-
#380
by
C5C6
on 29 Dec, 2007 00:56
-
Real Madrid - 28/12/2007 12:08 PM
I have a Question
Can the NASA postpone the launch STS-123 by again postponing the launch of STS-122 ,Can the NASA then as first STS-123 launch and then STS-122?
I was about to ask that, what could be the problems on doing this?
-
#381
by
Ducati94
on 29 Dec, 2007 01:30
-
The major hurtle would be for NASA to convince themselves that the same problem would not be present on the ET for ST-123 . The manufacture and test of each tank is as close to the same as humanly possible. So until a solution is found NASA is not going to expend the effort and money to swap launches.
-
#382
by
Se Elmeri
on 29 Dec, 2007 10:29
-
What is the point in swapping tanks, then?
-
#383
by
SimonShuttle
on 29 Dec, 2007 11:13
-
Se Elmeri - 29/12/2007 5:29 AM
What is the point in swapping tanks, then?
They think it might be a one off, that the connector in ET-125 was bad workmanship. (per L2 documentation if Chris hasn't written that yet).
-
#384
by
Ducati94
on 29 Dec, 2007 11:43
-
That's one of the reasons NASA is working Option A. A tank swap will only work if NASA understands the problem and has proof that the ET for ST-122 has a one off problem.
-
#385
by
Zachstar
on 29 Dec, 2007 17:06
-
Let me ask a question here based on what I have seen lately.
Of course delays are expected. Weather acts stupid, Fuel cell burps, Cables break, etc... However this delay has pushed things back atleast a full launch to launch time.
Just how many more of these major setbacks can they stand before they have to start cutting back on hardware or supplies to ISS in order to get this done by 2010?
NASA has shown an amazing ability to adapt when it comes to shuttle issues. It is of my opinion that if a rollback is needed they ought to be able to fully destack and get the shuttle back to the hangar for ANY needed inspection or restart work. In the meantime simply fly the next mission instead. Now this is only if they really have a good idea what is causing this mess.
I think it is a good idea anyway to see if we are able to skip around later if needed.
I know I will get jumped on for this. It is just my concern that the shuttle sits out there for so long.
-
#386
by
Chris Bergin
on 29 Dec, 2007 18:51
-
-
#387
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 29 Dec, 2007 19:04
-
Thanks for that new article Chris!
-
#388
by
Jorge
on 29 Dec, 2007 19:30
-
Zachstar - 29/12/2007 12:06 PM
Let me ask a question here based on what I have seen lately.
Of course delays are expected. Weather acts stupid, Fuel cell burps, Cables break, etc... However this delay has pushed things back atleast a full launch to launch time.
Just how many more of these major setbacks can they stand before they have to start cutting back on hardware or supplies to ISS in order to get this done by 2010?
More than many people think. The manifest has, on average, about three week's worth of margin for each flight. In general, that means a three-month slip will cascade to the launch dates of the next four flights, but no further. The effect of the 122 slip may extend further than that, but this year is a bit of an anomaly due to 125/HST requiring two stacks. The average margin is expected to increase after 125 if/when Atlantis is extended through 2010.
NASA has shown an amazing ability to adapt when it comes to shuttle issues. It is of my opinion that if a rollback is needed they ought to be able to fully destack and get the shuttle back to the hangar for ANY needed inspection or restart work. In the meantime simply fly the next mission instead. Now this is only if they really have a good idea what is causing this mess.
That is necessary but not sufficient. NASA must not only have a good idea what is causing the problem with the current launch. They must also have a good idea whether it is a "generic" issue or not. Otherwise there is a good chance the next flight will have the same problem and stacking it would just be a waste of time.
The ISS assembly sequence does not have a whole lot of room for swapping flights around. There are many "get-ahead" tasks on each flight that prepare for the next one so swapping the order at the last minute means re-training the crews. You can pretty much forget changing the order of 122-123-124 for this reason. The 123 crew is having enough trouble right now coping with the additions to their flight due to the 120 EVA schedule being so radically rearranged. Throwing the unperformed 122 get-ahead tasks onto 123 may be too much to ask. It can be done, and has been done, but NASA will not do it without good reason. Note that the major swaps that have occurred (such as the delay to 119) were done before the crew was even named.
I know I will get jumped on for this. It is just my concern that the shuttle sits out there for so long.
It is not my intention to jump on you, but much of my explanation has already been discussed by others in this thread. It is my hope that seeing all the reasons laid out in one post will make you understand. (If not, THEN you will get jumped on...
)
-
#389
by
Andy L
on 29 Dec, 2007 19:53
-
Chris Bergin - 29/12/2007 1:51 PM
As promised, an expanded article on status, from L2 information (and this is only a bit of it), going on now as they've just got the connector out at the pad:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5320
Great article Chris.
You wrote "Option A's plan will also see ET-126's R&R process completed by February 2, providing plenty of time for mating with Endeavour in time for LON (Launch on Need) requirements. Ultimately impacting the launch schedule by only a matter of around a month in total, should everything go to plan."
So you're not being negative about the slip, like some other sites are? Hard to be postive, if you don't mind me saying so.
-
#390
by
Chris Bergin
on 29 Dec, 2007 20:00
-
Andy L - 29/12/2007 8:53 PM
So you're not being negative about the slip, like some other sites are? Hard to be postive, if you don't mind me saying so.
I don't mind you saying...but remember, they very nearly didn't even get a shot at the December window in the first place, and it's hardly the biggest slip they've suffered since RTF, so there's no point being all doom and gloom over this.
Sure, they would rather have done without the ECO system issue, but think about it from Hale's perspective, one which he believes the system may have been unreliable in the first place. So this issue allows them a big engineering overview of the full system. Hardly something to be negative about.
-
#391
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 29 Dec, 2007 20:06
-
I agree Chris. Once they've got this sorted we shouldn't have any other problems with it delaying future launches...
-
#392
by
Jim
on 29 Dec, 2007 22:17
-
Zachstar - 29/12/2007 1:06 PM
It is of my opinion that if a rollback is needed they ought to be able to fully destack and get the shuttle back to the hangar for ANY needed inspection or restart work.
I know I will get jumped on for this. It is just my concern that the shuttle sits out there for so long.
Not needed. There is no issue with the shuttle sitting at the pad. STS-1 spent many months out there and with less weather protection
-
#393
by
Gekko0481
on 30 Dec, 2007 12:18
-
Jim - 29/12/2007 10:17 PM
Not needed. There is no issue with the shuttle sitting at the pad.
Well, lets not forget a certain freak weather event that happened last time Atlantis was on pad ;-)
-
#394
by
John2375
on 30 Dec, 2007 13:19
-
If the Sept. 30th, 2010 deadline is so firm, let's say that STS-133 is due to launch in August of that year. A hurricane approaches, so they roll back.. then something similar to what's happening now happens, or a hailstorm, or whatever, and it's now mid-September and they're still not off. Would they say "OK We gotta be off the ground by 9/20/10 and fly a 10-day mission or we're cancelling the final flight" or would they then make that end-date a little bit flexible?
To me, I'm sorry but it seems to STUPID to have such a firm end-date. I'm not saying to add 5 flights/year until Ares flies, (I think that'd be stupid too since the fleet is obviously aging and they couldn't do that), however it seems reasonable to fly the remaining scheduled flights and if that takes you to August 2010, great.. if it takes until February 2011, fine.
just my 2c
-
#395
by
brihath
on 30 Dec, 2007 13:34
-
The September 2010 date was designed around the premise that the ISS would attain core complete status, and is in effect a planning date for the budget and facilities modification for Constellation. Like any plan it can be subject to change based upon the situation.
-
#396
by
Jim
on 30 Dec, 2007 14:04
-
brihath - 30/12/2007 9:34 AM
The September 2010 date was designed around the premise that the ISS would attain core complete status, and is in effect a planning date for the budget and facilities modification for Constellation. Like any plan it can be subject to change based upon the situation.
Yes, it could change. To an earlier date or the last two missions could be canceled. It is a hard date. There are few spares left and there is the issue of fleet recertification
-
#397
by
KSC Engineer
on 30 Dec, 2007 14:23
-
I hear you Jim but the reality of the shuttle not flying past 2010 just does not make sense to me considering there no other flight options for some time. I know we had a gap between Apollo and Shuttle but nothing like the gap here. Money and time can buy a few more flights so I would be shocked if things don't get extended a bit.
-
#398
by
psloss
on 30 Dec, 2007 14:56
-
KSC Engineer - 30/12/2007 10:23 AM
I hear you Jim but the reality of the shuttle not flying past 2010 just does not make sense to me considering there no other flight options for some time. I know we had a gap between Apollo and Shuttle but nothing like the gap here. Money and time can buy a few more flights so I would be shocked if things don't get extended a bit.
(This site is sure going to need a "2010" forum before long.)
I agree -- that's "all" it is, money...except that "more money" is what is required to shorten the gap. And NASA rarely gets "more money," especially on a multi-year basis. (In fact, the last two budget years, it got less money -- including at least temporary dismissal of a $1B supplemental to cover post-Katrina costs.)
Discussed in several threads, but this one very recently:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11084&posts=309&start=1
-
#399
by
on 30 Dec, 2007 17:14
-
When should the first results from testing of the connector come in from MSFC?
