-
STS-117 moves into 2007
by
Chris Bergin
on 15 Mar, 2006 23:34
-
-
#1
by
Rocket Guy
on 15 Mar, 2006 23:39
-
This year is starting to look worse than last in Central Florida. The first half of the year will have two, perhaps a third launch if we're lucky.
At least there is a *hope* of more than one Shuttle launch.
-
#2
by
Mark Max Q
on 16 Mar, 2006 01:14
-
Yeah. I'm trying to keep the mentality of hoping for a clean 121 and then the rest will eventually fall into place.
-
#3
by
Maverick
on 16 Mar, 2006 01:57
-
Mark Max Q - 15/3/2006 8:14 PM
Yeah. I'm trying to keep the mentality of hoping for a clean 121 and then the rest will eventually fall into place.
I also think that. So long as STS-121 is fine, then everything else will follow.
-
#4
by
Launch Fan
on 16 Mar, 2006 02:14
-
No worries on this story, as it starts "as expected" so it's all ok.
-
#5
by
hornet
on 16 Mar, 2006 03:37
-
it surprised me that 4 missions were even thought about this year so i have no problem with it moved to january as that launch window opens about 2 weeks after my b-day
NASA's b-day present to me
-
#6
by
Flightstar
on 16 Mar, 2006 03:44
-
hornet - 15/3/2006 10:37 PM
it surprised me that 4 missions were even thought about this year so i have no problem with it moved to january as that launch window opens about 2 weeks after my b-day NASA's b-day present to me
Three is possible with a smooth July launch of STS-121.
-
#7
by
Dogsbd
on 16 Mar, 2006 12:09
-
Even if there are no foam related or TPS related problems at all on 121, what is the likelyhood of more ECO problems popping up later this year and even next year? What is being done to get to the root of this problem?
-
#8
by
SimonShuttle
on 16 Mar, 2006 12:56
-
Let's remember also that these movements don't the timeline are only that of six weeks or so. Not much at all in the bigger picture.
-
#9
by
Chris Bergin
on 16 Mar, 2006 13:35
-
Dogsbd - 16/3/2006 1:09 PM
Even if there are no foam related or TPS related problems at all on 121, what is the likelyhood of more ECO problems popping up later this year and even next year? What is being done to get to the root of this problem?
Wayne Hale mentioned they are looking into the "batch - not his words - of ECOs from around the period of 10 years ago. I'll ask MAF for more comment.
-
#10
by
Ben E
on 16 Mar, 2006 16:24
-
How does the STS-117 delay impact the remaining flights for 2007?
Will we see 7-8 missions in 2007 or, in the post-Columbia mindset, would that be too many?
-
#11
by
Chris Bergin
on 17 Mar, 2006 14:56
-
With the manifest running through to 2009, there's in-built stretch into 2010, so you can pretty much assume some 2007 missions will move into 2008 and so on.
-
#12
by
astrobrian
on 17 Mar, 2006 15:32
-
So then is 2010 being treated like a contigency year so to speak?
-
#13
by
mong'
on 17 Mar, 2006 15:56
-
I think it's more like a deadline
they try to go as fast as possible knowing that they have till 2010 top
-
#14
by
Chris Bergin
on 17 Mar, 2006 16:11
-
astrobrian - 17/3/2006 4:32 PM
So then is 2010 being treated like a contigency year so to speak?
Trying to think of the best way to describe this.
The STS program has to end in 2010. The Manifest (as much as a manifest is used as a guideline for processing flow - it's never set launch dates) currently sees the last mission in 2009. So they've got room for some delays (which will happen) which pushes missions outwards, into 2010.
Right now we all have to concentrate on STS-121, as even July's under threat now (on L2 - story to come soon).
-
#15
by
Spacely
on 17 Mar, 2006 17:28
-
Jesus Christ. If the shuttle can't get off by July, I'm done with it. Anyway, good work on the scoop, Chris, as always!
-
#16
by
Chris Bergin
on 17 Mar, 2006 18:05
-
July is ok. We were just working some source info on the R&R date delay for the ECOs. Latest info is days, not weeks, as it was earlier. Held doing a story until I knew more, so the latest is a lot better news.
-
#17
by
Ben E
on 17 Mar, 2006 18:20
-
Supposing there's more problems downstream, which force 3-4 month delays, like the downtime in the summer of 2002...if they hit the end of September 2010 and haven't done all 'essential' missions (ie excluding the two contingency flights) will they just stop? Regardless of what still needs to be launched?
-
#18
by
hornet
on 18 Mar, 2006 20:51
-
im willing to bet that if it is one flight that needs to be done it will be launched but more than that i dont think they will
-
#19
by
hyper_snyper
on 18 Mar, 2006 21:25
-
Ben E - 17/3/2006 2:20 PMSupposing there's more problems downstream, which force 3-4 month delays, like the downtime in the summer of 2002...if they hit the end of September 2010 and haven't done all 'essential' missions (ie excluding the two contingency flights) will they just stop? Regardless of what still needs to be launched?
That's a good question. The NASA Authorization that Congress passed recently specifically says the end of fiscal '10 is when they'll pull the plug. I assume that it will require another act of Congress to provide any wiggle room in a situation like you described.
-
#20
by
Avron
on 19 Mar, 2006 14:26
-
hyper_snyper - 18/3/2006 5:25 PM
Ben E - 17/3/2006 2:20 PMSupposing there's more problems downstream, which force 3-4 month delays, like the downtime in the summer of 2002...if they hit the end of September 2010 and haven't done all 'essential' missions (ie excluding the two contingency flights) will they just stop? Regardless of what still needs to be launched?
That's a good question. The NASA Authorization that Congress passed recently specifically says the end of fiscal '10 is when they'll pull the plug. I assume that it will require another act of Congress to provide any wiggle room in a situation like you described.
I am not worried about a little more money for STS after fiscal 10, what is a bigger worry is the CAIB requirement for re-certification.
Do we have a picture of the plan on how all the items needed for this mission will come together for the early 2007 timeframe, taking into account the workforce focus on 121?
NASA's b-day present to me 