-
#140
by
robertross
on 21 Feb, 2010 14:36
-
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).
Good thing they plan to have ISS around for at least 2020 then!
Yeah, I know it will take time (and money). I also don't think there is a need, but there haven't been a ton of documents to tie all the 'needs' of ISS science & available space & capability on-board.
There is most definitely a stowage issue for spares. This will no doubt get worse if the gap AND re-supply issue is seen as severely comprimising. And if they can't bring the science back, then experiments will start to pile up (if they are required to be returned).
-
#141
by
Don Gordon
on 21 Feb, 2010 18:31
-
My understanding is that Node 3 forward CBM is "deactivated". What would it take to "reactivate" it to be able to attach another PLM there if the chance to do this came up?
-
#142
by
steveS
on 22 Feb, 2010 05:31
-
At the STS-130 post landing conference
Mike L: We've been very consistent on 2010 being the end. The reality is starting to hit us. That's our direction to shut down the program. What is not clear is what we're doing after with the followon program. It hurts, but any talk about extension is just talk. No one has asked about it here, it's all been you folks in the media.
-
#143
by
David AF
on 22 Feb, 2010 06:05
-
That was about extension to 2015, not STS-135.
Some people seem desperate to see the shuttle ended by posting things out of context.
-
#144
by
Analyst
on 22 Feb, 2010 06:28
-
Most people here were desperate to see Shuttle ending to free up money for CxP. Now reality hits them hard, because Shuttle anding in 2010 will likely be the only thing being on schedule (in contrast to every CxP milestone).
For me STS-135 should be flown, this being a non issue. The marginal cost of launching the stack, with all its components built and tested, is low. Practically it is in the budget. It would help ISS a lot. You have just to drop this risk averse LON.
Analyst
-
#145
by
steveS
on 22 Feb, 2010 06:48
-
I am not a NASA worker nor a contractor. As a space space shuttle fan I would also like to see a shuttle extension.
I misread the STS-130 post on his comments as being related to STS-135 (extension). Currently, there are many rumours about STS-135 but lack official words. Thats why I thought of posting the item here on this thread. Also, I read that Mike L or Mike M saying currently NASA has no additional payload planned (after STS 133) to be sent to the ISS. I do not know this is another negative thing on STS-135 or not.
I would really like to see atleast STS-135 going up ! in April 2011 (in ideal way of celebrating 30 years of the Space Shuttle Program)
That was about extension to 2015, not STS-135.
Some people seem desperate to see the shuttle ended by posting things out of context.
-
#146
by
Bob Haller
on 01 Mar, 2010 20:39
-
I have a hunch that the shuttle will continue till a commercial alternative is available, or ISS ends.
Probably as part of a large budget trade, and to save the jobs so close to a election.
Republicans keep saying save money, so obamma zeroes the shuttle budget and republicans are up in arms over the budget cut.
We really need the shuttle.... I just dont want it killing any more crews!
In any case since thew hardware is largelyu available they might as well add the 2 more flights
-
#147
by
clongton
on 01 Mar, 2010 21:11
-
We really need the shuttle.... I just don't want it killing any more crews!
Shuttle didn't kill any crews; extremely bad NASA management that flew Shuttle unsafely is what killed the crews.
I have said this a hundred times and I will keep on saying it: Shuttle is safe to fly when she is flown safely!
-
#148
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 01 Mar, 2010 21:23
-
Republicans keep saying save money, so obamma zeroes the shuttle budget and republicans are up in arms over the budget cut.
Oh for frak's sake.
We're NOT upset that Shuttle's budget got ZEROED. We're frakkin' upset because NASA doesn't have a manned space program future during a time when the ISS needs a manned U.S. program.
It's one thing to extend ISS, but KILLING the support program for it and eliminating manned U.S. access to space from our own country and eliminating ten of thousands of JOBS (you know, that thing Obama supposedly wants to create) is what people are upset with!
-
#149
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 01 Mar, 2010 21:24
-
We really need the shuttle.... I just don't want it killing any more crews!
Shuttle didn't kill any crews; extremely bad NASA management that flew Shuttle unsafely is what killed the crews.
I have said this a hundred times and I will keep on saying it: Shuttle is safe to fly when she is flown safely!
Exactly!
-
#150
by
Skylon
on 05 Mar, 2010 01:04
-
We really need the shuttle.... I just don't want it killing any more crews!
Shuttle didn't kill any crews; extremely bad NASA management that flew Shuttle unsafely is what killed the crews.
I have said this a hundred times and I will keep on saying it: Shuttle is safe to fly when she is flown safely!
You know, with STS 51-L I agree with you. However, and this is an issue I take with the CAIB, I cannot imagine any management structure, least of all one with a consecutive 82 flights that made it up and down safely, over the course of fifteen years stopping flights because of foam strikes (especially, since they kept happening, and shuttles kept returning). NASA's data...everything was wrong in this regard.
Forget the Hail Mary that could have been called through satellite photos, or an EVA by the STS-107 crew to inspect their wing...that makes it clear enough wasn't done to save the crew certainly. However, I cannot imagine a way anyone could say "hey, this foam-loss is dangerous" without first losing, or having a crippled space shuttle.
To say "you should have seen this foam thing coming" and wag your finger at NASA, always struck me as hindsight bias of the worst kind.
Further, Columbia's ET certainly did kill the crew. It was built to specifications of the time. The same cannot be said for Challenger's SRB's which were launched in conditions they were never designed for.
-
#151
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 05 Mar, 2010 03:05
-
We really need the shuttle.... I just don't want it killing any more crews!
Shuttle didn't kill any crews; extremely bad NASA management that flew Shuttle unsafely is what killed the crews.
I have said this a hundred times and I will keep on saying it: Shuttle is safe to fly when she is flown safely!
Further, Columbia's ET certainly did kill the crew. It was built to specifications of the time. The same cannot be said for Challenger's SRB's which were launched in conditions they were never designed for.
And the SRB that had the breached O-Ring seal didn't kill the Challenger crew. It was a contributing cause of the breakup of the 51L stack. But it, physically, did not kill the Challenger crew.
Furthermore, the SRBs on STS-51L were built to specification at the time. Also, all Launch Commit Criteria (as they were written in 1986) were within limits when the final GO FOR LAUNCH was given for STS-51L. They waited over 2-hours to allow the temperature to reach acceptable limits.
-
#152
by
clb22
on 05 Mar, 2010 07:28
-
And the SRB that had the breached O-Ring seal didn't kill the Challenger crew. It was a contributing cause of the breakup of the 51L stack. But it, physically, did not kill the Challenger crew.
Furthermore, the SRBs on STS-51L were built to specification at the time. Also, all Launch Commit Criteria (as they were written in 1986) were within limits when the final GO FOR LAUNCH was given for STS-51L. They waited over 2-hours to allow the temperature to reach acceptable limits.
Not to forget that by a high likelihood a LAS could have saved the crew on STS-51L. But that system, while possible, would have practically eliminated the Shuttle's cargo capacity, so it was not part of the design, which again means, the Shuttle's design is primarily at fault for the death of the Challenger crew.
-
#153
by
nathan.moeller
on 05 Mar, 2010 13:06
-
Not to forget that by a high likelihood a LAS could have saved the crew on STS-51L. But that system, while possible, would have practically eliminated the Shuttle's cargo capacity, so it was not part of the design, which again means, the Shuttle's design is primarily at fault for the death of the Challenger crew.
I have to disagree with that last statement. The design worked just fine when used in warm weather and engineers knew this. It was management that ignored their requests to wait for warmer weather and launched in the cold when they knew there was a problem. Thus, poor management was the primary factor.
-
#154
by
clb22
on 05 Mar, 2010 13:08
-
Not to forget that by a high likelihood a LAS could have saved the crew on STS-51L. But that system, while possible, would have practically eliminated the Shuttle's cargo capacity, so it was not part of the design, which again means, the Shuttle's design is primarily at fault for the death of the Challenger crew.
I have to disagree with that last statement. The design worked just fine when used in warm weather and engineers knew this. It was management that ignored their requests to wait for warmer weather and launched in the cold when they knew there was a problem. Thus, poor management was the primary factor.
I was talking about the lack of a LAS, although a LAS could have been included in the design.
-
#155
by
William Barton
on 05 Mar, 2010 13:19
-
In one of the SpaceX threads, we've been talking about emergency contingency planning for Dragon. Looking back at STS, now that the program is almost over, it's worth noting a ballute-stabilized, reinforced, "breakaway" crew cabin with ablative TPS might have saved both Challenger and Columbia crews (assuming, in that context, that the post-Challenger bailout suits would have bbeen available from day one). And it would not have cost a lot (again, in the context of the whole program) in terms of either budget or payload. Having nothing, rather than something, was the result of an all-or-nothing attitude for the program. Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and a pad explosion has never been out of the question.
-
#156
by
nathan.moeller
on 05 Mar, 2010 13:36
-
I was talking about the lack of a LAS, although a LAS could have been included in the design.
Yes, but it was not the primary factor that caused the loss of the crew.
-
#157
by
robertross
on 05 Mar, 2010 15:00
-
I can't believe we're still talking about this all these years later.... (sighs)
-
#158
by
Danderman
on 05 Mar, 2010 16:23
-
What are the chances that STS-135 will fly?
-
#159
by
FinalFrontier
on 05 Mar, 2010 16:26
-
What are the chances that STS-135 will fly?
If KBH;s bill passes it is certain.
