-
Payload planning pre-empts an imminent NASA decision on STS-135
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Aug, 2010 12:28
-
-
#1
by
nathan.moeller
on 10 Aug, 2010 13:31
-
Excellent article. Looking forward to this decision! It really sounds like they'll pursue this additional flight. Let's hope Congress and Obama get on board.
-
#2
by
psloss
on 10 Aug, 2010 13:56
-
Let's hope Congress and Obama get on board.
The Senate and the House are already pretty much on board -- see Chris's article. The Senate already passed a bill authorizing the flight and the House has a bill with a similar provision up for (possible) floor debate and a vote. At this point, we're waiting for the Administration to decide.
-
#3
by
HappyMartian
on 10 Aug, 2010 14:08
-
Thanks Chris! Great article. It sounds like everyone is aiming in pretty much the same direction--robust support for the International Space Station.
Cheers!
-
#4
by
Captain Scarlet
on 10 Aug, 2010 14:26
-
Quality article Chris! I hope Bolden would get on with it and move it forward.
-
#5
by
nathan.moeller
on 10 Aug, 2010 14:38
-
The Senate and the House are already pretty much on board -- see Chris's article.
I know the Senate already voted but my concern stemmed from the more difficult nature of passing something like this in the House. Obama is also a big concern as I fear he'll veto anything that doesn't match what he wanted to begin with.
-
#6
by
psloss
on 10 Aug, 2010 14:51
-
The Senate and the House are already pretty much on board -- see Chris's article.
I know the Senate already voted but my concern stemmed from the more difficult nature of passing something like this in the House. Obama is also a big concern as I fear he'll veto anything that doesn't match what he wanted to begin with.
Not sure it's any more difficult to pass an authorization bill in the House. (It's probably more straightforward.) As noted, the House bill already has a provision authorizing the flight. Certainly not impossible, but a member would have to introduce an amendment on the floor to strike/dilute that language AND that amendment would have to pass the full House. It would require more work at this point to do that. And given that the full Senate has already passed their bill, they would have to reverse themselves to approve removal of that language.
Since the Senate authorizing subcommittee announced the "compromise" last month, the administration has not given any indication they would veto an authorization bill passed by Congress.
-
#7
by
FinalFrontier
on 10 Aug, 2010 14:53
-
Looks like its on
Congrats to STS program
Really needed this to happen.
-
#8
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Aug, 2010 15:00
-
Thanks for the kind words above
Looks like its on Congrats to STS program
Really needed this to happen.
Word of caution, the top two people are NASA aren't exactly pro-Shuttle. That does not help!
It would still be a shock if they were responsible for disallowing STS-135, regardless.
-
#9
by
nathan.moeller
on 10 Aug, 2010 15:16
-
Not sure it's any more difficult to pass an authorization bill in the House. (It's probably more straightforward.) As noted, the House bill already has a provision authorizing the flight. Certainly not impossible, but a member would have to introduce an amendment on the floor to strike/dilute that language AND that amendment would have to pass the full House. It would require more work at this point to do that. And given that the full Senate has already passed their bill, they would have to reverse themselves to approve removal of that language.
Since the Senate authorizing subcommittee announced the "compromise" last month, the administration has not given any indication they would veto an authorization bill passed by Congress.
I say that because there are a lot more people in the House than in the Senate (over 400 more). That means there are that many more people who could screw this up. Also, the reconciliation process that would be needed to compromise between the Senate and House versions of the bill might take a while longer before the final bill reaches Obama's desk. We still have a ways to go in this maze.
-
#10
by
psloss
on 10 Aug, 2010 15:21
-
I say that because there are a lot more people in the House than in the Senate (over 400 more). That means there are that many more people who could screw this up. Also, the reconciliation process that would be needed to compromise between the Senate and House versions of the bill might take a while longer before the final bill reaches Obama's desk. We still have a ways to go in this maze.
Don't disagree that nothing's official yet, but the larger number of Representatives than Senators (only 335 more) can work both ways -- you also have to get a larger number of representatives to support an amendment to eliminate the additional flight.
The timing definitely could be an issue, but that could be preempted if Bolden committed to the flight. The money necessary to extend Shuttle operations another quarter or so probably won't be needed until next year.
-
#11
by
nathan.moeller
on 10 Aug, 2010 15:52
-
I say that because there are a lot more people in the House than in the Senate (over 400 more). That means there are that many more people who could screw this up. Also, the reconciliation process that would be needed to compromise between the Senate and House versions of the bill might take a while longer before the final bill reaches Obama's desk. We still have a ways to go in this maze.
Don't disagree that nothing's official yet, but the larger number of Representatives than Senators (only 335 more) can work both ways -- you also have to get a larger number of representatives to support an amendment to eliminate the additional flight.
The timing definitely could be an issue, but that could be preempted if Bolden committed to the flight. The money necessary to extend Shuttle operations another quarter or so probably won't be needed until next year.
Sorry - meant 300. Must have hit the "4" by mistake. And an amendment to eliminate STS-135 isn't my concern. It's whether or not the bill will pass in the House once it's brought to the floor for a vote. While both are pushing STS-135, the reconciliation process could be messy, as the Senate is pushing HLV without Ares I with a bit more for commercial and the House is wanting Constellation back.
Then we have Obama, who DID promise an additional mission in 2008 but went back on that promise with his FY2011 plan. He's a real wild card here and with the way he's behaved in office so far, I'm concerned with what he might do. I hope the bi-partisan support from both houses of Congress encourages him to approve it, though.
-
#12
by
psloss
on 10 Aug, 2010 16:09
-
Sorry - meant 300. Must have hit the "4" by mistake. And an amendment to eliminate STS-135 isn't my concern. It's whether or not the bill will pass in the House once it's brought to the floor for a vote. While both are pushing STS-135, the reconciliation process could be messy, as the Senate is pushing HLV without Ares I with a bit more for commercial and the House is wanting Constellation back.
Those are two separate things. First, it's unlikely that the bill will be rejected as a whole. It might not be unprecedented, but it's also not the highest priority for the legislature. (Not even close.)
51D Mascot has discussed how the bill can be reconciled more than once; here's a recent post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg626374#msg626374Then we have Obama, who DID promise an additional mission in 2008 but went back on that promise with his FY2011 plan. He's a real wild card here and with the way he's behaved in office so far, I'm concerned with what he might do. I hope the bi-partisan support from both houses of Congress encourages him to approve it, though.
Things have changed and the additional mission in the 2008 campaign referred to flying AMS -- that was authorized in the last NASA authorization.
And that's my overall point -- it's not a done deal yet, but the situation has changed a lot and the House, Senate, and Obama are probably not the biggest hurdles at this point.
-
#13
by
Longhorn John
on 10 Aug, 2010 16:42
-
Quality article Chris! I hope Bolden would get on with it and move it forward.
Same here!
-
#14
by
racshot65
on 10 Aug, 2010 18:07
-
While the Senate version aids the full approval of STS-135 by tasking the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) with the safety assessment, the House version calls for the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) to carry out the overview – a body that has previously gone on record to oppose any form of extension of the shuttle manifest.
Is this just politics ?
The shuttle doesn't become any safer to fly based on why carries out the safety assessment does it assuming there both competent ?
-
#15
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 11 Aug, 2010 01:24
-
While the Senate version aids the full approval of STS-135 by tasking the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) with the safety assessment, the House version calls for the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) to carry out the overview – a body that has previously gone on record to oppose any form of extension of the shuttle manifest.
Is this just politics ?
The shuttle doesn't become any safer to fly based on why carries out the safety assessment does it assuming there both competent ?
I wouldn't say it's just politics. I'd say it's actually an important step in the flight production and implementation process. Similiar safety assessments were requested by NASA itself prior to approval of STS-125/HST SM4, the addition of STS-134/AMS, and Soyuz crew rescue for the potential STS-135.
Appointing different agencies is politics, yes. But requesting a safety panel is not... it's, dare I say, logical. (Can't believe I just said that about Congress.)
-
#16
by
steveS
on 13 Aug, 2010 11:02
-
Since this will be the first time (if STS-135 is approved) that Atlantis will carry a MPLM to the ISS, will it require major modifications to her payload bay?
-
#17
by
psloss
on 13 Aug, 2010 12:15
-
Since this will be the first time (if STS-135 is approved) that Atlantis will carry a MPLM to the ISS, will it require major modifications to her payload bay?
No, just standard modifications. It's only due to circumstance that Atlantis hasn't flown one of the MPLMs; she's rolled over to the VAB at least twice configured to do so.
-
#18
by
Sesquipedalian
on 13 Aug, 2010 16:14
-
Which times would those have been? Was one of them for the original STS-114 flight in March 2003?
-
#19
by
psloss
on 13 Aug, 2010 16:27
-
Which times would those have been? Was one of them for the original STS-114 flight in March 2003?
Yes; the other one was for STS-121. Rollover in July, 2005.
Congrats to STS program 