-
#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
