-
#20
by
Flightstar
on 11 Dec, 2005 14:34
-
Certainly is possible, but I've heard such counter points as follows.
Dedicating one orbiter towards such preparations could cause problems with the schedule timeline, such as should a standdown be called once the HSM is heading home then we really don't want to be leaving a stacked Shuttle in the VAB or on the pad. Destacking undesirable, then you worry about timelines of a stacked/unstacked shuttle all the way up to RCS and hypergols.
I also don't think we'd want to be rushing a rescue via the speeded up processing contingency, which I personally think is dangerous. I also don't think that higher management want to appear unconfident with the HSM by working on a rescue mission.
-
#21
by
Launch Fan
on 11 Dec, 2005 14:36
-
Flight, do you think the HSM is a good idea?
-
#22
by
Flightstar
on 11 Dec, 2005 14:46
-
Launch Fan - 11/12/2005 9:36 AM
Flight, do you think the HSM is a good idea?
As in reference to the safety of such a mission? Yes. Let me put it this way.
If you have children of your own, you have confidence in their abilities and want them to strive for what they are capable for?
The Shuttle Orbiters are like our children. Might be dificult to understand, but they each are cared for as such and I know astronauts that fly in them feel similar. They each have their own personalities and quirks and we have former techs and engineers who still come in to see them. Columbia's loss was like losing a close family member, she was something so very special. It was amazing that she confirmed what we knew in her last seconds.
-
#23
by
tommy
on 11 Dec, 2005 14:54
-
I don't know if I should ask but what happened in those final few seconds??
-
#24
by
Chris Bergin
on 11 Dec, 2005 15:03
-
Going way off topic, so everyone please set up a relevant new thread on the specific section of the forum to continue talk past what is the topic subject here.
-
#25
by
kraisee
on 11 Dec, 2005 18:50
-
psloss - 11/12/2005 10:06 AM
Hypothetically, would it be feasible to prepare a rescue vehicle as far as possible for launch, roll back and store it in VAB High Bay 2 (for example) and then process the orbiter/stack assigned to the mission for launch? I guess the other question is safety in the VAB...
There was at least one rollback very late in the pad processing flow -- STS-96. In that case, they rolled back out to the pad and launched seven days later; here's the rollback processing report:
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/status/stsstat/1999/may/5-20-99s.htm
Thanks,
Philip Sloss
Hey Philip, glad to see you made it over to this forum too
Instead of preparing a very expensive dedicated rescue flight, the way they'd probably do it is to just prep. the next flight a little early for its mission - in the same way as Atlantis' STS-300 rescue mission was were mostly prepared before the STS-114 RTF flight launched. If there were a problem, the next orbiter is already stacked, but not yet flight-ready. You've got a few weeks to get it ready to go as a rescue flight in a stripped-down state - assuming you're willing to fly at all still.
This tells me that HSM-4 would have to be before the very last flight planned to the ISS, otherwise you don't have another mission afterwards.
As it currently stands, I believe some time in late '07 is currently "pencilled in" as a general target point for those involved in planning such a flight.
Ross.
-
#26
by
psloss
on 11 Dec, 2005 19:03
-
-
#27
by
Chris Bergin
on 11 Dec, 2005 19:15
-
Perfect, Philip
-
#28
by
STS Tony
on 11 Dec, 2005 19:52
-
Griffin seems concerned about the media and public seeing the Moon target as the same as the ISS. I find that strange. Anyone esle?
-
#29
by
Super George
on 11 Dec, 2005 20:19
-
STS Tony - 11/12/2005 2:52 PM
Griffin seems concerned about the media and public seeing the Moon target as the same as the ISS. I find that strange. Anyone esle?
I do.
He seems to not understand WHY people aren't all that positive about the ISS. Because those reasons, cost for what you get, ISS and Moon are different animals.
-
#30
by
Mark Max Q
on 12 Dec, 2005 01:19
-
At least he's caring about PR. More than some of the previous administrators.
-
#31
by
realtime
on 12 Dec, 2005 03:56
-
STS Tony - 11/12/2005 3:52 PM
Griffin seems concerned about the media and public seeing the Moon target as the same as the ISS. I find that strange. Anyone esle?
I don't. He's concerned that the public will go completely limp on
all space exploration, and rightly so. Comments on another thread by a person who is interested in space exemplifies this danger:
Maybe this is an exciting trip down memory lane for those old enough to remember the Apollo missions, but speaking from the younger generation, I'd rather watch a Shuttle mission to the ISS than go back to the Moon. I mean, I can watch those missions on video from the 1960s.
I know I'll get flamed for that, but nothing has sold me yet. Maybe a moon base will (not in the planning yet) or a trip to Mars (not in the planning yet and I don't know how many people will be following a SIX MONTH trip inbetween).
Just not sold on this.
Again, this from someone who cares enough to speak up. Think of the tide of apathy that swells in those that remain silent (unless they vote).
Of course if they don't vote then they don't matter, so long as they keep paying taxes...
-
#32
by
Andy L
on 12 Dec, 2005 22:54
-
So the general feeling is Griffin looks like the right man for the job.
However how long is he set to be in the role? Is it like a set amount of time, or can it last as long and as short as they want?
-
#33
by
kraisee
on 12 Dec, 2005 23:10
-
Andy L - 12/12/2005 6:54 PM
So the general feeling is Griffin looks like the right man for the job.
However how long is he set to be in the role? Is it like a set amount of time, or can it last as long and as short as they want?
I personally think Mike Griffin is the single best thing to have happened to NASA since Kennedy and von Braun.
When he joined earlier in the year he did an interview where he said he was planning to leave NASA in four years, when the Administration changes at the end of 2008.
His more recent interview with SpaceflightNow.com he is quoted leaving that decision to the next President, so it looks likely that he now would like to stay on longer.
He has always said that his primary goal is to create enough momentum and direction to ensure that NASA's new direction was set in stone by the time he leaves.
Ross.
-
#34
by
David AF
on 12 Dec, 2005 23:36
-
I've been impressed with his skills in leading the agency. I haven't been impressed with his media skills. Yet I know which one of the two I'd rather have him being good at!
-
#35
by
Spacely
on 13 Dec, 2005 00:15
-
Relative to previous admins, I think his media skills are fine. He gives routine interviews, appears before Congress several times a year, takes a stand on tough issues, and has a long network of private sector friends and advocacy groups behind him. He's a space nerd through and through, and that's what I like about him.
If I had to name a negative aspect to his character, though, it is that he comes across as a bit of a know-it-all, and he seems to be increasingly buying into his own hype ("I am NASA's savior!" etc.)
-
#36
by
SRBseparama
on 13 Dec, 2005 00:25
-
Regardless of him disliking the Shuttle, he makes no bones about making sure everyone knows it. Nothing like shattering the moral of the majority of your contractor workforce.
Yes, he's got great ideas, but all he's messed with a huge workforce in Florida, run by the brother of the President. Not the smartest move.
-
#37
by
James Lowe1
on 13 Dec, 2005 01:08
-
I doubt that would be an issue. Also it was misrepresentations, according to a Griffin statement, that USA Today can be blamed for, rather than Griffin and the imfamous "mistake" quote.
