-
STS-135: NASA managers discuss mission outline ahead of approval decision
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Jul, 2010 04:25
-
-
#1
by
sdsds
on 10 Jul, 2010 05:09
-
The really good news: agreement that Soyuz providing contingency crew return is "an acceptable solution" if Atlantis were stranded at ISS. The capability is obviously there, and there's little chance it would be needed (knock wood). But apparently STS-135 wouldn't fly without international agreement. Wow!
Also, if June 28, 2011 were the launch date and if the first successful commercial resupply flight were also in 2011, it would at least look like the "up-mass gap" had been filled.
-
#2
by
Sparky
on 10 Jul, 2010 05:22
-
Amazing work as usual, Chris!
It would be great to see VASIMR on ISS earlier than planned. It will give the US segment reboost capability (albeit limited).
-
#3
by
MP99
on 10 Jul, 2010 13:06
-
According to
this, VASIMR is not expected to be ready to fly until 2014.
cheers, Martin
-
#4
by
psloss
on 10 Jul, 2010 14:20
-
The really good news: agreement that Soyuz providing contingency crew return is "an acceptable solution" if Atlantis were stranded at ISS.
That's the NASA assessment; no agreement yet. As the article quotes: "The exact agreement and timing for their return
is still being negotiated between the partners."
-
#5
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Jul, 2010 14:32
-
Thanks Sparky! And Martin - we'll check the VASIMR schedule (I was told 2011 was viable last night) but used it only as an example, not a specifically targetted payment. The GSFC tech demos element was the big deal with that potential payload addition.
-
#6
by
TJL
on 10 Jul, 2010 16:04
-
With a possible STS 135 mission taking place in late June 2011, and a decision on wether or not it will fly at all coming in August, does anyone here feel that the crew for this mission was already selected and in training...with an official announcement coming when the flight is definate?
-
#7
by
Jorge
on 10 Jul, 2010 17:25
-
With a possible STS 135 mission taking place in late June 2011, and a decision on wether or not it will fly at all coming in August, does anyone here feel that the crew for this mission was already selected and in training...with an official announcement coming when the flight is definate?
No. I can 100% assure you there's no 135 crew in training.
-
#8
by
TJL
on 10 Jul, 2010 17:34
-
Thanks, Jorge.
I always thought a shuttle crew needed at least a year to a year and a half to train prior to flying.
-
#9
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Jul, 2010 17:37
-
Accidential delete, when I went to quote Commander Keen's post (argh!), on a question about a cross-country tour for the final flight.
We had heard that:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/10/nasa-evaluate-sts-335-sts-133-cross-country-farewell/But Philip's media trip to Dryden did not reveal any plans. We'll see about updating it when we see documentation......but so far all PRCB level documentation points to no plan to alter the pri site of KSC.......for STS-133 or STS-134 (now last) at least. We'll see what STS-135 brings if approved.
-
#10
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 10 Jul, 2010 17:50
-
With a possible STS 135 mission taking place in late June 2011, and a decision on wether or not it will fly at all coming in August, does anyone here feel that the crew for this mission was already selected and in training...with an official announcement coming when the flight is definate?
No. I can 100% assure you there's no 135 crew in training.
I assume that there is an LON-335 crew in training. How difficult would it be to transition them to a new mission profile and a few extra crew members?
-
#11
by
Jorge
on 10 Jul, 2010 18:04
-
With a possible STS 135 mission taking place in late June 2011, and a decision on wether or not it will fly at all coming in August, does anyone here feel that the crew for this mission was already selected and in training...with an official announcement coming when the flight is definate?
No. I can 100% assure you there's no 135 crew in training.
I assume that there is an LON-335 crew in training.
No. The 335 crew has not yet been named. If 135 is not approved in August, a 335 crew will be named and will begin training in January 2011.
How difficult would it be to transition them to a new mission profile and a few extra crew members?
Impossible with a June launch date for 135, because the 335 training flow starts too late to accommodate it. There will be no extra crewmembers; both 135 and 335 have a crew of four.
-
#12
by
Jorge
on 10 Jul, 2010 18:06
-
Thanks, Jorge.
I always thought a shuttle crew needed at least a year to a year and a half to train prior to flying.
Normally, yes. The long-pole item is typically EVA training. An August start for 135 with a June 2011 launch date is feasible only assuming 135 has no EVAs (and that is the current plan).
-
#13
by
Jorge
on 11 Jul, 2010 00:49
-
Thanks, Jorge.
I always thought a shuttle crew needed at least a year to a year and a half to train prior to flying.
Normally, yes. The long-pole item is typically EVA training. An August start for 135 with a June 2011 launch date is feasible only assuming 135 has no EVAs (and that is the current plan).
Back when they were talking STS-134 in July and STS-133 in September, I always figures the STS-335 crew would be perhaps four of a recent crew already trained for an MPLM mission. Would they need an entire year to train if they had already flown a similar mission in the last year?
Depends on whether you're talking 135 or 335. The latter would be trained purely as a rescue mission; it would carry an MPLM but anything accomplished other than rescue would be considered pure gravy.
-
#14
by
steveS
on 11 Jul, 2010 02:26
-
STS 135 crew selection? Chris Ferguson (CDR), Barry Wilmore/Doug Hurley (pilot) , Mike Massimino / Patrick Forrester (STS-128 MPLM experience), Stephanie Wilson (STS 131 MPLM), Timothy Creamer (recent ISS experience) ?
-
#15
by
KEdward5
on 11 Jul, 2010 02:57
-
STS 135 crew selection? Chris Ferguson (CDR), Barry Wilmore/Doug Hurley (pilot) , Mike Massimino / Patrick Forrester (STS-128 MPLM experience), Stephanie Wilson (STS 131 MPLM), Timothy Creamer (recent ISS experience) ?
Maybe we should discuss the article, which is a really good one with lots of information, than play a completely pointless game of guess the crew. Doesn't matter who they send up, they are all trained as good as each other. The mission is more important, as is getting it approved.
-
#16
by
Jorge
on 11 Jul, 2010 03:10
-
STS 135 crew selection? Chris Ferguson (CDR), Barry Wilmore/Doug Hurley (pilot) , Mike Massimino / Patrick Forrester (STS-128 MPLM experience), Stephanie Wilson (STS 131 MPLM), Timothy Creamer (recent ISS experience) ?
Maybe we should discuss the article, which is a really good one with lots of information, than pay a completely pointless game of guess the crew. Doesn't matter who they send up, they are all the same. The mission is more important, as is getting it approved.
Right. There is already a crew assignment thread. Keep the speculation there.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=740.0
-
#17
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 11 Jul, 2010 04:44
-
Accidential delete, when I went to quote Commander Keen's post (argh!), on a question about a cross-country tour for the final flight.
We had heard that:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/10/nasa-evaluate-sts-335-sts-133-cross-country-farewell/
But Philip's media trip to Dryden did not reveal any plans. We'll see about updating it when we see documentation......but so far all PRCB level documentation points to no plan to alter the pri site of KSC.......for STS-133 or STS-134 (now last) at least. We'll see what STS-135 brings if approved.
According to Stephanie Stilson (Discovery's flow director) during a pre-STS-131 press gathering there is no plan for a cross country ferry tour after the final mission. The final mission is planned for a KSC landing as confirmed by the mission's baselines, Launch Site Flow Review, and Delta Launch Site Review. If the vehicle happens to divert to Edwards or White Sands because of weather concerns at Kennedy that would be another story. But there is no plan to purposefully land the final mission anywhere other than Kennedy. I kind of took that as confirmation that the idea of the cross-country farewell had been looked at and dismissed.
-
#18
by
steveS
on 11 Jul, 2010 11:23
-
There have been 10 MPLM missions so far (up to STS-131) with Leonardo used 7 times. (including last 4 consecutive MPLM flights). Is it an indication that NASA has preferred to fly Leonardo compared to Raffaello? If so any reasons for that?
-
#19
by
FlightOne
on 11 Jul, 2010 16:09
-
Does anyone know if there are any Beta Angle Cutout's next summer and when? The last one that showed on the revised launch manifest document that was posted on this site was April 7-19.
Starting some advance vacation planning for summer 2011 and want to try to avoid scheduling a family vacation that winds up conflicting with any potential STS-135 launch date. I don't want to rely too much on the current stated June 28 target since we know that can change. I figured a beta period would be the safest if there is one.
-
#20
by
Jim
on 11 Jul, 2010 18:23
-
There have been 10 MPLM missions so far (up to STS-131) with Leonardo used 7 times. (including last 4 consecutive MPLM flights). Is it an indication that NASA has preferred to fly Leonardo compared to Raffaello? If so any reasons for that?
cheaper. Less paper work
-
#21
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 11 Jul, 2010 20:27
-
Does anyone know if there are any Beta Angle Cutout's next summer and when? The last one that showed on the revised launch manifest document that was posted on this site was April 7-19.
Starting some advance vacation planning for summer 2011 and want to try to avoid scheduling a family vacation that winds up conflicting with any potential STS-135 launch date. I don't want to rely too much on the current stated June 28 target since we know that can change. I figured a beta period would be the safest if there is one.
Sometime in early/mid-June. I can't get any more specific than that at this time. But I've noticed a pattern that the beta angles seem to advance on the calendar by roughly 7 to 11-days per year.
For example, the 2009 Beta Angle Cutouts were:
April 25 - May 14
June 20 - July 11
November 18 - December 8.
The 2010 Beta Angle Cutouts in the same time periods were/are:
April 15 - May 1
June 13 - June 28
August 13 - August 24
November 7 - November 23.
Extrapolating out, the June 2011 Beat would be
ROUGHLY:
June 4 - June 18.
-
#22
by
steveS
on 13 Jul, 2010 02:39
-
Why is NASA coservative on STS-135 mission duration planning (11+1+2)? Atlantis has not got the SSTPS capability BUT .... STS-132 was a 12+0+2 mission (earlier planned as 11+1+2). So do they want to maximize the up mass? (Will a day saving of a 4 member crew adds to lot of up mass gain?) Also at the end, there is no real need to return to KSC? (earlier it was neceassy since the orbiter could be prepared for the next mission at the earliest). This could also be used to relax the +2 to +1 with the day gained transferred to the actual mission duration?
-
#23
by
Namechange User
on 13 Jul, 2010 02:42
-
Why is NASA coservative on STS-135 mission duration planning (11+1+2)? Atlantis has not got the SSTPS capability BUT .... STS-132 was a 12+0+2 mission (earlier planned as 11+1+2). So do they want to maximize the up mass? (Will a day saving of a 4 member crew adds to lot of up mass gain?) Also at the end, there is no real need to return to KSC? (earlier it was neceassy since the orbiter could be prepared for the next mission at the earliest). This could also be used to relax the +2 to +1 with the day gained transferred to the actual mission duration?
Atlantis does need to return to KSC. That is where she will be decommissioned.
-
#24
by
steveS
on 13 Jul, 2010 03:24
-
True indeed, but there is no urgency to bring her home to KSC at the end of STS-135.
Why is NASA coservative on STS-135 mission duration planning (11+1+2)? Atlantis has not got the SSTPS capability BUT .... STS-132 was a 12+0+2 mission (earlier planned as 11+1+2). So do they want to maximize the up mass? (Will a day saving of a 4 member crew adds to lot of up mass gain?) Also at the end, there is no real need to return to KSC? (earlier it was neceassy since the orbiter could be prepared for the next mission at the earliest). This could also be used to relax the +2 to +1 with the day gained transferred to the actual mission duration?
Atlantis does need to return to KSC. That is where she will be decommissioned.
-
#25
by
FinalFrontier
on 13 Jul, 2010 03:34
-
STS 135 would be mandated by the new plan.
-
#26
by
psloss
on 13 Jul, 2010 11:02
-
Why is NASA coservative on STS-135 mission duration planning (11+1+2)? Atlantis has not got the SSTPS capability BUT .... STS-132 was a 12+0+2 mission (earlier planned as 11+1+2).
Why would you jump to that conclusion? There's been very little STS-135 planning; characterizing it as 'conservative' is overdoing it. Despite what might look like better odds these days, the mission and the money to prepare for it are still not approved. Until that happens, there's little work to do and money is tight.
You do realize there's a large layoff coming up, right?
Also at the end, there is no real need to return to KSC? (earlier it was neceassy since the orbiter could be prepared for the next mission at the earliest). This could also be used to relax the +2 to +1 with the day gained transferred to the actual mission duration?
Maximizing docked duration is not the primary objective of a Shuttle mission. There will be a set of mission objectives for the Shuttle mission, just like all the others. When those have been met, there's both little reason to stay and multiple reasons on the ISS side for the Shuttle to leave.
With regard to EOM extension days, there's no way to predict when and where the weather will be acceptable months in advance. There are multiple examples of Edwards being waved off to land at KSC. The weather extension days provide flexibility to make thoughtful decisions before committing to re-entry.
-
#27
by
steveS
on 13 Jul, 2010 11:49
-
Why would you jump to that conclusion? There's been very little STS-135 planning; characterizing it as 'conservative' is overdoing it. Despite what might look like better odds these days, the mission and the money to prepare for it are still not approved. Until that happens, there's little work to do and money is tight.
You do realize there's a large layoff coming up, right?
What I meant was trying to maximize the gains if the mission is approved. More working hours mean more time to do experiments, transfers etc ?. Also, my question was if the mission is approved (so money is already allocated assumption is made)
Also last two MPLM missions had 8 days, 18 hours (STS-128) and 10 days, 5 hours (STS-131) Docked Time with the ISS. But with STS-135, (11 days) means 5/6 days of docked time (also FD4 docking instead of FD3 as the article explains).
Maximizing docked duration is not the primary objective of a Shuttle mission. There will be a set of mission objectives for the Shuttle mission, just like all the others. When those have been met, there's both little reason to stay and multiple reasons on the ISS side for the Shuttle to leave.
With regard to EOM extension days, there's no way to predict when and where the weather will be acceptable months in advance. There are multiple examples of Edwards being waved off to land at KSC. The weather extension days provide flexibility to make thoughtful decisions before committing to re-entry.
With no disrespect to you, can you be more specific on the STS-135 mission content (since not planned may be with the most likely) and your arguments on reasons? Also, what I mentioned was not assuming acceptable weather in months advance, but (1) KSC landing may not be a priority (unless NASA does not want to spend the extra money needed to get back Atlantis from Edwards) I could be wrong
-
#28
by
Jim
on 13 Jul, 2010 12:07
-
KSC landing may not be a priority (unless NASA does not want to spend the extra money needed to get back Atlantis from Edwards) I could be wrong
It won't have the personnel to support
-
#29
by
Namechange User
on 13 Jul, 2010 12:20
-
True indeed, but there is no urgency to bring her home to KSC at the end of STS-135.
Yes there will be. The vehicle must be decommissioned. That takes people and money. The money and the people will be funded under Transition and Retirement and that will not be something that lasts forever and lends itself to casually "getting around to it".
-
#30
by
alexw
on 16 Jul, 2010 08:45
-
Thanks, Jorge.
I always thought a shuttle crew needed at least a year to a year and a half to train prior to flying.
Normally, yes. The long-pole item is typically EVA training. An August start for 135 with a June 2011 launch date is feasible only assuming 135 has no EVAs (and that is the current plan).
Do all missions still train for contingency EVAs? Originally that was, what, just payload bay door closure? I suppose a lot more, now, with the tile and RCC repair compounds and applicator tools.
And why Atlantis? With an MPLM and four crew, won't there be considerable time pressure, which SSPTS would amelioriate?
-Alex
-
#31
by
steveS
on 16 Jul, 2010 09:26
-
During June 2011, Mike Fossum and Ron Garan will be at the ISS. Fossum was a crew member of STS-121 - which carried the MPLM. Garan's STS-124 was not a MPLM mission. I wonder NASA can train both of them on MPLM activities to share work load with the 4 member shuttle crew.
-
#32
by
brettreds2k
on 16 Jul, 2010 13:42
-
Looks like she gets one last flight!!! House approved the additional flight, Great to see this graceful lady gets one more ride
-
#33
by
nathan.moeller
on 16 Jul, 2010 23:40
-
Looks like she gets one last flight!!! House approved the additional flight, Great to see this graceful lady gets one more ride
There's no guarantee it will be Atlantis. She's already overdue for OMDP and is currently only certified for STS-335 (not 135) as it would be classed as an emergency. Discovery could be ready for STS-135 in June after her November STS-133 flight, but she's due for OMDP at the beginning of 2011. That said, they might even use Endeavour for the mission, as her OMDP requirement doesn't go into effect until after 2012. We'll just have to wait and see.
-
#34
by
Orbiter
on 17 Jul, 2010 00:31
-
Looks like she gets one last flight!!! House approved the additional flight, Great to see this graceful lady gets one more ride
I wasn't aware it passed through the HOR yet. I thought it has just gone through committee. And doesn't it have to go through the senate?
Orbiter
-
#35
by
steveS
on 17 Jul, 2010 00:53
-
There's no guarantee it will be Atlantis. She's already overdue for OMDP and is currently only certified for STS-335 (not 135) as it would be classed as an emergency.
It is very prudent to wait till NASA officially announces. However,
1. Can Nathan or some one explain the difference between a certification for STS-335 (not 135) situation?. I assume that this is a grantee for Atlantis that it can fly without an OMDP (even it is for an emergency). As such, it is fit to fly STS-135 for the same reason. Also Atlantis did STS-129/132 passing the OMDP due mark due to re-certifications and some waivers (now the question is can they do the same for an additional flight which they have via a re-certification for 335 and also as Chris mentioned in his articles implementing a forward plan to over come some problems ex. wing inspection). Hence, I believe that OMDP issue is not a simple argument for not choosing Atlantis.
2. Another argument against Atlantis is it does not have a SSTPS, hence less freedom in mission planning. However, looking into STS-133 (earlier an 8 day mission) and STS-135 (11 days), it is clear that NASA is not going to do an extended mission. They could have made STS-133, lets say a 13/14 day mission with Discovery. Atlantis with STS-132 did (12+0+2) and i cant see this freedom of mission planning duration being a critical consideration for STS-135.
3. I read somewhere that there are no funding allocated for Discovery after STS-133. Also if Discovery is chosen, NASA would be preparing two shuttles (Atlantis and Discovery) at an increased cost.
4. Endeavour's flight may/may not slip a few days into March due to some reason. Hence, if Endeavour is chosen, it will only have 3+ months for the turn around. I assume this is not enough time.
My favorite pick is Atlantis for STS-135 (from the information available in the public domain unless Atlantis has some undisclosed other problems). And Atlantis can be prepared for a whole year (with no distractions - while with Discovery and Endeavour they have STS-133/134 to finish first and then worry about STS-135) thus a very careful inspection on her can be made by the engineers and thus down the track can find solutions to potential problems. Retiring Discovery at the end of STS-133 might also save cost. I could be wrong since I only read information on the Internet with no insider information.
-
#36
by
astrobrian
on 17 Jul, 2010 01:10
-
Looks like she gets one last flight!!! House approved the additional flight, Great to see this graceful lady gets one more ride
I wasn't aware it passed through the HOR yet. I thought it has just gone through committee. And doesn't it have to go through the senate?
Orbiter
Fairly certain it must go through both the Senate and HOR
-
#37
by
Orbiter
on 17 Jul, 2010 01:14
-
4. Endeavour's flight may/may not slip a few days into March due to some reason. Hence, if Endeavour is chosen, it will only have 3+ months for the turn around. I assume this is not enough time.
Shuttle's were designed to have quick turnarounds. STS-51-J with Atlantis on its first launch happened on October 3rd 1985. STS-61-B, Atlantis's next flight happened November 26th 1985. Could be any of the 3 orbiters flying STS-135, with the favorite choice being Atlantis as they could find a way to let fly one more mission without a OMDP.
Orbiter
-
#38
by
nathan.moeller
on 17 Jul, 2010 03:00
-
1. Correct. It has to do with the emergency v. non-emergency nature of the 335/135 flights. I think they could secure additional waivers, but they could decide to go ahead and retire Atlantis and start her decommissioning process while Discovery is prepped for 135.
2. SSPTS is not really an issue. Discovery and Endeavour have only used them on rare occasions since gaining the system. Remember that STS-135 would only be about eleven days anyway, so there'd be no need regardless of which orbiter is used. Mission duration is not important. The amount of work with the assigned payload(s) that can be accomplished by a crew of four is what matters. They won't broaden the scope of the payload and mission work at the risk of overloading the crew.
3. Like I said - Atlantis would be retired and Discovery would take up the 335/135 role. I think we'll know more about this next month.
4. True, but even if STS-135 slips, as long as the NASA Authorization Act is passed, the mission would have until the end of FY2011 to launch. A small delay of STS-134 wouldn't matter.
Atlantis certainly has time on her side, but she's already two flights passed-due for OMDP and she's headed for over one year more passed the due date. Discovery would be the next logical choice, but she's due for OMDP at the beginning of 2011 (although it'd be easier to re-certify her for 135 than Atlantis). Endeavour isn't due for OMDP until after 2012, so it'd be easiest to assign her to 135. The only issue there is turnaround time. But remember that it only takes about three or four months to turn an orbiter around. The external tanks, solid rocket boosters, payload, etc. are usually the long poles in the processing flows and they're way, way ahead of the orbiters at this time. It wouldn't be much of a stretch for Endeavour to make a summer 2011 launch for 135.
-
#39
by
nathan.moeller
on 17 Jul, 2010 03:07
-
Fairly certain it must go through both the Senate and HOR
The Senate and HOR bills must be reconciled. Once the reconciled bill passes both houses, it goes to Obama. If he vetoes it, we need two-thirds of Congress to revote on it in support to override him. Checks and balances, my friend
-
#40
by
jacqmans
on 17 Jul, 2010 06:51
-
Fairly certain it must go through both the Senate and HOR
The Senate and HOR bills must be reconciled. Once the reconciled bill passes both houses, it goes to Obama. If he vetoes it, we need two-thirds of Congress to revote on it in support to override him. Checks and balances, my friend
How long will all of that take
-
#41
by
steveS
on 17 Jul, 2010 07:17
-
3. Like I said - Atlantis would be retired and Discovery would take up the 335/135 role. I think we'll know more about this next month.
1. If so, what is stopping NASA from doing it immediately or even done it earlier? This would save NASA from doing meticulous work such the leading wing edge remaining inspections on Atlantis?
2. Some time back Discovery was to go on September while Endeavour had a late July launch. In that case NASA could have assigned Endeavour for a rescue mission in December but still it decided to assign Atlantis for the role (reason given by the forum members was Atlantis was the quickest to prepare).
-
#42
by
steveS
on 17 Jul, 2010 08:25
-
The following article by Chris B gives information about the OMDP issues relating to the 3 orbiters;
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/09/nasas-dream-scenario-of-a-13-flight-extension-for-shuttle/It mentions;
"OMDP is required after eight flights or 5.5 years. For Discovery OMDP 5.5 Year Time Limit Interval is due by September 2010."
1. By November including STS-133, Discovery would have flown 9 missions since its last OMDP.
"OV-104 (Atlantis) Requirements Summary: OV-104 has flown 3 flights since OMDP (STS-115, STS-117, STS-122),’ added the presentation on Atlantis’ status. ‘OMDP required after eight flights or 5.5 years. Five flights remain (with constraints). OMDP 5.5 Year Time Limit Interval is due NET January 21, 2011"
So by now Atlantis has flown 6 missions. However, the article further goes on to say
"Several notes relating to the state of her (Atlantis) Rudder Speed Brake (RSB) actuators and Wing Leading Edge RCC panels are listed as constraints to potentially allowing her to fly into the next decade."
If NASA decides to give STS-135 to Discovery, I wonder whether this is a major reason for that decision? Since it appears that Discovery will be +1 mission past her next OMDP. If so, did Discovery obtained waivers for STS-133?
-
#43
by
psloss
on 18 Jul, 2010 14:12
-
Shuttle's were designed to have quick turnarounds. STS-51-J with Atlantis on its first launch happened on October 3rd 1985. STS-61-B, Atlantis's next flight happened November 26th 1985. Could be any of the 3 orbiters flying STS-135, with the favorite choice being Atlantis as they could find a way to let fly one more mission without a OMDP.
The current situation is vastly different than 1985 -- which among other things predates the two accidents, the subsequent design/programmatic changes, and 25 years of operational experience. There's also an upcoming USA layoff at the end of the current fiscal year. If the level in the Senate bill were appropriated, next year's operating budget will also be significantly smaller than previous years. I wouldn't assume that the workforce and the budget can support the same schedule flexibility after October that it could at the beginning of this year.
-
#44
by
Skylon
on 18 Jul, 2010 20:05
-
"OV-104 (Atlantis) Requirements Summary: OV-104 has flown 3 flights since OMDP (STS-115, STS-117, STS-122),’ added the presentation on Atlantis’ status. ‘OMDP required after eight flights or 5.5 years. Five flights remain (with constraints). OMDP 5.5 Year Time Limit Interval is due NET January 21, 2011"
Wait...I thought Atlantis' last OMDP was prior to STS-101, ending in 1999 or 2000. Atlantis did undergo considerable inspections and maintenance prior to STS-115, during the post-Columbia stand-down but as I understand, that was not considered a formal OMDP.
Discovery was in the middle of its last OMDP when Columbia was lost. Endeavour's was started, even though it wasn't due for one for some time (may as well during the stand-down).
-
#45
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 18 Jul, 2010 22:33
-
"OV-104 (Atlantis) Requirements Summary: OV-104 has flown 3 flights since OMDP (STS-115, STS-117, STS-122),’ added the presentation on Atlantis’ status. ‘OMDP required after eight flights or 5.5 years. Five flights remain (with constraints). OMDP 5.5 Year Time Limit Interval is due NET January 21, 2011"
Wait...I thought Atlantis' last OMDP was prior to STS-101, ending in 1999 or 2000. Atlantis did undergo considerable inspections and maintenance prior to STS-115, during the post-Columbia stand-down but as I understand, that was not considered a formal OMDP.
Discovery was in the middle of its last OMDP when Columbia was lost. Endeavour's was started, even though it wasn't due for one for some time (may as well during the stand-down).
You are correct. Atlantis' last OMDP was in 1998/1999. She is well past due for one. Discovery's last OMDP ended in 2003. Add eight years to that and Discovery is due in 2011. Endeavour's last OMDP ended in 2005. Add eight years to that and she's due in 2013.
-
#46
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 18 Jul, 2010 22:37
-
And let's stop all conversation right here, right now about SSPTS for STS-135. Management, official documentation, and THE NEWS PART OF THIS SITE (yes, we have a news part to our site) have stated several times that SSPTS is NOT, I repeat, NOT a consideration for STS-135 as the mission's objectives do NOT require a prolonged stay at the ISS. Therefore, an 11+1+2 day flight is MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME to accomplish the STS-135/335 mission objectives.
-
#47
by
steveS
on 19 Jul, 2010 00:12
-
How does NASA balance the OMDP duration/flight equation? Because as of STS-132 (Atlantis), 133 (Discovery) and 134 (Endeavour), the three orbiters have/will have flown
Atlantis - 6 missions
Discovery - 9 missions
Endeavour - 6 missions
after return to flight in July 2005. So Discovery has flown 1.5 times more than the other two orbiters during this time. (I thought of asking this because some suggest that OMDP will be a major issue for selecting an orbiter for STS-135)
-
#48
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 19 Jul, 2010 00:58
-
How does NASA balance the OMDP duration/flight equation? Because as of STS-132 (Atlantis), 133 (Discovery) and 134 (Endeavour), the three orbiters have/will have flown
Atlantis - 6 missions
Discovery - 9 missions
Endeavour - 6 missions
after return to flight in July 2005. So Discovery has flown 1.5 times more than the other two orbiters during this time. (I thought of asking this because some suggest that OMDP will be a major issue for selecting an orbiter for STS-135)
Time/Cycle requirements v. the needs of the program. Some Time/Cycle requirement inspections and R&Rs can be accomplished during a standard flow turnaround. Others cannot. It's the ones that can't be accomplished without taking the Orbiter out of service that are of prime consideration here for Atlantis.
-
#49
by
10W29
on 19 Jul, 2010 02:27
-
"OV-104 (Atlantis) Requirements Summary: OV-104 has flown 3 flights since OMDP (STS-115, STS-117, STS-122),’ added the presentation on Atlantis’ status. ‘OMDP required after eight flights or 5.5 years. Five flights remain (with constraints). OMDP 5.5 Year Time Limit Interval is due NET January 21, 2011"
Wait...I thought Atlantis' last OMDP was prior to STS-101, ending in 1999 or 2000. Atlantis did undergo considerable inspections and maintenance prior to STS-115, during the post-Columbia stand-down but as I understand, that was not considered a formal OMDP.
Discovery was in the middle of its last OMDP when Columbia was lost. Endeavour's was started, even though it wasn't due for one for some time (may as well during the stand-down).
You are correct. Atlantis' last OMDP was in 1998/1999. She is well past due for one. Discovery's last OMDP ended in 2003. Add eight years to that and Discovery is due in 2011. Endeavour's last OMDP ended in 2005. Add eight years to that and she's due in 2013.
Not sure where you got 8 years from. OMDP interval is 5.5 years or 8 flights (whichever comes first).
The 5.5 year OMDP interval clock starts at OPF rollout, so 103 was due in Sep '10. The PRCB added a 9th flight and 1 year for 103, so 103's new due date is Sep '11.
104 was considered to have completed an OMDP during RTF, giving it a due date of Jan '11. The PRCB also added 1 year for 104, so 104's new due date is Jan '12.
105's OMDP clock started in Apr '07 so it's good until Oct '12 without any help from the PRCB.
-
#50
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 19 Jul, 2010 03:21
-
"OV-104 (Atlantis) Requirements Summary: OV-104 has flown 3 flights since OMDP (STS-115, STS-117, STS-122),’ added the presentation on Atlantis’ status. ‘OMDP required after eight flights or 5.5 years. Five flights remain (with constraints). OMDP 5.5 Year Time Limit Interval is due NET January 21, 2011"
Wait...I thought Atlantis' last OMDP was prior to STS-101, ending in 1999 or 2000. Atlantis did undergo considerable inspections and maintenance prior to STS-115, during the post-Columbia stand-down but as I understand, that was not considered a formal OMDP.
Discovery was in the middle of its last OMDP when Columbia was lost. Endeavour's was started, even though it wasn't due for one for some time (may as well during the stand-down).
You are correct. Atlantis' last OMDP was in 1998/1999. She is well past due for one. Discovery's last OMDP ended in 2003. Add eight years to that and Discovery is due in 2011. Endeavour's last OMDP ended in 2005. Add eight years to that and she's due in 2013.
Not sure where you got 8 years from. OMDP interval is 5.5 years or 8 flights (whichever comes first).
The 5.5 year OMDP interval clock starts at OPF rollout, so 103 was due in Sep '10. The PRCB added a 9th flight and 1 year for 103, so 103's new due date is Sep '11.
104 was considered to have completed an OMDP during RTF, giving it a due date of Jan '11. The PRCB also added 1 year for 104, so 104's new due date is Jan '12.
105's OMDP clock started in Apr '07 so it's good until Oct '12 without any help from the PRCB.
Just misspoke. Meant 5.5 years.
But I'm curious how Atlantis can be considered to have completed an OMDP during the RTF stand down. The whole reason for taking Atlantis out of service in 2008 was BECAUSE she was due for OMDP back then. And when did the PRCB add a year to Atlantis' requirements? That has certainly been nowhere in the documentation we have here and does not correspond to notes on L2.
-
#51
by
Skylon
on 19 Jul, 2010 04:29
-
But I'm curious how Atlantis can be considered to have completed an OMDP during the RTF stand down. The whole reason for taking Atlantis out of service in 2008 was BECAUSE she was due for OMDP back then. And when did the PRCB add a year to Atlantis' requirements? That has certainly been nowhere in the documentation we have here and does not correspond to notes on L2.
Something doesn't gel right with the article. The pre-RTF period I've never seen called an OMDP for Atlantis prior to reading that article. I'd heard the rational for allowing Atlantis two more flights, on STS-129 and 132 as two items:
1) The post-Columbia stand-down inspections were extensive, and close to an OMDP.
2) A "Mini-OMDP" would be conducted after STS-125. I think it ended up being split between the period between STS-125/STS-129 and STS-129/STS-132.
Still, Atlantis has gone over ten years, and now twelve flights without a formal OMDP. Whether she needs one or not, I'll defer to the capable minds of the people who service these vehicles.
-
#52
by
10W29
on 19 Jul, 2010 05:05
-
But I'm curious how Atlantis can be considered to have completed an OMDP during the RTF stand down. The whole reason for taking Atlantis out of service in 2008 was BECAUSE she was due for OMDP back then. And when did the PRCB add a year to Atlantis' requirements? That has certainly been nowhere in the documentation we have here and does not correspond to notes on L2.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20574.0
-
#53
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 19 Jul, 2010 05:43
-
But I'm curious how Atlantis can be considered to have completed an OMDP during the RTF stand down. The whole reason for taking Atlantis out of service in 2008 was BECAUSE she was due for OMDP back then. And when did the PRCB add a year to Atlantis' requirements? That has certainly been nowhere in the documentation we have here and does not correspond to notes on L2.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20574.0
OK. I admit I completely missed that document.
(Not directed at anyone, just thinking out loud) I have to agree with Skylon -- Atlantis' last OMDP was over 10 years ago. I don't see how this document is valid for Atlantis or where along the line it was decide to count the RTF period as an OMDP for Atlantis. Again, the whole reason for wanting to retire her in 2008 was because she was due for OMDP at that time. IF that's true, there's no way a 9 flight/6.5 year OMDP interval can get her all the way to 2012.
-
#54
by
steveS
on 19 Jul, 2010 05:58
-
But I'm curious how Atlantis can be considered to have completed an OMDP during the RTF stand down. The whole reason for taking Atlantis out of service in 2008 was BECAUSE she was due for OMDP back then. And when did the PRCB add a year to Atlantis' requirements? That has certainly been nowhere in the documentation we have here and does not correspond to notes on L2.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20574.0
OK. I admit I completely missed that document.
(Not directed at anyone, just thinking out loud) I have to agree with Skylon -- Atlantis' last OMDP was over 10 years ago. I don't see how this document is valid for Atlantis or where along the line it was decide to count the RTF period as an OMDP for Atlantis. Again, the whole reason for wanting to retire her in 2008 was because she was due for OMDP at that time. IF that's true, there's no way a 9 flight/6.5 year OMDP interval can get her all the way to 2012.
Atlantis OMDP-2 was completed in September, 1998. And during 2004 it was again due for an OMDP (5.5 years). By February 2008, Atlantis had done 9 missions since OMDP-2. (6 between OMDP-2 and Columbia diasaster and 3 more after that).
It is curious to know why NASA did not do a full OMDP (if RTF stuff was not a full OMDP) for Atlantis during the Columbia stand-off time (while Discovery and Endeavour was allowed to go through full OMDPs)
-
#55
by
psloss
on 19 Jul, 2010 12:22
-
Still, Atlantis has gone over ten years, and now twelve flights without a formal OMDP. Whether she needs one or not, I'll defer to the capable minds of the people who service these vehicles.
We're just guessing about definitions like 'formal OMDP' when the Shuttle program has adapted to changing conditions throughout its existence. The additional level of insight provided to Shuttle Operations here is great, but we're still often only seeing the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot more variables than there are constants.
Perhaps this continuing tangent is just another type of flight crew assignments thread, but if that's the case, maybe there should be a separate thread for it.
-
#56
by
Skylon
on 19 Jul, 2010 14:35
-
It is curious to know why NASA did not do a full OMDP (if RTF stuff was not a full OMDP) for Atlantis during the Columbia stand-off time (while Discovery and Endeavour was allowed to go through full OMDPs)
Discovery was in the middle of her OMDP when Columbia was lost. She was also the first orbiter to undergo her OMDP at KSC, not Palmdale.
When Discovery's was completed during the stand-down Endeavour started its OMDP cycle, in spite of not being quite due for one. Keep in mind, Endeavour was the last orbiter to receive its "glass cockpit" upgrade during this OMDP, so it was certainly good use of the post-Columbia stand down.
RTF required two orbiters due to LON (STS-300) constraints and the fact that you couldn't do any serious station assembly with one orbiter. Therefore Discovery and Atlantis, two shuttles, needed to be ready to fly when RTF began. If both Atlantis and Endeavour were in OMDP cycles, you meet none of those criteria. Remember, Endeavour wasn't ready to fly again until STS-118 in 2007.
I'd also guess that there simply isn't the manpower to have two orbiters undergoing an OMDP. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong there.
-
#57
by
steveS
on 01 Aug, 2010 10:20
-
Will NASA announce about STS-135 this month (August) as speculated or with all ongoing Senate/House authorization, will it be delayed further?
-
#58
by
yg1968
on 02 Aug, 2010 16:16
-
Will NASA announce about STS-135 this month (August) as speculated or with all ongoing Senate/House authorization, will it be delayed further?
I don't have the answer to your question but given that both bills contain STS-135, I don't think that NASA has to wait for the legislation in order to make a decision on this.
-
#59
by
nathan.moeller
on 06 Aug, 2010 15:54
-
For what it's worth, the Senate approved their version of the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010 last night, which includes approval of STS-135. This is a good step forward but we still need the House and Obama, the latter of which I fear will be very difficult.
