-
#20
by
Jim
on 22 Sep, 2006 12:07
-
I know. My point is that there isn't a "mini OMDP". It is either all or nothing. If the ISS is delayed past the two years that it would take to refurb OV-104, then there are bigger issues. But for now, two orbiters should be able to complete the ISS, even with some small delays.
-
#21
by
Gary
on 22 Sep, 2006 22:59
-
Discovery and Endeavour have both been recently upgraded. Atlantis has not. It's due to be upgraded but because of the termination of the shuttle programme it's easier to scrap Atlantis than upgrade her.
-
#22
by
Jorge
on 23 Sep, 2006 03:16
-
Gary - 22/9/2006 5:42 PM
Discovery and Endeavour have both been recently upgraded. Atlantis has not. It's due to be upgraded but because of the termination of the shuttle programme it's easier to scrap Atlantis than upgrade her.
I realize you are probably speaking figuratively, but just in case anyone is confused, Atlantis won't be scrapped. She'll be stored in one of the OPFs and serve as a source of spare parts for Discovery and Endeavour until their retirement, then she'll head for a museum with her exterior appearance restored.
--
JRF
-
#23
by
FransonUK
on 23 Sep, 2006 12:59
-
Gary - 22/9/2006 5:42 PM
Discovery and Endeavour have both been recently upgraded. Atlantis has not. It's due to be upgraded but because of the termination of the shuttle programme it's easier to scrap Atlantis than upgrade her.
Shame on you Gary for using the S word in association with Atlantis!
-
#24
by
Ben E
on 29 Sep, 2006 15:27
-
How many flights are mandated between each OMM?
Atlantis has done two OMMs: one after her 12th mission (STS-46 in 1992) and another after her 20th mission (STS-86 in 1997). Her recent STS-115 mission was her 27th flight, ie her seventh mission in current OMM cycle. This implies that she was physically capable of supporting 12 missions before her first OMM was deemed necessary (admittedly a couple were pre-51L, but the bulk were post-51L). That number went down to eight missions between OMM-1 and OMM-2.
If we are to assume that OMM-3 would have occurred after her 31st mission (ie 11 missions after return from OMM-2), why couldn't she fly one extra (a 12th)? Also, if she could accomplish 12 missions to an OMM interval, why was it not done in the interval between OMM-1 and OMM-2, when she flew barely eight missions?
-
#25
by
Jim
on 29 Sep, 2006 16:06
-
It is driven by calendar time and not number of flights. Corrosion is independent of number of flights. An orbiter would require a OMM even if it didn't fly any flights between periods
-
#26
by
psloss
on 29 Sep, 2006 16:55
-
There's an interesting CAIB report appendix (D.14) with some OMM history:
http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL2/D14.PDF(For Jim or anyone who knows...have the requirements changed materially since the CAIB review or is this Atlantis limit within the latitude alluded to in the report?)
-
#27
by
gordo
on 29 Sep, 2006 17:09
-
Jim - 29/9/2006 4:49 PM
It is driven by calendar time and not number of flights. Corrosion is independent of number of flights. An orbiter would require a OMM even if it didn't fly any flights between periods
Well that tend to make it much easier for an excemption to be made. There is good historical data from the same OMM that Discovery went though to call on.
-
#28
by
Namechange User
on 29 Sep, 2006 17:32
-
Gary - 22/9/2006 5:42 PM
Discovery and Endeavour have both been recently upgraded. Atlantis has not. It's due to be upgraded but because of the termination of the shuttle programme it's easier to scrap Atlantis than upgrade her.
Wrong. The three are virtually the same. Very little difference.
As for mini-OMDP's there is such a thing but it will not apply in this case. 104 will be due up for many major structural inspections. These are due to the number of flights that have been placed on the structure. To an extent there is a time component relative to corrosion but the driver here is the number of flights. In addition, the structural inspections that are necessary for it to keep flying cannot be accomplished in between other flows due to the launch manifest. 104 is simply retiring because of this fact and no other. By the time it would get out of OMDP, we'll be closing shop. As for flying past 2010, it is also law that if we fly longer the entire fleet needs to be recertified. This will not happen due to the incredible expense and time it would take, therefore the orbiter fleet will stand down in 2010.
-
#29
by
jimvela
on 29 Sep, 2006 17:50
-
Jim - 29/9/2006 9:49 AM
It is driven by calendar time and not number of flights. Corrosion is independent of number of flights. An orbiter would require a OMM even if it didn't fly any flights between periods
This isn't like flipping a switch- it isn't a case where one day the vehicle can fly and the next day it will come apart. And, corrosion isn't entirely independant of number of flights- trips out to the pad clearly expose the vehicle to more environmental stresses than staying safely in the OPF.
The vehicle COULD be waivered to fly an additional flight or two, just like commercial aircraft sometimes get waivered to go a few more months of service between major maintenance. Claiming that it -flatly- cannot happen is just not true- particularly if congress were pressuring for it to be done.
That isn't to say that it is likely to happen. It is very unlikely to happen.
With the remaining two orbiters flightworthy, Jim is correct that there is absolutely no good reason to force Atlantis to fly these hypothetical additional flights. It would take some extreme circumstances for it to even be an option to be considered. Most of those extreme circumstances would mean an end to the shuttle program anyway, in which case there wouldn't be a need to even consider a waiver.
-
#30
by
Namechange User
on 29 Sep, 2006 18:14
-
MarkD - 21/9/2006 5:58 PM
Yeah, sad to see Atlantis retire in two years.
You are all correct o nthe issues here, parts available, and as one CNN documentary said most of the stuff is not made anymore, all old 1970s technology. Still, the shuttle is still flying. Why did they pick Atlantis to end flying early than her sisters? IMO Discovery should instead as she had the most flight time out of the whole fleet.
See my earlier post. Nothing to do with 104 (Atlantis), it's simply they way the cards fell relative to structural requirements and the end of the program.
-
#31
by
Jim
on 29 Sep, 2006 18:28
-
jimvela - 29/9/2006 1:33 PM
The vehicle COULD be waivered to fly an additional flight or two, just like commercial aircraft sometimes get waivered to go a few more months of service between major maintenance. Claiming that it -flatly- cannot happen is just not true- particularly if congress were pressuring for it to be done.
That isn't to say that it is likely to happen. It is very unlikely to happen.
I should have said it won't happen
-
#32
by
henrycheck
on 29 Sep, 2006 20:06
-
OV-106 - 29/9/2006 1:15 PM
As for flying past 2010, it is also law that if we fly longer the entire fleet needs to be recertified.
Is this "law" or a CAIB recommendation?
-
#33
by
gordo
on 29 Sep, 2006 20:45
-
it all hypothetical , but a way would no doubt be found to allow ISS completion (and Atlantis to fly an additional flight) say if for instance one of the other 2 orbiters suffered significant damage needing repair, or forcing their early retirement.
-
#34
by
psloss
on 29 Sep, 2006 20:48
-
henrycheck - 29/9/2006 3:49 PM
Is this "law" or a CAIB recommendation?
Well, it was definitely a CAIB recommendation, but perhaps language got into the authorization act that was passed last year. If so, I'd be curious what the language says...anyone got a link?
Thanks.
-
#35
by
Namechange User
on 29 Sep, 2006 21:01
-
gordo - 29/9/2006 3:28 PM
it all hypothetical , but a way would no doubt be found to allow ISS completion (and Atlantis to fly an additional flight) say if for instance one of the other 2 orbiters suffered significant damage needing repair, or forcing their early retirement.
Well, the way this business works anything that resulted in this level of significance would mean the end of the program anyway.
If a vehicle was damaged during processing that required a repair, that mission would be delayed until the repair is complete. At worse, it would be remanifested to the other vehicle.
Atlantis flying one extra flight will not lead to completion of the ISS. 104 Stands down several flights prior to ISS complete. There is also room in the schedule between now and 2010 with some margin to do the minimum of what we need to do to call ISS complete.
-
#36
by
Namechange User
on 29 Sep, 2006 21:06
-
henrycheck - 29/9/2006 2:49 PM
OV-106 - 29/9/2006 1:15 PM
As for flying past 2010, it is also law that if we fly longer the entire fleet needs to be recertified.
Is this "law" or a CAIB recommendation?
It's a CAIB recommendation that has been very well accepted by everyone from the President on down. Why do you think 2010 was chosen as the retirement date when the President announced the VSE? Why do you think Griffin, etc has been so adamant on not flying past 2010?
Now your reply is going to be well that could change with the next Administration/Congress. Sure it could but not without additional expense of it's own. We're are in the process of standing down many of our vendors and support organizations. Logistics has only a limited number of some very key components now that won't take you very much past 2010 anyway. So you see the process is already signicantly in motion.
-
#37
by
Flightstar
on 29 Sep, 2006 21:16
-
Add in around a quarter of the Shuttle related work force retire in 2010 too. As do I.
-
#38
by
Ben E
on 30 Sep, 2006 01:11
-
Can't they use one of the CLF flights to ferry up the Centrifuge Accommodation Module?
Or has it definitely been cancelled?
-
#39
by
henrycheck
on 30 Sep, 2006 03:18
-
OV-106 - 29/9/2006 4:49 PM
henrycheck - 29/9/2006 2:49 PM
OV-106 - 29/9/2006 1:15 PM
As for flying past 2010, it is also law that if we fly longer the entire fleet needs to be recertified.
Is this "law" or a CAIB recommendation?
It's a CAIB recommendation that has been very well accepted by everyone from the President on down.
I was merely asking if it was "law." Even if it were, and I guess you're saying it's not, it could be changed.
I'm not suggesting the shuttle should continue flying. It's technology that is more than thirty years old and replacement parts must be a nightmare and it's time to move on. However, if the need arose, the shuttle could fly beyond the end of fiscal 2010 regardless of how expensive / difficult / risky that might be.
Let’s hope the need doesn’t arise, that the ISS gets completed as scheduled, and the available resources can be devoted solely to whatever is next.
