-
#120
by
JSCJohn5
on 23 May, 2009 20:51
-
Latest article, including some of the ASA MMT content:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/atlantis-targets-expansive-asa-contingency-plan/
That's our 114th article on STS-125, new mission record for the site.
Congratulations. The quality of this news site's articles are superb, and you are doing us a service by not shying from the complicated subject matter, making it understandable for interested members of the public and without the dramatics some journalists use.
-
#121
by
shuttlefanatic
on 23 May, 2009 21:35
-
Sunday Landing Opportunities
10:01 a.m. Orbit 196 landing at Edwards (deorbit burn at 8:42 a.m.)
10:04 a.m. Orbit 196 landing at White Sands (deorbit burn at 8:46
a.m.)
10:10 a.m. Orbit 196 landing at Kennedy (deorbit burn at 8:57 a.m.)
11:39 a.m. Orbit 197 landing at Edwards (deorbit burn at 10:24 a.m.)
11:42 a.m. Orbit 197 landing at White Sands (deorbit burn at 10:29
a.m.)
11:48 a.m. Orbit 197 landing at Kennedy (deorbit burn at 10:42 a.m.)
It doesn't look like there's an EDW opportunity on orbit 196, or at least it's not being considered. Landing tracks are up for:
KSC orbit 196, landing 10:10A (EDT)
EDW orbit 197, landing 11:39A
KSC orbit 197, landing 11:48A
EDW orbit 198, landing 1:18P
-
#122
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 May, 2009 21:35
-
Latest article, including some of the ASA MMT content:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/atlantis-targets-expansive-asa-contingency-plan/
That's our 114th article on STS-125, new mission record for the site.
Congratulations. The quality of this news site's articles are superb, and you are doing us a service by not shying from the complicated subject matter, making it understandable for interested members of the public and without the dramatics some journalists use.
Thank you sir!
-
#123
by
hygoex
on 23 May, 2009 23:19
-
What are they doing up there right now? NASA TV is showing one of the spacewalks from earlier.
-
#124
by
MikeMi.
on 23 May, 2009 23:21
-
What are they doing up there right now?
I think they are sleeping right now..
-
#125
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 May, 2009 23:22
-
Yep, sleep time.
-
#126
by
robertross
on 23 May, 2009 23:37
-
No go for today. I still think they should have landed at Edwards on Friday.
Problem is, it costs many millions of dollars extra to ferry a shuttle back to KSC from Edwards. (Back in the early '80s, when I last heard the price tag for this, it was something like $2 million per ferry assignment; I'd have to think that, with inflation, that would be up to $10 million or more today.)
I've been wondering how much each extra day of flight ops costs (with respect to MCC controller and facility, ground crew callups, etc.).
I didn't realize the $2M price tag on a ferry assignment was 20 years old, but using that number, and a WAG of $1M/day flight cost, it quickly becomes a wash between waiting for KSC and landing at EDW.
Well I'm going to take a LOT of flak for this one, but "frankly my dear, I couldn't give a damn"..
Let's just 'suppose', something were to happen (mmod, major system failure), and all this time they had the chance to come home, but in the interests of saving a few million, compared to several billion dollars of flight hardware, they decide to wait it out in orbit.
We also have the ASA issues, and despite all the analyses done, it is far SAFER to land her at Edwards than KSC.
We could lose the shuttle permanently, therefore ISS completion would NOT happen. The 6-person crew for ISS WOULD NOT happen. It may even go so far as them putting off manned spaceflight to the moon indefinitely if they so choosed.
I say it's EOM, get them home. IMO, that call should have been Friday or EDW.
I'm not ducking on this one, so fire away. If we want to start a new thread, so be it. IMO, this delay is wrong.
-
#127
by
shuttlefanatic
on 24 May, 2009 00:06
-
There's been some discussions on other threads regarding bagging the mission at EDW Friday or today vs waiting for KSC on Sunday. I'm curious to explore the cost benefit analysis of this decision...
Arguments for staying up:
- They're already up there, and staying on orbit is free
- EDW landing delays processing flow, so worth waiting for KSC
- KSC landing reduces cost and risks associated with ferry
- MMOD and other risks are very small
Arguments for coming down:
- Staying up incurs extra risks, however minor. Safety is first, isn't it?
- Staying on orbit also delays processing flow, though less than an EDW landing
- Staying on orbit also adds costs (ground support, MCC ops, etc.)
- Weather forecasts appeared poor enough that landing might eventually be at EDW anyway, at which point you're paying both costs.
-
#128
by
shuttlefanatic
on 24 May, 2009 00:08
-
I'm not ducking on this one, so fire away. If we want to start a new thread, so be it. IMO, this delay is wrong.
Ok, I'm curious to discuss this too, and have felt bad editorializing on the live / weather threads... Here's a thread I set up for further discussions:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17173.0
-
#129
by
RafaelCE
on 24 May, 2009 00:17
-
I concur. Increased risk of MMOD strike and implications is not worth any savings in cost. Of course it depends on what the risk figure vs the regular ISS flights is.
-
#130
by
robertross
on 24 May, 2009 00:18
-
Copying this posting I made over from landing day EOM +1...
Well I'm going to take a LOT of flak for this one, but "frankly my dear, I couldn't give a damn"..
Let's just 'suppose', something were to happen (mmod, major system failure), and all this time they had the chance to come home, but in the interests of saving a few million, compared to several billion dollars of flight hardware, they decide to wait it out in orbit.
We also have the ASA issues, and despite all the analyses done, it is far SAFER to land her at Edwards than KSC.
We could lose the shuttle permanently, therefore ISS completion would NOT happen. The 6-person crew for ISS WOULD NOT happen. It may even go so far as them putting off manned spaceflight to the moon indefinitely if they so choosed.
I say it's EOM, get them home. IMO, that call should have been Friday or EDW.
I'm not ducking on this one, so fire away. If we want to start a new thread, so be it. IMO, this delay is wrong.
-
#131
by
RafaelCE
on 24 May, 2009 00:24
-
Great article as always Chris.
The pic choice was a little tricky thoug. Just read it, back from the office, and first instant thought was: hey, wasn't today waved off? (lol)
Where can we get the image for may 19th article?
Thanks!
-
#132
by
robertross
on 24 May, 2009 00:24
-
I'll also add...
1) that once STS-400 stood down because they couldn't get a rescue shuttle up in time before consumables ran out should have been a driving factor
2) The late day inspection via OBSS might have been fine for when it was performed, but an mmod strike on the belly may not get recorded accurately enough, if at all to the level required for a safe landing. And there may not be enough time to do a repair EVA to be in a good config to land safely either.
Too many unknowns and too many things that could go wrong. Back tomorrow, have to run out.
-
#133
by
Carl G
on 24 May, 2009 00:55
-
Merged a duplicate discussion thread and a post from FD13 into here.
-
#134
by
rdale
on 24 May, 2009 01:48
-
We also have the ASA issues, and despite all the analyses done, it is far SAFER to land her at Edwards than KSC.
I'd suggest you follow space news sites like
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com - somehow your source of info is ALL messed up if you think there is an increased risk of disaster from ASA.
-
#135
by
Chris Bergin
on 24 May, 2009 10:00
-
Great article as always Chris.
The pic choice was a little tricky thoug. Just read it, back from the office, and first instant thought was: hey, wasn't today waved off? (lol)
Where can we get the image for may 19th article?
Thanks!
The headline kinda explained it
Image from the May 19th article is one of the hi res set on L2.
