-
#200
by
sdsds
on 21 May, 2010 16:22
-
Where is ET-122 currently located? Is there yet a place to hold it at KSC?
-
#201
by
dsmillman
on 21 May, 2010 16:28
-
Where is ET-122 currently located? Is there yet a place to hold it at KSC?
ET-122 is at Michoud.
-
#202
by
kkattula
on 21 May, 2010 16:35
-
Bolden also talked about the problem with LON for a possible STS-135 in the congressional hearing yesterday. Thats a problem that needs to be solved both financially and with the Russians if Soyuz would be the LON vehicle.
Maybe, but Bolden talking about the danger of STS-135 not being able to get to the ISS was a complete strawman. The current LON Shuttles cannot be launched fast enough to rescue a crew who haven't made it to the ISS. But the chance of a double failure, where they can't rendezvous with ISS, and can't re-enter either, is pretty remote.
-
#203
by
sdsds
on 25 May, 2010 15:12
-
The train carrying the final space shuttle segments is on its way to NASA's KSC. Photo courtesy of ATK
http://twitpic.com/1qy36c
-
#204
by
psloss
on 26 May, 2010 21:33
-
FWIW, Senator Nelson has now formally written the President that he will try to authorize STS-135 and the funds for it:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-26/shuttle-atlantis-returns-from-final-scheduled-mission-update2-.htmlExcerpt from the story:
Florida Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat who flew on the orbiter Columbia in 1986, wrote to President Barack Obama today, saying he intends to include funds for an additional flight in NASA’s reauthorization bill for fiscal year 2011.
“It will allow us to more smoothly transition the workforce in Florida and Texas from the space shuttle program to the vision you’ve set for NASA’s future,” Nelson wrote to Obama. “It will also guarantee U.S. access to space for a longer period of time, and thereby help to close the spaceflight gap until a new domestic capability is provided.”
-
#205
by
Space Pete
on 26 May, 2010 23:13
-
-
#206
by
Phosphorus
on 27 May, 2010 09:12
-
Just for the sake of it -- it's been discussed over and over the Shuttle cannot fly with less than four crew (fly meaning takeoff, OBSS inspection and docking). Can it undock from ISS and land with two crew? The other two stay on board ISS as part of the crew rotation; their Soyuz seats fly up empty (I know -- those scheduled to fly on Soyuz are busy training for Soyuz and will have difficulty combining it with Shuttle training. But that is a separate question). This way, if final Shuttle mission needs a LON, you need to figure out where to put two people -- not four.
Is this at all possible, or just a crazy idea?
-
#207
by
nathan.moeller
on 27 May, 2010 12:33
-
Just for the sake of it -- it's been discussed over and over the Shuttle cannot fly with less than four crew (fly meaning takeoff, OBSS inspection and docking). Can it undock from ISS and land with two crew? The other two stay on board ISS as part of the crew rotation; their Soyuz seats fly up empty (I know -- those scheduled to fly on Soyuz are busy training for Soyuz and will have difficulty combining it with Shuttle training. But that is a separate question). This way, if final Shuttle mission needs a LON, you need to figure out where to put two people -- not four.
Is this at all possible, or just a crazy idea?
Why would two of the crewmembers stay on ISS? The Expedition crews have already been determined for that timeframe. They already have a plan for getting four people home - two Soyuz spacecraft. In a LON situation, you wouldn't be splitting the crew and sending two into a potentially disastrous re-entry on the crippled shuttle. They would all move into the station and await rescue by Soyuz.
-
#208
by
Phosphorus
on 27 May, 2010 13:12
-
Why would two of the crewmembers stay on ISS? The Expedition crews have already been determined for that timeframe. They already have a plan for getting four people home - two Soyuz spacecraft. In a LON situation, you wouldn't be splitting the crew and sending two into a potentially disastrous re-entry on the crippled shuttle. They would all move into the station and await rescue by Soyuz.
Well, rescuing four people takes two Soyuz being diverted from normal flow. Rescuing two would take only one Soyuz ship.
Look at it this way -- if minimizing the crew of the final Shuttle flight (STS-135 in this case) wasn't a priority, why is the crew cut to four. Everybody knows a four-people flight to ISS is a strain on the crew. But any additional crewmember in case of an emergency is an additional lifeboat seat that has to be "found" -- i.e. taken from a previously planned task.
Look at it from Soyuz schedule point of view -- 4 people await rescue onboard ISS. A Soyuz flies "up there" on average 4 times a year.
If STS-135 happens before May 2011 and needs a rescue, it would look like that: TMA-02M rides up only with Volkov in May 2011, TMA-20 lands with Kondratiev and who? 2 of the Shuttle boys/girls, leaving Coleman and Nespoli for another 6-month stint? or Coleman and Nespoli, leaving 2 Shuttle boys behind (with less use for the Expedition). Trouble already.
TMA-22 rides up only with Shkaplerov. Then Soyuz TMA-21 lands with who? Same dillemma as above, but the whole situation starts to get worse -- the US segment is either full of STS people with insufficient Station training, or with Station people with a year of space exposure.
So if STS-135 has (for instance) Fossum and Burbank as part of the 4-member crew, the whole LON situation gets a bit better -- their return tickets are already bought... (yes, I know they are deep into Soyuz training, but on paper looks interesting).
Nobody talks about two pilots trying to land a crippled Shuttle no matter what. The idea is that "rescuing" 2 guys with no confirmed return tickets wreaks much less havoc with the ISS program vs. rescue of 4.
Or I missed something and Soyuz production can be ramped up in a heartbeat? Would be good to know.
-
#209
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 27 May, 2010 13:16
-
@ Phosporous,
IIRC, Soyuz production requires an 18-month lead time, so it is already too late to start work on STS-135 rescue vehicles unless the mission is delayed until the end of CY2011.
If STS-135 is to go ahead, the surplus LWT will need to be made operational so that Endeavour can stand-by for LON-336. IMHO, there is no other real option.
-
#210
by
psloss
on 27 May, 2010 13:53
-
If STS-135 is to go ahead, the surplus LWT will need to be made operational so that Endeavour can stand-by for LON-336. IMHO, there is no other real option.
That just makes the idea less attractive politically because it will significantly increase the price tag to restart tank and booster production for a single set and also to maintain Shuttle operations during the time it takes to finish/deliver the tank and booster hardware.
-
#211
by
TALsite
on 27 May, 2010 14:02
-
My option:
For instance…
Imaging an early March launch
-Launch STS-135 with 4 astronauts
CDR
PLT
MS1 with ISS experience. I choose Kopra.
MS2: Ron Garan (bumped him from TMA-21)
-Launch TMA-21 only with Samokutyaev and Borisenko
*If everything goes well, STS-135 returns home with CDR, PLT and Kopra. Garan stays as planned.
*If things go wrong…
-We have 9 people in station:
Kondratyev-Nespoli-Coleman- Samokutyaev- Borisenko- Garan- 135/CDR -135/PLT – Kopra.
-Russians launch ONE UNMANNED Soyuz Rescue (they did with Soyuz 34 in the 80’s) as soon as possible
-Kondratyev or Samokutyaev land Soyuz Rescue with 135/CDR and 135/PLT
-After this you only need to re-schedule the next ISS-Expedition crew to accommodate the agencies-ratio
Doing like this, you only need ONE Soyuz Rescue.
Just my thoughts
Cheers
-
#212
by
psloss
on 27 May, 2010 14:09
-
My option:
For instance…
Yeah, there are lots of options. Seems like if there were a technical showstopper, we would have heard about it already.
-
#213
by
Space Pete
on 27 May, 2010 21:02
-
-
#214
by
robertross
on 27 May, 2010 21:05
-
-
#215
by
psloss
on 27 May, 2010 21:11
-
I wrote Obama today to say I’m sure Congress will fund an extra space shuttle flight.
http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/NASA526.pdf
http://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/14789436931
Well, while they're at it, have them fund shuttle flights until commercial crew & lifeboat is ready 
The single flight is a compromise position from the position of Sen. Hutchison's proposal (for example)...kind of hard politically for the authorizing committee to advocate both. Would guess we'll see language in the Senate bill for one or the other.
-
#216
by
bholt
on 27 May, 2010 21:26
-
They very rarely talk about the remaining lightweight tank. If they want to fly STS-135 next June, why not add another flight with that tank? They could close out the shuttle program next summer with STS-136. This would seem to be a logical compromise in the current circumstances.
And if the next 2 missions slip to November & Feb. shouldn't Discovery take over for STS-135 since Atlantis is farther past its OMPD?
Brent
-
#217
by
Orbiter
on 27 May, 2010 21:44
-
If there is an STS-136, it wouldn't happen in the summer.. probably late fall or early winter '11.
Orbiter
-
#218
by
Mark S
on 27 May, 2010 21:56
-
Those NASA managers had better watch their backs. Don't they know that extra Shuttle flight(s) goes against the one true way? They are liable to find themselves promoted to the NASA Office of Useless Introspection.
Mark S.
-
#219
by
Chris Bergin
on 27 May, 2010 22:22
-
If there is an STS-136, it wouldn't happen in the summer.. probably late fall or early winter '11.
Orbiter
2012 at the earliest due to the tanks. Every day that passes is another day it slips the hypothetical STS-136.
