-
#220
by
Phosphorus
on 28 May, 2010 11:20
-
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.
I guess Orbiter means refurbishing ET-94 (lightweight tank). Would it take a whole 18 months?
-
#221
by
psloss
on 28 May, 2010 13:42
-
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.
I guess Orbiter means refurbishing ET-94 (lightweight tank). Would it take a whole 18 months?
It might not take that long, but there's no authority to proceed from Congress and the President. It's not necessarily a given that's going to happen, but even if it does, Congress isn't likely to approve the money until the end of this year.
-
#222
by
Chris Bergin
on 28 May, 2010 13:56
-
The lightweight spare has the same problem as the other three spare part-built tanks. They installed a new requirement to certify new TPS foam, which "wouldn't be completed until 2012". Remember, they removed the safety scarmoungering, they removed the "orbiters need recertifying" issue, but if you want to kill extension, go after the tank schedule.
So even if they strip down ET-94 and could get it ready in a year, there's no certified foam to spray on it. The last certified foam went on ET-122's RTF mods.
Someone needs to grab that situation by the balls, ask why on earth they need to certify new foam, and find a faster way to get tanks out via the current production techniques, but everyone's sat on their hands, especially after the new admin (the last hope to push for extension) came out fully against shuttle, and now extension - at least past STS-135 - is pretty much dead.
-
#223
by
Namechange User
on 28 May, 2010 14:01
-
The lightweight spare has the same problem as the other three spare part-built tanks. They installed a new requirement to certify new TPS foam, which "wouldn't be completed until 2012". Remember, they removed the safety scarmoungering, they removed the "orbiters need recertifying" issue, but if you want to kill extension, go after the tank schedule.
So even if they strip down ET-94 and could get it ready in a year, there's no certified foam to spray on it. The last certified foam went on ET-122's RTF mods.
Someone needs to grab that situation by the balls, ask why on earth they need to certify new foam, and find a faster way to get tanks out via the current production techniques, but everyone's sat on their hands, especially after the new admin (the last hope to push for extension) came out fully against shuttle, and now extension - at least past STS-135 - is pretty much dead.
Everything is dead. We'll have hearings. We'll have political posturing but in the end, no one will really do anything.
At least we will have grand entitlements that we can get thanks to the new welfare state we're creating here. Why work for the greater good when the greater good can pay you for doing nothing.
-
#224
by
Phosphorus
on 28 May, 2010 17:52
-
The lightweight spare has the same problem as the other three spare part-built tanks. They installed a new requirement to certify new TPS foam, which "wouldn't be completed until 2012". Remember, they removed the safety scarmoungering, they removed the "orbiters need recertifying" issue, but if you want to kill extension, go after the tank schedule.
So even if they strip down ET-94 and could get it ready in a year, there's no certified foam to spray on it. The last certified foam went on ET-122's RTF mods.
Someone needs to grab that situation by the balls, ask why on earth they need to certify new foam, and find a faster way to get tanks out via the current production techniques, but everyone's sat on their hands, especially after the new admin (the last hope to push for extension) came out fully against shuttle, and now extension - at least past STS-135 - is pretty much dead.
Everything is dead. We'll have hearings. We'll have political posturing but in the end, no one will really do anything.
At least we will have grand entitlements that we can get thanks to the new welfare state we're creating here. Why work for the greater good when the greater good can pay you for doing nothing.
now THAT is beyond reason, Chris...
They say "Germans invented bureaucracy, but Americans brought it to perfection". I guess now Americans have reduced this perfection to absurdity (by multiplying it with politicking, maybe?). If you do not want something to happen, you find a way, billions $ writeoff be damned...
-
#225
by
K466
on 28 May, 2010 19:36
-
What's this talk about STS-136?
Washington waste hundreds of billions on everything else, why are they being so stingy with NASA?
-
#226
by
kch
on 28 May, 2010 19:54
-
What's this talk about STS-136?
Washington waste hundreds of billions on everything else, why are they being so stingy with NASA?
They probably figure they can "get away with it" (and maybe they can). Reminds me of this old story:
http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/radio/uncledon.asp
-
#227
by
sdsds
on 29 May, 2010 04:04
-
The lightweight spare has the same problem as the other three spare part-built tanks. They installed a new requirement to certify new TPS foam, which "wouldn't be completed until 2012". [...] So even if they strip down ET-94 and could get it ready in a year, there's no certified foam to spray on it.
So could ET-94 be flown as-is on a non-STS mission, e.g. of an uncrewed side mount vehicle? Could a thrust structure be attached that would allow it to fly as the core of an in-line HLV-X vehicle? Flying a vehicle like that after an STS-135 flight would allow more time to certify foam and prepare a different tank for STS-136.
-
#228
by
Chris Bergin
on 08 Jun, 2010 16:01
-
-
#229
by
steveS
on 09 Jun, 2010 00:20
-
-
#230
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 09 Jun, 2010 01:13
-
Update:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sts-135-june-24-2011-evaluation-extra-shuttle-mission/
Chris, could you briefly describe the advantages of having SSTPS on Discovery and not on Atlantis?. STS-135 might be a 11 day mission (when STS-133 was the last one, it was originally planned for 8 days), hence where will SSTPS advantage come into effect?
SSPTS results in the ability to lift extra mass, as not as much consumables are needed for the same mission duration.
-
#231
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 09 Jun, 2010 02:05
-
Update:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sts-135-june-24-2011-evaluation-extra-shuttle-mission/
Chris, could you briefly describe the advantages of having SSTPS on Discovery and not on Atlantis?. STS-135 might be a 11 day mission (when STS-133 was the last one, it was originally planned for 8 days), hence where will SSTPS advantage come into effect?
SSPTS results in the ability to lift extra mass, as not as much consumables are needed for the same mission duration.
Mike Moses has routinely stated that SSPTS has nothing to due with STS-135. If Atlantis (non-SSPTS) flies STS-135, the mission will be 11-days long; if Discovery or Endeavour (SSPTS) fly STS-135, the mission will be 11-days long. It's the same with STS-335.
Now, what SSPTS gives you on Discovery is the ability to fly an 11-day mission with one of her Cryo tank sets removed (thus, more payload upmass). This can be seen on STS-133 in which her 5th Cryo tank set was removed and a subsequent 8-day flight planned. That mission is now 11-days long and can be that long because SSPTS gives you the ability to conserve Fuel Cell cryo to stretch out the mission to 11+1+2 days.
However, since STS-135 would be a four (4) person crew flying with only an MPLM, Atlantis or Endeavour's 5th Cryo tank set would not have to be removed for upmass consideration and thus an 11+1+2 day flight is natural (with SSPTS giving Endeavour additional margin on orbit in case of a problem or desire to extend for a reason only identified on orbit). If Discovery gets the theoretical STS-135 mission, SSPTS allows her to fly that nominal 11+1+2 day mission even though she can't carry enough Fuel Cell propellant to conduct a mission of that duration without SSPTS.
-
#232
by
steveS
on 09 Jun, 2010 02:37
-
Thank you very much ChrisG for your wonderful explanation on the SSTPS impact.
-
#233
by
steveS
on 22 Jun, 2010 23:14
-
Has the decision on STS-135 now been differed to August?
-
#234
by
mmeijeri
on 22 Jun, 2010 23:22
-
Would a decision even be made before we know whether there will be a CR?
-
#235
by
MP99
on 22 Jun, 2010 23:41
-
Someone needs to grab that situation by the balls, ask why on earth they need to certify new foam...
I'd have thought the biggest concern would be that a new foam might not be as resistant to foam liberation events as we've become used to on recent flights?
I guess the extended testing would be to confirm that (plus other aspects of it's performance).
cheers, Martin
-
#236
by
psloss
on 22 Jun, 2010 23:51
-
Has the decision on STS-135 now been differed to August?
Have you seen something implying that?
Edit: guessing that you're referring to Bill Harwood's article (only seen it on SFN so far) and the Florida Today piece (
here). Based on those reports, sure sounds like it.
Would a decision even be made before we know whether there will be a CR?
If there's a consensus between the Administration and Congress on this, the Shuttle program could be given informal assurances they'll get sufficient appropriations to fly farther into the fiscal year than the informal assurances they already have. The late October / late February dates we've seen for a while now would be stretching things beyond the Administration's proposal for even the two flights that are already authorized.
-
#237
by
steveS
on 23 Jun, 2010 00:19
-
Has the decision on STS-135 now been differed to August?
Have you seen something implying that?
Edit: guessing that you're referring to Bill Harwood's article (only seen it on SFN so far) and the Florida Today piece (here). Based on those reports, sure sounds like it.
Yes those two were the sources mentioning about the defferal.
-
#238
by
steveS
on 23 Jun, 2010 03:41
-
* If it will be a "YES" by August, what are the implications of a one month delay to the STS-135 (possible) flight?
-
#239
by
nathan.moeller
on 23 Jun, 2010 21:19
-
* If it will be a "YES" by August, what are the implications of a one month delay to the STS-135 (possible) flight?
We'd be likely to see a delay since it takes about one year to plan a flight, train a crew and get ready to go fly.
