-
#20
by
psloss
on 19 Jan, 2009 22:50
-
It says to proceed through half of pad flow and stop at Hyper load. Doesn't that mean prior to Hyper load, rather than after? If there's another indication noted that I missed, then it means changing one word in the article, but it's still important.
It says both, but the chart seems more precise and I assume that's what AnalogMan is referring to.
-
#21
by
Chris Bergin
on 19 Jan, 2009 22:57
-
It says to proceed through half of pad flow and stop at Hyper load. Doesn't that mean prior to Hyper load, rather than after? If there's another indication noted that I missed, then it means changing one word in the article, but it's still important.
It says both, but the chart seems more precise and I assume that's what AnalogMan is referring to.
Got it, thanks!
-
#22
by
cb6785
on 19 Jan, 2009 22:58
-
You can't prevent everything.
Of course it is safer to have ISS as a safe heaven...or to have LON ready in two days. But we won't have ISS for any mission beyond LEO either and we won't have any chance for LON beyond LEO either. Does that mean we shouldn't do it because something could happen and in the worst case people could die?
You can only minimise the chances of LOC happening on any kind of mission and (exspecially post Columbia) NASA is exactly doing that. I don't know any other place in the world where things are tested and discussed that thorough.
Nobody would send them up if they weren't sure they have the best chances to come back in one piece.
-
#23
by
marsavian
on 19 Jan, 2009 23:08
-
Indeed, but why limit ourselves for something that is not as important as maximising the life chances of the Astronauts. If the World is forced to watch these guys die and it is known the Agency could have made a difference if not for the trivial sake of testing the World's Biggest Firework early, it would never be forgiven. 3 strikes and you are out !
What evidence do you have that NASA's stakeholders would view it that way? If I-X is just a fireworks display, it should be canceled for THAT reason.
They would not be viewed any kinder than the Challenger/Columbia Managers for
not taking the absolute safest path they could have and less so given that previous experience. I think you could put a fork in any further manned missions, NASA just wouldn't be trusted and might even be broken up as punishment. As to the fireworks remark, I was just reducing it to a basic level, it's just an *unmanned* first test flight of a rocket whose final manned form will not ultimately be delayed if it takes place later in the year.
I can just guess why there is schedule pressure, maybe the Cx guys think if I-X flies early the program is safe but it's a false hope, if Ares I is cancelled it's because it either costs too much, does not perform or is taking too long, flying in July will not prevent any of those being true against the EELV/DIRECT competition in the long run. If it survives it will be because it is deemed the safest, safeguards MSFC jobs and produces the biggest HLV as a byproduct. It really is a simple choice for Obama and his administrator in which the timing of I-X will play no part and it's bad IMO that the Shuttle Program is being harassed in this misguided way.
-
#24
by
Jorge
on 19 Jan, 2009 23:18
-
Indeed, but why limit ourselves for something that is not as important as maximising the life chances of the Astronauts. If the World is forced to watch these guys die and it is known the Agency could have made a difference if not for the trivial sake of testing the World's Biggest Firework early, it would never be forgiven. 3 strikes and you are out !
What evidence do you have that NASA's stakeholders would view it that way? If I-X is just a fireworks display, it should be canceled for THAT reason.
They would not be viewed any kinder than the Challenger/Columbia Managers for not taking the absolute safest path they could have and less so given that previous experience.
The "absolute safest path" is not to fly HST SM-04 at all. Period. If you are going to commit to flying it at all, you are by definition committing to taking some risk.
"Just delay Ares I-X" is not a free option; there are real budgetary consequences to doing so.
I don't personally agree with the single-pad option but I recognize that this does not eliminate LON capability, only delays it. The range of scenarios that require LON are quite unlikely and the range of scenarios that would be survivable with a dual-pad LON but not with a single-pad LON are more unlikely still.
-
#25
by
marsavian
on 19 Jan, 2009 23:19
-
You can't prevent everything.
Of course it is safer to have ISS as a safe heaven...or to have LON ready in two days. But we won't have ISS for any mission beyond LEO either and we won't have any chance for LON beyond LEO either. Does that mean we shouldn't do it because something could happen and in the worst case people could die?
You can only minimise the chances of LOC happening on any kind of mission and (exspecially post Columbia) NASA is exactly doing that. I don't know any other place in the world where things are tested and discussed that thorough.
Nobody would send them up if they weren't sure they have the best chances to come back in one piece.
Can someone seriously tell me why the HST Astronauts should have to put up with the twin disadvantages of no ISS shelter and delayed LON capability ? This is not some theoretical PC game to see how quickly and cheaply you can juggle two Space programs at once with the same facilities. Ares I-X is a variable that should not be in the equation at all. This is basic probabilitistic logic, you do everything you can to to maximise your chances on manned missions with NO compromises.
-
#26
by
cb6785
on 19 Jan, 2009 23:29
-
You can't prevent everything.
Of course it is safer to have ISS as a safe heaven...or to have LON ready in two days. But we won't have ISS for any mission beyond LEO either and we won't have any chance for LON beyond LEO either. Does that mean we shouldn't do it because something could happen and in the worst case people could die?
You can only minimise the chances of LOC happening on any kind of mission and (exspecially post Columbia) NASA is exactly doing that. I don't know any other place in the world where things are tested and discussed that thorough.
Nobody would send them up if they weren't sure they have the best chances to come back in one piece.
Can someone seriously tell me why the HST Astronauts should have to put up with the twin disadvantages of no ISS shelter and delayed LON capability ? This is not some theoretical PC game to see how quickly and cheaply you can juggle two Space programs at once with the same facilities. Ares I-X is a variable that should not be in the equation at all. This is basic probabilitistic logic, you do everything you can to to maximise your chances on manned missions with NO compromises.
Nobody is putting any astronaut in chains and strapping him or her in the vehicle. If the astronaut office want's to object against any plan regarding the safety of a mission they will do it.
-
#27
by
Peter NASA
on 19 Jan, 2009 23:31
-
Marsavian, be careful not to allow your dislike for Ares I-X cloud the rationale here. As the article states, the requirement of a rescue mission is very low, or highly unlikely as Chris wrote it.
Yes, single pad is about helping Ares I-X, but remember, your opinion about Ares I-X being a big fireworks display is not what the Agency deems it as.
-
#28
by
marsavian
on 20 Jan, 2009 00:00
-
Marsavian, be careful not to allow your dislike for Ares I-X cloud the rationale here. As the article states, the requirement of a rescue mission is very low, or highly unlikely as Chris wrote it.
Yes, single pad is about helping Ares I-X, but remember, your opinion about Ares I-X being a big fireworks display is not what the Agency deems it as.
I don't dislike it, it's a discrete choice, one means to a common end and I understand its rationale, I would have made a big fireball remark if it was a D-IVH test to make the same point. Astronauts are more important than Rockets is my point and we shouldn't cut corners in that respect no matter how low the risk of doing so. The Agency is ultimately judged on its Manned Missions and isn't that what Ares I is all about, the safest rocket ? The Shuttle needs all the help it can get in that regards.
-
#29
by
Lee Jay
on 20 Jan, 2009 00:35
-
I'm with mars on this one - I hate this plan. Schedule, especially for something with a decade-long development schedule, shouldn't be a driver for crew safety, however remote the possibilities. They rejected it once, and they should do so again, IMHO.
Good article, Chris.
-
#30
by
Stowbridge
on 20 Jan, 2009 19:08
-
Good article Chris. I understand the reservations with this plan, which is giving undue priority to Ares I-X, but also the low probability of a rescue missions being required.
-
#31
by
psloss
on 23 Jan, 2009 10:19
-
Bill Harwood reports out of the manifest options meeting that while the decision was to continue to prepare for a mid-May launch date for STS-125, a decision on using Pad B for LON or releasing it to Constellation was deferred until mid-March:
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/current.htmlExcerpt:
Debating the various options today, Gerstenmaier decided to wait until mid March to make a final decision. If the Ares 1-X project can make up enough time to have a realistic shot at a mid July launch, NASA might go with single-pad operations for the Hubble mission. By moving Atlantis to the pad ahead of schedule in March, engineers could free up high bay 3 in the Vehicle Assembly Building for Ares 1-X assembly.
-
#32
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Jan, 2009 12:00
-
Although it needs to be noted no manifest decisions were to be made by the Gerst meeting this week, as noted in our article, last week.
-
#33
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Jan, 2009 13:35
-
Single Pad decision day is April 1, as per meeting overview memo on L2.
-
#34
by
Analyst
on 23 Jan, 2009 16:57
-
Probably Ares I-X will slip on its own beyond July - or will be canceled by then altogether - and this becomes a non issue. I understand the SSP to wait and see.
Analyst
-
#35
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 23 Jan, 2009 17:11
-
Probably Ares I-X will slip on its own beyond July - or will be canceled by then altogether - and this becomes a non issue. I understand the SSP to wait and see.
Analyst
Do you really think they'd cancel Ares 1-X?
-
#36
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Jan, 2009 17:18
-
Probably Ares I-X will slip on its own beyond July - or will be canceled by then altogether - and this becomes a non issue. I understand the SSP to wait and see.
Analyst
Do you really think they'd cancel Ares 1-X?
I'd say only if they cancel Ares I, which is "doutbful" to "unlikely" but "possible".
No cancellation of Ares, no cancellation of Ares I-X.
-
#37
by
K-P
on 23 Jan, 2009 18:30
-
Just a small question about shuttle orbit, not sure if it is answered before and just speculating here, but...
How possible it would be to use some sort of additional fuel tank located in shuttle bay to refill OMS tanks after last burn to orbit and use that extra thrust to move shuttle from HST orbit to ISS orbit in emergency situation such as heatshield damage?
And yes, let's just assume that in this case there would have been such an extra tank designed, and yes, OMS engines/tanks could be refilled on orbit, and yes, shuttle managers would be ok to carry liquid fuels on shuttle bay.
...just wanting to know if OMS engines have such capacity and shuttle such lift capacity to carry that needed extra fuel in addition of HST service mission cargo?
-
#38
by
Jorge
on 23 Jan, 2009 18:38
-
Just a small question about shuttle orbit, not sure if it is answered before and just speculating here, but...
How possible it would be to use some sort of additional fuel tank located in shuttle bay to refill OMS tanks after last burn to orbit and use that extra thrust to move shuttle from HST orbit to ISS orbit in emergency situation such as heatshield damage?
Not possible at all. Even if you completely filled the payload bay with OMS prop, it won't be enough to change inclination by more than a few degrees. And even if it were possible to do so by filling the bay, it would be pointless to do so because then you wouldn't have room for the HST servicing hardware. Which is, after all, the point of the whole exercise.
-
#39
by
FreeWillie
on 24 Jan, 2009 05:21
-
Gerst did make some decisions this week.
They decided not to consider November for HST anymore, and HST has a higher priority than 2J/A. Now they just wait to see how Ares I-X does schedule wise.
