-
#120
by
psloss
on 14 Feb, 2010 21:08
-
If it's true that STS-135 will fly, that's good news. If it flies in Nov 2010, would there be room for maybe an STS-136 or 137? I don't know if there are available ET and SRB parts for those though.
As Chuck noted, it's not really a parts issue. The primary issue is money (followed by the perception of Shuttle safety). There's no money in the President's budget proposal to finish assembling and integrating the hardware that exists beyond the LON / hypothetical 135 vehicle nor to continue operations much beyond the end of this calendar year.
Beyond the LON / hypothetical 135 hardware, it would be problematic no matter what happens in the budget process, because there's not likely to be much certainty about the money until late in the budget process. There's still a reasonable chance the Shuttle program could finish the manifest (possibly including a late-2010 STS-135) before the FY 2011 budget is passed and is signed into law.
-
#121
by
psloss
on 14 Feb, 2010 21:21
-
Anyway, the STS budget for FY2011 is 1.1bn, I guess that might allow for STS-135 in either Nov 2010 or Feb 2011.
Hmmm...still only seeing ~$990 million, of which ~$380-390 million had been pointed towards decommissioning/retirement in the FY 2010 proposal. November seems doable, but not sure about February next year without more money. (Which I imagine the White House might prefer to spend on other areas within NASA, such as the newly proposed areas of R&D.)
We've had this conversation before, haven't we?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20241.msg532327#msg532327
-
#122
by
Chris Bergin
on 14 Feb, 2010 21:26
-
What we learned with STS-134 is you really need to see a mission go through a FDRD at the PRCB level before it's "announced" - or "official" as to use a better word.
Original schedule was April for an announcement/decision - based on getting 130 and 131 out of the way, so this would have probably been a bit later if 131 moves to April. But do they actually "announce" these things. Don't remember much for 134, and we didn't see anything for the decision not to retire Atlantis in 2008.
Then the FY2011 came out and we saw the negative (paraphrasing) "only if absolutely needed" level comments, very dismissive, right after a memo pre-empted Col. Lindsey swapping to 135 from 133 (so we had our hopes raised and dashed practically within the same day). Seems strange to say the least one site (no idea of its track record) has an announcement within weeks, maybe earlier based on all the above, so we'll keep a look out for memos etc.
Needless to say adding 135 makes perfect sense, I really hope they do add 135...then again, I hope some politicians put the smackdown on Obama's plan and extend shuttle anyway
-
#123
by
clb22
on 15 Feb, 2010 07:46
-
Anyway, the STS budget for FY2011 is 1.1bn, I guess that might allow for STS-135 in either Nov 2010 or Feb 2011.
Hmmm...still only seeing ~$990 million, of which ~$380-390 million had been pointed towards decommissioning/retirement in the FY 2010 proposal. November seems doable, but not sure about February next year without more money. (Which I imagine the White House might prefer to spend on other areas within NASA, such as the newly proposed areas of R&D.)
We've had this conversation before, haven't we?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20241.msg532327#msg532327
Yes, we had. I somehow remembered the 1.1bn (FY2011 + FY2012) and forgot it was just 0.99bn in FY2011. Anyway, looking at it again, I tend to agree with you, if the Shuttle schedule works out perfectly without slips this year and STS-135 is ready to go in November, then there shouldn't be a problem. If not and already manifested flights slip into FY2011 and maybe even calendar year 2011, STS-135 is doubtful.
Well, I am an optimist. Given the stellar performance of the STS team during the last months, I actually think the program can pull this off without schedule slips (with some luck). Of course, the most perfect thing they could do is to take a second MPLM and apply the same mods they are currently doing to Leonardo... but that is probably just a dream, a dream of an ISS cleaned up with all storage items being nicely stowed in two PMMs...
-
#124
by
psloss
on 15 Feb, 2010 11:46
-
Well, I am an optimist. Given the stellar performance of the STS team during the last months, I actually think the program can pull this off without schedule slips (with some luck). Of course, the most perfect thing they could do is to take a second MPLM and apply the same mods they are currently doing to Leonardo... but that is probably just a dream, a dream of an ISS cleaned up with all storage items being nicely stowed in two PMMs...
I'm much more optimistic about the operations teams than Washington, but then there's a lot more people pointed in the same direction on the ops teams.
There's still the question of authority in my mind. If NASA already has the authority to fly an additional flight within existing law (which explicitly notes the two 'Contingency Logistics Flights' and an additional flight for AMS, but not necessarily flights before or after), then I'm optimistic.
If there's no existing authority to fly that flight, then I'm very pessimistic, because there's no guarantee that authority will be given, nor that the money for it will be appropriated. And some of the work to get ready for that flight would have to wait until its paid for, which wouldn't be until the end of this year.
-
#125
by
daniela
on 17 Feb, 2010 00:39
-
Yes, there are ET that could be completed for 136 and 137 and the boosters could be processed for those flight, but this is a moot point, 136 and 137 are not going to fly. Well nothing is impossible, but, you get the idea. For all practical purposes likelyhood is zero.
As for 135 the idea today got another hard blow, but, there will be no decision either way for a while. The option must be kept open and also it depends a lot on Falcon/Dragon. The plans for processing Atlantis are unchanged and will remain unchanged. It's not that it is not leaking, it is that it has not been decided. There are too many variables and it is not possible to forecast them in advance. You can ask Bolden, he does not know either. The crystal ball has not been working properly, lately! Be patient....
There is no crew named that I know of, however it is likely it'll be a subset of sts-132 or sts-134. They will just be told to keep training and keep their skills fresh. Remember STS-135 as well as STS-335 would be a very basic mission, no robotics, no EVA.
-
#126
by
rdale
on 17 Feb, 2010 00:46
-
As for 135 the idea today got another hard blow, but, there will be no decision either way for a while.
What happened to 135 today?
-
#127
by
daniela
on 17 Feb, 2010 00:50
-
"Unverified rumors" say that today some key people that supported 135 have basically backed out. Of course you have to verify and cross-check this with your own sources. But, the truth is that nothing has been decided and more importantly that nothing can be decided. We will have to wait at least till the beginning of summer to see how things take shape. Sorry that my source does not wish to appear, so, it's just gossip until you check it with someone you trust.
-
#128
by
MBK004
on 17 Feb, 2010 00:57
-
Remember STS-135 as well as STS-335 would be a very basic mission, no robotics, no EVA.
There are robotics associated with the mission since it will carry an MPLM.
-
#129
by
daniela
on 17 Feb, 2010 01:01
-
You are of course correct, I meant no complicated robotics that demands specific training.
-
#130
by
rdale
on 17 Feb, 2010 01:09
-
There is no crew named that I know of, however it is likely it'll be a subset of sts-132 or sts-134.
There is some crew-related memo information in L2.
-
#131
by
steveS
on 17 Feb, 2010 01:22
-
There is no crew named that I know of, however it is likely it'll be a subset of sts-132 or sts-134. They will just be told to keep training and keep their skills fresh. Remember STS-135 as well as STS-335 would be a very basic mission, no robotics, no EVA.
Assuming that STS-135 gets the go, and if its crew will be a sub set of STS-132 or STS-134, then who will replace (for STS-132 or STS-134)? Are there any indications on this on current NASA documents?
-
#132
by
daniela
on 17 Feb, 2010 01:40
-
I don't think the crew would be replaced, only that they'd be kept in standby and continue training; however, I know nothing else than this.
-
#133
by
Chris Bergin
on 17 Feb, 2010 01:42
-
There is no crew named that I know of, however it is likely it'll be a subset of sts-132 or sts-134. They will just be told to keep training and keep their skills fresh. Remember STS-135 as well as STS-335 would be a very basic mission, no robotics, no EVA.
Assuming that STS-135 gets the go, and if its crew will be a sub set of STS-132 or STS-134, then who will replace (for STS-132 or STS-134)? Are there any indications on this on current NASA documents?
Only that Col. Lindsey would command. Minimum crew, priority on upmass - obviously.
-
#134
by
mmeijeri
on 21 Feb, 2010 00:24
-
Unfortunately this decision hasn't been made a year ago, alongside a decision to baseline two PMMs on STS-133 and then STS-135. Cargo storage will become a problem at some point down the line eventually especially with an extension to 2020 and maybe beyond. The configuration could have been something like the one proposed for the Habitation Extension Modules (below): after STS-132, relocate Node 3 to Node 1 nadir and add the two PMMs to port and starboard of Node 3 (like the original config, which had the CRV on starboard and the US Hab Module on port) with PMA-3 on nadir available for future spacecraft to dock (Cupola stays where it is and is thus located on Node 3 Forward).
It would be nice to see a second PMM (Donatello?), but would Node 3 Forward be a good idea? It would be in an ideal location to catch MMOD.
-
#135
by
robertross
on 21 Feb, 2010 02:50
-
Unfortunately this decision hasn't been made a year ago, alongside a decision to baseline two PMMs on STS-133 and then STS-135. Cargo storage will become a problem at some point down the line eventually especially with an extension to 2020 and maybe beyond. The configuration could have been something like the one proposed for the Habitation Extension Modules (below): after STS-132, relocate Node 3 to Node 1 nadir and add the two PMMs to port and starboard of Node 3 (like the original config, which had the CRV on starboard and the US Hab Module on port) with PMA-3 on nadir available for future spacecraft to dock (Cupola stays where it is and is thus located on Node 3 Forward).
It would be nice to see a second PMM (Donatello?), but would Node 3 Forward be a good idea? It would be in an ideal location to catch MMOD.
Don't see it as needed, but if it were, I'd rather see it have a second docking mechanism put on the other end. That way, it could have the first PMM dock behind it, and it would be in between.
-
#136
by
Jorge
on 21 Feb, 2010 05:12
-
Unfortunately this decision hasn't been made a year ago, alongside a decision to baseline two PMMs on STS-133 and then STS-135. Cargo storage will become a problem at some point down the line eventually especially with an extension to 2020 and maybe beyond. The configuration could have been something like the one proposed for the Habitation Extension Modules (below): after STS-132, relocate Node 3 to Node 1 nadir and add the two PMMs to port and starboard of Node 3 (like the original config, which had the CRV on starboard and the US Hab Module on port) with PMA-3 on nadir available for future spacecraft to dock (Cupola stays where it is and is thus located on Node 3 Forward).
It would be nice to see a second PMM (Donatello?), but would Node 3 Forward be a good idea? It would be in an ideal location to catch MMOD.
Don't see it as needed, but if it were, I'd rather see it have a second docking mechanism put on the other end. That way, it could have the first PMM dock behind it, and it would be in between.
Would take at least 2-3 years to modify an MPLM in that manner, even if it were a purely US matter (which it isn't).
-
#137
by
clb22
on 21 Feb, 2010 07:30
-
Unfortunately this decision hasn't been made a year ago, alongside a decision to baseline two PMMs on STS-133 and then STS-135. Cargo storage will become a problem at some point down the line eventually especially with an extension to 2020 and maybe beyond. The configuration could have been something like the one proposed for the Habitation Extension Modules (below): after STS-132, relocate Node 3 to Node 1 nadir and add the two PMMs to port and starboard of Node 3 (like the original config, which had the CRV on starboard and the US Hab Module on port) with PMA-3 on nadir available for future spacecraft to dock (Cupola stays where it is and is thus located on Node 3 Forward).
It would be nice to see a second PMM (Donatello?), but would Node 3 Forward be a good idea? It would be in an ideal location to catch MMOD.
You mean whether Node 3 Forward would be a good idea for Cupola if Node 3 ends up at Node 1 nadir? Well, that was the original configuration of the ISS...
Anyway, the above was just daydreaming. It's not like they are going to outfit a second MPLM, although looking at the storage capacity of an MPLM and the makeshift way of storing cargo on the ISS at the moment, the more tidy storage places you have, the better.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/STS-114_cargo_transfer_from_MPLM.jpg
-
#138
by
mmeijeri
on 21 Feb, 2010 09:58
-
Is there a reason you couldn't keep Node 3 in its current location and use either its zenith or port docking port for for a second PMM? And what about Node 2 zenith?
-
#139
by
Chandonn
on 21 Feb, 2010 13:13
-
Is there a reason you couldn't keep Node 3 in its current location and use either its zenith or port docking port for for a second PMM? And what about Node 2 zenith?
Re-read the thread about the Zenith CBM: it has been answered NUMEROUS times. The port CBM faces the radiators the largest piece of equipment that can be there is PMA-3. There is little clearance on the forward and aft CBMs. Possibly the forward coule get a PMM-sized module (at least it looks that way on the 1:144-scale model). I doubt the aft CBM could receive anything.
