Author Topic: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind  (Read 18915 times)

Offline bodge

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Offline bodge

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #1 on: 12/02/2007 03:59 PM »
I'm curious to know about all the other options explored for the AMS - does anyone have a copy of that report?

It's curious funding for the project continued after they were told in 2005 that they lost a spot in the Shuttle manifest. I'm guessing they were so far along that it was 'cheaper' to finish the project and hope another launch solution emerged, vs. dumping the project altogether and losing all monies invest right there.

Does anyone know why this device was planned for ISS in the first place? I'm thinking it's due the availability of power / data / thermal / repairman resources at the ISS - though recent developments would probably put the first of those conveniences in question. To me this seems like the sort of experiment that typically flys as its own mission...like Hubble. I wonder if free-flying it was part of the feasibility studies conducted as alternatives to shuttle launch? Perhaps an ATV without the pressurised compartment? If someone has the study, could you link it?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #2 on: 12/02/2007 04:13 PM »
There have been studies to make it a freeflyer and launch it on an ELV.  
AMS wanted to still be attached to the ISS in some of these studies, which is, well, just plain stupid.  Since it has to be a freeflyer to get to the ISS, it would be easier to keep it that way vs adding the systems for rendezvous.  Some studies did include keeping it a freeflyer.  

Offline bodge

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #3 on: 12/02/2007 04:37 PM »
Thanks Jim - I did some forum searching and see that's a repeat of the last discussion on this topic :)

For anyone interested, here's the webpage for the device from CERN: http://ams.cern.ch/

Offline bodge

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #4 on: 12/02/2007 04:38 PM »

Offline brahmanknight

  • I don't have all the right answers, but I do have all the right questions
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #5 on: 12/02/2007 05:10 PM »
What else is being left on the ground?  I know the Centrafuge Module, the Habitation module, and this device.  Is there anything else of significance that I forgot?

Offline jabe

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1119
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #6 on: 12/02/2007 05:55 PM »
Quote
brahmanknight - 2/12/2007  1:10 PM

What else is being left on the ground?  I know the Centrafuge Module, the Habitation module, and this device.  Is there anything else of significance that I forgot?
Cupola was canceled at one point i think...  or is it back on?

Offline nathan.moeller

  • Astro95 Media
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4008
  • Houston, TX
    • Astro95 Media
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #7 on: 12/02/2007 05:56 PM »
Quote
jabe - 2/12/2007  12:55 PM

Quote
brahmanknight - 2/12/2007  1:10 PM

What else is being left on the ground?  I know the Centrafuge Module, the Habitation module, and this device.  Is there anything else of significance that I forgot?
Cupola was canceled at one point i think...  or is it back on?

Cupola is being launched on STS-132 in 2010 with Node 3.
www.astro95media.com - Lead Video & Graphics

Offline nathan.moeller

  • Astro95 Media
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4008
  • Houston, TX
    • Astro95 Media
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #8 on: 12/02/2007 05:58 PM »
Quote
brahmanknight - 2/12/2007  12:10 PM

What else is being left on the ground?  I know the Centrafuge Module, the Habitation module, and this device.  Is there anything else of significance that I forgot?

CAM and the Habitation module were never built, if memory serves me right.
www.astro95media.com - Lead Video & Graphics

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #9 on: 12/02/2007 06:06 PM »
They note that the spectrometer is big -- it would take up a quarter of the shuttle's cargo bay -- and heavy, accounting for 40 percent of the shuttle's lift capacity.

"There is nothing we can remove from those flights to make room for the AMS," said William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for space operations.


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-spectro0207dec02,0,3245758.story

Sounds like it could go up with an MPLM/Spacehab if they added another mission.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11233
  • Liked: 2709
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #10 on: 12/02/2007 06:17 PM »
The Post article is actually pretty good, although it did not really go into the internal debates and squabbles about this.  I'm interested in where all the money came from.  The Post article indicates that NASA provided about $75 million, meaning that the remaining $1.4 billion or so came from elsewhere.  Who?  And why?

All my info is third or fourth hand, but AMS was apparently a Dan Goldin idea and was never funded out of the science budget at NASA.  Instead, it was funded out of the ISS budget.  There are important implications of this, primarily that the science community as a whole never had ownership of the thing.  That has positive and negative implications because it allowed AMS to jump to the head of the line in front of other projects that did not get funded, but it also meant that there was no united front in favor of AMS when NASA decided to leave it on the ground.  There's no community concensus (a term with a specific meaning) that AMS had to fly.  So although there are specific scientists in favor of it, there is not a community voice in favor of it.

Launching it as a freeflyer would be very expensive.  It would require a big rocket costing at least a couple hundred million, plus its own spacecraft, making this a pretty expensive project to fly.  That's not to say that the science is not worthwhile, but as much as it sounds like a typically-bureaucratic thing to say, there are proper rules and procedures for selecting these kinds of missions for flight and funding them, and the Post article (and most other articles) have overlooked that fact.

Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #11 on: 12/02/2007 06:27 PM »
Quote
nathan.moeller - 2/12/2007  6:58 PM

Quote
brahmanknight - 2/12/2007  12:10 PM

What else is being left on the ground?  I know the Centrafuge Module, the Habitation module, and this device.  Is there anything else of significance that I forgot?

CAM and the Habitation module were never built, if memory serves me right.

The habitation module was built:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/ISS_Habitation_module.jpg

On February 14 2006 it was decided to recycle the Habitation Module for ground-based Life Support Research for future missions.

I believe that the CAM was cancelled in 2005, so at least some of it would have been built.

*According to Spaceref.com, the CAM WAS scheduled to be launched on ULF7 in 2006 (before Columbia obviously), so yes, it would have been built to a certain extent by 2005 when cancelled...

Offline grakenverb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
  • New York
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #12 on: 12/02/2007 06:42 PM »
Quote
Blackstar - 2/12/2007  2:17 PM

Launching it as a freeflyer would be very expensive.  It would require a big rocket costing at least a couple hundred million, plus its own spacecraft, making this a pretty expensive project to fly.  That's not to say that the science is not worthwhile, but as much as it sounds like a typically-bureaucratic thing to say, there are proper rules and procedures for selecting these kinds of missions for flight and funding them, and the Post article (and most other articles) have overlooked that fact.

And how much does a shuttle launch cost?   Although this and other modules were designed to be launched on the space shuttle, surely there are some smart engineers who can devise another way to get them to the station. Better to take some initiative and risk losing them than having them end up as exhibits in a parking lot somewhere.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3023
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 214
RE: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #13 on: 12/02/2007 06:51 PM »
The current state of affairs is kind of crazy.  It's as if NASA is saying, okay, we'll take on the risk, effort, and expense of completing the space station, but then we'll lose interest and abandon it immediately rather than using it to its full potential.

Offline bodge

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #14 on: 12/02/2007 07:04 PM »
On the CAM - I know it got at least as far as a structural test article. A coworker who went to Tsukuba took a photo of it for me in one of their parking lots. There was no word on where it might go from there though. I'll see if I can dig up the photo.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #15 on: 12/02/2007 07:08 PM »
Quote
grakenverb - 2/12/2007  2:42 PM

  Although this and other modules were designed to be launched on the space shuttle, surely there are some smart engineers who can devise another way to get them to the station.

Sure, it is easy, do you have the $$$$$$$?  That is the issue

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #16 on: 12/02/2007 07:12 PM »
Quote
Blackstar - 2/12/2007  2:17 PM
All my info is third or fourth hand, but AMS was apparently a Dan Goldin idea and was never funded out of the science budget at NASA.  Instead, it was funded out of the ISS budget.  There are important implications of this, primarily that the science community as a whole never had ownership of the thing.  That has positive and negative implications because it allowed AMS to jump to the head of the line in front of other projects that did not get funded, but it also meant that there was no united front in favor of AMS when NASA decided to leave it on the ground.  There's no community concensus (a term with a specific meaning) that AMS had to fly.  So although there are specific scientists in favor of it, there is not a community voice in favor of it.

Ting was Goldin's buddy and is probably AMS advocate.  


Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #17 on: 12/02/2007 07:22 PM »
Quote
vt_hokie - 2/12/2007  1:51 PM

The current state of affairs is kind of crazy.  It's as if NASA is saying, okay, we'll take on the risk, effort, and expense of completing the space station, but then we'll lose interest and abandon it immediately rather than using it to its full potential.

Welcome to Mikey's world!


Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #18 on: 12/02/2007 07:52 PM »
Quote
bodge - 2/12/2007  8:04 PM

On the CAM - I know it got at least as far as a structural test article. A coworker who went to Tsukuba took a photo of it for me in one of their parking lots. There was no word on where it might go from there though. I'll see if I can dig up the photo.

That would be great!

No one seems to know what happened to that module after it was cancelled...  :(

Offline punkboi

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #19 on: 12/02/2007 09:45 PM »

Quote
nathan.moeller - 2/12/2007 10:56 AM
Quote
jabe - 2/12/2007 12:55 PM
Quote
brahmanknight - 2/12/2007 1:10 PM What else is being left on the ground? I know the Centrafuge Module, the Habitation module, and this device. Is there anything else of significance that I forgot?
Cupola was canceled at one point i think... or is it back on?
Cupola is being launched on STS-132 in 2010 with Node 3.

FYI: The last flight in the Shuttle Program.

How feasible would it be to launch AMS on one of the two contingency flights that are on the shuttle manifest?


Offline bodge

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #20 on: 12/02/2007 10:38 PM »
[/QUOTE]

FYI: The last flight in the Shuttle Program.

How feasible would it be to launch AMS on one of the two contingency flights that are on the shuttle manifest?

[/QUOTE]


You'd have to trade off science gained vs. life lost - those last two flights are meant to stage ORUS for future needs - hardware (due to size?) I believe only the shuttle can launch (currently). I think the HTV's unpressurized section will open a spot to launch ORUs in the future if they're needed, which could open spots on those final two flights. Just my opinion however.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #21 on: 12/02/2007 10:39 PM »
The flights are full, what do you propose to leave behind?

Offline nathan.moeller

  • Astro95 Media
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4008
  • Houston, TX
    • Astro95 Media
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #22 on: 12/02/2007 11:55 PM »
Quote
Jim - 2/12/2007  2:08 PM

Quote
grakenverb - 2/12/2007  2:42 PM

  Although this and other modules were designed to be launched on the space shuttle, surely there are some smart engineers who can devise another way to get them to the station.

Sure, it is easy, do you have the $$$$$$$?  That is the issue

All too true.  Too things need to happen if the space station people want to realize the full potential of the complex.  The government needs to quit wasting money and precious lives by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan so they can spend money in aiding people in their own damn country.  Then NASA needs to take the extra billions of dollars that can easily be made available by ending these wars, abandon Ares I, finish building the space station parts and launching said components on the space shuttles (well past 2010), all the while focusing and building a new system to efficiently return to the moon.
www.astro95media.com - Lead Video & Graphics

Offline WHAP

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #23 on: 12/03/2007 01:41 AM »
So how much does this thing weigh, anyway (apologies for not searching through all of the links)?  Would this be a candidate for a COTS flight?  One of the links I did follow had a list of weekly activity reports, with the last one being in mid-2006.  So this thing has been on the back burner for a while.
ULA employee.  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

Offline bodge

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #24 on: 12/03/2007 01:45 AM »
**So how much does this thing weigh, anyway (apologies for not searching through all of the **links)? Would this be a candidate for a COTS flight? One of the links I did follow had a list of **weekly activity reports, with the last one being in mid-2006. So this thing has been on the **back burner for a while.

From http://ams-02project.jsc.nasa.gov/html/Projectpage.htm..

"15,100 lbs"

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #25 on: 12/03/2007 01:46 AM »
Quote
WHAP - 2/12/2007  9:41 PM

So how much does this thing weigh, anyway (apologies for not searching through all of the links)?  Would this be a candidate for a COTS flight?  One of the links I did follow had a list of weekly activity reports, with the last one being in mid-2006.  So this thing has been on the back burner for a while.

It is an external payload that weighs around 14K lbs and 15 feet in diameter which is too big for COTS.

Offline bodge

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #26 on: 12/03/2007 01:50 AM »
What still bothers me is how the scientist quoted in the article seems to be of the opinion that this device will produce the only valuable science of the entire ISS program..and in light of STS-122, would be a more valuable candidate for launch than the Columbus Lab.

If given the option between another manned lab module and a single scientific payload - I think I'd take the manned module everytime. For example, I'd have gladly taken a CAM vs. this payload. Then again...I'd also have done the same vs. the Hubble repair flight - if flight for flight it could be a one for one trade.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11233
  • Liked: 2709
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #27 on: 12/03/2007 02:52 AM »
Quote
grakenverb - 2/12/2007  1:42 PM
And how much does a shuttle launch cost?   Although this and other modules were designed to be launched on the space shuttle, surely there are some smart engineers who can devise another way to get them to the station. Better to take some initiative and risk losing them than having them end up as exhibits in a parking lot somewhere.

The shuttle program currently costs about $4 billion per year and the manifest is for around four flights per year.  Do the math.  I'll wait here while you do it.

But you're also missing the point.  Shuttle is not only a launcher, but provides other support and would connect it to the ISS.  Without shuttle, the only other option is to fly it as a freeflyer.  That requires a payload bus, stabilization and control, power, comm, etc.  This is a heavy payload, meaning that it would require a big bus, and a big rocket.  You can do simple back of the envelope calculations and figure that flying AMS as a freeflyer would probably cost about $750 million plus.

Where you going to get the money?  What would you cancel to fly this?  And how do you decide that this instrument is more important than other scientific missions?

As I noted earlier, AMS jumped to the head of the line by essentially ignoring the standard method of prioritizing science missions.  Now that NASA has decided to leave it on the ground it is paying the price for not following the standard procedures.  In other words, the community of scientists who would normally support this kind of thing are not making much noise.

Offline Rob in KC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 672
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #28 on: 12/03/2007 04:21 AM »
Quote
Blackstar - 2/12/2007  9:52 PM

The shuttle program currently costs about $4 billion per year and the manifest is for around four flights per year.  Do the math.  I'll wait here while you do it.

That's misleading. It does not cost $1 billion a launch as the $4 billion is for a year of Shuttle operations, be it one or seven etc.

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #29 on: 12/03/2007 04:35 AM »
Quote
nathan.moeller - 2/12/2007  4:55 PM
Quote
Jim - 2/12/2007  2:08 PM
Sure, it is easy, do you have the $$$$$$$?  That is the issue
All too true.  Too things need to happen if the space station people want to realize the full potential of the complex.  The government needs to quit wasting money and precious lives by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan so they can spend money in aiding people in their own damn country.  Then NASA needs to take the extra billions of dollars that can easily be made available by ending these wars {snip}
This keeps coming up, but it's simply not a real issue. Supporters of spaceflight need need to drop any foil-hat conjectures (some, but not you, see conspiracies everywhere...) dust-off the ol' intellects, and not allow politicians to shut them up on NASA funding by saying anything else (like an unpopular war) prevents the government from spending enough on spaceflight. When you support NASA and somebody says "we can't fund it because of the wars", the proper response is not to say "oh, darn"; the proper response is to shoot down the argument by pointing out all the other stuff we fund anyway even with the wars and ask why those things are more valuable. NASA funding is purely a result of insufficient public support and has nothing to do with other budgetary matters; when congress chooses to spend money on something, they spend it (with reckless disregard for budgets and deficits). If we lived in a world where congress and administrations refused to engage in deficit spending, then it would be right to say the wars were hurting NASA. If anybody is convinced that the wars are the reasons for NASA budget problems, then please explain why NASA was not getting more money before the current wars than now (by billions). The Vietnam war is similarly often-quoted as a reason for the end of Apollo. That argument, again, seems right at first glance... but NASA did not get any big funding spike after that war ended. The war spending is an excuse; you never see congress saying it will be unable to fully fund social security or medicare because of the wars...those programs have enough public support to make such a claim politically unworkable.

The modules that will never fly are staying on Earth because NASA lacks funding because not enough voters demand that congress adequately fund NASA. It's really just that simple. If you do not like it, get off the couch and write a hand-written letter to your member of congress and both of your senators and get them into the mail...and keep after them. Then get your relatives involved. Then get your friends and co-workers involved. and so on...

Have any kids? Get them involved as a lesson in government. It's their future


Offline Sergi Manstov

  • NSF Russian Editor
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #30 on: 12/03/2007 05:57 AM »
Lots of pro/anti war arguments deleted back. Please remain to the topic.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10481
  • Liked: 408
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #31 on: 12/03/2007 07:17 AM »
If they used a Jupiter-120, it could easily launch AMS and any other grounded ISS-bound payloads with the third and fourth crewed Orion visiting station in 2013.

We're assuming the first un-crewed test flight and the first two crewed test flights (~2012) could deliver spares and an eagerly awaited MPLM, but after that there would be ~16-20mT of cargo delivery capability per crew rotation mission.

So as not to take up space here on this thread, if anyone is interested to know more, please ask over on the DIRECT v2.0 thread here.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline avollhar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #32 on: 12/03/2007 07:31 AM »
Quote
Jim - 2/12/2007  3:46 PM

Quote
WHAP - 2/12/2007  9:41 PM

So how much does this thing weigh, anyway (apologies for not searching through all of the links)?  Would this be a candidate for a COTS flight?  One of the links I did follow had a list of weekly activity reports, with the last one being in mid-2006.  So this thing has been on the back burner for a while.

It is an external payload that weighs around 14K lbs and 15 feet in diameter which is too big for COTS.

Dear Jim,
partly true.. weight is about 6760 kg (correct) and the 15 feet diameter is only with shuttle payload bay fixtures attached. From the photos seen, I estimate the actual AMS02 detector to be about 3m diameter, which is also backed by AMS physics documents.

Now comparing this to the Ariane 5 Users Manual, this fits perfectly into the fairing (max. 4540 mm). Masswise, the 7 tons to LEO would be easy for Ariane 5, if not too easy. So for me, the only problems which remain is: how do we get AMS from LEO to the ISS truss structure. Operational freeflyer is not an option due to the power requirements and data transmission requirements (this would add LOTS of additional hardware to make this work). But if we could get it few days/weeks freeflying and equip it with some propulsion and a KURS-like automatic approach system, then actual docking could maybe done by the SSRMS.

I honestly do not think that it is impossible to get AMS02 without the Shuttle to the ISS.. I have rather the feeling, that some people do not want it there.. sadly.

Achim

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #33 on: 12/03/2007 12:07 PM »
Quote
avollhar - 3/12/2007  3:31 AM

Operational freeflyer is not an option due to the power requirements and data transmission requirements (this would add LOTS of additional hardware to make this work). But if we could get it few days/weeks freeflying and equip it with some propulsion and a KURS-like automatic approach system, then actual docking could maybe done by the SSRMS.


Not so.  Adding data and power is  easier, cheaper and less hardware than adding propulsion and rendezvous capability.

Both solutions require a basic spacecraft bus so that isn't a discriminator.  There are many types available or a unique one could be built.  

1.  Propulsion system
ISS based - Needs to support translational, rotational and orbit adjust maneuvers
Standalone - depending on operational orbit may not be required.  If required, a simple blow on system

2.  Attitude control.
ISS based - it would be part of the propulsion system and more complex
standalone - Many options, CMG, cold gas, etc. There are no hard pointing requirements for the AMS (it took what ever the ISS was doing)

3.  Comm and data system
ISS based - Low data TDRSS, off the self
standalone - High data TDRSS, off the self

4.  Guidance
ISS based - Complex, multiple sensor,
standalone - Simple, off the self

5.  Power
ISS based - Short duration, lower energy, just to power the spacecraft, Off the shelf
standalone - Long duration, high energy, must power bus and experiment, may be off the self, but certainly within the experience base

The standalone freeflyer is much easier and cheaper

Offline avollhar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #34 on: 12/03/2007 12:26 PM »
Quote
Jim - 3/12/2007  2:07 AM

Quote
avollhar - 3/12/2007  3:31 AM

Operational freeflyer is not an option due to the power requirements and data transmission requirements (this would add LOTS of additional hardware to make this work). But if we could get it few days/weeks freeflying and equip it with some propulsion and a KURS-like automatic approach system, then actual docking could maybe done by the SSRMS.


Not so.  Adding data and power is  easier, cheaper and less hardware than adding propulsion and rendezvous capability.

Both solutions require a basic spacecraft bus so that isn't a discriminator.  There are many types available or a unique one could be built.  

Agreed, that sounds quite reasonable.. So in the end I would really love to see these freeflyer studies, which apparently were done. Because although I understand NASA's point to leave it behind in exchange for other payloads, given the 2010 timeframe, it certainly would be a shame to leave this piece of hardware in a museum.


Offline nathan.moeller

  • Astro95 Media
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4008
  • Houston, TX
    • Astro95 Media
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #35 on: 12/03/2007 12:58 PM »
Quote
punkboi - 2/12/2007  4:45 PM

Quote
nathan.moeller - 2/12/2007 10:56 AM
Quote
jabe - 2/12/2007 12:55 PM
Quote
brahmanknight - 2/12/2007 1:10 PM What else is being left on the ground? I know the Centrafuge Module, the Habitation module, and this device. Is there anything else of significance that I forgot?
Cupola was canceled at one point i think... or is it back on?
Cupola is being launched on STS-132 in 2010 with Node 3.

FYI: The last flight in the Shuttle Program.

How feasible would it be to launch AMS on one of the two contingency flights that are on the shuttle manifest?


STS-132 Discovery, 20A) is not the final flight.  STS-133 (Endeavour, ULF5) is.
www.astro95media.com - Lead Video & Graphics

Offline grakenverb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
  • New York
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #36 on: 12/03/2007 01:01 PM »
Quote
Jim - 2/12/2007  3:08 PM

Quote
grakenverb - 2/12/2007  2:42 PM

  Although this and other modules were designed to be launched on the space shuttle, surely there are some smart engineers who can devise another way to get them to the station.

Sure, it is easy, do you have the $$$$$$$?  That is the issue



How about spinning off the ISS into its own federal agency?  The Department for the Preservation of Low Earth Orbit Structures.

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #37 on: 12/03/2007 03:40 PM »
For the 1.5 Billion USD cost of the AMS-02: Who has payed which share of it?

And what is NASA's obligation in this project? To transport the device to ISS?


Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #38 on: 12/03/2007 03:46 PM »
I think the question at the end is still, what is more important, that is what has the higher priority for the ISS respectively for NASA - one of the EXPRESS Logistics Carriers on the contingency flights or AMS. The argument, that all EXPRESS payloads are necessary for ISS operations is invalid, as those flights are labeled contigency flights in the first place, so AMS can of course be on one of those flights (if flown) without jeopardizing ISS's future operations.

Any reason by the way, why http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/shuttle/manifest.txt lists AMS as a payload for STS-129 or am I reading that wrong?

Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #39 on: 12/03/2007 03:48 PM »
Quote
Skyrocket - 3/12/2007  11:40 AM

For the 1.5 Billion USD cost of the AMS-02: Who has payed which share of it?

And what is NASA's obligation in this project? To transport the device to ISS?


Largest share was paid from the US taxpayer, however there are 15 other countries involved in the project.


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11233
  • Liked: 2709
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #40 on: 12/03/2007 06:09 PM »
Quote
avollhar - 3/12/2007  7:26 AM
Because although I understand NASA's point to leave it behind in exchange for other payloads, given the 2010 timeframe, it certainly would be a shame to leave this piece of hardware in a museum.

Please indicate which programs should be canceled in order to fly AMS.  Please justify the decision to cancel those programs.  Can you demonstrate that the programs that you want to cancel are lower scientific priority than AMS?


Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6180
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #41 on: 12/03/2007 06:13 PM »
Quote
grakenverb - 3/12/2007  8:01 AM

Quote
Jim - 2/12/2007  3:08 PM

Quote
grakenverb - 2/12/2007  2:42 PM

  Although this and other modules were designed to be launched on the space shuttle, surely there are some smart engineers who can devise another way to get them to the station.

Sure, it is easy, do you have the $$$$$$$?  That is the issue



How about spinning off the ISS into its own federal agency?  The Department for the Preservation of Low Earth Orbit Structures.

You still need the $$$$$$$. That would just move the $$$$$$$ into another pot. It doesn't solve the problem.
JRF

Offline avollhar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #42 on: 12/03/2007 06:14 PM »
Quote
Blackstar - 3/12/2007  8:09 AM

Quote
avollhar - 3/12/2007  7:26 AM
Because although I understand NASA's point to leave it behind in exchange for other payloads, given the 2010 timeframe, it certainly would be a shame to leave this piece of hardware in a museum.

Please indicate which programs should be canceled in order to fly AMS.  Please justify the decision to cancel those programs.  Can you demonstrate that the programs that you want to cancel are lower scientific priority than AMS?


That's what I say... I understand NASA's point with the dilemma of shuttle retirement.. just do proper funding of the space program as a whole and finish the ones which are almost ready to fly instead of starting new ones. Get this thing up.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6180
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #43 on: 12/03/2007 06:44 PM »
Quote
avollhar - 3/12/2007  1:14 PM

Quote
Blackstar - 3/12/2007  8:09 AM

Quote
avollhar - 3/12/2007  7:26 AM
Because although I understand NASA's point to leave it behind in exchange for other payloads, given the 2010 timeframe, it certainly would be a shame to leave this piece of hardware in a museum.

Please indicate which programs should be canceled in order to fly AMS.  Please justify the decision to cancel those programs.  Can you demonstrate that the programs that you want to cancel are lower scientific priority than AMS?


That's what I say... I understand NASA's point with the dilemma of shuttle retirement.. just do proper funding of the space program as a whole and finish the ones which are almost ready to fly instead of starting new ones. Get this thing up.

The problem is the "new ones", like Constellation, are already started.

So, are you proposing cutting Constellation, or one of the other new starts like Mars Scout?

The cuts must come from somewhere.
JRF

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #44 on: 12/03/2007 07:06 PM »
Quote
avollhar - 3/12/2007  2:14 PM

That's what I say... I understand NASA's point with the dilemma of shuttle retirement.. just do proper funding of the space program as a whole and finish the ones which are almost ready to fly instead of starting new ones. Get this thing up.

At the expense of what other project?

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #45 on: 12/03/2007 07:19 PM »
Quote
Blackstar - 4/12/2007  4:09 AM

Quote
avollhar - 3/12/2007  7:26 AM
Because although I understand NASA's point to leave it behind in exchange for other payloads, given the 2010 timeframe, it certainly would be a shame to leave this piece of hardware in a museum.

Please indicate which programs should be canceled in order to fly AMS.  Please justify the decision to cancel those programs.  Can you demonstrate that the programs that you want to cancel are lower scientific priority than AMS?


Flying the cupola should be lower priority. If $1.5B has been spent on this instrument then NASA should find some way of flying it.
Would it fit in the spacex cargo 'trunk'.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3907
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 482
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #46 on: 12/03/2007 07:30 PM »
Cupola will already be attached to Node 3 nadir port at launch. So not flying the Cupola would mean not flying Node 3 altogether.

Offline punkboi

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #47 on: 12/03/2007 07:33 PM »

Quote
MKremer - 3/12/2007 12:30 PM Cupola will already be attached to Node 3 nadir port at launch. So not flying the Cupola would mean not flying Node 3 altogether.

And I read somewhere that Node 3 carries the most advanced life support systems of all the modules (or at least the first two nodes)


Offline redgryphon

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 30
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #48 on: 12/03/2007 07:45 PM »
Looking at the shuttle manifest, I see that there are three flights, each with 2 EXPRESS Logistics Carriers (ELCs): ULF 3, 4 and 5. However, only 5 ELCs are being built. ELC 1 is being flown on ULF 3 and 5. From what I can see on the Nasa website, the ELCs are to be installed on the ISS truss. I assume that ELC 1 will not be installed permanently on the truss on ULF 3, but will have its contents moved somewhere (an ESP, perhaps), and then brought back to KSC and prepped for ULF 5.

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

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

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

Offline Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1186
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #49 on: 12/03/2007 07:46 PM »
Are you referring to one of the four radial ports, or the forward/aft ports? I ask since Node 3 will be mounted perpendicularly to the other Nodes, so would Nadir for Node 3 have a different meaning than for Node1/Node2?
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Offline punkboi

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #50 on: 12/03/2007 07:52 PM »

The Cupola will be attached to the upper of the four radial ports on Node 3 (on Harmony...this would be the port that the JEM PS will temporarily be attached to before STS-124).

I believe Cupola will be attached to one of the aft ports during launch and then relocated to the upper port in orbit.


Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #51 on: 12/03/2007 08:11 PM »
For launch, cupola will be attached to the forward CBM (where PMA3 will be attached)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #52 on: 12/03/2007 08:13 PM »
Quote
Nathan - 3/12/2007  3:19 PM

Would it fit in the spacex cargo 'trunk'.

too big and heavy

Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #53 on: 12/03/2007 08:17 PM »
Quote
redgryphon - 3/12/2007  8:45 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NASA manifest isn't updated that often, this is the best place to find the shuttle schedules...

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6180
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #54 on: 12/03/2007 09:40 PM »
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 3/12/2007  3:17 PM

Quote
redgryphon - 3/12/2007  8:45 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #55 on: 12/04/2007 12:34 AM »
What about launching AMS on an F9/F9 Heavy?

Have the booster US rendevoux with the ISS.

Have an EVA to attach the AMS to the ISS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #56 on: 12/04/2007 12:52 AM »
Quote
tnphysics - 3/12/2007  8:34 PM

1.  What about launching AMS on an F9/F9 Heavy?

2.  Have the booster US rendevoux with the ISS.

Have an EVA to attach the AMS to the ISS.

1.  they don't exist
2.  upperstages can't rendezvous. Need rotation (couple), translation and orbit adjust thrusters.  Need rendezvous sensors and guidance system

Offline avollhar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #57 on: 12/04/2007 06:02 AM »
Quote
Jorge - 3/12/2007  8:44 AM

Quote
avollhar - 3/12/2007  1:14 PM

Quote
Blackstar - 3/12/2007  8:09 AM

Quote
avollhar - 3/12/2007  7:26 AM
Because although I understand NASA's point to leave it behind in exchange for other payloads, given the 2010 timeframe, it certainly would be a shame to leave this piece of hardware in a museum.

Please indicate which programs should be canceled in order to fly AMS.  Please justify the decision to cancel those programs.  Can you demonstrate that the programs that you want to cancel are lower scientific priority than AMS?


That's what I say... I understand NASA's point with the dilemma of shuttle retirement.. just do proper funding of the space program as a whole and finish the ones which are almost ready to fly instead of starting new ones. Get this thing up.

The problem is the "new ones", like Constellation, are already started.

So, are you proposing cutting Constellation, or one of the other new starts like Mars Scout?

The cuts must come from somewhere.

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

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

I think the real issue here is not only the money, but science institutes are keen on having their own sexy mission.. nobody wants to just pay for a freeflyer conversion. I know these ideas as I am working in a research institute and more than once, people have started a similar approach as an already existing one, just 'because it is not our approach'. Ok, it will be upgraded with greater sensitivity and so on to justify funding. These things get funded, believe me.

Just imagine JWST gets built, and then put into the warehouse, because of a lack of a launch. Guess nobody wants that..



Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10482
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2478
  • Likes Given: 883
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #58 on: 12/04/2007 10:49 AM »
IF NASA revises its plans and builds the Jupiter-120, EVERYTHING that has been left behind and/or been cancelled or placed on the back burner will become viable again, including the AMS, Promethius, Lunar probes and landers, etc. The determining factor at that point will be funding, not the launch vehicle. If it weighs 47mT or less, the Jupiter-120 can place it into orbit.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #59 on: 12/04/2007 10:50 AM »
Quote
avollhar - 4/12/2007  2:02 AM

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

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


Who says AMS is more deserving of those funds?

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #60 on: 12/04/2007 11:04 AM »
Quote
Jim - 4/12/2007  12:50 PM

Who says AMS is more deserving of those funds?

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

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


Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #61 on: 12/04/2007 11:10 AM »
Quote
clongton - 4/12/2007  6:49 AM

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

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

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #62 on: 12/04/2007 11:10 AM »
Quote
MKremer - 3/12/2007  9:30 PM

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

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

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

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

Analyst

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #63 on: 12/04/2007 11:17 AM »
Quote
Skyrocket - 4/12/2007  7:04 AM


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

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


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

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10482
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2478
  • Likes Given: 883
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #64 on: 12/04/2007 11:23 AM »
Quote
Skyrocket - 4/12/2007  7:04 AM

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

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #65 on: 12/04/2007 11:35 AM »
Quote
Jim - 4/12/2007  1:17 PM
It happens to programs sometimes.  Cheaper to keep them of the ground vs flying them.  It will cost at least 500 million for an ELV launch

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

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


Offline avollhar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #66 on: 12/04/2007 11:38 AM »
Quote
Jim - 4/12/2007  12:50 AM

Quote
avollhar - 4/12/2007  2:02 AM

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

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


Who says AMS is more deserving of those funds?

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

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

Offline mr.columbus

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

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

Quote
redgryphon - 3/12/2007  8:45 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #68 on: 12/04/2007 01:36 PM »
Quote
avollhar - 4/12/2007  7:38 AM

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

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

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

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

Offline bobthemonkey

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

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

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #70 on: 12/04/2007 01:54 PM »
Quote
Jim - 4/12/2007  3:36 PM
Other spacecraft have been left on the ground.  

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


Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #71 on: 12/04/2007 02:02 PM »
Quote
bobthemonkey - 4/12/2007  3:51 PM

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

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

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

Analyst

Offline mr.columbus

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

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

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

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

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #73 on: 12/04/2007 05:12 PM »
Quote
mr.columbus - 4/12/2007  6:11 PM

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

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

Analyst

Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #74 on: 12/04/2007 07:57 PM »
At the STS-122 confrence, someone asked Mike Sufferendi (can't spell it!) if AMS is flying. He said he cannot confirm it will put they are going to have a platform available for it with all the data connection ready so that the ISS is capable of having it.


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

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #75 on: 12/05/2007 04:04 AM »
There seems to be quite a bit of political momentum growing behind the AMS like HST before it and I wouldn't be surprised if a way was found for it to go up soon. Of course it's more important than an ELC rack (!) attempting to find fundamental information about anti-matter and dark energy because there is no doubt Astrophysics have hit major roadblocks there. The ISS and NASA should be about Science too not just Exploration and perhaps when this pointless Ares I rocket is finally discarded a  better balance will be established.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #76 on: 12/05/2007 04:25 AM »
Senator Nelson keeps pestering Griffin over it ;) . Just add another Shuttle mission with the flexibility that extending Atlantis gives you. The money can come out of the extra all the politicians are trying to get for NASA and if it doesn't well take it from the Exploration budget, it's not as if one extra Shuttle mission will make much material difference to that big well of money and schedule and they can even bring up more logistics with it ;) .

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11233
  • Liked: 2709
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #77 on: 12/05/2007 04:55 AM »
I'm always amazed at how easy these decisions are for people who have no idea what is actually going on...

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #78 on: 12/05/2007 07:11 AM »
Quote
Blackstar - 5/12/2007  6:55 AM

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

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

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

Analyst


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11233
  • Liked: 2709
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #79 on: 12/05/2007 02:43 PM »
Quote
Analyst - 5/12/2007  2:11 AM
Then please inform us unknowing people. :) What is going on?

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

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

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

Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #80 on: 12/05/2007 03:18 PM »
Quote
Blackstar - 5/12/2007  10:43 AM

Quote
Analyst - 5/12/2007  2:11 AM
Then please inform us unknowing people. :) What is going on?

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

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

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

Blackstar, can you elaborate why every single one of the four EXPRESS payloads is scientifically more important than AMS?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #81 on: 12/05/2007 04:35 PM »
Quote
mr.columbus - 5/12/2007  11:18 AM

Blackstar, can you elaborate why every single one of the four EXPRESS payloads is scientifically more important than AMS?


The EXPRESS payloads individually don't have scientific merit.  They allow the ISS to remain a viable science platform longer.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #82 on: 12/05/2007 05:34 PM »
Quote
Blackstar - 5/12/2007  4:43 PM

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

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

I understand and I know this process. But it is for selection of (new) science missions, isn't it? Here we have a situation with $ 1.5 billion already spent and the science system almost ready to ship to KSC for launch.

As for the money: It has already been spent, the launch (cost) is a NASA obligation NASA is not willing to honour any more. The scientists (tax payers worldwide) spent $ 1.5 billion and 10 years trusting NASA it will launch AMS. Now NASA says they (science) have to come up with the moeny for a shuttle or EELV launch, something not in the deal in the first place.

Analyst

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #83 on: 12/06/2007 09:01 AM »
Quote
Blackstar - 6/12/2007  9:20 AM

(1) But the money to actually fly it was coming from outside the science program.  Now that it is grounded, the money to fly it has to come from somewhere.

(2) The launch costs money.  Where should that money come from?  And before you say that "it's NASA money," keep in mind that NASA money is divided up into different areas.  Should NASA postpone Orion to pay to fly AMS?  The science community would have no problem with that.  Should some other science mission be postponed to pay for this flight?  The scientists would have a problem with that, because they would point out that there are other things that they consider higher priority that they want to spend the money on.

Note that I'm not saying that AMS is not good science.  But flying it will cost money and that money has to come out of somebody's pocket.

(3) If it is not flown on the shuttle, then that money will be substantial.

(1) Exactly. Human spaceflight (ISS/SSP) made a commitment to launch AMS (and fund the launch).
(2) The money should come from the part of NASA what commited to launch AMS in the first place. This has not been the science part, but human spaceflight (ISS/SSP) AFAIK. They have to honour their commitments. If this means delaying other things on their agenda like Orion so it be. No department of NASA should make commitments, have other people trusting these and 10 years later say ups ... has been a joke.
(3) This implies to use the shuttle is the most cost effictive way of launching it. No surprise, it has been designed specifically to use the shuttle.

Analyst

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #84 on: 12/06/2007 09:39 AM »
This is the sort of stuff that gives NASA a bad reputation in congress. Whether or not the project should have been funded in the first place is irrelevant now that 1.5 billion has been spent on it. Helping congress believe that NASA doesn't just throw away public funds (yes, even if it costs more money to keep shuttle running for one more flight) is probably more important than a few months worth of Orion timeline lapse. This will come back to haunt later appropriations...
John

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #85 on: 12/06/2007 11:30 AM »
Quote
madscientist197 - 6/12/2007  5:39 AM

This is the sort of stuff that gives NASA a bad reputation in congress. Whether or not the project should have been funded in the first place is irrelevant now that 1.5 billion has been spent on it. Helping congress believe that NASA doesn't just throw away public funds (yes, even if it costs more money to keep shuttle running for one more flight) is probably more important than a few months worth of Orion timeline lapse. This will come back to haunt later appropriations...

It wasn't US funds used

  • Guest
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #86 on: 12/06/2007 05:06 PM »

There are other motivations in the science community regarding AMS, dealing with the lack of success of certain high profile projects, some involving attempts to detect things like dark matter/energy. While not conclusive, linked with other equally unsubstantial theory work that attempts to explain why, the fear is by passing up AMS you might lose a significant opportunity. At a minimum, flying it would eliminate a large state space of possibilities, and some view this as a hedge bet.

So the point here is that other budgets/projects are at risk than just AMS standalone. In this case, Goldin may have made a shrewd bet scientifically.

As to not being a free flier, Jim should know that in high energy physics research, you often need access to the detector for certain purposes that would suffice with an EVA, but be costly to justify for a Hubble-styled manned mission. That was a reason for it to be on ISS to begin with.  

I agree with Analyst and Blackstar in different ways. This hasn't played out yet. I don't agree with Jim, though he's certainly detailed the points perfectly less certain omissions mentioned, which was pleasant to see instead of the usual non-detailed terse response. And yes everyone fights for own projects jealously first - but sometimes there are peculiar exceptions.

If tomorrow certain projects were to start seeing results all of a sudden, then AMS will fade away. If not, that sinking feeling will grow and AMS will fly on Shuttle somehow. Don't believe it will ever be a free flier.

On a different note, am surprised that an "off the shelf" means to get ISS components post Shuttle isn't being considered. Something like  taking ATV components and blowing them on around an ISS module in an Ariane shroud. Why? Is it primarily because the ISS is considered moribund anyways?


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #87 on: 12/06/2007 05:11 PM »
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 6/12/2007  1:06 PM

As to not being a free flier, Jim should now that in high energy physics research, you often need access to the detector for certain purposes that would suffice with an EVA, but be costly to justify for a Hubble-styled manned mission. That was a reason for it to be on ISS to begin with.

I believe there are no EVA serviceable items on AMS

  • Guest
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #88 on: 12/06/2007 05:29 PM »
Sigh. Didn't imply that. Will attempt at the risk of going off-topic. Need to bring in a particle physics researcher here to educate - chime up if one of you can do better.

Sometimes when you tune or just run them, you get a surprise in how they work. So you measure/add equipment/fit shielding/ from OUTSIDE the detector. This is a very simplified explanation of a complex process. But few such detectors have been flown in space,
and almost no detectors have existed for some of the classes of interactions being currently looked for.

Recently there have been some high profile projects whose results have refuted claims by super symmetry and string theorists. The counter argument have been detector artifacts. The challenges were anticipated and dealt with by monitors surrounding the detector. The next round of challenges were that the monitors were not sufficient. Am I getting the point across? It gets very, very arcane if we go deeper...

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10886
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #89 on: 12/06/2007 05:40 PM »
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 6/12/2007  1:29 PM

Sigh. Didn't imply that. Will attempt at the risk of going off-topic. Need to bring in a particle physics researcher here to educate - chime up if one of you can do better.

Sometimes when you tune or just run them, you get a surprise in how they work. So you measure/add equipment/fit shielding/ from OUTSIDE the detector. This is a very simplified explanation of a complex process. But few such detectors have been flown in space,
and almost no detectors have existed for some of the classes of interactions being currently looked for.

Recently there have been some high profile projects whose results have refuted claims by super symmetry and string theorists. The counter argument have been detector artifacts. The challenges were anticipated and dealt with by monitors surrounding the detector. The next round of challenges were that the monitors were not sufficient. Am I getting the point across? It gets very, very arcane if we go deeper...

Then the structure of the ISS will have a play on this, where as a freeflyer can avoid this

  • Guest
Re: The Device NASA is Leaving Behind
« Reply #90 on: 12/06/2007 05:45 PM »
Not necessarily - just additional shielding. The key point is manned access, like inspecting SARJ's.

Tags: