-
#80
by
nathan.moeller
on 24 Sep, 2010 18:25
-
Not at that time; STS-134 didn't appear on FAWG manifests until later in August. At that time, it was only a LON for the last flight; AMS wasn't associated with STS-134 until after Congress authorized the flight.
But it's past obvious that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
That's true, but my thinking was that since the program was supposed to end in September 2010 and the final flight (STS-133 at the time) was set for July 2010, Obama was speaking about a possible STS-135 even though STS-134 and 335 had yet to show up on manifests. I guess he threw me when he said "add at least one more flight BEYOND 2010," as STS-134 was likely going to be slated for 2010 with the knowledge we had at that time.
But yes, if we must disagree, no problem. Either way, I look forward to seeing what happens in the coming weeks and months for STS-134 and STS-135. Thanks!
-
#81
by
Jorge
on 24 Sep, 2010 18:49
-
I had another thought recently: Assume that CSCS is declared, what would happen to the MPLM? Would it be put back in the PLB and undocked with the Orbiter? Or would they leave it on ISS for the duration of CSCS as a storage room/living area for the 135 crew?
Unlike the PMM to be carried on 133, the 135 MPLM will not be rated for long-duration stay at ISS. Most likely, if CSCS were to be declared, it would be filled with trash, transferred back to the payload bay, and disposed with the orbiter.
-
#82
by
TheFallen
on 24 Sep, 2010 19:32
-
-
#83
by
steveS
on 25 Sep, 2010 11:13
-
-
#84
by
steveS
on 29 Sep, 2010 02:31
-
NASA web site says ET-122 is for Endeavour's STS-134 mission. Is this now a done deal ?
As I remember, according to Chris B, a decision on ET-122/ET-138 swap for STS-134 and STS-335/135 was to made in the November/December time frame?
-
#85
by
Ford Mustang
on 29 Sep, 2010 03:48
-
NASA web site says ET-122 is for Endeavour's STS-134 mission. Is this now a done deal ?
As I remember, according to Chris B, a decision on ET-122/ET-138 swap for STS-134 and STS-335/135 was to made in the November/December time frame?
FWIW, the NTD reports on L2 that are posted every morning seem to indicate the same - ET-122 is going on STS-134, ET-138 is flying on STS-335 / STS-135, whichever is needed.
-
#86
by
psloss
on 29 Sep, 2010 11:38
-
NASA web site says ET-122 is for Endeavour's STS-134 mission. Is this now a done deal ?
As I remember, according to Chris B, a decision on ET-122/ET-138 swap for STS-134 and STS-335/135 was to made in the November/December time frame?
FWIW, the NTD reports on L2 that are posted every morning seem to indicate the same - ET-122 is going on STS-134, ET-138 is flying on STS-335 / STS-135, whichever is needed.
Right -- there's enough time to have both tanks ready. That keeps options open for as long as possible, and the focus remains on when Washington might provide some clarity.
-
#87
by
steveS
on 30 Sep, 2010 05:59
-
So now when will S. 3729 go to the White House to get the president's signature?
-
#88
by
Lobo
on 01 Oct, 2010 04:52
-
I'm glad they approved STS-135. Besides, it's a much nicer round number to end the program on, rather than STS-134.
Out of curiosity, why will STS-135 be only 4 months after STS-134? Why not 6 months for a full crew rotation stay on the ISS? Or why not a full year, so then the last shuttle resupply mission is Feb 2012 rather than Jun 2011. Seems they'd want to stretch out that last flight longer than just 4 months.
Heck, I'd say do STS-134 6 months for more after STS-133, and then STS-135 6 months or more after that.
Why do they have STS-134 and STS-135 scheduled like they do?
-
#89
by
Jorge
on 01 Oct, 2010 05:40
-
I'm glad they approved STS-135. Besides, it's a much nicer round number to end the program on, rather than STS-134.
Out of curiosity, why will STS-135 be only 4 months after STS-134? Why not 6 months for a full crew rotation stay on the ISS?
Not sure what you're getting at here; the shuttle doesn't do crew rotation any more, and hasn't for over a year.
Or why not a full year, so then the last shuttle resupply mission is Feb 2012 rather than Jun 2011. Seems they'd want to stretch out that last flight longer than just 4 months.
Heck, I'd say do STS-134 6 months for more after STS-133, and then STS-135 6 months or more after that.
Why do they have STS-134 and STS-135 scheduled like they do?
Because the "burn rate" of the shuttle program is ~$200 million per month, so the longer you stretch the program, the more expensive it gets. As it is, flying 135 in June 2011 requires around $600 million extra. If you extend to February 2012, that's a cool $2.2 billion that has to be found somewhere else in the NASA budget. The money needs to be freed up to do all the other things the Senate bill calls for.
Heck, if the final appropriations bill calls for 135 to be funded, even partially, out of the ISS budget (as some rumors have maintained), then Suffredini might even decide he doesn't want 135 that bad any more. The benefit from the additional supplies and spares wouldn't be worth the cost.
-
#90
by
robertross
on 02 Oct, 2010 00:47
-
Heck, if the final appropriations bill calls for 135 to be funded, even partially, out of the ISS budget (as some rumors have maintained), then Suffredini might even decide he doesn't want 135 that bad any more. The benefit from the additional supplies and spares wouldn't be worth the cost.
Maybe not, but certainly at the moment they feel it a necessity. I'll take the positive when I can
-
#91
by
steveS
on 02 Oct, 2010 00:56
-
Heck, if the final appropriations bill calls for 135 to be funded, even partially, out of the ISS budget (as some rumors have maintained), then Suffredini might even decide he doesn't want 135 that bad any more. The benefit from the additional supplies and spares wouldn't be worth the cost.
A great surprise
.
1. Suffredini has been quoted saying if there is an additional flight, he would like to have that in Summer of 2011.
2. Even at that time, he would have known about the required expenses to maintain the SSP.
3. In my view, NASA won't go on to formal STS-135 planning as it did in August, unless all internal matters were sorted out?
4. Another fuzzy area is how will STS-335 be funded? Lets say a very hypothetical scenario of STS-134 needing a rescue. Hence, at least till April 2011, NASA needs funding to maintain the SSP. If the funding allocation is in March it is OK (since we know the outcome of STS-134), if it has to be before STS-134, then it is unclear. And not sure whether funding for STS-335 can be utilized for STS-135.
As I understood, the main obstacle for STS-135 was the Congress and President's legal approval. Now the Congress has passed the Bill authorizing the additional flight.
-
#92
by
wjbarnett
on 02 Oct, 2010 01:45
-
But no additional funds have been appropriated as yet.
-
#93
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 05 Oct, 2010 01:26
-
4. Another fuzzy area is how will STS-335 be funded? Lets say a very hypothetical scenario of STS-134 needing a rescue. Hence, at least till April 2011, NASA needs funding to maintain the SSP. If the funding allocation is in March it is OK (since we know the outcome of STS-134), if it has to be before STS-134, then it is unclear. And not sure whether funding for STS-335 can be utilized for STS-135.
First,
STS-335 is targeted to launch NET June 28, 2011, not April.
Second, if we're talking
STS-335, NASA will take the money, if not appropriated from Congress by that time, from another part of the budget they have been allocated under the Continuing Resolution passed last week -- which they are operating under now. All else at that point would be secondary to getting the crew of STS-134 home safely.
-
#94
by
steveS
on 06 Oct, 2010 02:57
-
Some time back there was news about STS-135 could be flown with either Atlantis or Discovery. Now that NASA has decided it with Atlantis, can someone explain the main reasons behind it? (i.e., why Discovery was not chosen)
-
#95
by
Chris Bergin
on 12 Oct, 2010 21:59
-
-
#96
by
Lee Jay
on 12 Oct, 2010 23:39
-
-
#97
by
Jorge
on 13 Oct, 2010 00:22
-
-
#98
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 13 Oct, 2010 00:54
-
Some time back there was news about STS-135 could be flown with either Atlantis or Discovery. Now that NASA has decided it with Atlantis, can someone explain the main reasons behind it? (i.e., why Discovery was not chosen)
Second part of this article here shows the logic behind why Atlantis is acceptable for use on STS-335/135.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/07/nasa-updates-sts-335-planning-and-fleet-omdp-lifetime-requirements/Simple answer to why she [Atlantis] was chosen is A) All necessary safety inspections will/have been completed; B) She is much further along in processing than Discovery (considering Discovery has not even launched yet on the mission she would need to complete before taking up assignment on 135/335); C) it simply would not be economical to send Discovery through the same processing schedule Atlantis has been in since May 26, 2010 when she is perfectly capable of carrying out the 335/135 mission.
-
#99
by
dsmillman
on 15 Oct, 2010 18:31
-
.