand new administrator comes out and says we have a problem of this magnitude, wouldn't that be interpreted as "and it was caused by the last administrator"? How much of a political faux pas is something like that? Not that I'm saying it shouldn't be done....
The truth hurts, plain and simple.
-
I'd be curious to hear about crew 'rescue' on soyuz. Can the soyuz operate unmanned like the progress? I assume there's some signficant lead time to adding an extra vechile to the production line.
Indeed, Soyuz can fly unmanned (and it can also fly manned and yet be fully operated from ground control, should the need arise). Please notice that the STS-135 would fly with only four astronauts, as a result there would be no need to fly upwards an unmanned Soyuz. There would be no new vehicle, and no change to the manifest. Only some cosmonauts delayed and some cargo containers flying up in their place.
LON from Shuttle are no longer under consideration, as I have indicated on my messages (which have been moved to the ISS Q&A thread, page 85). We all know that a Shuttle contingency would mean the end of the program. Also, not necessarily a Shuttle contingency would mean the need to bring Earth a number of "stranded" astronauts. The foam issue is kept under control, of course it's always possible a "bad" event - especially in the case of multiple tankings which cause foam liberation (but, now, most pieces are small / won't fall on critical areas / will detach late enough) and it's also possible a micrometeoroid impact; still, these are unlikely, and in addition, it's possible to repair in orbit (doing EVA as needed) the thermal protection systems. On the other hand, the cocktail of metal fatigue and of contact with countless chemicals beyond the design (due to changes in formulation of just about anything along the years) is what in the usa is called "Russian roulette"; also notice the orbiters were never designed to stay in service for this long. In the 70s and 80s, they were said to be designed for a hundred flight with a turnaround time of two weeks. While everyone knew it was optimistic, no one envisioned 25 year old orbiters to be in service. It is hard to protect against the "next thing" which no one can really predict... it's what we don't know, that can bite us. It is well known that if there is a contingency now, it may not be of those that leave us in the LUCKY situation of a crowded ISS.
-
Great article Chris as usual! However a few general questions.
- Will 133 still fly with the PMM? Or will 135 fly the PMM?
- If no to the above question, couldn't they convert another MPLM (Raffaello) to a PMM on STS-135 and attach it to the Space Station?
- Why is Steve Lindsey penciled in as STS-135's commander? Wouldn't it just be easier to selected a whole new crew then take a few members from STS-133 and put them on STS-135?
-
Who actually made the 2010 retirement decision?
We'd all love to know that, William!
The CAIB report recommended that if the Shuttle continued to fly past 2010 that all the Shuttle systems had to be requalified. NASA administrator, Sean O'Keefe, then decided that the Shuttle would not fly after 2010.
OSP was still in the works.
-
Great article Chris as usual! However a few general questions.
- Will 133 still fly with the PMM? Or will 135 fly the PMM?
- If no to the above question, couldn't they convert another MPLM (Raffaello) to a PMM on STS-135 and attach it to the Space Station?
- Why is Steve Lindsey penciled in as STS-135's commander? Wouldn't it just be easier to selected a whole new crew then take a few members from STS-133 and put them on STS-135?
Thanks :)
1) PMM still on 133, and no word of that changing.
2) Not heard any suggestion that's viable/needed etc.
3) I don't know, but having the head astro landing the final shuttle mission is obviously something that stands out as a potential reason.
I'm sure we'll get a lot more on this as they evaluate it, and we'll update as we receive it.
-
Great article Chris as usual! However a few general questions.
- Will 133 still fly with the PMM? Or will 135 fly the PMM?
- If no to the above question, couldn't they convert another MPLM (Raffaello) to a PMM on STS-135 and attach it to the Space Station?
- Why is Steve Lindsey penciled in as STS-135's commander? Wouldn't it just be easier to selected a whole new crew then take a few members from STS-133 and put them on STS-135?
Thanks :)
1) PMM still on 133, and no word of that changing.
2) Not heard any suggestion that's viable/needed etc.
3) I don't know, but having the head astro landing the final shuttle mission is obviously something that stands out as a potential reason.
I'm sure we'll get a lot more on this as they evaluate it, and we'll update as we receive it.
2. Heard earlier that a second PMM will not happen.
Now, how confident are people with NASA of this flight becoming a reality?
-
1) PMM still on 133, and no word of that changing.
I'm sure we'll get a lot more on this as they evaluate it, and we'll update as we receive it.
The last STS 335 update had noted a concern about having PMM and MPLM on the station at the same time due to software conflicts. Has this been resolved, or is it one of those things on their "to do list" to make STS 135 work?
-
1) PMM still on 133, and no word of that changing.
I'm sure we'll get a lot more on this as they evaluate it, and we'll update as we receive it.
The last STS 335 update had noted a concern about having PMM and MPLM on the station at the same time due to software conflicts. Has this been resolved, or is it one of those things on their "to do list" to make STS 135 work?
That's what I'm wondering also. If the conflict can't be resolved, I guess they could keep the PMM on 133 and just swap 135 and 133 -- thus making the flight order STS-134, STS-135, STS-133.
-
If Atlantis flies after Discovery as the last mission, will NASA fit Atlantis with Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer system (SSPTS) taken out from Endeavour or Discovery?
-
If Atlantis flies after Discovery as the last mission, will NASA fit Atlantis with Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer system (SSPTS) taken out from Endeavour or Discovery?
More than likely that they won't. The missions they are talking about are only 10+1 days, or thereabouts, not enough to warrant them moving the SSPTS.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
If Atlantis flies after Discovery as the last mission, will NASA fit Atlantis with Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer system (SSPTS) taken out from Endeavour or Discovery?
Highly unlikely given cost & time, but primarily due to lack of necessity. The currently baselined final mission (133) is set at 8+1 days, so SSPTS wouldn't needed anyway if 135 is set for the same (or near) duration.
-
If Atlantis flies after Discovery as the last mission, will NASA fit Atlantis with Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer system (SSPTS) taken out from Endeavour or Discovery?
Highly unlikely given cost & time, but primarily due to lack of necessity. The currently baselined final mission (133) is set at 8+1 days, so SSPTS wouldn't needed anyway if 135 is set for the same (or near) duration.
Is STS 133 baselined as 8+1 or 10+1? I thought it was 10+1. Nevertheless I got your point. Thanks
-
Is STS 133 baselined as 8+1 or 10+1? I thought it was 10+1.
It was 10+1 for a time, but is currently 8+1.
-
If STS 135 gets a go, then there will be 6 shuttle flights at least remaining. Wonder whether those 6 can be spread out?
1. Earlier, I thought that NASA has a firm deadline to finish before 30 Sept. 2010. Now it seems there is no such "hard" deadline. Apart from STS 130, as I see all others are mainly logistics missions to replenish the station. Waiting for some time could turn out to be advantageous? Ex. STS 125. The mission was delayed. Hubble broke down and planners had time to reevaluate the mission.
2. Hence 4 shuttle flights for 2010 and 2 for 2011?
I am an outsider, and have no idea of whether this is a good thing to do or not
-
That's what I'm wondering also. If the conflict can't be resolved, I guess they could keep the PMM on 133 and just swap 135 and 133 -- thus making the flight order STS-134, STS-135, STS-133.
The problem they face with switching order is LON for STS-133 as the last flight. It it is moved to become the last flight again and remain a 6 person crew they need to come up with a new LON plan with the Russians.
I think they'll rather move the PMM to STS-135 in that case.
-
Sure would love to see that last Shuttle mission launch on April 12, 2011... :-)
That would be awesome :D So long as we can persuade the major broadcasters, media etc towards our specialised knowledge/shuttle geekery (delete as appropriate) ways of thinking and keep pushing the science and technology and engineering achievements. Otherwise the danger is commemoration of a 30-years-old shuttle program being marked by however many celebrity nobodies they can drag out of the woodwork to tell us where they were for STS-1.
-
Errr, I think the bigger milestone will be 50th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's Vostok 1 flight. Not that there will be too many celebrity nobodies able to remember that... ;)
-
Sure would love to see that last Shuttle mission launch on April 12, 2011... :-)
Better if that was the landing date - then the programme would have been operational for exactly 30 years. :-)
-
Sure would love to see that last Shuttle mission launch on April 12, 2011... :-)
Better if that was the landing date - then the programme would have been operational for exactly 30 years. :-)
I'll trade the last launch and/or landing on any particular anniversary date for getting the STS-135 mission.
-
Another STS-135 reference, and "maybe more".
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/nasa-direction-extra-shuttle-flights-commerical-launcher/
-
If there are most flights to come after STS 135, then would NASA have to re plan STS 133 - 135 very soon? Currently STS 133-STS 135 seems more like winding down missions with less crew and less mission duration?. In case of additional flights can be flown, why not making STS 133-135 more like the missions they flew in the recent period?.
-
If there are most flights to come after STS 135, then would NASA have to re plan STS 133 - 135 very soon? Currently STS 133-STS 135 seems more like winding down missions with less crew and less mission duration?. In case of additional flights can be flown, why not making STS 133-135 more like the missions they flew in the recent period?.
Officially I don't think there would be any planning until the green light is given for STS-135 etc. On the other side of that, I know I would always be planning for all possibilities given the current state of things whether it is 1, 2, or 3 missions added to the schedule.
-
Wonder what Astronaut Steven Lindsey is thinking at the moment? Am I flying on STS 133, 135, 136 or ...........
-
Who actually made the 2010 retirement decision?
Technically, the person who made the decision was the POTUS in 2004.
Who advised that person to make that decision is not known to me.
-
Who actually made the 2010 retirement decision?
Technically, the person who made the decision was the POTUS in 2004.
Who advised that person to make that decision is not known to me.
When it comes to 2010, it wasn't done in a vacuum. Knowing that the space shuttle must fly again to complete ISS since that is the only way it can be done, the policy wonks in cunjunction with the CAIB asked when could the ISS reasonably be completed? The answer was 2010.
That was how the line in the sand was drawn. Not because the ships are degrading, falling apart or near the end of their structural lives. For those wanting to make sure it was the end, they latch on to statements about "recertification", which were deliberately vague were placed in various reports only as a recommendation. The problem those critics will have is we have completed nearly everything that one could define as recertification over the last six years.
-
For those wanting to make sure it was the end, they latch on to statements about "recertification", which were deliberately vague were placed in various reports only as a recommendation.
And to have even more insurance they did cancel as much contracts as possible, as early as possible, and did destroy as much assets as possible, as early as possible. Burn the land and boil the sea. Would be really funny - and costly sadly - if all the destructive action were still not enough. Would give me some hope sane people still can prevail.
Analyst
-
Will anyone tell me what are the odds of adding STS-135?
-
Odds are good.
-
No suprise with this, just confirms the purchase of the boosters as 335:
CONTRACT RELEASE: C09-057
NASA BUYS ADDITIONAL SPACE SHUTTLE REUSABLE SOLID ROCKET MOTORS
WASHINGTON -- NASA has purchased two reusable solid rocket motors from
ATK Launch Systems Inc. of Brigham City, Utah, to provide a "launch
on need" rescue capability for the final planned space shuttle
mission, targeted for September 2010.
The reusable solid rocket motors are the propellant-loaded sections of
the solid rocket boosters that provide thrust for the first two
minutes of a shuttle flight. The $64.6 million modification brings
the total value of the contract, which was awarded in October 1998,
to $4.1 billion and covers work started in February to produce and
transport the two motors.
Work will be performed at the contractor's plants in Brigham City and
Clearfield, Utah, and facilities at NASA's Marshall Space Flight
Center in Huntsville, Ala., and Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
-
No suprise with this, just confirms the purchase of the boosters as 335:
CONTRACT RELEASE: C09-057
NASA BUYS ADDITIONAL SPACE SHUTTLE REUSABLE SOLID ROCKET MOTORS
WASHINGTON -- NASA has purchased two reusable solid rocket motors from
ATK Launch Systems Inc. of Brigham City, Utah, to provide a "launch
on need" rescue capability for the final planned space shuttle
mission, targeted for September 2010.
The reusable solid rocket motors are the propellant-loaded sections of
the solid rocket boosters that provide thrust for the first two
minutes of a shuttle flight. The $64.6 million modification brings
the total value of the contract, which was awarded in October 1998,
to $4.1 billion and covers work started in February to produce and
transport the two motors.
Work will be performed at the contractor's plants in Brigham City and
Clearfield, Utah, and facilities at NASA's Marshall Space Flight
Center in Huntsville, Ala., and Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
Guess they'll be hiring some of the workers back now?? lol
IMO, perfect opportunity for a shuttle extension...but that's OT for this thread.
-
Guess they'll be hiring some of the workers back now?? lol
IMO, perfect opportunity for a shuttle extension...but that's OT for this thread.
Actually they just announced another 800 layoffs at ATK over the next 6 months.
-
Yeah, it's going to take more than just STS-335/STS-135 to reverse the cull.
-
Guess they'll be hiring some of the workers back now?? lol
IMO, perfect opportunity for a shuttle extension...but that's OT for this thread.
Actually they just announced another 800 layoffs at ATK over the next 6 months.
Those were the ones I was talking about.
Maybe they won't bring any back.
-
A wikipedia article on STS 135
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-135
It mentions as a limitation that "Atlantis may also be considered the "least fit" of the orbiters, as it was discovered to have unrepairable tank issues and a host of other problems which caused extreme repair following its STS-125 flight"
Can some one comment on the correctness of this statement ? (No references are given in the article)
As the article says if Atlantis has some serious problems, then why would NASA use it to fly STS 135?
-
The OMDP timelines are good and have even been extended of late - and I assume they are talking COPVs, which was solved via age-life testing at White Sands a few years ago.
-
A wikipedia article on STS 135
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-135
It mentions as a limitation that "Atlantis may also be considered the "least fit" of the orbiters, as it was discovered to have unrepairable tank issues and a host of other problems which caused extreme repair following its STS-125 flight"
Can some one comment on the correctness of this statement ? (No references are given in the article)
As the article says if Atlantis has some serious problems, then why would NASA use it to fly STS 135?
Well, if it were in that bad of shape it wouldn't have flown STS-129. I think that shows how reliable a source Wikipedia is......
-
There is truth to the fact that Atlantis is the "least fit" of the orbiters, although many issues have been worked out and things don't look nearly as bad as they did some time ago. It is of course garbage to imply that Atlantis is not fit enough to fly the 135 mission. If you are into Wikipedia, you should edit that.
The STS-135 mission (and also possibly 136 and 137) are in limbo, they are not funded and it is not known to anyone if they will become real. The decision makers will certainly wait and see what will be of the STS program in the 2010 fiscal year. If the program goes smoothly and with no large slips (this is why it's important to assess docked operations etc.) then 135 has some good chance of flying. That it will be Atlantis to fly it, at present, is not as sure as it may seem, and it is total speculation to figure out if the extension - if any - will be one flight, two flight, three flights. Officially the "LON" for all missions will be funded, but even now, people dont really rely on that. What is clear is that the STS program will not be able to function for long on two orbiters, but, that is not going to happen anyway no matter what.
-
A wikipedia article on STS 135
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-135
It mentions as a limitation that "Atlantis may also be considered the "least fit" of the orbiters, as it was discovered to have unrepairable tank issues and a host of other problems which caused extreme repair following its STS-125 flight"
Can some one comment on the correctness of this statement ? (No references are given in the article)
As the article says if Atlantis has some serious problems, then why would NASA use it to fly STS 135?
Well, if it were in that bad of shape it wouldn't have flown STS-129. I think that shows how reliable a source Wikipedia is......
Indeed. As several of the industry professionals here on NSF have said many times, Wikipedia is not reliable when it comes to space-related facts.
-
Nor do the issues with Atlantis have anything to do with STS-125 or with the workflow that was done after that mission.
-
When will a firm decision on STS-135 come out ? Assuming that NASA hopes to launch it in late 2010 or early 2011, will it have enough time?
-
Yes, there will be enough time if they decide to; and this is most certainly the case for sts-135 as Atlantis is supposed to undergo nominal processing flow after sts-132 and be configured for logistic carrier. This is officially because of STS-335 LON. All this is already paid for. (But, there is no authorization at the moment to launch without a LON, and in addition there is no authorization at the moment to fly any sts mission without another shuttle standing by for LON).
It is true that the time for the two possible other extra flights (with completion of the ETs) is starting to run short, but even for them, there would be time. Except that the political will, which was low to begin with, is even less than it was, so, at this point their likelyhood is low, but not for technical reasons.
-
Yes, there will be enough time if they decide to; and this is most certainly the case for sts-135 as Atlantis is supposed to undergo nominal processing flow after sts-132 and be configured for logistic carrier. This is officially because of STS-335 LON. All this is already paid for. (But, there is no authorization at the moment to launch without a LON, and in addition there is no authorization at the moment to fly any sts mission without another shuttle standing by for LON).
There is even a risk to STS-135. The LON requirement can only go away if there is a viable alternative plan with a good paper trail for a Soyuz rescue in place. And while the Russians nod all the time and say they can do that, they aren't exactly keen on spending money on doing the required paperwork. Yes, Soyuz has been launched unmanned before and docked, but the last time I know of was Soyuz-20 (which docked to Salyut 4) back in 1976. Even at a low crew size of 5 (I doubt they go to 4) on STS-135, it would be critical to get the next Soyuz up quickly and unmanned, dock it and get the STS-135 crewmembers back (first 2 crew members from STS-135 get back on one of the already docked Soyuz).
So at the end it all boils down to how cooperative the Russians are, not so much on what NASA does.
-
I would not say there is a "risk" to sts-135 as it was never really a done deal at any point, I agree with you its likelyhood is low. The Russians nod but are unlikely to certify (and they have a point: is the Shuttle certified for a LON, after all? Did it ever successfully demonstrate such capability? And should this certification be done for increasing confidence in a single emergency rescue which would address very few of the possible failure modes, namely a MMOD or spacejunk that strikes the TPS so badly that it can not be reliably repaired.... The capability won't be useful again in the rest of life of ISS, and to say it all, in the rest of life of the Soyuz program.)
It is also not very likely that they send up an unmanned Soyuz if there is no immediate urgency.... more likely they send one crewmember on the next Soyuz which was supposed to do crew rotation and another one on the following.
I am confident it is possible to fly the orbiter with 4 crew, adding time for undocked operations, but I am not sure what would be more advisable. Already 5 people is a "skeleton" crew for the ISS missions + undocked ops.
-
Indeed. As several of the industry professionals here on NSF have said many times, Wikipedia is not reliable when it comes to space-related facts.
Look, we're doing our best, OK? For instance, I just completed a THREE YEAR stint of work to get the International Space Station article up to featured article status. We don't get paid for this, you know. In reality, the STS-135 article shouldn't really exist as it has hardly any citations, but we kept it due to the likelihood at the time of the mission going ahead. Of course, given that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, feel free to correct it; as we're reminded many times in The Wikipedia Revolution: How We Are Editing Reality, if you see something on an article that's wrong and you leave it, its officially your fault that its there.
Please stop bashing us; we're working on this on a voluntary basis.
-
Look, we're doing our best, OK? For instance, I just completed a THREE YEAR stint of work to get the International Space Station article up to featured article status. We don't get paid for this, you know. In reality, the STS-135 article shouldn't really exist as it has hardly any citations, but we kept it due to the likelihood at the time of the mission going ahead.
Fair enough.
In my opinion, the issue is not with the source (Wikipedia), but the consumers of the source. It's just the same old problem of "I read it on [source], so it must be true." Same could be said for other media like the New York Times, Washington Times, ABC News, CNN, Fox News, etc.
Of course, given that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, feel free to correct it; as we're reminded many times in The Wikipedia Revolution: How We Are Editing Reality, if you see something on an article that's wrong and you leave it, its officially your fault that its there.
Ouch. If the implication is that I'm obligated to fix any errors on a site, that's just incentive for me to stop visiting there. But I don't agree that I am.
-
Drop the LON "requirement" for the last Shuttle mission and you are done. Should the orbiter be unable to return - the probability being pretty much zero anyway - this can (and will) be handled. No partner - not the Russians or others - will refuse to help in this highly unlikely szenario. Asking them to plan for this in advance (and invest real own money) is a lot to ask for.
Or more simply: Stop being extremely risk averse and you can achieve much more. (This being true for CxP as well).
Analyst
-
I would not say there is a "risk" to sts-135 as it was never really a done deal at any point, I agree with you its likelyhood is low. The Russians nod but are unlikely to certify (and they have a point: is the Shuttle certified for a LON, after all? Did it ever successfully demonstrate such capability? And should this certification be done for increasing confidence in a single emergency rescue which would address very few of the possible failure modes, namely a MMOD or spacejunk that strikes the TPS so badly that it can not be reliably repaired.... The capability won't be useful again in the rest of life of ISS, and to say it all, in the rest of life of the Soyuz program.)
It is also not very likely that they send up an unmanned Soyuz if there is no immediate urgency.... more likely they send one crewmember on the next Soyuz which was supposed to do crew rotation and another one on the following.
I am confident it is possible to fly the orbiter with 4 crew, adding time for undocked operations, but I am not sure what would be more advisable. Already 5 people is a "skeleton" crew for the ISS missions + undocked ops.
The problem is, you need the paper trail for a viable emergency scenario to fly STS-135 without a LON, as said above. The reason I was talking about an uncrewed Soyuz flight is as follows: once a no-return for the Shuttle is issued for STS-135, you lose your lifeboat on the ISS too, because there will be more people on the ISS than Soyuz seats. And you can't launch a new Soyuz earlier than currently planned. That means a Soyuz launch every 3 months. The Shuttle cannot stay at the ISS for that long. It would be undocked. In case of an emergency on the ISS, you are now several Soyuz seats short, also putting the Russian crew members at risk, as more people will be trying to get to the 2 Soyuz spacecrafts than can actually get in there.
A possible emergency rescue scenario with Soyuz that eliminates the lifeboat risk is as follows:
a. Crew of 4 on STS-135
b. Crew on ISS before STS-135, only 5 (one US slot not taken but paid for)
c. One Soyuz ready to be launched unmanned within 2 weeks from STS-135 launch
This would result in no lifeboat seat short-comings, however has the disadvantage of a temporarily cut-down of the permanent crew size to 5 (although we just did that without a real reason), requires the Russians to come up with a sufficient paper trail to emulate Soyuz-20, requires the minimum crew size for docking on the last Shuttle flight and schedule coordination of STS-135 with Soyuz.
The efforts required may just be higher than the benefits if you look at it from a STS program management perspective.
-
Why do we plan for multiple worst case failures at the same time? E.g. when your launch vehicle fails, your have a LAS. But if the LAS fails, you don't have a second one.
Here we go to extremes to achieve this: When Shuttle is damaged, you have ISS save heaven for a very long time. You don't plan for ISS evacuation given the Shuttle is damaged. These two together won't happen with any meaningful probability.
Analyst
-
The efforts required may just be higher than the benefits if you look at it from a STS program management perspective.
Right, and this is why the possibility is losing favor even if the funding for the flight would mostly be there.
If there is a contingency of the Shuttle, full evacuation capability is lost. This in all scenarios, including the Shuttle rescue. Either a or b would be implemented certainly on sts-135 but that would not eliminate the loss of emergency seats; there would be ten astronauts on the ISS and two Soyuzes for a total of six seats. The two Soyuzes currently planned at April and June would fly (basically on the same date, as it's not possible to speed them up very much) with only one cosmonaut and so the full lifeboat capability would be restored. Probably one of the Soyuz that are supposed to stay docked would fly back, cutting short the expedition of three crewmembers, in order to reduce wear on the ISS that with 10 people and no orbiter would be put to the test (and with no emergency capability). The Orbiter would be jettisoned just a little bit later than at end of nominal mission (especially if it were Atlantis that has no power transfer system)
Unmanned Soyuz would be sent up only in very exceptional cases, as it does not make much of a difference. There is no way to fit 4 people on a Soyuz for landing.
I agree with Analyst on his previous post and the one he wrote while I was typing this, but, someone among the decisionmakers at NASA must say so (do i remember right that even the Congress was involved in the requirement of a LON for every shuttle flight and must waive?)
-
The efforts required may just be higher than the benefits if you look at it from a STS program management perspective.
Right, and this is why the possibility is losing favor even if the funding for the flight would mostly be there.
What is your source for this (losing favor)?
-
Why do we plan for multiple worst case failures at the same time? E.g. when your launch vehicle fails, your have a LAS. But if the LAS fails, you don't have a second one.
Here we go to extremes to achieve this: When Shuttle is damaged, you have ISS save heaven for a very long time. You don't plan for ISS evacuation given the Shuttle is damaged. These two together won't happen with any meaningful probability.
Analyst
We plan for ISS evacuation in an emergency situation right now, for every single day. Changing that is a fundamental shift in policy, no matter how slim the chances are that the ISS has to be evacuated at any given point. The lesson from Mir is that you don't want to give up your lifeboat safety option - ever.
Your argument basically goes to the question of why we have LON at all. If we were less risk averse, we could just fly without the LON requirement and put a generic "Soyuz-rescue" back up in place which abandons the principle of Soyuz-lifeboat at all time. NASA doesn't want that and from a program management view I sympathize with them.
We can start to be less risk averse when we don't have any other choice. But with the ISS and the Shuttle LON requirement we don't need to, LON provides for a good rescue scenario. Soyuz not so much.
-
I disagree. We "need to" if we want to use all the assets (ET-122) we have. You are planning for multiple failures occuring at once. Which is costly, and therefore seldom done.
It being done here is the reason why many worthy things are not done, including one single flight without LON after more than 100 of these were flown in over two decades. The last percentage digit of safety always is the most expensive. This is were risk aversion turns into waste. Same for CxP Orion/Ares I.
Analyst
-
I disagree. We "need to" if we want to use all the assets (ET-122) we have. You are planning for multiple failures occuring at once. Which is costly, and therefore seldom done.
It being done here is the reason why many worthy things are not done, including one single flight without LON after more than 100 of these were flown in over two decades. The last percentage digit of safety always is the most expensive. This is were risk aversion turns into waste. Same for CxP Orion/Ares I.
Analyst
I disagree with the notion we can just fly one single last flight without LON. NASA has decided to implement the LON requirement for good reason and shouldn't abandon it without good reason. Bringing some upmass to the ISS with STS-135 isn't a good reason enough.
-
Soyuz has been launched unmanned before and docked, but the last time I know of was Soyuz-20 (which docked to Salyut 4) back in 1976.
The last Unmanned Soyuz mission was Soyuz TM-1 (May 23-29, 1986)....Mission to MIR.
-
I disagree with the notion we can just fly one single last flight without LON. NASA has decided to implement the LON requirement for good reason and shouldn't abandon it without good reason. Bringing some upmass to the ISS with STS-135 isn't a good reason enough.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. The requirement isn't launch-on-need, it's safe return of the crew. The purpose of Shuttle LON is safe return of a crew stranded on the station in the event the previous Shuttle orbiter is judged unsafe for entry. Flying a smaller Shuttle crew and altering Soyuz crew rotation sizes can provide the same safe return capability, so that part of the "trade space" is a wash.
The trade isn't safe crew return vs. station logistics, it's other things, which may or may not be purely fiscal or logical.
-
When will we know for sure whether STS-135 will fly or STS-133 will be the last shuttle flight? When will NASA officially announce ?
-
I'll write it up, but we have documentation from this week (L2) referencing 135 and the decision timeline (late Spring).
-
When will we know for sure whether STS-135 will fly or STS-133 will be the last shuttle flight? When will NASA officially announce ?
To add (well, maybe...) to Chris's answer, it's going to be dependent on factors that are still variable. IMO, one of those is how much money Shuttle Operations is given in the budget for FY 2011; we'll see what the administration proposes next week.
-
Upmass, and no close LON since RTF. I'd go for this.
-
The efforts required may just be higher than the benefits if you look at it from a STS program management perspective.
Right, and this is why the possibility is losing favor even if the funding for the flight would mostly be there.
What is your source for this (losing favor)?
Not always people want to appear on NSF (or elsewhere, for what matters) with full name and details, but, you can check the "unconfirmed rumors" with your own sources. Sure I'm not going to burn mine.
STS-135 is not dead, as other people claim in the budget threads. If the manifest proceeds smoothly and there are no large delays, it still has good chances of flying. NASA already has successfully added to the manifest the two "contingency" logistic missions. (I won't get into the AMS-2 because that's a whole different story, there was huge lobbying, and, it should have been common sense.) It is quite possible that STS-135, which is mostly funded anyway (as a LON), will be sold, in the view of the ISS extension likely to be beyond 2020, and in front of a reliance upon Soyuz vehicle which is anyway going to be a fact after the last Shuttle flight. While the NASA incapability of telling the public and the politicians how much it costs to fly a space shuttle mission, after flying quite a few of those (that's what happened with STS-134 basically) is unpleasant and annoying, as long as the manifest holds and everything goes smoothly as it has been going for some time, STS-135 still has good chances. It's not a done deal, though, not by any means.
Other extensions are by now quite dead.
-
What is your source for this (losing favor)?
Not always people want to appear on NSF (or elsewhere, for what matters) with full name and details, but, you can check the "unconfirmed rumors" with your own sources. Sure I'm not going to burn mine.
STS-135 is not dead, as other people claim in the budget threads. If the manifest proceeds smoothly and there are no large delays, it still has good chances of flying.
Which contradicts the assertion it was losing favor. It's up in the air or TBD, but that's not the same thing, either.
-
I disagree. We "need to" if we want to use all the assets (ET-122) we have. You are planning for multiple failures occuring at once. Which is costly, and therefore seldom done.
It being done here is the reason why many worthy things are not done, including one single flight without LON after more than 100 of these were flown in over two decades. The last percentage digit of safety always is the most expensive. This is were risk aversion turns into waste. Same for CxP Orion/Ares I.
Analyst
I disagree with the notion we can just fly one single last flight without LON. NASA has decided to implement the LON requirement for good reason and shouldn't abandon it without good reason. Bringing some upmass to the ISS with STS-135 isn't a good reason enough.
The LON was implemented because of emotion after the Columbia tragedy, one may argue that when it did make sense to consider a LON (precisely the Columbia) no action was taken and the crew was not even informed, but the damage was downplayed also to them. In any case, after Columbia, if there had been non-repairable damage to reentry systems, a LON would have flown, if technically possible. (And then the program would likely have been terminated). At this point, it is far from obvious that a LON would be flown. Likely the program would end there, the Orbiter would be jettisoned or perhaps an unmanned landing attempted, the LON would stand by while alternatives are explored and carried out.
Really the LON requirement does not have a lot of ground. If a vehicle is not safe enough to rely upon itself, you send up two of them, simultaneously, in an emergency, and while one of them is in avaria? (And to top it off - when you never, ever, sent up two simultaneously under normal operations?) If a vehicle is not safe enough to rely upon itself, one can improve safety, can abandon the vehicle, can live with the risk, but, a LON is not really useful to improve the chances, except in very unlikely situations.
-
Which contradicts the assertion it was losing favor. It's up in the air or TBD, but that's not the same thing, either.
psloss I am not a native english speaker and so may be I explained myself badly (sorry about that), what I meant to say is that a number of weeks ago its chances to fly looked a little bit better than they are now, and that the reason is exclusively political / management, not any technical reason.
-
Really the LON requirement does not have a lot of ground. If a vehicle is not safe enough to rely upon itself, you send up two of them, simultaneously, in an emergency, and while one of them is in avaria? (And to top it off - when you never, ever, sent up two simultaneously under normal operations?) If a vehicle is not safe enough to rely upon itself, one can improve safety, can abandon the vehicle, can live with the risk, but, a LON is not really useful to improve the chances, except in very unlikely situations.
I have to disagree with this. LON is not the only precautionary measure that was implemented after the loss of Columbia. Many others mitigate the risks that the orbiters will encounter during launch, orbit and landing. That said, the chances that an LON would be needed are already VERY slim. It's there for that just-in-case scenario that you hope never happens. Think about it - If the chances of just ONE orbiter encountering problems requiring LON are so slim, think of how slim the chances that TWO orbiters would encounter that sort of damage in two consecutive flights. They're slim to just above none.
Also, it has nothing to do with a vehicle not being able to rely on itself or not. It has everything to do with risk of debris encountered by that vehicle. Foam from the ET is not the only risk factor here. You have to consider MMOD. The foam issue has been dealt with for the most part and we have not seen significant damage since STS-107. That says that the vehicle can be much safer than they ever aspired to make it before. Now it burrows down to risk. It's much lower than it was before Columbia, and if a rescue mission was never needed in 111 successful flights beforehand in an era that was much more dangerous than the one we live in today, it probably won't be needed in the era in which the shuttle is at its safest. But it's there, just in case.
-
Sure, many other measures have been taken, I have not directed my comment towards them, in fact the safety of the system has been, under many aspects, vastly improved since RTF2. What I said is that LON was an option for Columbia and was not considered, or at least, not openly considered, which was emphasized heavily by the commission and of course led to the decision of implementing it as an option on each flight; and that the chances of encountering other situations that could take benefit from a LON are extremely slim.
If an orbiter is safely docked at ISS (current orbit, or lower orbit) but can not safely land, there are not many possible failures for that scenario. There is the TPS, which can be damaged by foam and debris from the ET, from the boosters (rarer than the ET events but it happened), from other random junk (micrometeoroids, space junk, and the like).
Whatever process proves to fail in hypotetical stack "X" is going to be a process which has been implemented in stack "X+1", the probabilities are not independent.
Sure, even a faulty process usually performs alright in most of the cases, but failure for a LON is catastrophic; what you do if you have four more astronauts stranded on the ISS, and worse, they are all alive, and the president of the USA, on the phone with the president of Russia and other international partners, has to decide who is going to live and who is left to a very uncertain destiny, to use an euphemism? and this in cold blood, not like it happened with the tragedies that happened with the program. Can you imagine the press, the TV?
This would have an effect well beyond a tragedy like LOCV (which is tremendous already) this would likely mean the end of human spaceflight in the USA for many decades, 80-100 years, you understand it's very hard for anyone to take that risk. Not the end of USA human launch vehicles, the end of american HSF period. (I don't know what the decision-makers for Columbia were thinking, but who can exclude that they did consider it and rejected it on these grounds? I believe they were wrong, but it is an uncomfortable position, no question about that.)
The micrometeoroids or space junk are really not that different, if we fail to monitor them at time of orbiter "X", we will hardly feel confident we will monitor them properly when it comes to the LON a few weeks later. (Small TPS damage can and will be repaired by the crew.)
Then there is OMS that could have critical failures, this system is very redundant, should both of them fail simultaneously would you feel confident about sending a similar vehicle up there? regardless of how low is the probability, orbiters are prepared in the same way, and pass through the same flight readiness tests, which, should such an event occur, obviously it'd show they are inadequate - which can not be fixed in a few weeks, no way.
Same for critical power failures and the like. Probabilities are far from independent, that's why LON helps only in very unlikely situations.
-
but failure for a LON is catastrophic; what you do if you have four more astronauts stranded on the ISS, and worse, they are all alive, and the president of the USA, on the phone with the president of Russia and other international partners, has to decide who is going to live and who is left to a very uncertain destiny, to use an euphemism? and this in cold blood, not like it happened with the tragedies that happened with the program. Can you imagine the press, the TV? This would have an effect well beyond a tragedy like LOCV (which is tremendous already) this would likely mean the end of human spaceflight in the USA for many decades, 80-100 years
I don't think so.
-
Sure, even a faulty process usually performs alright in most of the cases, but failure for a LON is catastrophic; what you do if you have four more astronauts stranded on the ISS, and worse, they are all alive, and the president of the USA, on the phone with the president of Russia and other international partners, has to decide who is going to live and who is left to a very uncertain destiny, to use an euphemism? and this in cold blood, not like it happened with the tragedies that happened with the program. Can you imagine the press, the TV?
This would have an effect well beyond a tragedy like LOCV (which is tremendous already) this would likely mean the end of human spaceflight in the USA for many decades, 80-100 years, you understand it's very hard for anyone to take that risk. Not the end of USA human launch vehicles, the end of american HSF period.
What makes you think they'd fly STS-135 without ample Soyuz rescue capability? They wouldn't - so your fear is null and void.
-
I totally agree that STS-135 if it flies will fly with a rescue capability like all other flights with a LON in place. And if it does not fly, it won't be for safety considerations, as its safety as far as we can model is no different from sts-130 all the way to sts-133. I am sorry that English is not my native language so may be some things don't come across as I mean them.
I was in fact pointing out that with all other missions that have been flying and will fly with a LON in place, the likelyhood of the LON being actually useful / being actually launched, was low, and it's now even lower than that. LON has been considered in internal documents for a long time well before being officially implemented, still, even for Columbia it was not carried out.
-
Now that president Obama has released NASA funding details, can any one comment about the future of STS-135 with some certainity ? (space station life is to be extended till 2020) Hence how will that affect a STS-135 decision? provided that an additional flight could carry much needed spares to the station.
-
Now that president Obama has released NASA funding details, can any one comment about the future of STS-135 with some certainity ? (space station life is to be extended till 2020) Hence how will that affect a STS-135 decision? provided that an additional flight could carry much needed spares to the station.
No change. Decision in April, as it was before. A smooth move through the scheduled five will help, but there wasn't any negative impact from today.
I'll include what we have on L2 (last week memo and today (coincidence) crew loading memo) in an upcoming article.
-
Now ceased "unless a compelling need arises" - per L2 DA Notes.
-
Thanks Chris for letting us know. It is sad that there wont be a STS-135 mission unless some thing comes up.
-
Now ceased "unless a compelling need arises" - per L2 DA Notes.
So most likely no STS-135?
-
Now ceased "unless a compelling need arises" - per L2 DA Notes.
So most likely no STS-135?
Correct, unless a major issue that NEEDS the Shuttle arises, and I hope nobody here is hoping for one.. because that probably wouldn't be a good "issue".
-
STS-135 cull roundup:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/02/progress-m-04m-launches-to-cost-cutting-iss-sts-135-addition-removed/
-
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 reason is a cargo upmass shortage of any kind. That compelling reason 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 reason" aka upmass shortfall / required spares flight. Well, maybe there are too many troubles to work out with the Russians regarding a Soyuz rescue.
-
Does it mean that after STS 132 Atlantis will not go through a processing flow as previously stated ?. If so soon after STS 132 will Atlantis be decommissioned?
-
Does it mean that after STS 132 Atlantis will not go through a processing flow as previously stated ?. If so soon after STS 132 will Atlantis be decommissioned?
No, Atlantis is still the LON vehicle for STS-133, so processing will occur until the program stands down that LON (STS-335) when 133 is cleared for entry.
-
ISS does not have a shortage of consumable supplies, in fact there is ample supplies that can cover most contingencies, short of an extended contingency stay of a number of extra crew (that's what the cargo of STS-335 LON would be for). And the current status with automatic resupply vehicles is very good. By the way, the abundance of supplies is also partly thanks to the addition of two "contingency" logistics flights to the Shuttle manifest. I am unaware of serious planning of the STS-135 payload, bringing up critical spares that would be difficult to send with the other existing vehicles, which indicates that at NASA the possibility of a STS-135 baselining was not taken very seriously; also, most large and critical spares have already been included in the existing manifest. The option for the flight will be protected for now, and nothing is changed with regards to Orbiter processing for the LON of STS-133. There is no reason to fly STS-135 with the cargo of STS-335, but, there may be good reasons (that do not have to be catastrophic failures) to take the expense and the risk to fly it. If not, it's likely that the option will be unofficially protected even a little bit beyond the landing of STS-133, while the safing of the other two orbiters begins, and then someone will take responsibility to sign the end of the program and use the Shuttle budget of FY2011 for decommissioning.
-
Thanks Daniela. I'm getting through the 'language barrier' just fine now.
-
Can somebody please tell me if STS-135 will happen or NOT?!
-
Can somebody please tell me if STS-135 will happen or NOT?!
Nobody can tell you that, since it has not been decided.
However if you take just one minute and read the article, you'll see it is very unlikely.
-
Can somebody please tell me if STS-135 will happen or NOT?!
Nobody can tell you that, since it has not been decided.
However if you take just one minute and read the article, you'll see it is very unlikely.
I would say it's TBD if it is "very unlikely". STS-135 is very much depending on the progress of CRS contractors. If SpaceX and OSC remain on schedule in the next 6 months, STS-135 isn't necessary. If SpaceX has big problems with Falcon 9 and/or Dragon and OSC runs into problems with Taurus II and/or Cygnus, a compelling need for STS-135 will arise. At that point, the decision will be contingent on how much risk there is to the ISS program with regard to upmass. If by September we are in a "grey zone" regarding an STS-135 decision, it probably very much depends on the specific workout of the Soyuz rescue plan, how large the STS schedule slips have been until then and whether there are certain required spares needed on the ISS at that time.
-
Sure would love to see that last Shuttle mission launch on April 12, 2011... :-)
Yeah! That'd be awesome!
-
Has NASA released the names of the astronauts of the LON mission for STS 133?
-
Has NASA released the names of the astronauts of the LON mission for STS 133?
No.
Probably they will be four astronauts of STS-132 or 134 crew.
-
Any idea of when will NASA release the names? (assuming the LON crew has to go some sort of training even if some of the STS 132 or STS 134 crews are selected)
Has NASA released the names of the astronauts of the LON mission for STS 133?
No.
Probably they will be four astronauts of STS-132 or 134 crew.
-
http://spacelaunchnews.blogspot.com/2010/02/breaking-news-nasa-to-add-extra-shuttle.html (http://spacelaunchnews.blogspot.com/2010/02/breaking-news-nasa-to-add-extra-shuttle.html)
There claiming this has been confirmed
-
http://spacelaunchnews.blogspot.com/2010/02/breaking-news-nasa-to-add-extra-shuttle.html (http://spacelaunchnews.blogspot.com/2010/02/breaking-news-nasa-to-add-extra-shuttle.html)
There claiming this has been confirmed
STS-135 is off and on and off and on all the time... at the end, if the announcement is true, the Shuttle managers convinced top managers that at least baselining STS-135 and training the crew makes a lot of sense. You can still not fly STS-135 if the current manifest is drawn out to wide, there are too large budget overruns, there is a problem with the Soyuz rescue plan etc.
But given the continued slips of the first Falcon 9 launch and potential Taurus II/Cygnus problems, in addition to potential problems with the solar arrays, it's prudent to baseline STS-135. Mid-Nov or Feb 2011 doesn't exceed the budget. The budget is baselined for flights until March 2011, it's prudent to use the available funds. Unfortunately this decision hasn't been made a year ago, alongside a decision to baseline two PMMs on STS-133 and then STS-135. Cargo storage will become a problem at some point down the line eventually especially with an extension to 2020 and maybe beyond. The configuration could have been something like the one proposed for the Habitation Extension Modules (below): after STS-132, relocate Node 3 to Node 1 nadir and add the two PMMs to port and starboard of Node 3 (like the original config, which had the CRV on starboard and the US Hab Module on port) with PMA-3 on nadir available for future spacecraft to dock (Cupola stays where it is and is thus located on Node 3 Forward).
-
So there is still a chance that STS-135 will fly eventually? I thought it was off the table already. It would definitely make sense to fly since the hardware would be in place and paid for anyway, and to deliver critical spare parts and supplies for the ISS would be very prudent. I never really understood why STS-135 ever was in question in the first place...
-
http://spacelaunchnews.blogspot.com/2010/02/breaking-news-nasa-to-add-extra-shuttle.html (http://spacelaunchnews.blogspot.com/2010/02/breaking-news-nasa-to-add-extra-shuttle.html)
There claiming this has been confirmed
STS-135 is off and on and off and on all the time... at the end, if the announcement is true, the Shuttle managers convinced top managers that at least baselining STS-135 and training the crew makes a lot of sense. You can still not fly STS-135 if the current manifest is drawn out to wide, there are too large budget overruns, there is a problem with the Soyuz rescue plan etc.
But given the continued slips of the first Falcon 9 launch and potential Taurus II/Cygnus problems, in addition to potential problems with the solar arrays, it's prudent to baseline STS-135. Mid-Nov or Feb 2011 doesn't exceed the budget. The budget is baselined for flights until March 2011, it's prudent to use the available funds. Unfortunately this decision hasn't been made a year ago, alongside a decision to baseline two PMMs on STS-133 and then STS-135. Cargo storage will become a problem at some point down the line eventually especially with an extension to 2020 and maybe beyond. The configuration could have been something like the one proposed for the Habitation Extension Modules (below): after STS-132, relocate Node 3 to Node 1 nadir and add the two PMMs to port and starboard of Node 3 (like the original config, which had the CRV on starboard and the US Hab Module on port) with PMA-3 on nadir available for future spacecraft to dock (Cupola stays where it is and is thus located on Node 3 Forward).
If ISS is extended to 2020 or beyond, then spares of large items becomes more conceivable; potentially including an array. For operations beyond 2020 it becomes possible to consider actually flying some of the things left on the ground, like the centrifuge, or never built, like the hab module. If large spares are to be flown, perhaps even a warehouse node if storage of these could be a problem. If STS135 is actually flown, then IMO it would be in support of a 2020 and beyond lifespan for ISS and the things I mentioned become conceivable. If they do, then either Shuttle extension or rapid deployment of a HLV replacement would be back on the table.
-
The budget is baselined for flights until March 2011, it's prudent to use the available funds.
Do you have a source for this? The proposed budget added $600 million, which is about half of the number I saw from 'Augustine' to support March. $600 million provides margin for operations through the first quarter of FY11, but not sure about well into the second quarter, which is what the commission discussed and suggested.
Beyond authorization and money from Washington, another issue may be the divergence of the LON mission (CSCS replenish) and what might be 'optimal' for an additional mission. (Which would end up being another Washington decision about money.)
-
The budget is baselined for flights until March 2011, it's prudent to use the available funds.
Do you have a source for this? The proposed budget added $600 million, which is about half of the number I saw from 'Augustine' to support March. $600 million provides margin for operations through the first quarter of FY11, but not sure about well into the second quarter, which is what the commission discussed and suggested.
I thought I had heard Bolden say March 2011 once, but looking at the budget docs again and the Bolden speech, it looks like the general message is a. "fly out the final five flights until end of calendar year 2010" or b. "fly out the final five flights even if they slip into FISCAL year 2011". The OMB statement includes a bit more ambiguous language "The President’s Budget promotes a safe and orderly
retirement of the Space Shuttle program by providing funding for the Shuttle to fly its final five missions, even if their schedule slips into 2011." (no calendar OR fiscal year in that one).
Anyway, the STS budget for FY2011 is 1.1bn, I guess that might allow for STS-135 in either Nov 2010 or Feb 2011.
-
If it's true that STS-135 will fly, that's good news. If it flies in Nov 2010, would there be room for maybe an STS-136 or 137? I don't know if there are available ET and SRB parts for those though.
-
If it's true that STS-135 will fly, that's good news. If it flies in Nov 2010, would there be room for maybe an STS-136 or 137? I don't know if there are available ET and SRB parts for those though.
We know beyond a doubt that there are. We have personally spoken with officials who keep track of those specific things, among others.
-
There are two full sets of SRB/ET's that can be ready for 136 & 137?
-
If it's true that STS-135 will fly, that's good news. If it flies in Nov 2010, would there be room for maybe an STS-136 or 137? I don't know if there are available ET and SRB parts for those though.
As Chuck noted, it's not really a parts issue. The primary issue is money (followed by the perception of Shuttle safety). There's no money in the President's budget proposal to finish assembling and integrating the hardware that exists beyond the LON / hypothetical 135 vehicle nor to continue operations much beyond the end of this calendar year.
Beyond the LON / hypothetical 135 hardware, it would be problematic no matter what happens in the budget process, because there's not likely to be much certainty about the money until late in the budget process. There's still a reasonable chance the Shuttle program could finish the manifest (possibly including a late-2010 STS-135) before the FY 2011 budget is passed and is signed into law.
-
Anyway, the STS budget for FY2011 is 1.1bn, I guess that might allow for STS-135 in either Nov 2010 or Feb 2011.
Hmmm...still only seeing ~$990 million, of which ~$380-390 million had been pointed towards decommissioning/retirement in the FY 2010 proposal. November seems doable, but not sure about February next year without more money. (Which I imagine the White House might prefer to spend on other areas within NASA, such as the newly proposed areas of R&D.)
We've had this conversation before, haven't we?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20241.msg532327#msg532327
-
What we learned with STS-134 is you really need to see a mission go through a FDRD at the PRCB level before it's "announced" - or "official" as to use a better word.
Original schedule was April for an announcement/decision - based on getting 130 and 131 out of the way, so this would have probably been a bit later if 131 moves to April. But do they actually "announce" these things. Don't remember much for 134, and we didn't see anything for the decision not to retire Atlantis in 2008.
Then the FY2011 came out and we saw the negative (paraphrasing) "only if absolutely needed" level comments, very dismissive, right after a memo pre-empted Col. Lindsey swapping to 135 from 133 (so we had our hopes raised and dashed practically within the same day). Seems strange to say the least one site (no idea of its track record) has an announcement within weeks, maybe earlier based on all the above, so we'll keep a look out for memos etc.
Needless to say adding 135 makes perfect sense, I really hope they do add 135...then again, I hope some politicians put the smackdown on Obama's plan and extend shuttle anyway :)
-
Anyway, the STS budget for FY2011 is 1.1bn, I guess that might allow for STS-135 in either Nov 2010 or Feb 2011.
Hmmm...still only seeing ~$990 million, of which ~$380-390 million had been pointed towards decommissioning/retirement in the FY 2010 proposal. November seems doable, but not sure about February next year without more money. (Which I imagine the White House might prefer to spend on other areas within NASA, such as the newly proposed areas of R&D.)
We've had this conversation before, haven't we?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20241.msg532327#msg532327
Yes, we had. I somehow remembered the 1.1bn (FY2011 + FY2012) and forgot it was just 0.99bn in FY2011. Anyway, looking at it again, I tend to agree with you, if the Shuttle schedule works out perfectly without slips this year and STS-135 is ready to go in November, then there shouldn't be a problem. If not and already manifested flights slip into FY2011 and maybe even calendar year 2011, STS-135 is doubtful.
Well, I am an optimist. Given the stellar performance of the STS team during the last months, I actually think the program can pull this off without schedule slips (with some luck). Of course, the most perfect thing they could do is to take a second MPLM and apply the same mods they are currently doing to Leonardo... but that is probably just a dream, a dream of an ISS cleaned up with all storage items being nicely stowed in two PMMs...
-
Well, I am an optimist. Given the stellar performance of the STS team during the last months, I actually think the program can pull this off without schedule slips (with some luck). Of course, the most perfect thing they could do is to take a second MPLM and apply the same mods they are currently doing to Leonardo... but that is probably just a dream, a dream of an ISS cleaned up with all storage items being nicely stowed in two PMMs...
I'm much more optimistic about the operations teams than Washington, but then there's a lot more people pointed in the same direction on the ops teams.
There's still the question of authority in my mind. If NASA already has the authority to fly an additional flight within existing law (which explicitly notes the two 'Contingency Logistics Flights' and an additional flight for AMS, but not necessarily flights before or after), then I'm optimistic.
If there's no existing authority to fly that flight, then I'm very pessimistic, because there's no guarantee that authority will be given, nor that the money for it will be appropriated. And some of the work to get ready for that flight would have to wait until its paid for, which wouldn't be until the end of this year.
-
Yes, there are ET that could be completed for 136 and 137 and the boosters could be processed for those flight, but this is a moot point, 136 and 137 are not going to fly. Well nothing is impossible, but, you get the idea. For all practical purposes likelyhood is zero.
As for 135 the idea today got another hard blow, but, there will be no decision either way for a while. The option must be kept open and also it depends a lot on Falcon/Dragon. The plans for processing Atlantis are unchanged and will remain unchanged. It's not that it is not leaking, it is that it has not been decided. There are too many variables and it is not possible to forecast them in advance. You can ask Bolden, he does not know either. The crystal ball has not been working properly, lately! Be patient....
There is no crew named that I know of, however it is likely it'll be a subset of sts-132 or sts-134. They will just be told to keep training and keep their skills fresh. Remember STS-135 as well as STS-335 would be a very basic mission, no robotics, no EVA.
-
As for 135 the idea today got another hard blow, but, there will be no decision either way for a while.
What happened to 135 today?
-
"Unverified rumors" say that today some key people that supported 135 have basically backed out. Of course you have to verify and cross-check this with your own sources. But, the truth is that nothing has been decided and more importantly that nothing can be decided. We will have to wait at least till the beginning of summer to see how things take shape. Sorry that my source does not wish to appear, so, it's just gossip until you check it with someone you trust.
-
Remember STS-135 as well as STS-335 would be a very basic mission, no robotics, no EVA.
There are robotics associated with the mission since it will carry an MPLM.
-
You are of course correct, I meant no complicated robotics that demands specific training.
-
There is no crew named that I know of, however it is likely it'll be a subset of sts-132 or sts-134.
There is some crew-related memo information in L2.
-
There is no crew named that I know of, however it is likely it'll be a subset of sts-132 or sts-134. They will just be told to keep training and keep their skills fresh. Remember STS-135 as well as STS-335 would be a very basic mission, no robotics, no EVA.
Assuming that STS-135 gets the go, and if its crew will be a sub set of STS-132 or STS-134, then who will replace (for STS-132 or STS-134)? Are there any indications on this on current NASA documents?
-
I don't think the crew would be replaced, only that they'd be kept in standby and continue training; however, I know nothing else than this.
-
There is no crew named that I know of, however it is likely it'll be a subset of sts-132 or sts-134. They will just be told to keep training and keep their skills fresh. Remember STS-135 as well as STS-335 would be a very basic mission, no robotics, no EVA.
Assuming that STS-135 gets the go, and if its crew will be a sub set of STS-132 or STS-134, then who will replace (for STS-132 or STS-134)? Are there any indications on this on current NASA documents?
Only that Col. Lindsey would command. Minimum crew, priority on upmass - obviously.
-
Unfortunately this decision hasn't been made a year ago, alongside a decision to baseline two PMMs on STS-133 and then STS-135. Cargo storage will become a problem at some point down the line eventually especially with an extension to 2020 and maybe beyond. The configuration could have been something like the one proposed for the Habitation Extension Modules (below): after STS-132, relocate Node 3 to Node 1 nadir and add the two PMMs to port and starboard of Node 3 (like the original config, which had the CRV on starboard and the US Hab Module on port) with PMA-3 on nadir available for future spacecraft to dock (Cupola stays where it is and is thus located on Node 3 Forward).
It would be nice to see a second PMM (Donatello?), but would Node 3 Forward be a good idea? It would be in an ideal location to catch MMOD.
-
Unfortunately this decision hasn't been made a year ago, alongside a decision to baseline two PMMs on STS-133 and then STS-135. Cargo storage will become a problem at some point down the line eventually especially with an extension to 2020 and maybe beyond. The configuration could have been something like the one proposed for the Habitation Extension Modules (below): after STS-132, relocate Node 3 to Node 1 nadir and add the two PMMs to port and starboard of Node 3 (like the original config, which had the CRV on starboard and the US Hab Module on port) with PMA-3 on nadir available for future spacecraft to dock (Cupola stays where it is and is thus located on Node 3 Forward).
It would be nice to see a second PMM (Donatello?), but would Node 3 Forward be a good idea? It would be in an ideal location to catch MMOD.
Don't see it as needed, but if it were, I'd rather see it have a second docking mechanism put on the other end. That way, it could have the first PMM dock behind it, and it would be in between.
-
Unfortunately this decision hasn't been made a year ago, alongside a decision to baseline two PMMs on STS-133 and then STS-135. Cargo storage will become a problem at some point down the line eventually especially with an extension to 2020 and maybe beyond. The configuration could have been something like the one proposed for the Habitation Extension Modules (below): after STS-132, relocate Node 3 to Node 1 nadir and add the two PMMs to port and starboard of Node 3 (like the original config, which had the CRV on starboard and the US Hab Module on port) with PMA-3 on nadir available for future spacecraft to dock (Cupola stays where it is and is thus located on Node 3 Forward).
It would be nice to see a second PMM (Donatello?), but would Node 3 Forward be a good idea? It would be in an ideal location to catch MMOD.
Don't see it as needed, but if it were, I'd rather see it have a second docking mechanism put on the other end. That way, it could have the first PMM dock behind it, and it would be in between.
Would take at least 2-3 years to modify an MPLM in that manner, even if it were a purely US matter (which it isn't).
-
Unfortunately this decision hasn't been made a year ago, alongside a decision to baseline two PMMs on STS-133 and then STS-135. Cargo storage will become a problem at some point down the line eventually especially with an extension to 2020 and maybe beyond. The configuration could have been something like the one proposed for the Habitation Extension Modules (below): after STS-132, relocate Node 3 to Node 1 nadir and add the two PMMs to port and starboard of Node 3 (like the original config, which had the CRV on starboard and the US Hab Module on port) with PMA-3 on nadir available for future spacecraft to dock (Cupola stays where it is and is thus located on Node 3 Forward).
It would be nice to see a second PMM (Donatello?), but would Node 3 Forward be a good idea? It would be in an ideal location to catch MMOD.
You mean whether Node 3 Forward would be a good idea for Cupola if Node 3 ends up at Node 1 nadir? Well, that was the original configuration of the ISS...
Anyway, the above was just daydreaming. It's not like they are going to outfit a second MPLM, although looking at the storage capacity of an MPLM and the makeshift way of storing cargo on the ISS at the moment, the more tidy storage places you have, the better.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/STS-114_cargo_transfer_from_MPLM.jpg
-
Is there a reason you couldn't keep Node 3 in its current location and use either its zenith or port docking port for for a second PMM? And what about Node 2 zenith?
-
Is there a reason you couldn't keep Node 3 in its current location and use either its zenith or port docking port for for a second PMM? And what about Node 2 zenith?
Re-read the thread about the Zenith CBM: it has been answered NUMEROUS times. The port CBM faces the radiators the largest piece of equipment that can be there is PMA-3. There is little clearance on the forward and aft CBMs. Possibly the forward coule get a PMM-sized module (at least it looks that way on the 1:144-scale model). I doubt the aft CBM could receive anything.
-
Unfortunately this decision hasn't been made a year ago, alongside a decision to baseline two PMMs on STS-133 and then STS-135. Cargo storage will become a problem at some point down the line eventually especially with an extension to 2020 and maybe beyond. The configuration could have been something like the one proposed for the Habitation Extension Modules (below): after STS-132, relocate Node 3 to Node 1 nadir and add the two PMMs to port and starboard of Node 3 (like the original config, which had the CRV on starboard and the US Hab Module on port) with PMA-3 on nadir available for future spacecraft to dock (Cupola stays where it is and is thus located on Node 3 Forward).
It would be nice to see a second PMM (Donatello?), but would Node 3 Forward be a good idea? It would be in an ideal location to catch MMOD.
Don't see it as needed, but if it were, I'd rather see it have a second docking mechanism put on the other end. That way, it could have the first PMM dock behind it, and it would be in between.
Would take at least 2-3 years to modify an MPLM in that manner, even if it were a purely US matter (which it isn't).
Good thing they plan to have ISS around for at least 2020 then! ;)
Yeah, I know it will take time (and money). I also don't think there is a need, but there haven't been a ton of documents to tie all the 'needs' of ISS science & available space & capability on-board.
There is most definitely a stowage issue for spares. This will no doubt get worse if the gap AND re-supply issue is seen as severely comprimising. And if they can't bring the science back, then experiments will start to pile up (if they are required to be returned).
-
My understanding is that Node 3 forward CBM is "deactivated". What would it take to "reactivate" it to be able to attach another PLM there if the chance to do this came up?
-
At the STS-130 post landing conference
Mike L: We've been very consistent on 2010 being the end. The reality is starting to hit us. That's our direction to shut down the program. What is not clear is what we're doing after with the followon program. It hurts, but any talk about extension is just talk. No one has asked about it here, it's all been you folks in the media.
-
That was about extension to 2015, not STS-135.
Some people seem desperate to see the shuttle ended by posting things out of context.
-
Most people here were desperate to see Shuttle ending to free up money for CxP. Now reality hits them hard, because Shuttle anding in 2010 will likely be the only thing being on schedule (in contrast to every CxP milestone).
For me STS-135 should be flown, this being a non issue. The marginal cost of launching the stack, with all its components built and tested, is low. Practically it is in the budget. It would help ISS a lot. You have just to drop this risk averse LON.
Analyst
-
I am not a NASA worker nor a contractor. As a space space shuttle fan I would also like to see a shuttle extension.
I misread the STS-130 post on his comments as being related to STS-135 (extension). Currently, there are many rumours about STS-135 but lack official words. Thats why I thought of posting the item here on this thread. Also, I read that Mike L or Mike M saying currently NASA has no additional payload planned (after STS 133) to be sent to the ISS. I do not know this is another negative thing on STS-135 or not.
I would really like to see atleast STS-135 going up ! in April 2011 (in ideal way of celebrating 30 years of the Space Shuttle Program)
That was about extension to 2015, not STS-135.
Some people seem desperate to see the shuttle ended by posting things out of context.
-
I have a hunch that the shuttle will continue till a commercial alternative is available, or ISS ends.
Probably as part of a large budget trade, and to save the jobs so close to a election.
Republicans keep saying save money, so obamma zeroes the shuttle budget and republicans are up in arms over the budget cut.
We really need the shuttle.... I just dont want it killing any more crews!
In any case since thew hardware is largelyu available they might as well add the 2 more flights
-
We really need the shuttle.... I just don't want it killing any more crews!
Shuttle didn't kill any crews; extremely bad NASA management that flew Shuttle unsafely is what killed the crews.
I have said this a hundred times and I will keep on saying it: Shuttle is safe to fly when she is flown safely!
-
Republicans keep saying save money, so obamma zeroes the shuttle budget and republicans are up in arms over the budget cut.
Oh for frak's sake.
We're NOT upset that Shuttle's budget got ZEROED. We're frakkin' upset because NASA doesn't have a manned space program future during a time when the ISS needs a manned U.S. program.
It's one thing to extend ISS, but KILLING the support program for it and eliminating manned U.S. access to space from our own country and eliminating ten of thousands of JOBS (you know, that thing Obama supposedly wants to create) is what people are upset with!
-
We really need the shuttle.... I just don't want it killing any more crews!
Shuttle didn't kill any crews; extremely bad NASA management that flew Shuttle unsafely is what killed the crews.
I have said this a hundred times and I will keep on saying it: Shuttle is safe to fly when she is flown safely!
Exactly!
-
We really need the shuttle.... I just don't want it killing any more crews!
Shuttle didn't kill any crews; extremely bad NASA management that flew Shuttle unsafely is what killed the crews.
I have said this a hundred times and I will keep on saying it: Shuttle is safe to fly when she is flown safely!
You know, with STS 51-L I agree with you. However, and this is an issue I take with the CAIB, I cannot imagine any management structure, least of all one with a consecutive 82 flights that made it up and down safely, over the course of fifteen years stopping flights because of foam strikes (especially, since they kept happening, and shuttles kept returning). NASA's data...everything was wrong in this regard.
Forget the Hail Mary that could have been called through satellite photos, or an EVA by the STS-107 crew to inspect their wing...that makes it clear enough wasn't done to save the crew certainly. However, I cannot imagine a way anyone could say "hey, this foam-loss is dangerous" without first losing, or having a crippled space shuttle.
To say "you should have seen this foam thing coming" and wag your finger at NASA, always struck me as hindsight bias of the worst kind.
Further, Columbia's ET certainly did kill the crew. It was built to specifications of the time. The same cannot be said for Challenger's SRB's which were launched in conditions they were never designed for.
-
We really need the shuttle.... I just don't want it killing any more crews!
Shuttle didn't kill any crews; extremely bad NASA management that flew Shuttle unsafely is what killed the crews.
I have said this a hundred times and I will keep on saying it: Shuttle is safe to fly when she is flown safely!
Further, Columbia's ET certainly did kill the crew. It was built to specifications of the time. The same cannot be said for Challenger's SRB's which were launched in conditions they were never designed for.
And the SRB that had the breached O-Ring seal didn't kill the Challenger crew. It was a contributing cause of the breakup of the 51L stack. But it, physically, did not kill the Challenger crew.
Furthermore, the SRBs on STS-51L were built to specification at the time. Also, all Launch Commit Criteria (as they were written in 1986) were within limits when the final GO FOR LAUNCH was given for STS-51L. They waited over 2-hours to allow the temperature to reach acceptable limits.
-
And the SRB that had the breached O-Ring seal didn't kill the Challenger crew. It was a contributing cause of the breakup of the 51L stack. But it, physically, did not kill the Challenger crew.
Furthermore, the SRBs on STS-51L were built to specification at the time. Also, all Launch Commit Criteria (as they were written in 1986) were within limits when the final GO FOR LAUNCH was given for STS-51L. They waited over 2-hours to allow the temperature to reach acceptable limits.
Not to forget that by a high likelihood a LAS could have saved the crew on STS-51L. But that system, while possible, would have practically eliminated the Shuttle's cargo capacity, so it was not part of the design, which again means, the Shuttle's design is primarily at fault for the death of the Challenger crew.
-
Not to forget that by a high likelihood a LAS could have saved the crew on STS-51L. But that system, while possible, would have practically eliminated the Shuttle's cargo capacity, so it was not part of the design, which again means, the Shuttle's design is primarily at fault for the death of the Challenger crew.
I have to disagree with that last statement. The design worked just fine when used in warm weather and engineers knew this. It was management that ignored their requests to wait for warmer weather and launched in the cold when they knew there was a problem. Thus, poor management was the primary factor.
-
Not to forget that by a high likelihood a LAS could have saved the crew on STS-51L. But that system, while possible, would have practically eliminated the Shuttle's cargo capacity, so it was not part of the design, which again means, the Shuttle's design is primarily at fault for the death of the Challenger crew.
I have to disagree with that last statement. The design worked just fine when used in warm weather and engineers knew this. It was management that ignored their requests to wait for warmer weather and launched in the cold when they knew there was a problem. Thus, poor management was the primary factor.
I was talking about the lack of a LAS, although a LAS could have been included in the design.
-
In one of the SpaceX threads, we've been talking about emergency contingency planning for Dragon. Looking back at STS, now that the program is almost over, it's worth noting a ballute-stabilized, reinforced, "breakaway" crew cabin with ablative TPS might have saved both Challenger and Columbia crews (assuming, in that context, that the post-Challenger bailout suits would have bbeen available from day one). And it would not have cost a lot (again, in the context of the whole program) in terms of either budget or payload. Having nothing, rather than something, was the result of an all-or-nothing attitude for the program. Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and a pad explosion has never been out of the question.
-
I was talking about the lack of a LAS, although a LAS could have been included in the design.
Yes, but it was not the primary factor that caused the loss of the crew.
-
I can't believe we're still talking about this all these years later.... (sighs)
-
What are the chances that STS-135 will fly?
-
What are the chances that STS-135 will fly?
If KBH;s bill passes it is certain.
-
What are the chances that STS-135 will fly?
If KBH;s bill passes it is certain.
No, that would only authorize the money; it doesn't appropriate it or guarantee it's appropriated. 135's chances are going to depend on how much money is appropriated for FY 2011 and how long it takes to fly out the remaining four flights.
-
What are the chances that STS-135 will fly?
If KBH;s bill passes it is certain.
No, that would only authorize the money; it doesn't appropriate it or guarantee it's appropriated. 135's chances are going to depend on how much money is appropriated for FY 2011 and how long it takes to fly out the remaining four flights.
Or if Commercial suffers any massive delay.
Orbiter
-
No, that would only authorize the money; it doesn't appropriate it or guarantee it's appropriated. 135's chances are going to depend on how much money is appropriated for FY 2011 and how long it takes to fly out the remaining four flights.
Or if Commercial suffers any massive delay.
The problem with that is how much of a consensus there would be of a "massive" delay this year. It might look like that in hindsight, but delay "guesstimates" this year will probably vary quite a bit.
There were questions about the possibility of STS-135 during today's program-level Shuttle/Station briefing. Most of the information has been covered in articles here; the only thing I heard that was new was needing to get some agreement to do it by the June time-frame, to allow for sufficient training. There should be a video available for review at some point today.
Add: John44 has posted links to the briefing video:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20702.msg557923#msg557923
-
I might have missed this somewhere, but giving the political backing for the AMS has the possibility of putting it on STS-135 been considered, if it can be ready by then? Seems like it might be a good way to get backing for going ahead with the mission.
-
No Nomadd, that has not been considered.
-
Chris's latest article says that it is not certain whether Atlantis will fly STS -135. One cited reason is that it does not have SSTP for a longer duration flight. Why would STS -135 be planned as a long duration flight ? STS 133 is planned as a 8 day flight while Atlantis with STS 132 is a 12 day flight. Hence, I would assume that STS 135 would be maximum a 10 day flight which Atlantis can accomplish?
As per payload, STS 135 would carry a PMM ? and can any one reply whether Atlantis is not suitable to carry such a payload?
At the post launch conference of STS 131, one reporter asked whether managers favor Discovery compared to the other 2 orbiters when it comes to scheduling flights? I wonder if Atlantis is not selected for STS 135 (if it flies) whether such a thing will also be one of the factors?.
-
Oops, forgot to link it up:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/04/obama-at-ksc-ssp-waiting-on-shuttle-direction/
-
Sure STS-135 can be flown by Atlantis if so is decided. However there are a few considerations.
The STS-133 mission can still fly at the NET date but now has just a few days of slack left; in addition, the workforce is fully working (both regular hours and paid overtime) and there is not much more room. However when Atlantis returns from STS-132, after initial safing, if there is a good chance that the remaining two the manifest dates will hold more or less, it is to be expected that workers are told to focus on these, and tasks are reassigned. A slippage in STS-335 processing (assuming it is chosen to take seriously that LON) is no problem, there is plenty of time. So it is not obvious that flying Atlantis would have andvantages. On the other hand, Discovery is already set up to fly MLPM (SteveS can you elaborate? What is a PMM? You mean a second PLM? I never heard it, but may be you know something I dont) without reconfiguration of the payload bay and Discovery is perhaps in better shape than Atlantis.
Up to now I dont think anyone knows yet how things will be; also, the decommissioning phase has not been outlined, not even loosely.
-
Sorry for the typo. I meant a second PLM.
I would like to ask why Discovery would be in a better position to fly again just because its payload bay is configured for a PLM? Can Atlantis's payload bay be also configured after returning from STS 132?
More importantly, what exactly would STS -135 carry ? A PLM or another payload?
(SteveS can you elaborate? What is a PMM? You mean a second PLM? I never heard it, but may be you know something I dont) without reconfiguration of the payload bay and Discovery is perhaps in better shape than Atlantis.
-
Discovery is fine for flight (well, needs something done between flights but will be done), Atlantis not only is not certified for 135 but had had two flights added (as the program with two Orbiters would have its costs skyrocketing even further) despite having the wrapped composite vessels well beyond their design life (and no way of replacing) and other smaller issues.
I have not heard of any planning of the payload of STS-135 but I am certain someone here will be able to comment.
Decision for a STS-135 (or at least, making NASA aware that it is been considered seriously and to take that into account) does not have to be immediate but it would be very helpful if it happened rather quickly.
-
Sorry for the typo. I meant a second PLM.
I would like to ask why Discovery would be in a better position to fly again just because its payload bay is configured for a PLM? Can Atlantis's payload bay be also configured after returning from STS 132?
More importantly, what exactly would STS -135 carry ? A PLM or another payload?
(SteveS can you elaborate? What is a PMM? You mean a second PLM? I never heard it, but may be you know something I dont) without reconfiguration of the payload bay and Discovery is perhaps in better shape than Atlantis.
No, you were correct. The acronym is PMM, not PLM.
There are no plans to convert a second MPLM into a PMM.
-
Can Atlantis's payload bay be also configured after returning from STS 132?
Yes, and Atlantis will have to be configured to fly Raffaello, as that's the payload for STS-335. What Atlantis lacks is the SSPTS capability. Atlantis will be ready to fly sooner than Discovery, but IF additional time were provided (by providing additional budget) to wait for one of the SSPTS orbiters to be readied, that could be traded with the other factors.
Most likely payload for STS-135 would be Raffaello.
-
It's hard to evaluate before touchdown of Atlantis. As far as we know, it may even have to land in White Sands, and STS-133 may be on time. In the scenario Atlantis flies STS-135, it'll be certified, but of course there will be some work and some paperwork to do. Also, there would be interaction with the decommissioning activities, but the decommissioning plan is not worked out so far.
-
It's hard to evaluate before touchdown of Atlantis. As far as we know, it may even have to land in White Sands, and STS-133 may be on time. In the scenario Atlantis flies STS-135, it'll be certified, but of course there will be some work and some paperwork to do. Also, there would be interaction with the decommissioning activities, but the decommissioning plan is not worked out so far.
No, it's already evaluated and the plan is for Atlantis to fly STS-335. What-ifs can cause the plan to change, but those would apply equally to any flight.
It's already been stated that decommissioning will not begin in earnest until after the last flight.
-
STS-335 of course if it's flown (required + given the goahead) will be flown by Atlantis, except from major malfunctions. If I understand correctly the thread was discussing the possibility that - after STS-133 lands successfully - a further mission, not a LON, is launched. As far as I understand this option will be protected as long as possible (who knows if critical ORUs may fail?) but at present is not favored; however it's possible that in the next few weeks its chances will improve.
Yes of course decommission will not start until the program is completed, but even planning has been deferred. (I agree with the choice, by the way, but decommissioning, in its due time and not earlier, should not be neglected, especially because of the potential of less qualified and less experiences workforce - may be even demotivated workforce - and it's a dangerous job.)
-
Out of interest, with the exception of the 132/134/133 crews, are any other astronauts involved in Shuttle simulator training at present? If so, might they be candidates for a potential 135...or would it be more likely to fly a more recently-flown CDR/PLT team, plus whichever two MS are dropped from 133?
Based on that thinking, would it be realistic to suppose a 135 line-up something like this: Poindexter (CDR), Dutton (PLT), Barratt (MS) and Stott (MS)?
-
Atlantis not only is not certified for 135 but had had two flights added (as the program with two Orbiters would have its costs skyrocketing even further) despite having the wrapped composite vessels well beyond their design life (and no way of replacing) and other smaller issues.
Then why it has been selected for the LON of STS 133? I thought that it has been certified for the LON mission. If it has been, does it have to be re certified separately for a potential STS 135?
Also can anyone give some background information as to why Atlantis was not fitted with SSTP during her last OMDP? while the other 2 orbiters were fitted with SSTPs.
-
Yes, Atlantis is certified for the LON, while I think for STS-135 additional paperwork (and I'm not sure what work exactly) needs to be done. (Also Discovery would need something done if it flied 135, but it's no big impact to the processing flow).
For STS-335 Atlantis is the natural choice, as Discovery is on orbit and Endeavour would be able to start being processed later, not to mention possible impacts if STS-134 is delayed for whatever reason.
I would think Atlantis was not fitted with SSTP because the program has been winding down and in fact Atlantis was supposed to have already been retired, this is just speculation on my part though.
-
Atlantis not only is not certified for 135 but had had two flights added (as the program with two Orbiters would have its costs skyrocketing even further) despite having the wrapped composite vessels well beyond their design life (and no way of replacing) and other smaller issues.
Then why it has been selected for the LON of STS 133? I thought that it has been certified for the LON mission. If it has been, does it have to be re certified separately for a potential STS 135?
Also can anyone give some background information as to why Atlantis was not fitted with SSTP during her last OMDP? while the other 2 orbiters were fitted with SSTPs.
Originally Atlantis was going to be retired after 125, and that decision was not reversed until it was far enough into OMDP to add SSPTS.
-
Out of interest, with the exception of the 132/134/133 crews, are any other astronauts involved in Shuttle simulator training at present?
No. There is no generic shuttle training involving astronauts at all. As of STS-131, the remaining generic integrated shuttle orbit sims will be crewed by MOD volunteers.
-
Out of interest, with the exception of the 132/134/133 crews, are any other astronauts involved in Shuttle simulator training at present?
No. There is no generic shuttle training involving astronauts at all. As of STS-131, the remaining generic integrated shuttle orbit sims will be crewed by MOD volunteers.
Where can I sign up :D
-
If STS 135 is flown with a Logistics Module, where would they dock it? Is there a convienient port left open after the attachment of the PLM?
-
If STS 135 is flown with a Logistics Module, where would they dock it? Is there a convienient port left open after the attachment of the PLM?
Harmony nadir, as usual.
-
If STS 135 is flown with a Logistics Module, where would they dock it? Is there a convienient port left open after the attachment of the PLM?
It's actually called the PMM now instead of PLM. Remember that the PMM will be berthed to the nadir port of Unity (Node 1), leaving the nadir port of Harmony (Node 2) open for STS-135, should that mission be flown.
-
What are the chances that Atlantis will be retained after STS 132 ? Which way is NASA's current inclination? to retire or not to retire?
Regardless of 135 quick approval, Atlantis may or may not be retired to a "near-flight condition" after 132, if that happens the remaining two orbiters will be in charge of flying the remaining manifest.
-
What are the chances that Atlantis will be retained after STS 132 ? Which way is NASA's current inclination? to retire or not to retire?
Regardless of 135 quick approval, Atlantis may or may not be retired to a "near-flight condition" after 132, if that happens the remaining two orbiters will be in charge of flying the remaining manifest.
She already has to be prepared for LON for STS-133 regardless of what happens
-
During the STS 132 post L-2 MMT news conference, Mike Moses mentioned that "if someone gives the approval" they are ready to fly an additional mission. My question is who are th e "someone"? more specifically
-
During the STS 132 post L-2 MMT news conference, Mike Moses mentioned that "if someone gives the approval" they are ready to fly an additional mission. My question is who are th e "someone"? more specifically
Congress who has to approve the extra funding for another mission.
-
Does anyone knows, at this point, when a YES/NO decision will be made about STS-135?
-
Does anyone knows, at this point, when a YES/NO decision will be made about STS-135?
We are not waiting for a YES/NO decision. Until we hear otherwise it is a big NO since STS-135 is not a planned mission.
-
So, to put it on other words, until when it's realistic to wait for a YES decision?
-
So, to put it on other words, until when it's realistic to wait for a YES decision?
We're waiting, but there's no guarantee. A "decision" by Congress may not come until the end of the year, and by then it may be too late.
-
Does anyone knows, at this point, when a YES/NO decision will be made about STS-135?
In recent briefings (including yesterday's) they've said they need to make a decision by the end of June, for planning purposes.
-
So, to put it on other words, until when it's realistic to wait for a YES decision?
We're waiting, but there's no guarantee. A "decision" by Congress may not come until the end of the year, and by then it may be too late.
1. In yesterday's meeting Mike Moses mentioned that the June deadline is not an ultimatum but "it would be nice to know by then" to proceed. If the "someone" he was referring to is the congress and as psloss says they may not make a decision till end of the year, why this was not mentioned explicitly? (I interpret this as chances of STS-135 happening is low because end of the year is far too down the track from this June deadline) I initially thought that this "someone" is one/panel from the top NASA management.
2. Can any of you mention about the costs involved of the STS-135 flight. Atlantis is confirmed to be processed for the LON of STS-134 and then what additional costs are needed if it turns into STS-135?. I read somewhere that NASA has allocated budget for the shuttle program till February. I also assume that they have allocated budget for an "unlikely" LON mission launch because they have to. Hence is it correct to say that if STS-135 does not happen, it was due to a "lack of will" from "someone" rather than limitations of the space shuttle program or hardware?
-
So, to put it on other words, until when it's realistic to wait for a YES decision?
We're waiting, but there's no guarantee. A "decision" by Congress may not come until the end of the year, and by then it may be too late.
1. In yesterday's meeting Mike Moses mentioned that the June deadline is not an ultimatum but "it would be nice to know by then" to proceed. If the "someone" he was referring to is the congress and as psloss says they may not make a decision till end of the year, why this was not mentioned explicitly? (I interpret this as chances of STS-135 happening is low because end of the year is far too down the track from this June deadline) I initially thought that this "someone" is one/panel from the top NASA management.
There are multiple variables -- the explanation that I think best described things was Bill Gerstenmaier's last week: there are several possible scenarios. As I wrote before we'll just have to wait.
2. Can any of you mention about the costs involved of the STS-135 flight. Atlantis is confirmed to be processed for the LON of STS-134 and then what additional costs are needed if it turns into STS-135?. I read somewhere that NASA has allocated budget for the shuttle program till February.
This has been noted in more than one recent briefing -- how much it would cost to fly an additional flight depends on when it is flown.
Hence is it correct to say that if STS-135 does not happen, it was due to a "lack of will" from "someone" rather than limitations of the space shuttle program or hardware?
Yes, I think so. It's not that the Shuttle program can't fly more flights, it's that the decision was made to stop flying Shuttles and use the money to do something else. (And now that 'something else' might change.)
Given all the questions you have on this, I would recommend watching the recent briefings. They are all available for download:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21321.0
-
Hence is it correct to say that if STS-135 does not happen, it was due to a "lack of will" from "someone" rather than limitations of the space shuttle program or hardware?
No direct point to make as to Steve's questions. However, it did trigger the Dilbert fan in me. I am reminded of the old office credo that 'making decisions' are synonymous for 'volunteering to accept the blame if something goes wrong'. The modern 'leader' is somewhat allergic to making decisions.
-
Bolden also talked about the problem with LON for a possible STS-135 in the congressional hearing yesterday. Thats a problem that needs to be solved both financially and with the Russians if Soyuz would be the LON vehicle.
-
Bolden also talked about the problem with LON for a possible STS-135 in the congressional hearing yesterday. Thats a problem that needs to be solved both financially and with the Russians if Soyuz would be the LON vehicle.
Does a NASA panel or the congress "actively" looking into these important issues on the feasibility of STS-135 or are they just time passing? (to date (and till last moment) have they actively taken steps/explored options to genuinely say that "NASA looked at STS-135 seriously"?
Seems to me that they want to end the shuttle program the very sooner the possible (I did not hear the congressional hearing and do not know whether Bolden sounded optimistic or pessimistic ; E.g. Yes there are problems and issues to overcome, but we can find solutions to them or just 'there are problems').
-
Does a NASA panel or the congress "actively" looking into these important issues on the feasibility of STS-135 or are they just time passing? (to date (and till last moment) have they actively taken steps/explored options to genuinely say that "NASA looked at STS-135 seriously"?
No, NASA has already done the preparatory work it can do on this without getting more direction. Congress has a lot of other issues it is working on; NASA is one of those, but it isn't the highest priority.
This was discussed in yesterday's prelaunch news conference, you can download and watch that via this link:
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5943
As has been written before, it's not a question of feasibility, it's mostly a question of money and whether Congress wants to spend it on another year of Shuttle Operations. This hasn't changed.
Seems to me that they want to end the shuttle program the very sooner the possible (I did not hear the congressional hearing and do not know whether Bolden sounded optimistic or pessimistic ; E.g. Yes there are problems and issues to overcome, but we can find solutions to them or just 'there are problems').
You can watch a replay of the hearing here:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=54f5c39e-f62c-487f-b9ed-fd4be38d096f
-
Not sure which thread is the most appropriate.
The below message appeared today on ATKRocketNews twitter site:
It was a historic & solemn occasion yesterday as the last train carrying ATK solid rocket boosters for the shuttle left Utah bound for KSC.
These are the SRBs for the STS-335 LON mission which would become STS-135 if added.
Sad. :'(
-
Where is ET-122 currently located? Is there yet a place to hold it at KSC?
-
Where is ET-122 currently located? Is there yet a place to hold it at KSC?
ET-122 is at Michoud.
-
Bolden also talked about the problem with LON for a possible STS-135 in the congressional hearing yesterday. Thats a problem that needs to be solved both financially and with the Russians if Soyuz would be the LON vehicle.
Maybe, but Bolden talking about the danger of STS-135 not being able to get to the ISS was a complete strawman. The current LON Shuttles cannot be launched fast enough to rescue a crew who haven't made it to the ISS. But the chance of a double failure, where they can't rendezvous with ISS, and can't re-enter either, is pretty remote.
-
The train carrying the final space shuttle segments is on its way to NASA's KSC. Photo courtesy of ATK
http://twitpic.com/1qy36c
-
FWIW, Senator Nelson has now formally written the President that he will try to authorize STS-135 and the funds for it:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-26/shuttle-atlantis-returns-from-final-scheduled-mission-update2-.html
Excerpt from the story:
Florida Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat who flew on the orbiter Columbia in 1986, wrote to President Barack Obama today, saying he intends to include funds for an additional flight in NASA’s reauthorization bill for fiscal year 2011.
“It will allow us to more smoothly transition the workforce in Florida and Texas from the space shuttle program to the vision you’ve set for NASA’s future,” Nelson wrote to Obama. “It will also guarantee U.S. access to space for a longer period of time, and thereby help to close the spaceflight gap until a new domestic capability is provided.”
-
NASA Watch: "Nelson Begins Formal Push For Extra Shuttle Flight".
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/05/nelson-begins-f.html
-
Just for the sake of it -- it's been discussed over and over the Shuttle cannot fly with less than four crew (fly meaning takeoff, OBSS inspection and docking). Can it undock from ISS and land with two crew? The other two stay on board ISS as part of the crew rotation; their Soyuz seats fly up empty (I know -- those scheduled to fly on Soyuz are busy training for Soyuz and will have difficulty combining it with Shuttle training. But that is a separate question). This way, if final Shuttle mission needs a LON, you need to figure out where to put two people -- not four.
Is this at all possible, or just a crazy idea?
-
Just for the sake of it -- it's been discussed over and over the Shuttle cannot fly with less than four crew (fly meaning takeoff, OBSS inspection and docking). Can it undock from ISS and land with two crew? The other two stay on board ISS as part of the crew rotation; their Soyuz seats fly up empty (I know -- those scheduled to fly on Soyuz are busy training for Soyuz and will have difficulty combining it with Shuttle training. But that is a separate question). This way, if final Shuttle mission needs a LON, you need to figure out where to put two people -- not four.
Is this at all possible, or just a crazy idea?
Why would two of the crewmembers stay on ISS? The Expedition crews have already been determined for that timeframe. They already have a plan for getting four people home - two Soyuz spacecraft. In a LON situation, you wouldn't be splitting the crew and sending two into a potentially disastrous re-entry on the crippled shuttle. They would all move into the station and await rescue by Soyuz.
-
Why would two of the crewmembers stay on ISS? The Expedition crews have already been determined for that timeframe. They already have a plan for getting four people home - two Soyuz spacecraft. In a LON situation, you wouldn't be splitting the crew and sending two into a potentially disastrous re-entry on the crippled shuttle. They would all move into the station and await rescue by Soyuz.
Well, rescuing four people takes two Soyuz being diverted from normal flow. Rescuing two would take only one Soyuz ship.
Look at it this way -- if minimizing the crew of the final Shuttle flight (STS-135 in this case) wasn't a priority, why is the crew cut to four. Everybody knows a four-people flight to ISS is a strain on the crew. But any additional crewmember in case of an emergency is an additional lifeboat seat that has to be "found" -- i.e. taken from a previously planned task.
Look at it from Soyuz schedule point of view -- 4 people await rescue onboard ISS. A Soyuz flies "up there" on average 4 times a year.
If STS-135 happens before May 2011 and needs a rescue, it would look like that: TMA-02M rides up only with Volkov in May 2011, TMA-20 lands with Kondratiev and who? 2 of the Shuttle boys/girls, leaving Coleman and Nespoli for another 6-month stint? or Coleman and Nespoli, leaving 2 Shuttle boys behind (with less use for the Expedition). Trouble already.
TMA-22 rides up only with Shkaplerov. Then Soyuz TMA-21 lands with who? Same dillemma as above, but the whole situation starts to get worse -- the US segment is either full of STS people with insufficient Station training, or with Station people with a year of space exposure.
So if STS-135 has (for instance) Fossum and Burbank as part of the 4-member crew, the whole LON situation gets a bit better -- their return tickets are already bought... (yes, I know they are deep into Soyuz training, but on paper looks interesting).
Nobody talks about two pilots trying to land a crippled Shuttle no matter what. The idea is that "rescuing" 2 guys with no confirmed return tickets wreaks much less havoc with the ISS program vs. rescue of 4.
Or I missed something and Soyuz production can be ramped up in a heartbeat? Would be good to know.
-
@ Phosporous,
IIRC, Soyuz production requires an 18-month lead time, so it is already too late to start work on STS-135 rescue vehicles unless the mission is delayed until the end of CY2011.
If STS-135 is to go ahead, the surplus LWT will need to be made operational so that Endeavour can stand-by for LON-336. IMHO, there is no other real option.
-
If STS-135 is to go ahead, the surplus LWT will need to be made operational so that Endeavour can stand-by for LON-336. IMHO, there is no other real option.
That just makes the idea less attractive politically because it will significantly increase the price tag to restart tank and booster production for a single set and also to maintain Shuttle operations during the time it takes to finish/deliver the tank and booster hardware.
-
My option:
For instance…
Imaging an early March launch
-Launch STS-135 with 4 astronauts
CDR
PLT
MS1 with ISS experience. I choose Kopra.
MS2: Ron Garan (bumped him from TMA-21)
-Launch TMA-21 only with Samokutyaev and Borisenko
*If everything goes well, STS-135 returns home with CDR, PLT and Kopra. Garan stays as planned.
*If things go wrong…
-We have 9 people in station:
Kondratyev-Nespoli-Coleman- Samokutyaev- Borisenko- Garan- 135/CDR -135/PLT – Kopra.
-Russians launch ONE UNMANNED Soyuz Rescue (they did with Soyuz 34 in the 80’s) as soon as possible
-Kondratyev or Samokutyaev land Soyuz Rescue with 135/CDR and 135/PLT
-After this you only need to re-schedule the next ISS-Expedition crew to accommodate the agencies-ratio
Doing like this, you only need ONE Soyuz Rescue.
Just my thoughts
Cheers
-
My option:
For instance…
Yeah, there are lots of options. Seems like if there were a technical showstopper, we would have heard about it already.
-
I wrote Obama today to say I’m sure Congress will fund an extra space shuttle flight.
http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/NASA526.pdf
http://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/14789436931
-
I wrote Obama today to say I’m sure Congress will fund an extra space shuttle flight.
http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/NASA526.pdf
http://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/14789436931
Well, while they're at it, have them fund shuttle flights until commercial crew & lifeboat is ready ;) :)
-
I wrote Obama today to say I’m sure Congress will fund an extra space shuttle flight.
http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/NASA526.pdf
http://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/14789436931
Well, while they're at it, have them fund shuttle flights until commercial crew & lifeboat is ready ;) :)
The single flight is a compromise position from the position of Sen. Hutchison's proposal (for example)...kind of hard politically for the authorizing committee to advocate both. Would guess we'll see language in the Senate bill for one or the other.
-
They very rarely talk about the remaining lightweight tank. If they want to fly STS-135 next June, why not add another flight with that tank? They could close out the shuttle program next summer with STS-136. This would seem to be a logical compromise in the current circumstances.
And if the next 2 missions slip to November & Feb. shouldn't Discovery take over for STS-135 since Atlantis is farther past its OMPD?
Brent
-
If there is an STS-136, it wouldn't happen in the summer.. probably late fall or early winter '11.
Orbiter
-
Those NASA managers had better watch their backs. Don't they know that extra Shuttle flight(s) goes against the one true way? They are liable to find themselves promoted to the NASA Office of Useless Introspection.
Mark S.
-
If there is an STS-136, it wouldn't happen in the summer.. probably late fall or early winter '11.
Orbiter
2012 at the earliest due to the tanks. Every day that passes is another day it slips the hypothetical STS-136.
-
If there is an STS-136, it wouldn't happen in the summer.. probably late fall or early winter '11.
Orbiter
2012 at the earliest due to the tanks. Every day that passes is another day it slips the hypothetical STS-136.
I guess Orbiter means refurbishing ET-94 (lightweight tank). Would it take a whole 18 months?
-
If there is an STS-136, it wouldn't happen in the summer.. probably late fall or early winter '11.
Orbiter
2012 at the earliest due to the tanks. Every day that passes is another day it slips the hypothetical STS-136.
I guess Orbiter means refurbishing ET-94 (lightweight tank). Would it take a whole 18 months?
It might not take that long, but there's no authority to proceed from Congress and the President. It's not necessarily a given that's going to happen, but even if it does, Congress isn't likely to approve the money until the end of this year.
-
The lightweight spare has the same problem as the other three spare part-built tanks. They installed a new requirement to certify new TPS foam, which "wouldn't be completed until 2012". Remember, they removed the safety scarmoungering, they removed the "orbiters need recertifying" issue, but if you want to kill extension, go after the tank schedule.
So even if they strip down ET-94 and could get it ready in a year, there's no certified foam to spray on it. The last certified foam went on ET-122's RTF mods.
Someone needs to grab that situation by the balls, ask why on earth they need to certify new foam, and find a faster way to get tanks out via the current production techniques, but everyone's sat on their hands, especially after the new admin (the last hope to push for extension) came out fully against shuttle, and now extension - at least past STS-135 - is pretty much dead.
-
The lightweight spare has the same problem as the other three spare part-built tanks. They installed a new requirement to certify new TPS foam, which "wouldn't be completed until 2012". Remember, they removed the safety scarmoungering, they removed the "orbiters need recertifying" issue, but if you want to kill extension, go after the tank schedule.
So even if they strip down ET-94 and could get it ready in a year, there's no certified foam to spray on it. The last certified foam went on ET-122's RTF mods.
Someone needs to grab that situation by the balls, ask why on earth they need to certify new foam, and find a faster way to get tanks out via the current production techniques, but everyone's sat on their hands, especially after the new admin (the last hope to push for extension) came out fully against shuttle, and now extension - at least past STS-135 - is pretty much dead.
Everything is dead. We'll have hearings. We'll have political posturing but in the end, no one will really do anything.
At least we will have grand entitlements that we can get thanks to the new welfare state we're creating here. Why work for the greater good when the greater good can pay you for doing nothing.
-
The lightweight spare has the same problem as the other three spare part-built tanks. They installed a new requirement to certify new TPS foam, which "wouldn't be completed until 2012". Remember, they removed the safety scarmoungering, they removed the "orbiters need recertifying" issue, but if you want to kill extension, go after the tank schedule.
So even if they strip down ET-94 and could get it ready in a year, there's no certified foam to spray on it. The last certified foam went on ET-122's RTF mods.
Someone needs to grab that situation by the balls, ask why on earth they need to certify new foam, and find a faster way to get tanks out via the current production techniques, but everyone's sat on their hands, especially after the new admin (the last hope to push for extension) came out fully against shuttle, and now extension - at least past STS-135 - is pretty much dead.
Everything is dead. We'll have hearings. We'll have political posturing but in the end, no one will really do anything.
At least we will have grand entitlements that we can get thanks to the new welfare state we're creating here. Why work for the greater good when the greater good can pay you for doing nothing.
:(
now THAT is beyond reason, Chris...
They say "Germans invented bureaucracy, but Americans brought it to perfection". I guess now Americans have reduced this perfection to absurdity (by multiplying it with politicking, maybe?). If you do not want something to happen, you find a way, billions $ writeoff be damned...
-
What's this talk about STS-136?
Washington waste hundreds of billions on everything else, why are they being so stingy with NASA?
-
What's this talk about STS-136?
Washington waste hundreds of billions on everything else, why are they being so stingy with NASA?
They probably figure they can "get away with it" (and maybe they can). Reminds me of this old story:
http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/radio/uncledon.asp
-
The lightweight spare has the same problem as the other three spare part-built tanks. They installed a new requirement to certify new TPS foam, which "wouldn't be completed until 2012". [...] So even if they strip down ET-94 and could get it ready in a year, there's no certified foam to spray on it.
So could ET-94 be flown as-is on a non-STS mission, e.g. of an uncrewed side mount vehicle? Could a thrust structure be attached that would allow it to fly as the core of an in-line HLV-X vehicle? Flying a vehicle like that after an STS-135 flight would allow more time to certify foam and prepare a different tank for STS-136.
-
Update:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sts-135-june-24-2011-evaluation-extra-shuttle-mission/
-
Update:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sts-135-june-24-2011-evaluation-extra-shuttle-mission/
Chris, could you briefly describe the advantages of having SSTPS on Discovery and not on Atlantis?. STS-135 might be a 11 day mission (when STS-133 was the last one, it was originally planned for 8 days), hence where will SSTPS advantage come into effect?
-
Update:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sts-135-june-24-2011-evaluation-extra-shuttle-mission/
Chris, could you briefly describe the advantages of having SSTPS on Discovery and not on Atlantis?. STS-135 might be a 11 day mission (when STS-133 was the last one, it was originally planned for 8 days), hence where will SSTPS advantage come into effect?
SSPTS results in the ability to lift extra mass, as not as much consumables are needed for the same mission duration.
-
Update:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sts-135-june-24-2011-evaluation-extra-shuttle-mission/
Chris, could you briefly describe the advantages of having SSTPS on Discovery and not on Atlantis?. STS-135 might be a 11 day mission (when STS-133 was the last one, it was originally planned for 8 days), hence where will SSTPS advantage come into effect?
SSPTS results in the ability to lift extra mass, as not as much consumables are needed for the same mission duration.
Mike Moses has routinely stated that SSPTS has nothing to due with STS-135. If Atlantis (non-SSPTS) flies STS-135, the mission will be 11-days long; if Discovery or Endeavour (SSPTS) fly STS-135, the mission will be 11-days long. It's the same with STS-335.
Now, what SSPTS gives you on Discovery is the ability to fly an 11-day mission with one of her Cryo tank sets removed (thus, more payload upmass). This can be seen on STS-133 in which her 5th Cryo tank set was removed and a subsequent 8-day flight planned. That mission is now 11-days long and can be that long because SSPTS gives you the ability to conserve Fuel Cell cryo to stretch out the mission to 11+1+2 days.
However, since STS-135 would be a four (4) person crew flying with only an MPLM, Atlantis or Endeavour's 5th Cryo tank set would not have to be removed for upmass consideration and thus an 11+1+2 day flight is natural (with SSPTS giving Endeavour additional margin on orbit in case of a problem or desire to extend for a reason only identified on orbit). If Discovery gets the theoretical STS-135 mission, SSPTS allows her to fly that nominal 11+1+2 day mission even though she can't carry enough Fuel Cell propellant to conduct a mission of that duration without SSPTS.
-
Thank you very much ChrisG for your wonderful explanation on the SSTPS impact.
-
Has the decision on STS-135 now been differed to August?
-
Would a decision even be made before we know whether there will be a CR?
-
Someone needs to grab that situation by the balls, ask why on earth they need to certify new foam...
I'd have thought the biggest concern would be that a new foam might not be as resistant to foam liberation events as we've become used to on recent flights?
I guess the extended testing would be to confirm that (plus other aspects of it's performance).
cheers, Martin
-
Has the decision on STS-135 now been differed to August?
Have you seen something implying that?
Edit: guessing that you're referring to Bill Harwood's article (only seen it on SFN so far) and the Florida Today piece (here (http://flametrench.flatoday.net/2010/06/nasa-considers-new-target-dates-for.html)). Based on those reports, sure sounds like it.
Would a decision even be made before we know whether there will be a CR?
If there's a consensus between the Administration and Congress on this, the Shuttle program could be given informal assurances they'll get sufficient appropriations to fly farther into the fiscal year than the informal assurances they already have. The late October / late February dates we've seen for a while now would be stretching things beyond the Administration's proposal for even the two flights that are already authorized.
-
Has the decision on STS-135 now been differed to August?
Have you seen something implying that?
Edit: guessing that you're referring to Bill Harwood's article (only seen it on SFN so far) and the Florida Today piece (here (http://flametrench.flatoday.net/2010/06/nasa-considers-new-target-dates-for.html)). Based on those reports, sure sounds like it.
Yes those two were the sources mentioning about the defferal.
-
* If it will be a "YES" by August, what are the implications of a one month delay to the STS-135 (possible) flight?
-
* If it will be a "YES" by August, what are the implications of a one month delay to the STS-135 (possible) flight?
We'd be likely to see a delay since it takes about one year to plan a flight, train a crew and get ready to go fly.
-
* If it will be a "YES" by August, what are the implications of a one month delay to the STS-135 (possible) flight?
We'd be likely to see a delay since it takes about one year to plan a flight, train a crew and get ready to go fly.
If we're talking about deciding in by August for a late-June launch date there probably wouldn't be much of any delay considering the SRBs and ET would already be known elements of the stack and you'd only be talking about training a veteran four person crew for a 12-day, NO EVA flight.
-
If we're talking about deciding in by August for a late-June launch date there probably wouldn't be much of any delay considering the SRBs and ET would already be known elements of the stack and you'd only be talking about training a veteran four person crew for a 12-day, NO EVA flight.
I suppose at some point STS-335 will have a crew attached to it, similar to STS-400. As the objectives of STS-335 would be similar to STS-135, with the major difference being not returning six astronauts "crew training" shouldn't be an issue.
I'm wondering if we'll see a new crew assembled for STS-335/135, or a recycle of a more recent mission (STS-131 or STS-132's flight deck crews).
-
I'm wondering if we'll see a new crew assembled for STS-335/135, or a recycle of a more recent mission (STS-131 or STS-132's flight deck crews).
Would likely be a mixture of crews, especially since some of the recent flights crews are still doing tours for the respective missions.
-
Some content on STS-135 and STS-136:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/07/nasa-refine-launch-dates-deadline-for-sts-135/
-
Some political comments on STS-135 today:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=2cf6919e-bf82-4b1f-b62b-1467d10bf6f6
http://www.kosmas.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=321&Itemid=1
-
Let's say that STS-133 or 134 suffered an Abort To Orbit and they would not be able to make it to the ISS, albeit an unlikely scenerio. Would that make STS-135 almost a certainty?
-
STS-335 would then be flown to rescue the stranded Shuttle. I doubt that it would fly an additionnal cargo as it would then be a rescue mission.
-
An abort to orbit does not mean the shuttle is "stranded". No rescue would be necessary.
-
Let's say that STS-133 or 134 suffered an Abort To Orbit and they would not be able to make it to the ISS, albeit an unlikely scenerio. Would that make STS-135 almost a certainty?
Abort to orbit is a launch abort scenario, not LON. If ATO is needed, they'd either continue their mission after reaching orbit or, depending on the reason for the abort, return home. LON would only be needed in the event the shuttle suffers critical damage to her TPS during launch or on orbit, making re-entry too dangerous to risk the crew.
-
STS-335 would then be flown to rescue the stranded Shuttle. I doubt that it would fly an additionnal cargo as it would then be a rescue mission.
STS-335 will not rescue a stranded shuttle. The rescue flight would fly to the station WITH the MPLM (Raffaello) to rescue the stranded CREW and re-supply the station. The damaged shuttle would have long been remotely flown home or discarded.
-
STS-335 would then be flown to rescue the stranded Shuttle. I doubt that it would fly an additionnal cargo as it would then be a rescue mission.
Sorry, I believe I did not explain myself properly. I am not talking about a rescue mission I am talking about a reflight. Since the ATO mission would not be able to dock and transfer its cargo or accomplish its mission, would it mean an automatic activation of an additional mission.
-
STS-335 would then be flown to rescue the stranded Shuttle. I doubt that it would fly an additionnal cargo as it would then be a rescue mission.
Sorry, I believe I did not explain myself properly. I am not talking about a rescue mission I am talking about a reflight. Since the ATO mission would not be able to dock and transfer its cargo or accomplish its mission, would it mean an automatic activation of an additional mission.
The answer to that question is based in politics. Unfortunately, like so many other answers to questions so many have right now, no one really knows.
-
STS-335 would then be flown to rescue the stranded Shuttle. I doubt that it would fly an additionnal cargo as it would then be a rescue mission.
STS-335 will not rescue a stranded shuttle. The rescue flight would fly to the station WITH the MPLM (Raffaello) to rescue the stranded CREW and re-supply the station. The damaged shuttle would have long been remotely flown home or discarded.
Thanks. I shouldn't have tried answering that question... Hopefully my reputation rating will not become negative because of this. :) Perhaps I can try to redeem myself by posting a useful link on LON procedures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-3xx
-
Total coincidence to this thread picking up a bit, but we'll have a large STS-135 article later today!
PS VERY cool to see this site's got a lot of accreditation on that Wiki link YG posted! :)
-
Thanks. I shouldn't have tried answering that question... Hopefully my reputation rating will not become negative because of this. :) Perhaps I can try to redeem myself by posting a useful link on LON procedures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-3xx
It's alright. I can tell you all you need to know about LON without Wiki ;)
And that's great news, Chris. Really hoping they approve 135 (AND 136).
-
Took serveral hours to work some of the info, but the result is a large article with a lot of info, so locking this thread and starting a new one.
The article is:
STS-135: NASA managers discuss mission outline ahead of approval decision:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/07/sts-135-nasa-discuss-mission-outline-ahead-approval/
New thread is here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22224.0