-
#20
by
psloss
on 25 Jun, 2009 14:21
-
So your next flight LON has to be ready to launch within that period, resulting in the flight rate bunching two flights closer to each other, and a buffer period inbetween to make up for only two orbiters = manifest stretch.
But you couldn't bunch the flights as the second flight would have no LON capability. What would have to happen is that each flight would have to wait until the returning orbiter is far enough through the flow to provide LON before launch is allowed. All that you end up with is a slower flow and a greater dependency on the following orbiter for schedule.
It's a dynamic process with multiple variables and adjustments can be made. (For example, 127 - 2J/A is predominantly external hardware and logistics, but 128/17A is mostly internal logistics. They impact CSCS differently.)
There's not enough public information yet to see what the initial impact would be, or what types of "get-wells" there are.
The biggest impact of a delay would likely be to officially push the end of the schedule well into CY 2011, which might influence the rest of this year's budget cycle and perhaps next year's. (Since there's still only a promise of funding for FY 2011, which isn't redeemable for cash.)
-
#21
by
Danny Dot
on 25 Jun, 2009 14:21
-
I'm glad you guys asked the Palmdale question. I didn't want to appear too stupid to not know the obvious
I have full and complete faith in the Shuttle Program. They will get to the bottom of this and all opinions will be openly and thoroughly discussed and sent straight to John Shannon himself.
Danny Deger
-
#22
by
Chris Bergin
on 25 Jun, 2009 14:28
-
Chris, in the article you stated, “ferrying Atlantis to Palmdale is obviously no longer an option.” I feel really silly in asking this, but why is this no longer an option? Thanks.
The article doesn't say what's "obvious" about not being able to fly to Palmdale. Why isn't that an option? Have all the Shuttle-specific personnel there been laid off?
If Palmdale was an option, how long would it take to replace the window there?
EDIT: Posted at the same time as MarsMethanogen, but I'm leaving the duplicate post as they're important questions. 
Because Orbiter Major Modification (OMM) work at Plant 42 at Palmdale was shut down over six years ago. They didn't mothball the orbiter facility there.
-
#23
by
Orbiter
on 25 Jun, 2009 14:29
-
Wouldn't a delay of 6 months be somewhat similar to STS-125/126.
Couldn't they push forward STS-130 to December and STS-129 to be the opening flight of the year? Again this is all speculation.
-
#24
by
psloss
on 25 Jun, 2009 14:29
-
The article doesn't say what's "obvious" about not being able to fly to Palmdale. Why isn't that an option? Have all the Shuttle-specific personnel there been laid off?
Significant parts of the facilities have been or are being demolished (stuff like
this ) -- there's no money to maintain them. Maybe not all Shuttle personnel there are gone, but the team needed to do OMDPs out there either moved to KSC or were laid off -- and that was a long time ago, when the decision was made to stop doing OMDPs there in the early part of the decade.
-
#25
by
MarsMethanogen
on 25 Jun, 2009 14:31
-
The article doesn't say what's "obvious" about not being able to fly to Palmdale. Why isn't that an option? Have all the Shuttle-specific personnel there been laid off?
If Palmdale was an option, how long would it take to replace the window there?
EDIT: Posted at the same time as MarsMethanogen, but I'm leaving the duplicate post as they're important questions.
Because Orbiter Major Modification (OMM) work at Plant 42 at Palmdale was shut down over six years ago.
Thanks, Chris. If I could humbly suggest; if you update the article, you might consider parenthetically inserting that in the "Palmdale" sentence.
-
#26
by
Chris Bergin
on 25 Jun, 2009 14:31
-
Wouldn't a delay of 6 months be somewhat similar to STS-125/126.
Couldn't they push forward STS-130 to December and STS-129 to be the opening flight of the year? Again this is all speculation.
Correctly tagged as the six months (and they may slice some off that timeline if required) would ONLY be if the damage is beyond the acceptable criteria. We won't know that until they get the knob out.
-
#27
by
Chris Bergin
on 25 Jun, 2009 14:32
-
The article doesn't say what's "obvious" about not being able to fly to Palmdale. Why isn't that an option? Have all the Shuttle-specific personnel there been laid off?
If Palmdale was an option, how long would it take to replace the window there?
EDIT: Posted at the same time as MarsMethanogen, but I'm leaving the duplicate post as they're important questions.
Because Orbiter Major Modification (OMM) work at Plant 42 at Palmdale was shut down over six years ago.
Thanks, Chris. If I could humbly suggest; if you update the article, you might consider parenthetically inserting that in the "Palmdale" sentence.
I did on the first draft, but the para was too wordy....I'll put my thinking hat on
-
#28
by
Orbiter
on 25 Jun, 2009 14:34
-
Wouldn't a delay of 6 months be somewhat similar to STS-125/126.
Couldn't they push forward STS-130 to December and STS-129 to be the opening flight of the year? Again this is all speculation.
Correctly tagged as the six months (and they may slice some off that timeline if required) would ONLY be if the damage is beyond the acceptable criteria. We won't know that until they get the knob out.
Thanks Chris, I guess we'll have to get word from NASA for us to know.
-
#29
by
psloss
on 25 Jun, 2009 14:38
-
Wouldn't a delay of 6 months be somewhat similar to STS-125/126.
'Somewhat' being the key -- the program still has to operate under the assumption that they only have until the end of next year to finish the manifest. There's less time to absorb a big schedule hit. Hypothetically taking OV-104 out of the rotation for six months has a different effect with 18 months left vs. the 27 months left at the time of the SIC&DH delay last fall.
-
#30
by
Sesquipedalian
on 25 Jun, 2009 14:39
-
Thanks for the responses, all. Good answers.
Still curious about my second question.
I get the impression Palmdale could do it faster than six months.
-
#31
by
Danny Dot
on 25 Jun, 2009 14:45
-
Wouldn't a delay of 6 months be somewhat similar to STS-125/126.
'Somewhat' being the key -- the program still has to operate under the assumption that they only have until the end of next year to finish the manifest. There's less time to absorb a big schedule hit. Hypothetically taking OV-104 out of the rotation for six months has a different effect with 18 months left vs. the 27 months left at the time of the SIC&DH delay last fall.
And this is why Senator Nelson needs to get an official OK to move the manifest to fiscal year 2011 if needed. We don't need the program getting in a rush and waiving things like how much damage is OK and how big can the hydrogen leak be!!!
Danny Deger
-
#32
by
Chris Bergin
on 25 Jun, 2009 14:48
-
Thanks for the responses, all. Good answers.
Still curious about my second question. I get the impression Palmdale could do it faster than six months.
Probably, maybe, but not an option so not important, and hopefully not relevant if the damage is acceptable.
-
#33
by
psloss
on 25 Jun, 2009 14:54
-
Still curious about my second question. I get the impression Palmdale could do it faster than six months.
Based on what?
Maybe Palmdale could have done it faster or did it faster when the facility was still online, but its capability to do orbiter maintenance no longer exists. Even given the money at this point, it's not like flipping a switch -- it could take six months or more to assemble staff, certify equipment (which may no longer exist), etc.
-
#34
by
DansSLK
on 25 Jun, 2009 16:36
-
Thanks for the responses, all. Good answers.
Still curious about my second question. I get the impression Palmdale could do it faster than six months.
A lot of Palmdale folks went to work at KSC for USA so i don't really see your point, its the people not the facility that makes the difference.
We have all seen what the men and women of the OPF can do, i hate to sound like a Bob the builder advert but if they can't fix it then it can't be fixed.
-
#35
by
Sesquipedalian
on 25 Jun, 2009 16:41
-
Based on what?
Maybe Palmdale could have done it faster or did it faster when the facility was still online, but its capability to do orbiter maintenance no longer exists. Even given the money at this point, it's not like flipping a switch -- it could take six months or more to assemble staff, certify equipment (which may no longer exist), etc.
Please don't be snarky. I'm well aware that you can't simply flip a switch or pour money on the problem and have it be fixed. I was asking more for curiosity's sake. Let's say this happened to Atlantis in the mid-90s, and it was immediately shipped to Palmdale. That's the hypothetical scenario I have in mind.
DansSLK answer is sufficient -- I thought the Palmdale people all got laid off, but if they moved to KSC, that partially answers my question. And I've definitely seen the KSC guys pull off miracles before; I'm not worried that the worst-case-scenario will happen.
-
#36
by
psloss
on 25 Jun, 2009 17:12
-
Based on what?
Maybe Palmdale could have done it faster or did it faster when the facility was still online, but its capability to do orbiter maintenance no longer exists. Even given the money at this point, it's not like flipping a switch -- it could take six months or more to assemble staff, certify equipment (which may no longer exist), etc.
Please don't be snarky. I'm well aware that you can't simply flip a switch or pour money on the problem and have it be fixed. I was asking more for curiosity's sake. Let's say this happened to Atlantis in the mid-90s, and it was immediately shipped to Palmdale. That's the hypothetical scenario I have in mind.
Sorry, but your use of tense can be inferred as saying that Palmdale could do it faster
now. (It's ambiguous to me whether you meant past or present, and I read it as the latter.) If you had written "Palmdale could have done it faster," that's easier to believe.
DansSLK answer is sufficient -- I thought the Palmdale people all got laid off, but if they moved to KSC, that partially answers my question. And I've definitely seen the KSC guys pull off miracles before; I'm not worried that the worst-case-scenario will happen.
The orbiter maintenance workforce at Palmdale probably did all of that (layoffs and relocations) in the 90s. Some of them were laid off after Endeavour was completed in 1991 and probably more after the OMDP on Columbia in the same timeframe. Were it not for George Brown, I'm not sure OMDPs would have come back to Palmdale in the mid-90s.
-
#37
by
Danny Dot
on 25 Jun, 2009 17:16
-
Does anyone know if there is even a spare window somewhere?
Danny Deger
-
#38
by
Sesquipedalian
on 25 Jun, 2009 17:22
-
Sorry, but your use of tense can be inferred as saying that Palmdale could do it faster now. (It's ambiguous to me whether you meant past or present, and I read it as the latter.) If you had written "Palmdale could have done it faster," that's easier to believe.
Well, in my
earlier post, I did qualify it by saying "if Palmdale was an option". But if you missed that I could see how the other post could have been misinterpreted. I'll try to phrase it more carefully next time.
The orbiter maintenance workforce at Palmdale probably did all of that (layoffs and relocations) in the 90s. Some of them were laid off after Endeavour was completed in 1991 and probably more after the OMDP on Columbia in the same timeframe. Were it not for George Brown, I'm not sure OMDPs would have come back to Palmdale in the mid-90s.
Okay, good to know. Interesting information.
-
#39
by
Chris Bergin
on 25 Jun, 2009 18:07
-
Updating the article, as they've decided to pressurized the cabin to 3 PSIG and apply dry ice again (as listed as one of the options). "Probably" won't be enough to remove the knob, but certainly the right decision to attempt the mitigation options from the least 'damaging' to the window, upwards.
