-
#40
by
cd-slam
on 08 Dec, 2009 14:07
-
Errr, I think the bigger milestone will be 50th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's Vostok 1 flight. Not that there will be too many celebrity nobodies able to remember that...
-
#41
by
Colds7ream
on 08 Dec, 2009 21:32
-
Sure would love to see that last Shuttle mission launch on April 12, 2011... :-)
Better if that was the landing date - then the programme would have been operational for exactly 30 years. :-)
-
#42
by
psloss
on 08 Dec, 2009 21:41
-
Sure would love to see that last Shuttle mission launch on April 12, 2011... :-)
Better if that was the landing date - then the programme would have been operational for exactly 30 years. :-)
I'll trade the last launch and/or landing on any particular anniversary date for getting the STS-135 mission.
-
#43
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Dec, 2009 17:24
-
-
#44
by
steveS
on 10 Dec, 2009 22:56
-
If there are most flights to come after STS 135, then would NASA have to re plan STS 133 - 135 very soon? Currently STS 133-STS 135 seems more like winding down missions with less crew and less mission duration?. In case of additional flights can be flown, why not making STS 133-135 more like the missions they flew in the recent period?.
-
#45
by
astrobrian
on 10 Dec, 2009 23:11
-
If there are most flights to come after STS 135, then would NASA have to re plan STS 133 - 135 very soon? Currently STS 133-STS 135 seems more like winding down missions with less crew and less mission duration?. In case of additional flights can be flown, why not making STS 133-135 more like the missions they flew in the recent period?.
Officially I don't think there would be any planning until the green light is given for STS-135 etc. On the other side of that, I know I would always be planning for all possibilities given the current state of things whether it is 1, 2, or 3 missions added to the schedule.
-
#46
by
steveS
on 11 Dec, 2009 04:58
-
Wonder what Astronaut Steven Lindsey is thinking at the moment? Am I flying on STS 133, 135, 136 or ...........
-
#47
by
Danderman
on 11 Dec, 2009 19:46
-
Who actually made the 2010 retirement decision?
Technically, the person who made the decision was the POTUS in 2004.
Who advised that person to make that decision is not known to me.
-
#48
by
Namechange User
on 11 Dec, 2009 19:53
-
Who actually made the 2010 retirement decision?
Technically, the person who made the decision was the POTUS in 2004.
Who advised that person to make that decision is not known to me.
When it comes to 2010, it wasn't done in a vacuum. Knowing that the space shuttle must fly again to complete ISS since that is the only way it can be done, the policy wonks in cunjunction with the CAIB asked when could the ISS reasonably be completed? The answer was 2010.
That was how the line in the sand was drawn. Not because the ships are degrading, falling apart or near the end of their structural lives. For those wanting to make sure it was the end, they latch on to statements about "recertification", which were deliberately vague were placed in various reports only as a recommendation. The problem those critics will have is we have completed nearly everything that one could define as recertification over the last six years.
-
#49
by
Analyst
on 12 Dec, 2009 10:25
-
For those wanting to make sure it was the end, they latch on to statements about "recertification", which were deliberately vague were placed in various reports only as a recommendation.
And to have even more insurance they did cancel as much contracts as possible, as early as possible, and did destroy as much assets as possible, as early as possible. Burn the land and boil the sea. Would be really funny - and costly sadly - if all the destructive action were still not enough. Would give me some hope sane people still can prevail.
Analyst
-
#50
by
joseamatos
on 14 Dec, 2009 20:57
-
Will anyone tell me what are the odds of adding STS-135?
-
#51
by
rdale
on 14 Dec, 2009 22:14
-
Odds are good.
-
#52
by
Chris Bergin
on 15 Dec, 2009 20:15
-
No suprise with this, just confirms the purchase of the boosters as 335:
CONTRACT RELEASE: C09-057
NASA BUYS ADDITIONAL SPACE SHUTTLE REUSABLE SOLID ROCKET MOTORS
WASHINGTON -- NASA has purchased two reusable solid rocket motors from
ATK Launch Systems Inc. of Brigham City, Utah, to provide a "launch
on need" rescue capability for the final planned space shuttle
mission, targeted for September 2010.
The reusable solid rocket motors are the propellant-loaded sections of
the solid rocket boosters that provide thrust for the first two
minutes of a shuttle flight. The $64.6 million modification brings
the total value of the contract, which was awarded in October 1998,
to $4.1 billion and covers work started in February to produce and
transport the two motors.
Work will be performed at the contractor's plants in Brigham City and
Clearfield, Utah, and facilities at NASA's Marshall Space Flight
Center in Huntsville, Ala., and Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
-
#53
by
robertross
on 15 Dec, 2009 20:20
-
No suprise with this, just confirms the purchase of the boosters as 335:
CONTRACT RELEASE: C09-057
NASA BUYS ADDITIONAL SPACE SHUTTLE REUSABLE SOLID ROCKET MOTORS
WASHINGTON -- NASA has purchased two reusable solid rocket motors from
ATK Launch Systems Inc. of Brigham City, Utah, to provide a "launch
on need" rescue capability for the final planned space shuttle
mission, targeted for September 2010.
The reusable solid rocket motors are the propellant-loaded sections of
the solid rocket boosters that provide thrust for the first two
minutes of a shuttle flight. The $64.6 million modification brings
the total value of the contract, which was awarded in October 1998,
to $4.1 billion and covers work started in February to produce and
transport the two motors.
Work will be performed at the contractor's plants in Brigham City and
Clearfield, Utah, and facilities at NASA's Marshall Space Flight
Center in Huntsville, Ala., and Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
Guess they'll be hiring some of the workers back now?? lol
IMO, perfect opportunity for a shuttle extension...but that's OT for this thread.
-
#54
by
Calphor
on 15 Dec, 2009 20:45
-
Guess they'll be hiring some of the workers back now?? lol
IMO, perfect opportunity for a shuttle extension...but that's OT for this thread.
Actually they just announced another 800 layoffs at ATK over the next 6 months.
-
#55
by
Chris Bergin
on 15 Dec, 2009 21:29
-
Yeah, it's going to take more than just STS-335/STS-135 to reverse the cull.
-
#56
by
robertross
on 15 Dec, 2009 22:40
-
Guess they'll be hiring some of the workers back now?? lol
IMO, perfect opportunity for a shuttle extension...but that's OT for this thread.
Actually they just announced another 800 layoffs at ATK over the next 6 months.
Those were the ones I was talking about.
Maybe they won't bring any back.
-
#57
by
steveS
on 01 Jan, 2010 08:33
-
A wikipedia article on STS 135
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-135It mentions as a limitation that "Atlantis may also be considered the "least fit" of the orbiters, as it was discovered to have unrepairable tank issues and a host of other problems which caused extreme repair following its STS-125 flight"
Can some one comment on the correctness of this statement ? (No references are given in the article)
As the article says if Atlantis has some serious problems, then why would NASA use it to fly STS 135?
-
#58
by
Chris Bergin
on 01 Jan, 2010 13:42
-
The OMDP timelines are good and have even been extended of late - and I assume they are talking COPVs, which was solved via age-life testing at White Sands a few years ago.
-
#59
by
Bubbinski
on 02 Jan, 2010 12:48
-
A wikipedia article on STS 135
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-135
It mentions as a limitation that "Atlantis may also be considered the "least fit" of the orbiters, as it was discovered to have unrepairable tank issues and a host of other problems which caused extreme repair following its STS-125 flight"
Can some one comment on the correctness of this statement ? (No references are given in the article)
As the article says if Atlantis has some serious problems, then why would NASA use it to fly STS 135?
Well, if it were in that bad of shape it wouldn't have flown STS-129. I think that shows how reliable a source Wikipedia is......
