-
#120
by
Chris Bergin
on 15 Dec, 2010 05:51
-
-
#121
by
nathan.moeller
on 15 Dec, 2010 14:13
-
Very interesting. I wonder if they can return with all of that. If not, I wonder what gets priority - the PMA or the AP (I'm thinking the AP).
-
#122
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 15 Dec, 2010 15:00
-
Very interesting. I wonder if they can return with all of that. If not, I wonder what gets priority - the PMA or the AP (I'm thinking the AP).
Well, they plan for contingency and AOA cases with a full payload, so I think they can return fully loaded as long as CG and safety margins are within limits.
-
#123
by
Sesquipedalian
on 15 Dec, 2010 15:47
-
Can they fit the BGA motor on the LMC, or would they need a separate carrier?
-
#124
by
The-Hammer
on 15 Dec, 2010 16:37
-
Can they fit the BGA motor on the LMC, or would they need a separate carrier?
It's small enough to fit inside the airlock. The current on-orbit spare is stored in PMA-3 and rode up inside the MPLM on STS-131.
This one can either go in the MPLM or the mid-deck.
-
#125
by
nathan.moeller
on 15 Dec, 2010 18:38
-
Well, they plan for contingency and AOA cases with a full payload, so I think they can return fully loaded as long as CG and safety margins are within limits.
That I know - But with the PMA, they'd likely come back heavier than when they launched unless they don't plan to bring much back aboard the MPLM.
-
#126
by
steveS
on 23 Dec, 2010 02:33
-
With the new short-term appropriations bill signed on Dec. 22 through March 4, several Internet sites say that STS-135 will not have funding problems. (since $3.1 billion appropriated for the space shuttle program in 2010 in sufficient for STS-133, 134 and 135)
1. Since at least in current belief is that the lauch will take place in late June, when will NASA officially manifest it?
2. When will the tank swap decision between STS-134 and STS-135 be official? (or are they waiting till ET-137 investigations are over so that anything learnt from it can be applied here)
-
#127
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 23 Dec, 2010 03:19
-
With the new short-term appropriations bill signed on Dec. 22 through March 4, several Internet sites say that STS-135 will not have funding problems. (since $3.1 billion appropriated for the space shuttle program in 2010 in sufficient for STS-133, 134 and 135)
1. Since at least in current belief is that the lauch will take place in late June, when will NASA officially manifest it?
2. When will the tank swap decision between STS-134 and STS-135 be official? (or are they waiting till ET-137 investigations are over so that anything learnt from it can be applied here)
1. Currently plans are tentative, but NASA has said they can go as late as "spring 2011" before making a final call on STS-135.
2. ET-122 on STS-134 is already official (has been since ET/SRB mate review last month -- and earlier than that based on the morning NTD reports and the fact that they rolled the SRBs for STS-134 out of HB1 and into HB3 about two months ago in preparation for mating to ET-122). ET-138 will be the LON tank on STS-335 as well as the tank for the still notional STS-135.
ET-122 mate to SRBs for STS-134 is tentatively targeted for January 11 but is still highly dependent on the results of the instrumented Tanking Test last week and the ET intertank back-side X-rays to take place over the coming weeks.
-
#128
by
Orbiter
on 23 Dec, 2010 17:40
-
From SpaceRef.com
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=35607The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267) directs NASA to conduct the above referenced mission. As of this date, the Congress has not cleared final FY 2011 appropriations for the Federal government, including NASA. However, the FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act provides funding for most Federal departments and agencies, including NASA, through March 4, 2010, at FY 2010 enacted levels. Funding made available in this measure will enable NASA to work towards the STS-135 mission.
For this reason, I ask that you continue planning and preparations efforts to execute this mission in late June 2011 as currently planned. This includes maintaining the requisite workforce to safely conduct this mission and extending contracts if necessary. We must focus on STS-135 as a real mission as well as a Launch-On-Need capability for the STS-134. Without clarity in focus now we reduce the probability of safely executing this critical mission. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide clear direction for the teams. STS-135 is critical to health of the International Space Station.
Orbiter
-
#129
by
Space Pete
on 05 Jan, 2011 17:09
-
From Florida Today:
NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden today reiterated a commitment to fly a third shuttle mission this year and said the agency has determined the mission would be safe.
The 2010 NASA Authorization Act requests the flight pending an assessment of its safety, which Bolden said is not yet final.
http://space.flatoday.net/2011/01/bolden-third-shuttle-flight-would-be.html
-
#130
by
rdale
on 05 Jan, 2011 17:19
-
Something doesn't compute in that article... Bolden says that they determined the mission would be safe, but they can't formally approve the flight until they determine the mission will be safe?
-
#131
by
psloss
on 05 Jan, 2011 17:28
-
Something doesn't compute in that article... Bolden says that they determined the mission would be safe, but they can't formally approve the flight until they determine the mission will be safe?
Sounds like he said something to the effect that the safety assessment isn't final. Perhaps in a formal sense and perhaps the assessment process isn't complete.
-
#132
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 05 Jan, 2011 18:58
-
Something doesn't compute in that article... Bolden says that they determined the mission would be safe, but they can't formally approve the flight until they determine the mission will be safe?
Sounds like he said something to the effect that the safety assessment isn't final. Perhaps in a formal sense and perhaps the assessment process isn't complete.
Wait... I thought the assessment process for safety was completed back in September? What am I missing here? I clearly remember that in the Congressional bill (now law) that provided direction to fly STS-135 we had discussions on the fact that the safety assessments were already complete.
-
#133
by
psloss
on 05 Jan, 2011 19:54
-
Wait... I thought the assessment process for safety was completed back in September? What am I missing here? I clearly remember that in the Congressional bill (now law) that provided direction to fly STS-135 we had discussions on the fact that the safety assessments were already complete.
The NESC report was completed in September, but the Shuttle and ISS programs reviewed and responded to findings and recommendations subsequent to that. And then oversight bodies like the ASAP reviewed both the report and subsequent responses.
This doesn't sound like a big deal, more along the lines that the process of vetting the report and subsequent actions isn't formally complete yet.
-
#134
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 06 Jan, 2011 02:52
-
Wait... I thought the assessment process for safety was completed back in September? What am I missing here? I clearly remember that in the Congressional bill (now law) that provided direction to fly STS-135 we had discussions on the fact that the safety assessments were already complete.
The NESC report was completed in September, but the Shuttle and ISS programs reviewed and responded to findings and recommendations subsequent to that. And then oversight bodies like the ASAP reviewed both the report and subsequent responses.
This doesn't sound like a big deal, more along the lines that the process of vetting the report and subsequent actions isn't formally complete yet.
Ah, I understand.
-
#135
by
Space Pete
on 06 Jan, 2011 21:14
-
Here's Bolden's comments on STS-135 from the AIAA conference yesterday:
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 has recognized the importance to ISS of flying one more shuttle flight in addition to the two remaining on the manifest. We have looked at the safety aspects of that flight, and we have determined that this additional flight is as safe as previous flights and has adequate crew rescue capability if needed. We are currently planning to fly this additional flight, STS-135 – as the FY 2011 budget process sorts itself out.
Source:
http://spacepolicyonline.com/pages/images/stories/Bolden_AIAA_Jan_5_2011.docx
-
#136
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 11 Jan, 2011 18:59
-
"STS-335" will transition to "STS-135" designation for INTERNAL documents next week according to NASA briefing this afternoon. This is not an official indication that the mission will actually fly, just that all personnel need to "really start thinking and planning as if this mission will actually launch." Need to get through STS-133 and the Continuing Resolution from Congress (which expires 4 March) and see then see what the budget for the remainder of the year is before nailing down formal plan for 135.
Launch date is still NET 28 June 2011. ISS program would like to fly the mission "as late in the fiscal year as possible."
-
#137
by
asmolenski
on 11 Jan, 2011 20:20
-
Launch date is still NET 28 June 2011. ISS program would like to fly the mission "as late in the fiscal year as possible."
Is there anything, anywhere, on what the other windows may be for 'late in the fiscal year'?
-
#138
by
psloss
on 11 Jan, 2011 20:39
-
Launch date is still NET 28 June 2011. ISS program would like to fly the mission "as late in the fiscal year as possible."
Is there anything, anywhere, on what the other windows may be for 'late in the fiscal year'?
Haven't seen anything yet, but would expect to see a few
projected T-0 times based on the "late August" timeframe mentioned in the briefing today that would be the preference, if there's budget for it.
There's a thread here on ISS schedule that shows some of the traffic that would be part of the constraints in the summer:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61.0There are still a few big things, like the budget and STS-133 (and maybe 134), that are outstanding before a more firm launch date might be published.
-
#139
by
asmolenski
on 11 Jan, 2011 21:00
-
Thanks! Wasn't looking for anything firm, as I understand all the variables leading up to 135. That helps already though, thanks!