Author Topic: Moving STS-119 from original place in the manifest (Read 4721 times)

NavySpaceFan · « **on:** 04/09/2008 09:25 pm »

Forgive me if this has been discussed elsewhere (no joy using search), but I looking for the reason STS-119 was moved to after the missions to install Harmony, Columbus, and Kibo. The original pre-COLUMBIA manifest has the entire power array installed before the installation of these modules, what drove the change?

The-Hammer · « **Reply #1 on:** 04/09/2008 09:29 pm »

They wanted to move the International Partner labs up in the manifest as a thank you / atonement / placation after the post-Columbia (and other) delays. S6 was the easiest to move since it's not absolutely needed anymore due to the cancellation of CAM and HAB modules.

erioladastra · « **Reply #2 on:** 04/10/2008 12:04 am »

"They wanted to move the International Partner labs up in the manifest as a thank you / atonement / placation"

No, the IPs demanded it as they were on the verge of being canceled if they couldn't show serious progress.

ChrisGebhardt · « **Reply #3 on:** 04/10/2008 12:55 am »

Cancelled? What aspects of the programs were on the verge of being cancelled. The modules were already built at the time of Columbia.

faustod · « **Reply #4 on:** 04/10/2008 01:46 pm »

I believe that S6, in hovever necessary to supply in the future almost the whole station.
If I'm not wrong, USA promised to supply energy for Russian segment, when they agreed to cancel the Russian SPP module.

NavySpaceFan · « **Reply #5 on:** 04/10/2008 07:30 pm »

Thanks everyone! Sounds like it was a "political" vice technical decision to move 119.

Jim · « **Reply #6 on:** 04/10/2008 07:45 pm »

Quote

NavySpaceFan - 10/4/2008 3:30 PM

Thanks everyone! Sounds like it was a "political" vice technical decision to move 119.

exactly

erioladastra · « **Reply #7 on:** 04/12/2008 12:55 am »

"Cancelled? What aspects of the programs were on the verge of being cancelled. The modules were already built at the time of Columbia."

The entire projects. Building wasn't enough to keep pouring money into the programs if there was a risk of them not happening soon.

Gary · « **Reply #8 on:** 04/17/2008 10:50 am »

Plus I'd assume they would need storing in very specific environmental conditions which would have been an additional cost.

Jorge · « **Reply #9 on:** 04/17/2008 02:35 pm »

Quote

faustod - 10/4/2008 8:46 AM

I believe that S6, in hovever necessary to supply in the future almost the whole station.
If I'm not wrong, USA promised to supply energy for Russian segment, when they agreed to cancel the Russian SPP module.

The US is already doing that, without the S6. At least since the time the FGB solar arrays were retracted, and probably before that too.

The power from the S6 isn't needed until the ISS crew expands to six.

wingod · « **Reply #10 on:** 04/17/2008 08:24 pm »

Quote

faustod - 10/4/2008 8:46 AM

I believe that S6, in hovever necessary to supply in the future almost the whole station.
If I'm not wrong, USA promised to supply energy for Russian segment, when they agreed to cancel the Russian SPP module.

I have seen the assembly complete power profile and they are not in a power rich situation.