Only 4 more flights??

• #60 by Jeff Bingham on 01 Oct, 2006 13:53
• "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
           - Herbert Spencer
  
  
• #61 by Jeff Bingham on 01 Oct, 2006 14:36
• Quote

  Jim - 30/9/2006  9:13 PM
  
  So how can there be more than 17 flights but they can't fly past 2010.  They are mutually exclusive.  More than 17 flights would require tiime past 2010.   I was putting the emphasis that the number of flights isn't going to increase.  The changes have already started at KSC.

  
  We may just be talking past each other, since I agree that more than 17 total flights would mean flying beyond 2010. I'd go a step further and say it's likely that ONLY doing 17 flights would take beyond 2010, depending obviously on the flight rate that actually occurs.  I understood you to be saying that there would be no flights past 2010, period, end of discussion, regardless of how many of the planned 17 (plus one for Hubble Servicing) flights had been accomplished by then.
  
  What I am suggesting is that if it appears that by 2010 some of the 17+1 flights would not yet have been flown, then the 2010 planned cut-off date would need to be disregarded as a hard cut-off, and flights continue until the ISS is completed, whether that's in 2011, or 2012, or whenever. I was suggsting in earlier comments that I believe there is a pretty strong likelihood of congressional intervention to make sure the ISS is finished, including making sure the funds are there to support the needed flights to do that.
  
  Your point and OV-106's about changes already taking place at KSC and elsewhere in the shuttle progam, with starting to shut down vendors and issues like work-force retirement, etc., are important factors in all of this because they could potentially render it physically impossible to sustain safe flight beyond a fixed point in time. For those wanting to at least preserve the "option" of flying beyond 2010--or beyond the planned number of remaining flights--those issues have to be addressed now--and they are being addressed now, at least from the standpoint of quantifying and monitoring them and considering what is needed to keep them from creating a "fait accompli" in terms of dictating the number of remaining flights that would be possible. What you may be saying is that, from what you're seeing, that "fait accompli" is inevitable.  And what I'm saying is that the situation "could" change.
• #62 by Jim on 01 Oct, 2006 14:45
• Agree.   Enjoy your insight and contributions to this site.
• #63 by lmike on 01 Oct, 2006 15:01
• Sorry, I usually don't go into these "personal" threads, but if I may say something, I personally (and I don't know anyone on this forum personally) think that different posters have different ways to express themselves and one can usually see the "meat" of the posts with no problems.  Like many others, I've made a fool out of myself a few times, and have been corrected, for which I'm greatful, and I enjoy reading opinions of most people on this forum, "edgy" or not.  One can skip what one doesn't like anyways.  This forum is great in that it is a pure exchange of opinions without the usual Internet crap, and not only that, it’s frequently backed by hands-on knowledge, and if I couldn't post I'd still read it.  What I’d like to say there is no need to turn this exchange into a personal “shoot out”, and I especially value the opinions (however stated) of those in "the loop".
  
  Please carry on...
• #64 by psloss on 01 Oct, 2006 15:17
• Quote

  lmike - 1/10/2006  10:44 AM
  
  What I’d like to say there is no need to turn this exchange into a personal “shoot out”, and I especially value the opinions (however stated) of those in "the loop".

  Agreed -- I think most of the value of this forum comes from the contributions (info, opinions) of those who do this or did this for real.  The more it becomes a forum for fans like me just to express our "inner monologue," the less unique I think it is.
  
  (Naturally, this post only adds to the latter pile.)
  
• #65 by henrycheck on 01 Oct, 2006 15:40
• Quote

  Jim - 1/10/2006  9:19 AM
  
  That's the problem, there are no other "fellow omniscient clairvoyants"
  It's hard being one of a kind.  Sort of lonely, that's why I am on this site

  
  Lighten up and you won’t be so lonely. (Seems you might have discovered this independently.) See you at the next OC meeting.
  
• #66 by henrycheck on 01 Oct, 2006 15:40
• Quote

  psloss - 1/10/2006  9:33 AM
  
  Why is it OK for us to "babble," but it's not OK for Jim to say he thinks we're babbling?
  
  

  
  As I think you realize “mindless babble” was hyperbole.
  
  To me Jim’s opinions, and everyone else’s, are very welcome. Jim’s opinions are well informed opinions. But (and you knew there was one coming) if we wanted to be told we are absolutely wrong about absolutely everything . . . we could talk to our children.
  
• #67 by henrycheck on 01 Oct, 2006 15:41
• Quote

  lmike - 1/10/2006  10:44 AM
  
  What I’d like to say there is no need to turn this exchange into a personal “shoot out”, and I especially value the opinions (however stated) of those in "the loop".

  
  Agreed. But not everyone is so thick-skinned and broadminded. I doubt that many posters know one another personally. On-line there are no facial expressions, or voice inflections, or body language. All we have is words on a computer monitor. Curt, terse, cryptic postings perhaps containing inaccuracies are not conducive to communication.
  
  Obviously I am way way off topic. I think we’ve established that you shouldn’t invite Jim and Henry to the same party, at least for a while, despite the fact that I think we’d have fascinating discussions.
  
• #68 by psloss on 01 Oct, 2006 16:35
• Quote

  henrycheck - 1/10/2006  11:23 AM
  
  As I think you realize “mindless babble” was hyperbole.

  If you visit here long enough, I think you'll see that it's not quite so hyperbolic.  I'm not an insider and we greatly outnumber them here and on other "space fan" boards...and while I'd prefer to be restrained in terms of both babble and mindless babble, I'm not immune to either.
  
  Whereas I think most of the pros and veterans here are much better at that.  If I had to choose a style for this forum, we'd lose little bit not having the tone and point of view of us "fans," but I'd still take "just the facts" over "this is really cool" or "wouldn't it be great if..."
  
  

  Quote

  henrycheck - 1/10/2006  11:23 AM
  
  To me Jim’s opinions, and everyone else’s, are very welcome. Jim’s opinions are well informed opinions. But (and you knew there was one coming) if we wanted to be told we are absolutely wrong about absolutely everything . . . we could talk to our children.

  I think that's one of the things that sets this forum apart -- those "absolutely wrong" posts that people like Jim respond to are either moderated or at least lurkers have opinions they can weigh those posts against -- so hopefully they don't become germs of misconception.
  
  
• #69 by Gary on 02 Oct, 2006 01:29
• Quote

  psloss - 1/10/2006  5:18 PM
  
  Whereas I think most of the pros and veterans here are much better at that.  If I had to choose a style for this forum, we'd lose little bit not having the tone and point of view of us "fans," but I'd still take "just the facts" over "this is really cool" or "wouldn't it be great if..."
  
  

  
  There I agree totally. Just the facts. ALWAYS over any "could we do x...".
  
  I really appreciate people like jim taking the time to respond to a question, comment or thought I have raised. I *KNOW* I know more about space flight that the average person. I also *KNOW* that the folk who work in the industry know one hell of a lot more than me and for someone like Jim to comment, correct or agree with a point I have made is a privilige.
  
  Thank you to those in the know and in the industry for your postings.
  
• #70 by nathan.moeller on 30 Oct, 2006 15:52
• Putting the thread back on topic, there's talk of the possibility of using Atlantis for a 6th post-Columbia flight to go service the Hubble for its last mission.  More info on L2.
• #71 by fdasun on 31 Oct, 2006 02:09
• Quote

  nathan.moeller - 31/10/2006  12:35 AM
  
  Putting the thread back on topic, there's talk of the possibility of using Atlantis for a 6th post-Columbia flight to go service the Hubble for its last mission.  More info on L2.

  
  Wow, 6th ?! STS-117 is 5th !
  Is it possble to get everything ready by mid of 2007 ? Another thread mentioned that HST-SM04 could be assigned as the last flight of Atlantis (currently the final mission of Atlantis is STS-126, scheduled in Aug 08) ... ... Could you share more info here ?
  I'm hunger for servicing Hubble by shuttle !
• #72 by nathan.moeller on 31 Oct, 2006 02:18
• Quote

  fdasun - 30/10/2006  8:52 PM
  
  Wow, 6th ?! STS-117 is 5th !
  Is it possble to get everything ready by mid of 2007 ? Another thread mentioned that HST-SM04 could be assigned as the last flight of Atlantis (currently the final mission of Atlantis is STS-126, scheduled in Aug 08) ... ... Could you share more info here ?
  I'm hunger for servicing Hubble by shuttle !

  
  Atlantis only had five flights scheduled after Columbia.  STS-115, STS-117, STS-120, STS-124 and STS-126.  If it is assigned to fly STS-125, it will be ATLANTIS' 6th post-Columbia mission.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.  There's a lot of info going around L2 about the Hubble mission if you want to register for that
• #73 by fdasun on 31 Oct, 2006 02:56
• Thanks Nathan.
  Let's see the final assignment this afternoon
• #74 by nathan.moeller on 31 Oct, 2006 03:06
• Quote

  fdasun - 30/10/2006  9:39 PM
  
  Thanks Nathan.
  Let's see the final assignment this afternoon

  
  No problem man.  I believe the press conference is scheduled for 10 am EST but don't quote me on that.  I couldn't find the time I saw earlier for some reason.
• #75 by mborgia on 21 Dec, 2006 00:18
• There is one important aspect of all of this  that no one has discussed.  In January of 2009, the current administration will leave office.  No one knows if a President McCain (most likely) or a second President Clinton (a solid possibility) will want to stomach the costs of developing Orion and returning to the Moon.  In adddition, it is a virtual certainty that the Republicans will regain control of the House of Representaives for 2009 and its new leadership will also be very fiscally conservative.  Public law can be changed and if such future leaders decide to slow down, indefinitely postpone or end Orion all together and operate the shuttle two or three flights per year with a two orbiter, single launch pad capability, then that still could happen.  The decision to retire the shuttle is in the end not a technical one or a logistical one, but one driven by politics.  Therefore the next administration can change it as fast as it can change your tax rates.   Admittedly it is as likely that the shuttle will fly in 2011 as it is that I will date Jessica Biel tonight.  But it still could happen.  Politics is politics and nothing is impossible.  Not even President Barack Obama!
• #76 by gordo on 21 Dec, 2006 00:34
• Was it not a CAIB recommendation that the shuttle should be retired in 2010, or thereabouts?
  
  Work is on-going to understand how they would fly further Altantis flights if they are really needed, for example, If Discovery headed to White Sands that might change the schedule
• #77 by psloss on 21 Dec, 2006 00:47
• Quote

  mborgia - 20/12/2006  8:01 PM
  
  There is one important aspect of all of this  that no one has discussed.  In January of 2009, the current administration will leave office.  No one knows if a President McCain (most likely) or a second President Clinton (a solid possibility) will want to stomach the costs of developing Orion and returning to the Moon.  In adddition, it is a virtual certainty that the Republicans will regain control of the House of Representaives for 2009 and its new leadership will also be very fiscally conservative.  Public law can be changed and if such future leaders decide to slow down, indefinitely postpone or end Orion all together and operate the shuttle two or three flights per year with a two orbiter, single launch pad capability, then that still could happen.  The decision to retire the shuttle is in the end not a technical one or a logistical one, but one driven by politics.  Therefore the next administration can change it as fast as it can change your tax rates.   Admittedly it is as likely that the shuttle will fly in 2011 as it is that I will date Jessica Biel tonight.  But it still could happen.  Politics is politics and nothing is impossible.  Not even President Barack Obama!

  
  Actually, politics is discussed here quite often -- did you happen to read through this thread or others here about this?
  
• #78 by Jim on 21 Dec, 2006 01:10
• Quote

  mborgia - 20/12/2006  8:01 PM
  
   The decision to retire the shuttle is in the end not a technical one or a logistical one,

  
  Incorrect.  It has become one.  orders for ET and SRM's has been stopped.  Other suppliers has been turned off.  Long lead items are no longer procured.  Some shuttle maintenance has been deferred to past the retirement.  facitilies have been shut down.
  
  "operate the shuttle two or three flights per year with a two orbiter, single launch pad capability"
  
  This wouldn't be worth the effort
• #79 by Joffan on 21 Dec, 2006 01:51
• Quote

  mborgia - 20/12/2006  6:01 PM
   it is a virtual certainty that the Republicans will regain control of the House of Representaives for 2009 and its new leadership will also be very fiscally conservative.  

  
  Heh, welcome to the board mborgia, got any more jokes?