NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
NASA Shuttle Specific Sections => Atlantis (Post STS-135, T&R) => Topic started by: gordo on 09/21/2006 09:11 pm
-
Could Atlantis be certified for a standby flight after her current scheduled retirement date if another tech issue came up on Discovery or Endeavour?
In aviation, airliners are normally granted specific exceptions for extra flights by the CAA/FAA etc if a 12,000hr Major check is due subject to certain conditions being met.
Does anyone know if any work is being put into a plan that would allow Atlantis an extra flight if needed? She's not the oldest orbiter so would not breaking any new ground with an extra flight.
-
It's not about age, it's about her then being due for her Major Modification Period. Has to be the case.
-
Was not talking about age, more that would the fact that "they had been there before" with Discovery and Columbia they would be able too look at a one filght exemption before the OMDP that is not going to happen.
In the UK we did this with Concorde; one of the aircraft was due a 6 month major check when it was announced they were retiring, with an extended small check the CAA granted the aircraft another 20 flights.
So was simply wondering if the management were looking into this?
-
Re-certifying a Shuttle orbiter for even a short extension would be almost an order of magnitude more complex, time-consuming, and costly than an aircraft (even like a Concorde), not to mention raising the flight risks. Probably not quite as extensive as an MMP, but almost. It just wouldn't be worth it both to NASA and U.S. taxpayers to do that.
-
I'm guessing the other issue here is the availability of parts and components toward the end of the program. Most of the original parts are no longer produced, and the number of spares is probably dwindling in some cases. Am I wrong in assuming Atlantis will be canibalized, if necessary, to keep the other birds flying?
-
Atlantis will provide some specialised parts for her sisters, but you won't be able to tell from the outside. Not like they'll take her wings off etc.
-
Am I wrong in assuming Atlantis will be canibalized, if necessary, to keep the other birds flying?
I'd bet it will be, if needed.
-
It sounds like they are all cannibalised to some extent when in the OFP for parts use on other orbiters.
It hope that when they finally send her to a museum she 100% complete, even with time expired parts, so all 3 are historically accurate
-
gordo - 21/9/2006 11:03 PM
It sounds like they are all cannibalised to some extent when in the OFP for parts use on other orbiters.
It hope that when they finally send her to a museum she 100% complete, even with time expired parts, so all 3 are historically accurate
I agree, and as you mention, some lessons have been learned from Concorde, as well as some bloody rediculous mistakes (when it comes to Concorde).
It's not just for the vehicles, it's for those that have worked on them and the public that got so much out of what they did.
-
I know we're going off topic, but in the 90s a NASA team visited BA at LHR to get an inside into operating a small obsolete fleet.
Not too sure what ridiculous mistakes were made on Concorde, of course the pairs crash was not Concorde's fault, much the same as Columbia or Challenger were not the orbiters faults.
All in all they are very similar in operation and public pride.
-
Let me ask this from a different perspective. If (God forbid) Atlantis was required for a LON mission (I'm assuming she is scheduled for LON status at some point in the future) what would become of her remaining missions? Would they simply postpone the flight, and use another orbiter? Sorry if this is sort of a simplistic question, I was just curious about this. (Hopefully soon, after my wife and I move to Orlando, (can't wait!!!! I won't miss a launch :) ) will have some spare $ to join L2, where this question may have already been answered.)
James
-
Radioheaded - 21/9/2006 11:32 PM
Let me ask this from a different perspective. If (God forbid) Atlantis was required for a LON mission (I'm assuming she is scheduled for LON status at some point in the future) what would become of her remaining missions? Would they simply postpone the flight, and use another orbiter? Sorry if this is sort of a simplistic question, I was just curious about this. (Hopefully soon, after my wife and I move to Orlando, (can't wait!!!! I won't miss a launch :) ) will have some spare $ to join L2, where this question may have already been answered.)
James
It wouldn't matter. A LON situation would end the Shuttle Program.
-
gordo - 21/9/2006 11:29 PM
Not too sure what ridiculous mistakes were made on Concorde.
Refusal to sell to Virgin. The mess of where the remaining planes would be kept. Things like that.
-
Ah, very true. I never considered that reality. Thanks Chris.
-
Yeah, sad to see Atlantis retire in two years.
You are all correct o nthe issues here, parts available, and as one CNN documentary said most of the stuff is not made anymore, all old 1970s technology. Still, the shuttle is still flying. Why did they pick Atlantis to end flying early than her sisters? IMO Discovery should instead as she had the most flight time out of the whole fleet.
-
MarkD - 22/9/2006 12:58 AM
Yeah, sad to see Atlantis retire in two years.
You are all correct o nthe issues here, parts available, and as one CNN documentary said most of the stuff is not made anymore, all old 1970s technology. Still, the shuttle is still flying. Why did they pick Atlantis to end flying early than her sisters? IMO Discovery should instead as she had the most flight time out of the whole fleet.
Atlantis is due for a Orbiter Major Modification period in 2008. An OMM takes 2 years and is very expensive.
Discovery's last OMM was completed just in time to begin mission processing for STS-114.
When Endeavour launches on the STS-118 mission, she will be fresh out of her OMM.
So you see that Atlantis is the oldest in terms of number of flights since last OMM.
So the retirement sequence follows the order in which the orbiters completed their OMMs.
-
gordo - 21/9/2006 5:17 PM
Was not talking about age, more that would the fact that "they had been there before" with Discovery and Columbia they would be able too look at a one filght exemption before the OMDP that is not going to happen.
It is age. That is the reason for the OMDP
-
Still really nobody is getting towards answering the question; is any research being done to work out what would be required to allow Atlantis another flight, be it an mini OMDP/extended checkout. Better to know in advance that its a non starter due to x,y,z, or possible as long as a,b and c are done.
We could have an issue on one of the other 2 orbiters that kicks it out of the programme for 6 months as has happened in the past that could lead to 2010 being missed.
-
It will not fly!!! No way around it. the other two will have to carry the load. If an issue grounds one orbiter, the others one are grounded too
-
Actually, Jim, the Congress has established by law passed last year that it is the policy of the US to have uninterrupted spaceflight capability (PL 109-155), and requires that NASA notify the Congress of any anticipated gap in that capability and what is intended to be done to address that gap. As part of the process, NASA must report in a transition plan what steps would be required at what point in time to ensure that the infrastructure, parts, etc., would be available to support extended flight operations of the space shuttle.
The reason NASA plans to retire Atlantis in 2008 is because they are operating under a presidential mandate to cease flying the space shuttle at the end of 2010, and since its OMDP would not be completed until then it would make no sense to go to the cost of putting it through that process, only to be retired as it came out the door...a VERY expensive museum piece! But things could change to modify that 2010 fixed date. (For example, the same presidential mandate that sets the 2010 retirement date--the Vision for Exploration--also requires the completion of the ISS. Only the shuttle can do that job, and if that job cannot be done by 2010, the shuttles need to be able to fly until that job is done.) That still doesn't mean that Atlantis couldn't be retired as planned and still extend shuttle flights beyond 2010; that depends on how Disocvery and Endeavor fare in subsequent missions.
My point is, that the Congress is watching VERY closely the progress in completion of the ISS--which it has designated as a National Laboratory (the US Segment) and is committed to ensure it is completed to the point it can serve as a viable laboratory for work beyond that which NASA needs for its VSE research requirements. That is why that same law also requires that NASA allocate at least 15% of its total ISS research budget to research that is NOT focused solely on supporting VSE research requirements.
The key to keeping the "surge" or "extension" capability alive is money; to that end, the Senate appropriations committee has added another billion dollars to the NASA funding line to compensate NASA, in part, for costs it has absorbed over the past three years in Return to Flight costs--and will be looking to add an additional $1.4 billion for that purpose over the next two years.
In addition, bipartisan legislation is being introduced next week in the Senate that would require that NASA be a participant in the American Competitiveness Initiative, making use of up to an additional $1.4 billion already authorized by PL 109-155 for FY 2008, and the expectation that an equal amount--or more--will be authorized and appropriated for those purposes in subsequent years up to 2012. With those kinds of resources, NASA would be better positioned to accelerate developments in the CEV/CLV/Orion projects, expand funding levels for the Commercial Orbital Space Transportation System (COTS) program to assist in building private sector crew and cargo supply capabilities for ISS, AND maintain sufficient reserves, parts, and "keep warm" requirements to refurbish Atlantis, if necessary. None of that is guaranteed, but ALL of it is "possible."
-
I know. My point is that there isn't a "mini OMDP". It is either all or nothing. If the ISS is delayed past the two years that it would take to refurb OV-104, then there are bigger issues. But for now, two orbiters should be able to complete the ISS, even with some small delays.
-
Discovery and Endeavour have both been recently upgraded. Atlantis has not. It's due to be upgraded but because of the termination of the shuttle programme it's easier to scrap Atlantis than upgrade her.
-
Gary - 22/9/2006 5:42 PM
Discovery and Endeavour have both been recently upgraded. Atlantis has not. It's due to be upgraded but because of the termination of the shuttle programme it's easier to scrap Atlantis than upgrade her.
I realize you are probably speaking figuratively, but just in case anyone is confused, Atlantis won't be scrapped. She'll be stored in one of the OPFs and serve as a source of spare parts for Discovery and Endeavour until their retirement, then she'll head for a museum with her exterior appearance restored.
--
JRF
-
Gary - 22/9/2006 5:42 PM
Discovery and Endeavour have both been recently upgraded. Atlantis has not. It's due to be upgraded but because of the termination of the shuttle programme it's easier to scrap Atlantis than upgrade her.
Shame on you Gary for using the S word in association with Atlantis! ;)
-
How many flights are mandated between each OMM?
Atlantis has done two OMMs: one after her 12th mission (STS-46 in 1992) and another after her 20th mission (STS-86 in 1997). Her recent STS-115 mission was her 27th flight, ie her seventh mission in current OMM cycle. This implies that she was physically capable of supporting 12 missions before her first OMM was deemed necessary (admittedly a couple were pre-51L, but the bulk were post-51L). That number went down to eight missions between OMM-1 and OMM-2.
If we are to assume that OMM-3 would have occurred after her 31st mission (ie 11 missions after return from OMM-2), why couldn't she fly one extra (a 12th)? Also, if she could accomplish 12 missions to an OMM interval, why was it not done in the interval between OMM-1 and OMM-2, when she flew barely eight missions?
-
It is driven by calendar time and not number of flights. Corrosion is independent of number of flights. An orbiter would require a OMM even if it didn't fly any flights between periods
-
There's an interesting CAIB report appendix (D.14) with some OMM history:
http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL2/D14.PDF
(For Jim or anyone who knows...have the requirements changed materially since the CAIB review or is this Atlantis limit within the latitude alluded to in the report?)
-
Jim - 29/9/2006 4:49 PM
It is driven by calendar time and not number of flights. Corrosion is independent of number of flights. An orbiter would require a OMM even if it didn't fly any flights between periods
Well that tend to make it much easier for an excemption to be made. There is good historical data from the same OMM that Discovery went though to call on.
-
Gary - 22/9/2006 5:42 PM
Discovery and Endeavour have both been recently upgraded. Atlantis has not. It's due to be upgraded but because of the termination of the shuttle programme it's easier to scrap Atlantis than upgrade her.
Wrong. The three are virtually the same. Very little difference.
As for mini-OMDP's there is such a thing but it will not apply in this case. 104 will be due up for many major structural inspections. These are due to the number of flights that have been placed on the structure. To an extent there is a time component relative to corrosion but the driver here is the number of flights. In addition, the structural inspections that are necessary for it to keep flying cannot be accomplished in between other flows due to the launch manifest. 104 is simply retiring because of this fact and no other. By the time it would get out of OMDP, we'll be closing shop. As for flying past 2010, it is also law that if we fly longer the entire fleet needs to be recertified. This will not happen due to the incredible expense and time it would take, therefore the orbiter fleet will stand down in 2010.
-
Jim - 29/9/2006 9:49 AM
It is driven by calendar time and not number of flights. Corrosion is independent of number of flights. An orbiter would require a OMM even if it didn't fly any flights between periods
This isn't like flipping a switch- it isn't a case where one day the vehicle can fly and the next day it will come apart. And, corrosion isn't entirely independant of number of flights- trips out to the pad clearly expose the vehicle to more environmental stresses than staying safely in the OPF.
The vehicle COULD be waivered to fly an additional flight or two, just like commercial aircraft sometimes get waivered to go a few more months of service between major maintenance. Claiming that it -flatly- cannot happen is just not true- particularly if congress were pressuring for it to be done.
That isn't to say that it is likely to happen. It is very unlikely to happen.
With the remaining two orbiters flightworthy, Jim is correct that there is absolutely no good reason to force Atlantis to fly these hypothetical additional flights. It would take some extreme circumstances for it to even be an option to be considered. Most of those extreme circumstances would mean an end to the shuttle program anyway, in which case there wouldn't be a need to even consider a waiver.
-
MarkD - 21/9/2006 5:58 PM
Yeah, sad to see Atlantis retire in two years.
You are all correct o nthe issues here, parts available, and as one CNN documentary said most of the stuff is not made anymore, all old 1970s technology. Still, the shuttle is still flying. Why did they pick Atlantis to end flying early than her sisters? IMO Discovery should instead as she had the most flight time out of the whole fleet.
See my earlier post. Nothing to do with 104 (Atlantis), it's simply they way the cards fell relative to structural requirements and the end of the program.
-
jimvela - 29/9/2006 1:33 PM
The vehicle COULD be waivered to fly an additional flight or two, just like commercial aircraft sometimes get waivered to go a few more months of service between major maintenance. Claiming that it -flatly- cannot happen is just not true- particularly if congress were pressuring for it to be done.
That isn't to say that it is likely to happen. It is very unlikely to happen.
I should have said it won't happen
-
OV-106 - 29/9/2006 1:15 PM
As for flying past 2010, it is also law that if we fly longer the entire fleet needs to be recertified.
Is this "law" or a CAIB recommendation?
-
it all hypothetical , but a way would no doubt be found to allow ISS completion (and Atlantis to fly an additional flight) say if for instance one of the other 2 orbiters suffered significant damage needing repair, or forcing their early retirement.
-
henrycheck - 29/9/2006 3:49 PM
Is this "law" or a CAIB recommendation?
Well, it was definitely a CAIB recommendation, but perhaps language got into the authorization act that was passed last year. If so, I'd be curious what the language says...anyone got a link?
Thanks.
-
gordo - 29/9/2006 3:28 PM
it all hypothetical , but a way would no doubt be found to allow ISS completion (and Atlantis to fly an additional flight) say if for instance one of the other 2 orbiters suffered significant damage needing repair, or forcing their early retirement.
Well, the way this business works anything that resulted in this level of significance would mean the end of the program anyway.
If a vehicle was damaged during processing that required a repair, that mission would be delayed until the repair is complete. At worse, it would be remanifested to the other vehicle.
Atlantis flying one extra flight will not lead to completion of the ISS. 104 Stands down several flights prior to ISS complete. There is also room in the schedule between now and 2010 with some margin to do the minimum of what we need to do to call ISS complete.
-
henrycheck - 29/9/2006 2:49 PM
OV-106 - 29/9/2006 1:15 PM
As for flying past 2010, it is also law that if we fly longer the entire fleet needs to be recertified.
Is this "law" or a CAIB recommendation?
It's a CAIB recommendation that has been very well accepted by everyone from the President on down. Why do you think 2010 was chosen as the retirement date when the President announced the VSE? Why do you think Griffin, etc has been so adamant on not flying past 2010?
Now your reply is going to be well that could change with the next Administration/Congress. Sure it could but not without additional expense of it's own. We're are in the process of standing down many of our vendors and support organizations. Logistics has only a limited number of some very key components now that won't take you very much past 2010 anyway. So you see the process is already signicantly in motion.
-
Add in around a quarter of the Shuttle related work force retire in 2010 too. As do I.
-
Can't they use one of the CLF flights to ferry up the Centrifuge Accommodation Module?
Or has it definitely been cancelled?
-
OV-106 - 29/9/2006 4:49 PM
henrycheck - 29/9/2006 2:49 PM
OV-106 - 29/9/2006 1:15 PM
As for flying past 2010, it is also law that if we fly longer the entire fleet needs to be recertified.
Is this "law" or a CAIB recommendation?
It's a CAIB recommendation that has been very well accepted by everyone from the President on down.
I was merely asking if it was "law." Even if it were, and I guess you're saying it's not, it could be changed.
I'm not suggesting the shuttle should continue flying. It's technology that is more than thirty years old and replacement parts must be a nightmare and it's time to move on. However, if the need arose, the shuttle could fly beyond the end of fiscal 2010 regardless of how expensive / difficult / risky that might be.
Let’s hope the need doesn’t arise, that the ISS gets completed as scheduled, and the available resources can be devoted solely to whatever is next.
-
gordo - 29/9/2006 4:28 PM
it all hypothetical , but a way would no doubt be found to allow ISS completion (and Atlantis to fly an additional flight) say if for instance one of the other 2 orbiters suffered significant damage needing repair, or forcing their early retirement.
If an orbiter suffered signifcant damage from a flight, the program would end right there
-
henrycheck - 29/9/2006 11:01 PM
I'm not suggesting the shuttle should continue flying. It's technology that is more than thirty years old and replacement parts must be a nightmare and it's time to move on. However, if the need arose, the shuttle could fly beyond the end of fiscal 2010 regardless of how expensive / difficult / risky that might be.
I don't see the point you're trying to make...the fact that something could be done isn't necessarily persuasive there's a real chance of it happening.
Do you have any references to any contingencies that have been acknowledged as showstoppers for the deadline? All the words I've read say that the deadline is firm, regardless of how well they managed to complete the current flight manifest.
Thanks.
-
psloss - 29/9/2006 3:31 PM
henrycheck - 29/9/2006 3:49 PM
Is this "law" or a CAIB recommendation?
Well, it was definitely a CAIB recommendation, but perhaps language got into the authorization act that was passed last year. If so, I'd be curious what the language says...anyone got a link?
Thanks.
The Authorization Act (Public Law 109-155) says nothing about the issue of recertification. What it does say (Section 501(a)) is that it is the policy of the US to "possess the capability for human access to space on a continuous basis." Actually, the Senate version of the bill, as originally introduced, prohibited a "gap" between the retirement of the space shuttle and the operational capability of a replacement vehicle, but that was negotiated with the House (and the White House) to a statement of "policy," with the provision that if a gap appears obvious within a year of the final scheduled shuttle flight, the NASA Administrator must report to the Congress the exected length of that gap, what could be done to shorten the length of the gap, what alternative means would be available to fill that gap (commercial or foreign options), and what the "strategic risks" are to the US as a result of the gap (Section 501 (b).
Meantime, in June of every year between now and 2010, NASA must report to the Congress on its progress in developing a CRV and CLV and the timeline for planned operations, so that report due a year out is not the only means by which it would be made clear what sort of schedule shortfall there might be. (A year out would likely be too late to do a lot about it, anyway, so these report requirements serve more of a purpose of ensuring NASA knows it's got to keep its feet to the fire to get the new systems in place at the earliest possible date.)
Underlying that is the fact that the prevailing attitude, at least on the part of the authorizing Committee leadership in the Senate, is that the focus on retirement of the shuttle should be a matter of when it has competed its mission (i.e., assembling and outfitting the ISS), and NOT on an arbitrarily-selected hard date such as 2010.
Aside from the issue of what the bill says (or not) on the subject of recertification of the shuttles, an argument has been made by some that the aggregate steps taken to upgrade systems and refine flight requirements over the past three years has, in effect, accomplished what the CAIB had in mind when discussing "recertification." Certification, after all, is something done with reference to a set of requirements--requirements which can be subject to change. I'm certainly not qualified to discuss the pros and cons and technical or operational nuances of THAT issue, but mention it as something that might come into play over the next couple of years--especially when Congress prepares to "re-authorize" NASA in early 2008 and will take another comprehensive look at all these issues.
Have a pdf of the bill, but it's around 200k so exceeds the attachment limit. You can try this link:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ155.109.pdf
-
51D Mascot - 30/9/2006 8:46 AM
Underlying that is the fact that the prevailing attitude, at least on the part of the authorizing Committee leadership in the Senate, is that the focus on retirement of the shuttle should be a matter of when it has competed its mission (i.e., assembling and outfitting the ISS), and NOT on an arbitrarily-selected hard date such as 2010.
A question then is what political flexibility folks like Senators Hutchison and Nelson have to change even this administration's policy when the new Congress starts next January. And beyond that, is it realistic to change course in FY 2009, with the new administration?
In other words, even if the leadership on the Hill wants the priority on finishing the station first and then retiring the shuttle, do they have the power to make that so?
Thanks.
-
Good question....one difficult to answer until after November 7th, when a LOT of congressional dynamics could change. But I would have to say that yes, if it became clear that--for whatever reason--the present schedule of 2010 shuttle retirement would preclude the completion of the ISS assembly or cut that assembly short to a redefined level of "completion" that would leave it signifcantly less capable than currently projected, Senators Hutchison and Nelson would very likely press legislation to change that retirement date--and would likely be successful.
There is at least a reasonable likelihood that a majority of Members of Congress could be convinced it makes sense to spend an additional $5 or even $10 billion over a period of two or three years to avoid throwing away a $35 to $100 billion investment (depending on who's figures you want to use) that has already been made. Not a piece of cake to accomplish, but doable, as has been clearly demonstrated in the past fifteen-year congressional voting history on ISS.
-
51D Mascot - 30/9/2006 9:19 AM
Good question....one difficult to answer until after November 7th, when a LOT of congressional dynamics could change. But I would have to say that yes, if it became clear that--for whatever reason--the present schedule of 2010 shuttle retirement would preclude the completion of the ISS assembly or cut that assembly short to a redefined level of "completion" that would leave it signifcantly less capable than currently projected, Senators Hutchison and Nelson would very likely press legislation to change that retirement date--and would likely be successful.
There is at least a reasonable likelihood that a majority of Members of Congress could be convinced it makes sense to spend an additional $5 or even $10 billion over a period of two or three years to avoid throwing away a $35 to $100 billion investment (depending on who's figures you want to use) that has already been made. Not a piece of cake to accomplish, but doable, as has been clearly demonstrated in the past fifteen-year congressional voting history on ISS.
I'm skeptical of that outcome, though not so much so with the leadership dynamics you're referring to in the next Congress. I also wonder out loud about how they'd win this administration's support or accomplish that without the administration (lame duck or no).
But as usual, it will be interesting to see where government space policy is in terms of interest with the new Congress...
-
psloss - 30/9/2006 8:35 AM
I don't see the point you're trying to make...the fact that something could be done isn't necessarily persuasive there's a real chance of it happening.
Actually, I was only asking for clarification. Was “law” being used figuratively (“this is the way it will be”), or literally (“Congress has passed a law”)? The first I understand. The second would have been news to me.
But since you asked . . .
It’s September 30, 2009 and war breaks out in Kazakhstan, or civil war breaks out in Russia, halting Soyuz and Progress launches. Do you abandon ISS or do you keep flying the shuttle?
My issue is people using “never” or “can’t” or “couldn’t” or “won’t” or “wouldn’t” in relation to the future. Everything in the future is “might.”
Let’s hope actual events follow the plan and the first Orion flights can be accelerated into the 2012 time frame.
-
henrycheck - 30/9/2006 2:45 PM
But since you asked . . .
It’s September 30, 2009 and war breaks out in Kazakhstan, or civil war breaks out in Russia, halting Soyuz and Progress launches. Do you abandon ISS or do you keep flying the shuttle?
My issue is people using “never” or “can’t” or “couldn’t” or “won’t” or “wouldn’t” in relation to the future. Everything in the future is “might.”
OK -- but must we consider all possible hypotheticals interesting/relevant because they aren't impossible?
I'm more likely to be interested in the "ifs" that the pros are considering (like the one this thread (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3017&start=1)) than other "ifs" that are thrown out in these forums.
-
henrycheck - 30/9/2006 2:45 PM
It’s September 30, 2009 and war breaks out in Kazakhstan, or civil war breaks out in Russia, halting Soyuz and Progress launches. Do you abandon ISS or do you keep flying the shuttle?
Abandon. Can't do it without the Progress.
the number of remaining flights is the key, not so much the date 2010
The Shuttle is not flying more than 17 more flights. Period. !. !......!
-
Jim - 30/9/2006 3:26 PM
henrycheck - 30/9/2006 2:45 PM
It’s September 30, 2009 and war breaks out in Kazakhstan, or civil war breaks out in Russia, halting Soyuz and Progress launches. Do you abandon ISS or do you keep flying the shuttle?
Abandon. Can't do it without the Progress.
the number of remaining flights is the key, not so much the date 2010
The Shuttle is not flying more than 17 more flights. Period. !. !......!
I haven't seen anything in either the background you have posted on these forums, or heard any justification--or even rationale--for the kind of black and white unequivocal statements that you make like this, so obviously have no basis for discussion.
Can only say that, in my view you are DEAD WRONG in saying there is no possibility of flying more than 17 flghts. And I would also point out that NASA, and Mike Griffin, will tell you the key IS the 2010 date regardless of how many flights occur between now and then. I frankly would be happy with 17 flights being the driver. But it's not. It's the date, because OMB says there will be no more money to operate the shuttle after that date, and that's what NASA has to plan for.
What I am saying is that neither NASA, OMB nor even the President, can make that decision alone. The President cannot spend a DIME not authorized and appropriated by the Congress. And the "Golden Rule" in this case is "Those that have the gold make the rules."
-
So how can there be more than 17 flights but they can't fly past 2010. They are mutually exclusive. More than 17 flights would require tiime past 2010. I was putting the emphasis that the number of flights isn't going to increase. The changes have already started at KSC.
-
Jim - 30/9/2006 4:26 PM
Abandon. Can't do it without the Progress.
Failure is now an option at NASA.
By late 2010 my fellow taxpayers and I will have funded the design, development, construction, and launching into earth orbit of one-million pounds of man-rated space hardware which, for a four-year period from 2010 until 2014, will be dependent on a single launch system which launches and lands in the most volatile region on earth. Now that’s rocket science!
-
Jim - 30/9/2006 4:26 PM
the number of remaining flights is the key, not so much the date 2010
Jim contradicting the Administrator.
-
Jim - 30/9/2006 4:26 PM
The Shuttle is not flying more than 17 more flights. Period. !. !......!
Jim - 24/9/2006 8:50 AM
The contingency flights are part of the remaining 15 flights
Jim contradicting Jim.
-
Anybody else notice how the quality of discussion plummets when Jim gets involved?
Jim --- you are well informed on many topics and might even be a nice person. Your posts have a God-like tone which often converts lively discussion into argumentative hair-splitting. If our mindless babblings frustrate you, perhaps you could start a new web site reserved for yourself and your fellow omniscient clairvoyants.
-
henrycheck - 1/10/2006 9:00 AM
Jim - 30/9/2006 4:26 PM
The Shuttle is not flying more than 17 more flights. Period. !. !......!
Jim - 24/9/2006 8:50 AM
The contingency flights are part of the remaining 15 flights
Jim contradicting Jim.
The last one was a typo, I mean 17 vs 15
-
henrycheck - 1/10/2006 9:00 AM
Anybody else notice how the quality of discussion plummets when Jim gets involved?
Jim --- you are well informed on many topics and might even be a nice person. Your posts have a God-like tone which often converts lively discussion into argumentative hair-splitting. If our mindless babblings frustrate you, perhaps you could start a new web site reserved for yourself and your fellow omniscient clairvoyants.
That's the problem, there are no other "fellow omniscient clairvoyants"
It's hard being one of a kind. Sort of lonely, that's why I am on this site
-
Jim - 30/9/2006 9:26 PM
Abandon. Can't do it without the Progress.
What about the ATV? Isn't this a supplement/replacement to progress?
-
You are correct, it is a supplement. There isn't enough of them planned.
-
henrycheck - 1/10/2006 9:00 AM
Anybody else notice how the quality of discussion plummets when Jim gets involved?
Jim --- you are well informed on many topics and might even be a nice person. Your posts have a God-like tone which often converts lively discussion into argumentative hair-splitting. If our mindless babblings frustrate you, perhaps you could start a new web site reserved for yourself and your fellow omniscient clairvoyants.
My experience is that Jim's presence in a thread is a lagging indicator of mindless babblings.
Why is it OK for us to "babble," but it's not OK for Jim to say he thinks we're babbling?
-
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
- Herbert Spencer
-
Jim - 30/9/2006 9:13 PM
So how can there be more than 17 flights but they can't fly past 2010. They are mutually exclusive. More than 17 flights would require tiime past 2010. I was putting the emphasis that the number of flights isn't going to increase. The changes have already started at KSC.
We may just be talking past each other, since I agree that more than 17 total flights would mean flying beyond 2010. I'd go a step further and say it's likely that ONLY doing 17 flights would take beyond 2010, depending obviously on the flight rate that actually occurs. I understood you to be saying that there would be no flights past 2010, period, end of discussion, regardless of how many of the planned 17 (plus one for Hubble Servicing) flights had been accomplished by then.
What I am suggesting is that if it appears that by 2010 some of the 17+1 flights would not yet have been flown, then the 2010 planned cut-off date would need to be disregarded as a hard cut-off, and flights continue until the ISS is completed, whether that's in 2011, or 2012, or whenever. I was suggsting in earlier comments that I believe there is a pretty strong likelihood of congressional intervention to make sure the ISS is finished, including making sure the funds are there to support the needed flights to do that.
Your point and OV-106's about changes already taking place at KSC and elsewhere in the shuttle progam, with starting to shut down vendors and issues like work-force retirement, etc., are important factors in all of this because they could potentially render it physically impossible to sustain safe flight beyond a fixed point in time. For those wanting to at least preserve the "option" of flying beyond 2010--or beyond the planned number of remaining flights--those issues have to be addressed now--and they are being addressed now, at least from the standpoint of quantifying and monitoring them and considering what is needed to keep them from creating a "fait accompli" in terms of dictating the number of remaining flights that would be possible. What you may be saying is that, from what you're seeing, that "fait accompli" is inevitable. And what I'm saying is that the situation "could" change.
-
Agree. Enjoy your insight and contributions to this site.
-
Sorry, I usually don't go into these "personal" threads, but if I may say something, I personally (and I don't know anyone on this forum personally) think that different posters have different ways to express themselves and one can usually see the "meat" of the posts with no problems. Like many others, I've made a fool out of myself a few times, and have been corrected, for which I'm greatful, and I enjoy reading opinions of most people on this forum, "edgy" or not. One can skip what one doesn't like anyways. This forum is great in that it is a pure exchange of opinions without the usual Internet crap, and not only that, it’s frequently backed by hands-on knowledge, and if I couldn't post I'd still read it. What I’d like to say there is no need to turn this exchange into a personal “shoot out”, and I especially value the opinions (however stated) of those in "the loop".
Please carry on... :)
-
lmike - 1/10/2006 10:44 AM
What I’d like to say there is no need to turn this exchange into a personal “shoot out”, and I especially value the opinions (however stated) of those in "the loop".
Agreed -- I think most of the value of this forum comes from the contributions (info, opinions) of those who do this or did this for real. The more it becomes a forum for fans like me just to express our "inner monologue," the less unique I think it is.
(Naturally, this post only adds to the latter pile.)
-
Jim - 1/10/2006 9:19 AM
That's the problem, there are no other "fellow omniscient clairvoyants"
It's hard being one of a kind. Sort of lonely, that's why I am on this site
Lighten up and you won’t be so lonely. (Seems you might have discovered this independently.) See you at the next OC meeting.
-
psloss - 1/10/2006 9:33 AM
Why is it OK for us to "babble," but it's not OK for Jim to say he thinks we're babbling?
As I think you realize “mindless babble” was hyperbole.
To me Jim’s opinions, and everyone else’s, are very welcome. Jim’s opinions are well informed opinions. But (and you knew there was one coming) if we wanted to be told we are absolutely wrong about absolutely everything . . . we could talk to our children.
-
lmike - 1/10/2006 10:44 AM
What I’d like to say there is no need to turn this exchange into a personal “shoot out”, and I especially value the opinions (however stated) of those in "the loop".
Agreed. But not everyone is so thick-skinned and broadminded. I doubt that many posters know one another personally. On-line there are no facial expressions, or voice inflections, or body language. All we have is words on a computer monitor. Curt, terse, cryptic postings perhaps containing inaccuracies are not conducive to communication.
Obviously I am way way off topic. I think we’ve established that you shouldn’t invite Jim and Henry to the same party, at least for a while, despite the fact that I think we’d have fascinating discussions.
-
henrycheck - 1/10/2006 11:23 AM
As I think you realize “mindless babble” was hyperbole.
If you visit here long enough, I think you'll see that it's not quite so hyperbolic. I'm not an insider and we greatly outnumber them here and on other "space fan" boards...and while I'd prefer to be restrained in terms of both babble and mindless babble, I'm not immune to either.
Whereas I think most of the pros and veterans here are much better at that. If I had to choose a style for this forum, we'd lose little bit not having the tone and point of view of us "fans," but I'd still take "just the facts" over "this is really cool" or "wouldn't it be great if..."
henrycheck - 1/10/2006 11:23 AM
To me Jim’s opinions, and everyone else’s, are very welcome. Jim’s opinions are well informed opinions. But (and you knew there was one coming) if we wanted to be told we are absolutely wrong about absolutely everything . . . we could talk to our children.
I think that's one of the things that sets this forum apart -- those "absolutely wrong" posts that people like Jim respond to are either moderated or at least lurkers have opinions they can weigh those posts against -- so hopefully they don't become germs of misconception.
-
psloss - 1/10/2006 5:18 PM
Whereas I think most of the pros and veterans here are much better at that. If I had to choose a style for this forum, we'd lose little bit not having the tone and point of view of us "fans," but I'd still take "just the facts" over "this is really cool" or "wouldn't it be great if..."
There I agree totally. Just the facts. ALWAYS over any "could we do x...".
I really appreciate people like jim taking the time to respond to a question, comment or thought I have raised. I *KNOW* I know more about space flight that the average person. I also *KNOW* that the folk who work in the industry know one hell of a lot more than me and for someone like Jim to comment, correct or agree with a point I have made is a privilige.
Thank you to those in the know and in the industry for your postings.
-
Putting the thread back on topic, there's talk of the possibility of using Atlantis for a 6th post-Columbia flight to go service the Hubble for its last mission. More info on L2.
-
nathan.moeller - 31/10/2006 12:35 AM
Putting the thread back on topic, there's talk of the possibility of using Atlantis for a 6th post-Columbia flight to go service the Hubble for its last mission. More info on L2.
Wow, 6th ?! STS-117 is 5th !
Is it possble to get everything ready by mid of 2007 ? Another thread mentioned that HST-SM04 could be assigned as the last flight of Atlantis (currently the final mission of Atlantis is STS-126, scheduled in Aug 08) ... ... Could you share more info here ?
I'm hunger for servicing Hubble by shuttle ! :)
-
fdasun - 30/10/2006 8:52 PM
Wow, 6th ?! STS-117 is 5th !
Is it possble to get everything ready by mid of 2007 ? Another thread mentioned that HST-SM04 could be assigned as the last flight of Atlantis (currently the final mission of Atlantis is STS-126, scheduled in Aug 08) ... ... Could you share more info here ?
I'm hunger for servicing Hubble by shuttle ! :)
Atlantis only had five flights scheduled after Columbia. STS-115, STS-117, STS-120, STS-124 and STS-126. If it is assigned to fly STS-125, it will be ATLANTIS' 6th post-Columbia mission. Sorry for the misunderstanding. There's a lot of info going around L2 about the Hubble mission if you want to register for that :)
-
Thanks Nathan.
Let's see the final assignment this afternoon
-
fdasun - 30/10/2006 9:39 PM
Thanks Nathan.
Let's see the final assignment this afternoon
No problem man. I believe the press conference is scheduled for 10 am EST but don't quote me on that. I couldn't find the time I saw earlier for some reason.
-
There is one important aspect of all of this that no one has discussed. In January of 2009, the current administration will leave office. No one knows if a President McCain (most likely) or a second President Clinton (a solid possibility) will want to stomach the costs of developing Orion and returning to the Moon. In adddition, it is a virtual certainty that the Republicans will regain control of the House of Representaives for 2009 and its new leadership will also be very fiscally conservative. Public law can be changed and if such future leaders decide to slow down, indefinitely postpone or end Orion all together and operate the shuttle two or three flights per year with a two orbiter, single launch pad capability, then that still could happen. The decision to retire the shuttle is in the end not a technical one or a logistical one, but one driven by politics. Therefore the next administration can change it as fast as it can change your tax rates. Admittedly it is as likely that the shuttle will fly in 2011 as it is that I will date Jessica Biel tonight. But it still could happen. Politics is politics and nothing is impossible. Not even President Barack Obama!
-
Was it not a CAIB recommendation that the shuttle should be retired in 2010, or thereabouts?
Work is on-going to understand how they would fly further Altantis flights if they are really needed, for example, If Discovery headed to White Sands that might change the schedule
-
mborgia - 20/12/2006 8:01 PM
There is one important aspect of all of this that no one has discussed. In January of 2009, the current administration will leave office. No one knows if a President McCain (most likely) or a second President Clinton (a solid possibility) will want to stomach the costs of developing Orion and returning to the Moon. In adddition, it is a virtual certainty that the Republicans will regain control of the House of Representaives for 2009 and its new leadership will also be very fiscally conservative. Public law can be changed and if such future leaders decide to slow down, indefinitely postpone or end Orion all together and operate the shuttle two or three flights per year with a two orbiter, single launch pad capability, then that still could happen. The decision to retire the shuttle is in the end not a technical one or a logistical one, but one driven by politics. Therefore the next administration can change it as fast as it can change your tax rates. Admittedly it is as likely that the shuttle will fly in 2011 as it is that I will date Jessica Biel tonight. But it still could happen. Politics is politics and nothing is impossible. Not even President Barack Obama!
Actually, politics is discussed here quite often -- did you happen to read through this thread or others here about this?
-
mborgia - 20/12/2006 8:01 PM
The decision to retire the shuttle is in the end not a technical one or a logistical one,
Incorrect. It has become one. orders for ET and SRM's has been stopped. Other suppliers has been turned off. Long lead items are no longer procured. Some shuttle maintenance has been deferred to past the retirement. facitilies have been shut down.
"operate the shuttle two or three flights per year with a two orbiter, single launch pad capability"
This wouldn't be worth the effort
-
mborgia - 20/12/2006 6:01 PM
it is a virtual certainty that the Republicans will regain control of the House of Representaives for 2009 and its new leadership will also be very fiscally conservative.
Heh, welcome to the board mborgia, got any more jokes? ;)
-
Actually I did read the entire thread over some days but I did not think that the implications of a change of administrations had been fully debated or discussed.
Long lead items no longer procured? Certainly true, but in government, things can be turned on again as fast as they get turned off.
Again, I would not bet two cents on seeing any orbiter fly in 2011 other than on the back of a 747 to its final retirement site. But in politics, speaking in absolutes only results in much crow being served. It can happen. In fact, I'm making tentative plans to make sure my five year old son gets to see a shuttle fly before its too late.
-
mborgia - 20/12/2006 9:36 PM
Long lead items no longer procured? Certainly true, but in government, things can be turned on again as fast as they get turned off.
Can you name an example of a U.S. manned space vehicle or launcher that was "turned on again?"
mborgia - 20/12/2006 9:36 PM
But in politics, speaking in absolutes only results in much crow being served.
Is that an absolute?
-
mborgia - 20/12/2006 9:36 PM
Long lead items no longer procured? Certainly true, but in government, things can be turned on again as fast as they get turned off.
Doesn't matter, they are "long lead" items so if they are turned on again in 2009, it may be 2013 before the items are ready. gov't can't control everything
-
"In adddition, it is a virtual certainty that the Republicans will regain control of the House of Representaives for 2009 and its new leadership will also be very fiscally conservative."
mborqia: I suggest you go back and reread your tea leaves. With the string of fiascos and scandals that resulted in the Republicans losing 30 seats in the House and six out of seven contested seats in the Senate it is likely to be a long while before the R's see control in the House again. If anything, look for a further increase in the Democratic majority in the House. Barring a further health set back by the Democratic Senator from South Dakota which could tip the Senate temporarily into a 50/50 tie, the Senate's Democratic majority is also likely to increase in the 2008 elections where the Republicans must defend 22 seats compared to only 12 incumbents up for reelection for the Democrats. How will this effect space? Difficult to tell, but it does seem that there is a loose bipartisan majority for space exploration, the ISS has survived numerous attempts to kill it and now seems assured, and the VSE should be well on its way to producing hardware needed to get to the Moon. Barring technical failures that prove the concepts NASA is pursuing cannot work, I think VSE goes forward -- maybe a little faster or slower, but it should continue to progress toward its goal. Remember, NASA essentially had to make a major change in its goals anyway. The space station will be built in a few years and the shuttle is basically on its way out regardless. Its difficult, dangerous, and too expensive to fly -- making it impossible to afford new manned vehicles unless there is a dramatic increase in the NASA budget -- something that none of us believes is in the tea leaves for the near future. Whether or not it ends in 2010, the shuttle will end soon and something has to replace it not simply as a taxi to the ISS but as the vehicle that carries forward the US manned space program. I think its clear that Orion will be that vehicle, even if there is controversy over what booster will be used to get it into space (Ares, EELV, Direct, etc.).
-
gordo - 20/12/2006 7:17 PM
Was it not a CAIB recommendation that the shuttle should be retired in 2010, or thereabouts?
Not in literal meaning, but perhaps in intent. The actual CAIB recommendation reads as follows:
R9.2-1: Prior to operating the Shuttle beyond 2010, develop and conduct a vehicle recertification at the material, component, subsystem, and system levels. Recertification requirements should be included in the Service Life Extension Program.
Now, such a recertification as the CAIB envisioned would be quite expensive (think billions, not hundreds of millions) and would take years, not months. As described to me by a CAIB staffer, the intent was to force the US government to either "shit or get off the pot". In other words, if you're going to keep flying the shuttle past 2010, then at least make a real investment to keep it flying safely, or cut your losses and develop something else.
--
JRF
-
I agree - as long as NASA seriously follows the CAIB safety recommendations, any Shuttle extensions beyond 2010 will require years of delays and huge extra budget costs.
Even with the discussions/arguments over the Ares/Orion plans, they are sill more expediant/cost-effective than extending the Shuttle program past its current shutdown date.
-
Excellent assessment, stargazer. Thank you.
-
Jorge - 20/12/2006 10:49 PM
gordo - 20/12/2006 7:17 PM
Was it not a CAIB recommendation that the shuttle should be retired in 2010, or thereabouts?
Not in literal meaning, but perhaps in intent. The actual CAIB recommendation reads as follows:
R9.2-1: Prior to operating the Shuttle beyond 2010, develop and conduct a vehicle recertification at the material, component, subsystem, and system levels. Recertification requirements should be included in the Service Life Extension Program.
Now, such a recertification as the CAIB envisioned would be quite expensive (think billions, not hundreds of millions) and would take years, not months. As described to me by a CAIB staffer, the intent was to force the US government to either "shit or get off the pot". In other words, if you're going to keep flying the shuttle past 2010, then at least make a real investment to keep it flying safely, or cut your losses and develop something else.
--
JRF
The bottom line is that after Columbia, it became clear to everyone that NASA needs a grand vision again. ;)
-
Happy to help.
-
This is a huge forum, so I think Moon and Mars questions don't need to be posted on Atlantis' forum! :o ;)
Thread deleted back.
-
nathan.moeller - 31/10/2006 11:01 AM
Atlantis only had five flights scheduled after Columbia. STS-115, STS-117, STS-120, STS-124 and STS-126. If it is assigned to fly STS-125, it will be ATLANTIS' 6th post-Columbia mission. Sorry for the misunderstanding. There's a lot of info going around L2 about the Hubble mission if you want to register for that :)
Is there any safety issue if Atlantis got her 6th flight for HSM-04 in 2008+ when her last OMDP was finished in 2000 ?
According to STS history, no strange to have more delays of schedule. So, if NASA really assign Atalantis for Hubble, probably Atlantis has to shift STS-126 to another orbiter, so that HSM-04 can be finished in 2008.
-
Thought a little bump was on order. :)
-
Why? What happened?