-
NASA managers evaluating STS-135 as an addition to the shuttle manifest
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Dec, 2009 04:10
-
-
#1
by
smith5se
on 07 Dec, 2009 04:24
-
Oh this makes me smile a bit...
Thanks for the article... be lovely to see my favorite orbiter be able to close out the SSP program.
-
#2
by
steveS
on 07 Dec, 2009 08:26
-
if crew to be moved from STS 133 to STS 135, hope that Nicole Stott will be a favourite? She came back recently, and if she is moved to STS 135 will have more time for training?
-
#3
by
robertross
on 07 Dec, 2009 11:18
-
This is huge, IMO. Thanks Chris.
For all the touting & pouting about shuttle & safety, to even CONSIDER this, to me indicates that the logistics nightmare of ISS is finally sinking in. I wonder who really sees this high up. Perhaps the thought of a shuttle extension is ever that much closer.
-
#4
by
Analyst
on 07 Dec, 2009 12:22
-
One has to wonder why it took so long within NASA to realize the old logistics problem and do something about it. This is not a good sign of strategic planning within the HSF part of NASA, or any planning for the matter. Sadly.
Analyst
-
#5
by
Lee Jay
on 07 Dec, 2009 12:34
-
One has to wonder why it took so long within NASA to realize the old logistics problem and do something about it. This is not a good sign of strategic planning within the HSF part of NASA, or any planning for the matter. Sadly.
Analyst
I don't buy that. They've been talking about this since Columbia, they've been calculating the logistics undersupply during the "gap" pretty much since then as well, they came up with COTS to help alleviate this problem, and they've removed crew and done what they could to increase upmass on the remaining shuttle flights. It's not at all like they didn't know this was coming or that they were just ignoring it.
-
#6
by
psloss
on 07 Dec, 2009 12:39
-
One has to wonder why it took so long within NASA to realize the old logistics problem and do something about it. This is not a good sign of strategic planning within the HSF part of NASA, or any planning for the matter. Sadly.
It wasn't until around May that
Obama signaled he would relax the Bush administration deadline. How much sooner, ballpark, could they have done this?
-
#7
by
robertross
on 07 Dec, 2009 12:46
-
One has to wonder why it took so long within NASA to realize the old logistics problem and do something about it. This is not a good sign of strategic planning within the HSF part of NASA, or any planning for the matter. Sadly.
It wasn't until around May that Obama signaled he would relax the Bush administration deadline. How much sooner, ballpark, could they have done this?
I think that one will be debated for quite some time, both here and other sites. I would say this has Bolden written on it: taking affirmative action to the impending 'crisis', and crisis is what I call it & believe it is. I hope there is further discussion on exactly what the ISS logistics requirements are, the shortcomings, and making the firm decision to do what is necessary to mitigate this problem.
-
#8
by
Analyst
on 07 Dec, 2009 12:57
-
Way sooner, years sooner, in 2005 actually. They could and should have said it to Congress and the administration: "Your plan (2010) means a logistics shortfall of x tons upmass, y tons downmass, the consequences will be
1) a higher probability of ISS failing,
2) much less science being done there,
3) maybe the need for a permanent crew reduction from 6 to z,
4) the damage of our international partnership ...
We don't recommend it. Keep in mind ISS depends heavily on Shuttle. ISS is a long term investment which needs long term support"
They prefered not talking about. They prefered seeing ISS as a liability. They prefered hoping for COTS, for a miracle.
It is like a military commander not asking for the troops he needs, instead saying everything is fine, and running full speed into disaster. Because of not being man enough to ask for the recources he needs to carry out the mission given to him. This is lack of strategic planning, a lack of courage, a lack of responsibility for the country, a lack of leadership within NASA.
Analyst
PS: Could it be the moving of the crew from STS-133 to 135 indicates a move of the major mission content, e.g. the PLM? STS-133 becoming an unpressurized cargo / radiator repair mission.
-
#9
by
William Barton
on 07 Dec, 2009 13:14
-
Who actually made the 2010 retirement decision?
-
#10
by
psloss
on 07 Dec, 2009 13:21
-
"...We don't recommend it. Keep in mind ISS depends heavily on Shuttle. ISS is a long term investment which needs long term support"
OK, I assume you're saying that Shuttle retirement policy proposed/announced by Bush in 2004 should have been returned to sender in that time frame. Can't see that flying politically in 2005, let alone now, regardless of how strong an argument it is. It might be nice if this were a rational process, but it isn't.
PS: Could it be the moving of the crew from STS-133 to 135 indicates a move of the major mission content, e.g. the PLM? STS-133 becoming an unpressurized cargo / radiator repair mission.
Assume we'll find out soon enough if this gets the green light.
-
#11
by
scott6428
on 07 Dec, 2009 13:51
-
I'd be curious to hear about crew 'rescue' on soyuz. Can the soyuz operate unmanned like the progress? I assume there's some signficant lead time to adding an extra vechile to the production line.
-
#12
by
Analyst
on 07 Dec, 2009 14:55
-
Soyuz can fly and did fly unmanned, although they likely woundn't in this case. They would use Soyuz's already planned and built, not extra ones. The chance of LON being needed is pretty much zero anyway.
Analyst
-
#13
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Dec, 2009 15:14
-
Who actually made the 2010 retirement decision?
We'd all love to know that, William!
-
#14
by
Bret
on 07 Dec, 2009 15:47
-
Interesting that they are considering bumping Lindsey back to 135 ... I assume it is because he was promised command of the final shuttle mission?
If they add yet another mission, I guess Lindsey would be bumped back to that one as well?
-
#15
by
dsmillman
on 07 Dec, 2009 15:49
-
Who actually made the 2010 retirement decision?
We'd all love to know that, William!
The CAIB report recommended that if the Shuttle continued to fly past 2010 that all the Shuttle systems had to be requalified. NASA administrator, Sean O'Keefe, then decided that the Shuttle would not fly after 2010.
-
#16
by
Analyst
on 07 Dec, 2009 16:10
-
This short "history" leaves out many important things.
Analyst
-
#17
by
aurora899
on 07 Dec, 2009 16:32
-
Interesting that they are considering bumping Lindsey back to 135 ... I assume it is because he was promised command of the final shuttle mission?
If they add yet another mission, I guess Lindsey would be bumped back to that one as well?
I think Steve Lindsey is fairly determined to command the final shuttle mission - whatever, or whenever, it is.
-
#18
by
TheMightyM
on 07 Dec, 2009 16:50
-
Very interesting development. An extra flight at minimal marginal cost -- orbiter processing already paid for, external tank and SRBs already paid for etc. Not sure I'd even call it an extension -- more like making actual use of standby items already budgeted for.
The obvious question then becomes whether this was proposed because the odds of more substantial extension were taken to be low and this was the best way to get approval for an additional shuttle flight?
-
#19
by
robertross
on 07 Dec, 2009 17:15
-
The obvious question then becomes whether this was proposed because the odds of more substantial extension were taken to be low and this was the best way to get approval for an additional shuttle flight?
No, the biggest reason is they are seriously lacking up-mas to the ISS, plain and simple. Even this one shuttle flight doesn't solve it, but it definitely helps.
Thanks for the article... be lovely to see my favorite orbiter be able to close out the SSP program.