-
#20
by
DwightM
on 07 Dec, 2009 17:47
-
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.
It'll be nice having that major down-mass availability on the final flight as well. That's why I think the payload order will remain as is - PMM on 133 & MPLM on 135.
-
#21
by
TheMightyM
on 07 Dec, 2009 18:23
-
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.
Robert,
I was not commenting upon or questioning the
operational need for one, three, six, or even 36 additional shuttle flights to the ISS. Rather I was wondering what this says about
political/budgetary environment in which the shuttle exists. Sometimes government agencies, or parts of government agencies, start showing interest in specific scaled-down plans when it becomes clear to their leadership that the chances of getting something more are remote or non-existent. Thus my question whether this reflects a new awareness by the senior shuttle folks about the odds of a substantial extension.
MPL
-
#22
by
robertross
on 07 Dec, 2009 18:31
-
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.
Robert,
I was not commenting upon or questioning the operational need for one, three, six, or even 36 additional shuttle flights to the ISS. Rather I was wondering what this says about political/budgetary environment in which the shuttle exists. Sometimes government agencies, or parts of government agencies, start showing interest in specific scaled-down plans when it becomes clear to their leadership that the chances of getting something more are remote or non-existent. Thus my question whether this reflects a new awareness by the senior shuttle folks about the odds of a substantial extension.
MPL
Oh okay.
Well I think it does, when everything up until the Griffin/Bolden handover seems to have been about continuing down the path to shuttle asset destruction (which is still happening, let's not kid ourselves). What we need, and have always needed, is someone (from within NASA, IE: Bolden) to come out and actually say 'Politicians, we have a problem, and we need to change our short-term focus'.
-
#23
by
Lee Jay
on 07 Dec, 2009 18:52
-
What we need, and have always needed, is someone (from within NASA, IE: Bolden) to come out and actually say 'Politicians, we have a problem, and we need to change our short-term focus'.
I wonder how politically doable that is. If a brand new administrator comes out and says we have a problem of this magnitude, wouldn't that be interpreted as "and it was caused by the last administrator"? How much of a political faux pas is something like that? Not that I'm saying it shouldn't be done....
-
#24
by
robertross
on 07 Dec, 2009 19:07
-
What we need, and have always needed, is someone (from within NASA, IE: Bolden) to come out and actually say 'Politicians, we have a problem, and we need to change our short-term focus'.
I wonder how politically doable that is. If a brand new administrator comes out and says we have a problem of this magnitude, wouldn't that be interpreted as "and it was caused by the last administrator"? How much of a political faux pas is something like that? Not that I'm saying it shouldn't be done....
The truth hurts, plain and simple.
-
#25
by
daniela
on 07 Dec, 2009 19:32
-
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.
Indeed, Soyuz can fly unmanned (and it can also fly manned and yet be fully operated from ground control, should the need arise). Please notice that the STS-135 would fly with only four astronauts, as a result there would be no need to fly upwards an unmanned Soyuz. There would be no new vehicle, and no change to the manifest. Only some cosmonauts delayed and some cargo containers flying up in their place.
LON from Shuttle are no longer under consideration, as I have indicated on my messages (which have been moved to the ISS Q&A thread, page 85). We all know that a Shuttle contingency would mean the end of the program. Also, not necessarily a Shuttle contingency would mean the need to bring Earth a number of "stranded" astronauts. The foam issue is kept under control, of course it's always possible a "bad" event - especially in the case of multiple tankings which cause foam liberation (but, now, most pieces are small / won't fall on critical areas / will detach late enough) and it's also possible a micrometeoroid impact; still, these are unlikely, and in addition, it's possible to repair in orbit (doing EVA as needed) the thermal protection systems. On the other hand, the cocktail of metal fatigue and of contact with countless chemicals beyond the design (due to changes in formulation of just about anything along the years) is what in the usa is called "Russian roulette"; also notice the orbiters were never designed to stay in service for this long. In the 70s and 80s, they were said to be designed for a hundred flight with a turnaround time of two weeks. While everyone knew it was optimistic, no one envisioned 25 year old orbiters to be in service. It is hard to protect against the "next thing" which no one can really predict... it's what we don't know, that can bite us. It is well known that if there is a contingency now, it may not be of those that leave us in the LUCKY situation of a crowded ISS.
-
#26
by
Orbiter
on 07 Dec, 2009 20:36
-
Great article Chris as usual! However a few general questions.
- Will 133 still fly with the PMM? Or will 135 fly the PMM?
- If no to the above question, couldn't they convert another MPLM (Raffaello) to a PMM on STS-135 and attach it to the Space Station?
- Why is Steve Lindsey penciled in as STS-135's commander? Wouldn't it just be easier to selected a whole new crew then take a few members from STS-133 and put them on STS-135?
-
#27
by
bad_astra
on 07 Dec, 2009 20:43
-
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.
OSP was still in the works.
-
#28
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Dec, 2009 20:49
-
Great article Chris as usual! However a few general questions.
- Will 133 still fly with the PMM? Or will 135 fly the PMM?
- If no to the above question, couldn't they convert another MPLM (Raffaello) to a PMM on STS-135 and attach it to the Space Station?
- Why is Steve Lindsey penciled in as STS-135's commander? Wouldn't it just be easier to selected a whole new crew then take a few members from STS-133 and put them on STS-135?
Thanks
1) PMM still on 133, and no word of that changing.
2) Not heard any suggestion that's viable/needed etc.
3) I don't know, but having the head astro landing the final shuttle mission is obviously something that stands out as a potential reason.
I'm sure we'll get a lot more on this as they evaluate it, and we'll update as we receive it.
-
#29
by
nathan.moeller
on 07 Dec, 2009 20:52
-
Great article Chris as usual! However a few general questions.
- Will 133 still fly with the PMM? Or will 135 fly the PMM?
- If no to the above question, couldn't they convert another MPLM (Raffaello) to a PMM on STS-135 and attach it to the Space Station?
- Why is Steve Lindsey penciled in as STS-135's commander? Wouldn't it just be easier to selected a whole new crew then take a few members from STS-133 and put them on STS-135?
Thanks
1) PMM still on 133, and no word of that changing.
2) Not heard any suggestion that's viable/needed etc.
3) I don't know, but having the head astro landing the final shuttle mission is obviously something that stands out as a potential reason.
I'm sure we'll get a lot more on this as they evaluate it, and we'll update as we receive it.
2. Heard earlier that a second PMM will not happen.
Now, how confident are people with NASA of this flight becoming a reality?
-
#30
by
cd-slam
on 07 Dec, 2009 20:59
-
1) PMM still on 133, and no word of that changing.
I'm sure we'll get a lot more on this as they evaluate it, and we'll update as we receive it.
The last STS 335 update had noted a concern about having PMM and MPLM on the station at the same time due to software conflicts. Has this been resolved, or is it one of those things on their "to do list" to make STS 135 work?
-
#31
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 07 Dec, 2009 21:59
-
1) PMM still on 133, and no word of that changing.
I'm sure we'll get a lot more on this as they evaluate it, and we'll update as we receive it.
The last STS 335 update had noted a concern about having PMM and MPLM on the station at the same time due to software conflicts. Has this been resolved, or is it one of those things on their "to do list" to make STS 135 work?
That's what I'm wondering also. If the conflict can't be resolved, I guess they could keep the PMM on 133 and just swap 135 and 133 -- thus making the flight order STS-134, STS-135, STS-133.
-
#32
by
steveS
on 07 Dec, 2009 22:49
-
If Atlantis flies after Discovery as the last mission, will NASA fit Atlantis with Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer system (SSPTS) taken out from Endeavour or Discovery?
-
#33
by
Ford Mustang
on 07 Dec, 2009 22:52
-
If Atlantis flies after Discovery as the last mission, will NASA fit Atlantis with Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer system (SSPTS) taken out from Endeavour or Discovery?
More than likely that they won't. The missions they are talking about are only 10+1 days, or thereabouts, not enough to warrant them moving the SSPTS.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
#34
by
DwightM
on 07 Dec, 2009 22:53
-
If Atlantis flies after Discovery as the last mission, will NASA fit Atlantis with Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer system (SSPTS) taken out from Endeavour or Discovery?
Highly unlikely given cost & time, but primarily due to lack of necessity. The currently baselined final mission (133) is set at 8+1 days, so SSPTS wouldn't needed anyway if 135 is set for the same (or near) duration.
-
#35
by
steveS
on 08 Dec, 2009 01:13
-
If Atlantis flies after Discovery as the last mission, will NASA fit Atlantis with Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer system (SSPTS) taken out from Endeavour or Discovery?
Highly unlikely given cost & time, but primarily due to lack of necessity. The currently baselined final mission (133) is set at 8+1 days, so SSPTS wouldn't needed anyway if 135 is set for the same (or near) duration.
Is STS 133 baselined as 8+1 or 10+1? I thought it was 10+1. Nevertheless I got your point. Thanks
-
#36
by
psloss
on 08 Dec, 2009 01:15
-
Is STS 133 baselined as 8+1 or 10+1? I thought it was 10+1.
It was 10+1 for a time, but is currently 8+1.
-
#37
by
steveS
on 08 Dec, 2009 01:24
-
If STS 135 gets a go, then there will be 6 shuttle flights at least remaining. Wonder whether those 6 can be spread out?
1. Earlier, I thought that NASA has a firm deadline to finish before 30 Sept. 2010. Now it seems there is no such "hard" deadline. Apart from STS 130, as I see all others are mainly logistics missions to replenish the station. Waiting for some time could turn out to be advantageous? Ex. STS 125. The mission was delayed. Hubble broke down and planners had time to reevaluate the mission.
2. Hence 4 shuttle flights for 2010 and 2 for 2011?
I am an outsider, and have no idea of whether this is a good thing to do or not
-
#38
by
arkaska
on 08 Dec, 2009 06:38
-
That's what I'm wondering also. If the conflict can't be resolved, I guess they could keep the PMM on 133 and just swap 135 and 133 -- thus making the flight order STS-134, STS-135, STS-133.
The problem they face with switching order is LON for STS-133 as the last flight. It it is moved to become the last flight again and remain a 6 person crew they need to come up with a new LON plan with the Russians.
I think they'll rather move the PMM to STS-135 in that case.
-
#39
by
Tourmaline
on 08 Dec, 2009 12:51
-
Sure would love to see that last Shuttle mission launch on April 12, 2011... :-)
That would be awesome
So long as we can persuade the major broadcasters, media etc towards our specialised knowledge/shuttle geekery (delete as appropriate) ways of thinking and keep pushing the science and technology and engineering achievements. Otherwise the danger is commemoration of a 30-years-old shuttle program being marked by however many celebrity nobodies they can drag out of the woodwork to tell us where they were for STS-1.
So long as we can persuade the major broadcasters, media etc towards our specialised knowledge/shuttle geekery (delete as appropriate) ways of thinking and keep pushing the science and technology and engineering achievements. Otherwise the danger is commemoration of a 30-years-old shuttle program being marked by however many celebrity nobodies they can drag out of the woodwork to tell us where they were for STS-1.