-
#140 by steveS on 10 Apr, 2011 01:37
-
Regarding the Soyuz fly around with STS-135 challenges;
How long Atlantis (without SSTPS) can remain docked to the ISS? Isnt there are a way to extend the mission to 13 days? -
#141 by robertross on 10 Apr, 2011 01:40
-
Regarding the Soyuz fly around with STS-135 challenges;
How long Atlantis (without SSTPS) can remain docked to the ISS? Isnt there are a way to extend the mission to 13 days?
We're lucky to get the mission in the first place without a LON shuttle. One of the biggest risks for a shuttle is mmod, and the longer it's up there, the more vulnerable it is.
We want as quick a mission as possible.
(also, Atlantis doesn't have SSPTS, so it can't draw off ISS power, so that affects mission timeline as well) -
#142 by psloss on 10 Apr, 2011 11:55
-
We want as quick a mission as possible.
I think the programs would trade the additional MMOD risk over a typical 24-hour period at ISS for another docked day. The mission has already been extended from 11+1 to 12+0.
An extension beyond that would probably be a real-time decision during the mission based on the situation. One of the factors will likely be how quickly the mission lifts off after the PRSD load, but launching on the first attempt is tough to bank on. And that's likely only part of the story.
-
#143 by Sesquipedalian on 10 Apr, 2011 20:58
-
Would they be willing to sacrifice a weather day, to go from 12+0+2 to 13+0+1?
-
#144 by ChrisGebhardt on 10 Apr, 2011 23:28
-
Would they be willing to sacrifice a weather day, to go from 12+0+2 to 13+0+1?
No. -
#145 by steveS on 11 Apr, 2011 02:32
-
We want as quick a mission as possible.
I respectfully disagree. However, since my knowledge is based on readings and I am not a NASA worker, I could be totally wrong with the following views;
1. Spending more time in space may yield additional benefits such as more time for science and additional man power time for ISS activities such as cargo transfers. The duration determination of a mission seems a complex issue with the influence of many fixed/dynamic factors. Shuttles were designed to stay up some time in space and MMOD vulnerability can be minimized.
2. Somehow, I felt that with Atlantis, MCC-H is reluctant to extend mission timelines while with Discovery/Endeavour they are happy to do so (both before the mission kicks off the ground and up in space). The main reasons might be Atlantis not having the SSTPS and due to that her missions are planned with less number of tasks (can someone verify this?). In case of STS-129, I remember even though Atlantis had extra Cyro margins to stay up longer, MCC-H did not extend the mission. Once the mission objectives are achieved, the main priority is to bring her home
.
3. However, as psloss had mentioned both STS-132 and 135 have now already been extended by a day. So it seems that NASA is pushing maximum with STS-135. The weather day extension seems to be not an option (also judging from the previous Atlantis missions, NASA may not extend the mission when she is up in space).
4. I wonder, whether an ISS-shuttle photo could be taken using the HST or any other appropriate satellite if the Soyuz does not work out? May be this is not possible? Can someone comment? Of course, even if possible, all the unique vantage point pictures might not be possible.
5. Finally, let’s hope that Atlantis kicks off the ground on the first opportunity (as she did with STS-129 and STS-132!). With some additional Cyro margins and other favorable factors, hope NASA can do the photo shoot (if STS-135 timeline is the most important issue to overcome). Being the last flight, NASA might also like to do additional educational/ PR activities during the mission as well. -
#146 by Ronsmytheiii on 11 Apr, 2011 04:30
-
CDR is up late:Quote
The team is working an excellent idea to "yaw" ISS 90 degrees during the shuttle's fly-around maneuver. Stunning ISS side-view expected.
http://twitter.com/#!/Astro_Ferg -
#147 by psloss on 11 Apr, 2011 11:44
-
1. Spending more time in space may yield additional benefits such as more time for science and additional man power time for ISS activities such as cargo transfers. The duration determination of a mission seems a complex issue with the influence of many fixed/dynamic factors. Shuttles were designed to stay up some time in space and MMOD vulnerability can be minimized.
No, the trade would be additional transfer time vs. additional MMOD risk. The docked attitude doesn't minimize the MMOD risk to the orbiter, which largely flies in a different attitude while undocked.
-
#148 by ChrisGebhardt on 11 Apr, 2011 12:17
-
1. Spending more time in space may yield additional benefits such as more time for science and additional man power time for ISS activities such as cargo transfers. The duration determination of a mission seems a complex issue with the influence of many fixed/dynamic factors. Shuttles were designed to stay up some time in space and MMOD vulnerability can be minimized.
No, the trade would be additional transfer time vs. additional MMOD risk. The docked attitude doesn't minimize the MMOD risk to the orbiter, which largely flies in a different attitude while undocked.
To be fair here, the ISS/Shuttle stack's docked attitude does somewhat serve to protect the orbiter's TPS as much as possible. -
#149 by Space Pete on 11 Apr, 2011 16:45
-
4. I wonder, whether an ISS-shuttle photo could be taken using the HST or any other appropriate satellite if the Soyuz does not work out? May be this is not possible? Can someone comment? Of course, even if possible, all the unique vantage point pictures might not be possible.
No, the fact that HST is in a completely different orbit and travelling at a different velocity to ISS would make it next to impossible, even for a computer. It would be much easier to use a stationary ground-based telescope (which has been done many times before).Being the last flight, NASA might also like to do additional educational/ PR activities during the mission as well.
Yes, they do, but the mission timeline is so packed that NASA are already looking at dropping some PAO events. -
#150 by TheFallen on 12 Apr, 2011 02:13
-
Didn't know where to post this, but Florida Today mentions that it will probably be Atlantis that will go on display at the KSC Visitor Complex
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110411/BREAKINGNEWS/110411014/Sources-Space-shuttle-will-remain-Space-Coast?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home -
#151 by rdale on 12 Apr, 2011 02:28
-
Didn't know where to post this
There's info on this in the Orbiter Retirement thread. -
#152 by Ronsmytheiii on 13 Apr, 2011 04:00
-
While everyone else was out watching the 30th anniversary press conference, the guys in the SSPF were busy packing Rafaello for the last flight:
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4
They stayed focused
-
#153 by steveS on 13 Apr, 2011 05:08
-
Chris Ferguson on Twitter;
Round trip to KSC today for 30th anniversary celebration of STS-1. Atlantis will stay at KSC upon retirement. (I offered "free delivery")
-
#154 by Space Pete on 13 Apr, 2011 13:10
-
I just found this great blog at the Houston Chronicle - "Final Mission", a behind-the-scenes look at the STS-135 crew training.
http://blogs.chron.com/finalmission -
#155 by Space Pete on 13 Apr, 2011 13:32
-
Fergie's own words in response to a question (not from me) on whether the ISS yaw during the Shuttle flyaround is being done instead of the Soyuz flyabout:Quote from: @Astro_Ferg
They're considering both, but the Soyuz fly around will be tough to fit in the timeline. We'll see....
Even the mission CDR doesn't sound very confident about it.
-
#156 by Space Pete on 14 Apr, 2011 15:36
-
An RSP on the Rack Insertion Device.
First it will be loaded with bags, then transferred into the MPLM.
Watch live video of the operations here: http://kscwmserv1.ksc.nasa.gov/channel6
-
#157 by Chris Bergin on 15 Apr, 2011 14:40
-
A very good overview of the challenges faced by mission planners for STS-135...
Troubled STS-135 mission timeline under review - by Chris Gebhardt
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/04/troubled-sts-135-mission-timeline-under-review/ -
#158 by Space Pete on 15 Apr, 2011 15:40
-
A very good overview of the challenges faced by mission planners for STS-135...
Troubled STS-135 mission timeline under review - by Chris Gebhardt
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/04/troubled-sts-135-mission-timeline-under-review/
Great article, Chris G!
Basically, they need an extra day in order to accomplish all transfer objectives. Obviously Atlantis' lack of SSPTS prevents that, but even if that extra day was gained through deletion of other activities, the Soyuz flyabout would take out a sizeable chunk of it. In short: it doesn't look good for a Soyuz flyabout.
If the descending node entry was chosen (+ 28 hours), along with the cancellation of the EVA (+ 26 hours), then a Soyuz flyabout might be doable.
With regard to potentially dropping the EVA, I wonder whether the SPDM could be used for the ORU transfers instead (which would be controlled from the ground 24/7, thus freeing up the on-orbit crew)? RRM will be installed onto the SPDM's EOTP by the EVA crew, so there shouldn't be any trouble with the SPDM doing that itself (it recently demonstrated that ability during the HTV-2 ORU transfers). That would just leave the PM transfer from ESP-2 to the LMC - which might be difficult due to the MPLM on Node 2 Nadir blocking access to the PLB. Maybe put the MPLM on Node 2 Zenith - thus creating PLB access and shielding the flight-deck windows during the Soyuz flyabout? Just a thought.
-
#159 by Lee Jay on 15 Apr, 2011 16:25
-
STS-135 was planned from the beginning to get absolute maximum upmass. It seems that they may have gone a little too far with this not leaving enough crew time to accomplish the mission. Why not add back a crew member? The Tim Kopra incident recently demonstrated that they are capable of adding a crew member very late in the planning if the crew member in question is up to speed. I even have a suggestion as to who it might be - Tim Kopra.
Seriously, is there are reason that isn't on the list to be considered? Is it too late to reconfigure the vehicle?
.
