-
Atlantis avoids early retirement - will keep flying to 2010
by
Chris Bergin
on 24 Jun, 2007 04:43
-
-
#1
by
Chris SF
on 24 Jun, 2007 05:00
-
Great news!
-
#2
by
STS-500Cmdr
on 24 Jun, 2007 05:14
-
She gets a reprieve!!!!! I love this ship--shes far too young to die shes still got alot of flying to do!
-
#3
by
Thorny
on 24 Jun, 2007 05:27
-
Very interesting news! That seems to give them a sporting chance to fly out the manifest before FY11.
But there is something wrong with that manifest... STS-119 (July 08) is missing. And if STS-119 is still on Endeavour, how the devil will they turn around Endeavour to be the Atlantis/Hubble rescue Shuttle by September 17? I think you've got Endeavour where Discovery should be on STS-326/STS-126.
-
#4
by
James Lowe1
on 24 Jun, 2007 05:38
-
STS-119 isn't listed, but there's a lot of TBDs on the post 125 missions.
-
#5
by
Jorge
on 24 Jun, 2007 05:38
-
Thorny - 24/6/2007 12:27 AM
Very interesting news! That seems to give them a sporting chance to fly out the manifest before FY11.
But there is something wrong with that manifest... STS-119 (July 08) is missing.
It's not missing. It has slipped after 126 into 2009 and is now TBD along with the other post-126 flights.
And if STS-119 is still on Endeavour, how the devil will they turn around Endeavour to be the Atlantis/Hubble rescue Shuttle by September 17? I think you've got Endeavour where Discovery should be on STS-326/STS-126.
All the orbiter assignments are shuffled - don't judge that manifest based on what you thought you knew before. Endeavour is now the HST LON shuttle.
-
#6
by
Bubbinski
on 24 Jun, 2007 06:01
-
Why fly the S6 truss after the STS-126 ULF flight? Maybe the supplies are needed sooner? And only 4 flights in 2008, that's kind of a bummer. Oh well.
-
#7
by
Space101
on 24 Jun, 2007 06:38
-
Thorny - 24/6/2007 12:27 AM
Very interesting news! That seems to give them a sporting chance to fly out the manifest before FY11.
Really agree. A great move.
-
#8
by
Ben E
on 24 Jun, 2007 06:49
-
Also, why does Discovery require her next OMDP in March 2008 and Atlantis in July 2008? Discovery has only just (well, at the time of STS-114) come out of an OMDP, whereas Atlantis has been flying since 2000.
-
#9
by
fdasun
on 24 Jun, 2007 07:08
-
Ben E - 24/6/2007 3:49 PM
Also, why does Discovery require her next OMDP in March 2008 and Atlantis in July 2008? Discovery has only just (well, at the time of STS-114) come out of an OMDP, whereas Atlantis has been flying since 2000.
I assume it's due to "current 3 year/8 flight OMDP interval requirement". But, I'm also wondering how they equalize these two factors (year vs. flight). Can anyone give an explanation ?
-
#10
by
whitewatcher
on 24 Jun, 2007 09:31
-
Bubbinski - 24/6/2007 8:01 AM
Why fly the S6 truss after the STS-126 ULF flight? Maybe the supplies are needed sooner? And only 4 flights in 2008, that's kind of a bummer. Oh well.
They've removed some modules from the original ISS plans (CAM, HM, ...). So they won't need that much electricity on board the station. With P4/P6/S4 they should have enough power to operate the US-core and at least one lab. So, STS-119 with S6 has no top-priority to "completing the ISS".
-
#11
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 24 Jun, 2007 10:14
-
Is Atlantis' extended lifetime going to affect NASA's budget in any way?
It's just that that was one of the reasons to retire her early, because it would be cheaper...
Thanks.
-
#12
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 24 Jun, 2007 10:37
-
Another question on Atlantis. As she is going to 'live' a little longer, what is going to be done about the Composite Overwrap Pressure Vessels? They are way past their lifetime and are already a concern...
-
#13
by
Ben E
on 24 Jun, 2007 10:42
-
If STS-119 is being moved to 2009, what will happen to the Garrett Reisman/Sandra Magnus crew swap in mid-2008?
STS-124 in April already has a crew of seven assigned and the next ISS mission (ULF-2) is not due until October.
-
#14
by
kimmern123
on 24 Jun, 2007 10:48
-
I guess Reisman down won't be a problem as the shuttle has flown with 8 crewmembers before, and I don't think that it will be that much of a weight increase to the orbiter for landing. So I guess he can go up on STS-123 and come down again on STS-124. The problem will be getting Sandy Magnus up, as was noted previously by Ben E, 119 is moved and 124 already has 7 crewmembers.
-
#15
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 24 Jun, 2007 11:14
-
Yeah, you'll have an empty shuttle coming back on STS-124...
-
#16
by
psloss
on 24 Jun, 2007 12:09
-
Thorny - 24/6/2007 1:27 AM
But there is something wrong with that manifest... STS-119 (July 08) is missing. And if STS-119 is still on Endeavour, how the devil will they turn around Endeavour to be the Atlantis/Hubble rescue Shuttle by September 17? I think you've got Endeavour where Discovery should be on STS-326/STS-126.
An additional note -- following the schedule hit from the hail damage to ET-124, NSF already reported that the program was reviewing different schedules for next year; flying ISS-15A/STS-119 before HST SM-4/STS-125 was only one of the options:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5087
-
#17
by
Rocket Ronnie
on 24 Jun, 2007 13:58
-
This is fantastic news. Keep the fleet at full strength!!
-
#18
by
Thorny
on 24 Jun, 2007 15:15
-
Jorge - 24/6/2007 12:38 AM
It's not missing. It has slipped after 126 into 2009 and is now TBD along with the other post-126 flights.
That raises the question, "then why bother with STS-118 now?" Why didn't they just move on to Node 2 / Columbus / Kibo and push back S5 until it's really needed... right before S6?
-
#19
by
Namechange User
on 24 Jun, 2007 15:51
-
By the way in regards to the manifest, TBD does not really mean to be determined in the conventional sense. For the most part the program knows exactly what is the primary payload and goal of the flight. I just has not been baselined into the manifest as such and historically does not happen until we move closer in time to the actual flight of that mission.
-
#20
by
Jorge
on 24 Jun, 2007 16:04
-
Thorny - 24/6/2007 10:15 AM
Jorge - 24/6/2007 12:38 AM
It's not missing. It has slipped after 126 into 2009 and is now TBD along with the other post-126 flights.
That raises the question, "then why bother with STS-118 now?" Why didn't they just move on to Node 2 / Columbus / Kibo and push back S5 until it's really needed... right before S6?
S5 isn't the only payload on 118.
-
#21
by
Chris Bergin
on 24 Jun, 2007 16:08
-
Jorge - 24/6/2007 5:04 PM
Thorny - 24/6/2007 10:15 AM
Jorge - 24/6/2007 12:38 AM
It's not missing. It has slipped after 126 into 2009 and is now TBD along with the other post-126 flights.
That raises the question, "then why bother with STS-118 now?" Why didn't they just move on to Node 2 / Columbus / Kibo and push back S5 until it's really needed... right before S6?
S5 isn't the only payload on 118.
This shows that point visually (note to all: 118 is now NET August 7):
-
#22
by
otisbow
on 24 Jun, 2007 16:29
-
The US can keep all the Shuttles going for the next 7 years. There all in GREAT shape. Its all about money!!!
-
#23
by
nathan.moeller
on 24 Jun, 2007 17:06
-
Great news!!
-
#24
by
Bubbinski
on 24 Jun, 2007 17:32
-
kimmern123 - 24/6/2007 4:48 AM
I guess Reisman down won't be a problem as the shuttle has flown with 8 crewmembers before, and I don't think that it will be that much of a weight increase to the orbiter for landing. So I guess he can go up on STS-123 and come down again on STS-124. The problem will be getting Sandy Magnus up, as was noted previously by Ben E, 119 is moved and 124 already has 7 crewmembers.
The shuttle's launched with 8 on board before as I recall (Challenger's last successful flight). Or else if they can't launch and land with 8 on this one due to weight issues, maybe they'll extend Reisman's stay? That's the only thing I can think of. Or maybe Magnus goes up on a Soyuz?
-
#25
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 24 Jun, 2007 18:12
-
Does anyone have an answer for my questions on the first page of this thread?
Thanks!
-
#26
by
Flightstar
on 24 Jun, 2007 18:18
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 24/6/2007 5:14 AM
Is Atlantis' extended lifetime going to affect NASA's budget in any way?
It's just that that was one of the reasons to retire her early, because it would be cheaper...
Thanks.
No, the reason was because of the rationale in the article, that it would be pointless to put her through an OMDP to be completed just as the program is ending. The extension of the time between OMDPs allows her to keep flying and three orbiters are always better than two.
-
#27
by
STS Tony
on 24 Jun, 2007 19:07
-
This is great news and very solid rationale from reading how this has come about in the article. Great news.
-
#28
by
Thorny
on 24 Jun, 2007 19:19
-
Jorge - 24/6/2007 11:04 AM
S5 isn't the only payload on 118.
Supplies and a spacer segment that won't be needed for two more years now. NASA already bumped 119 one year to bring up Columbus and Kibo. Now 119 is bumped another year down the schedule. But 118 is still here, essentially an orphaned mission. What's so important on 118 that it is rated higher than Node 2, Columbus, and Kibo? The CMG? Couldn't that be squeezed onto 120 with Node 2?
-
#29
by
Shadow Spork
on 24 Jun, 2007 19:44
-
Thorny - 24/6/2007 2:19 PM
Jorge - 24/6/2007 11:04 AM
S5 isn't the only payload on 118.
Supplies and a spacer segment that won't be needed for two more years now. NASA already bumped 119 one year to bring up Columbus and Kibo. Now 119 is bumped another year down the schedule. But 118 is still here, essentially an orphaned mission. What's so important on 118 that it is rated higher than Node 2, Columbus, and Kibo? The CMG? Couldn't that be squeezed onto 120 with Node 2?
Technically it would make sense to fly STS-118 right before STS-119, but they might as well get the spacer over with so that it won't slip back the next year.
Better to do it sooner rather than later I suppose.
-
#30
by
otisbow
on 24 Jun, 2007 19:47
-
The US is going to CAN the shuttle and go back to SPAM in the CAN. The old Apollo days. KEEP THEM FLYING!!!!
-
#31
by
Jorge
on 24 Jun, 2007 19:47
-
Thorny - 24/6/2007 2:19 PM
Jorge - 24/6/2007 11:04 AM
S5 isn't the only payload on 118.
Supplies and a spacer segment that won't be needed for two more years now.
That's not a well-formed compound sentence. The spacer isn't needed for two years but the supplies are. Don't forget the EVAs on 118, either.
NASA already bumped 119 one year to bring up Columbus and Kibo. Now 119 is bumped another year down the schedule. But 118 is still here, essentially an orphaned mission. What's so important on 118 that it is rated higher than Node 2, Columbus, and Kibo? The CMG?
Yes, the ISS program has identified the CMG replacement as a fairly high priority.
Couldn't that be squeezed onto 120 with Node 2?
No. The CMG needs a payload bay carrier to mount it on, which won't fit in the bay with Node 2.
-
#32
by
Jackson
on 24 Jun, 2007 21:09
-
I see that Atlantis will still be the first to retire regardless?
-
#33
by
Chris Bergin
on 24 Jun, 2007 21:17
-
Jackson - 24/6/2007 10:09 PM
I see that Atlantis will still be the first to retire regardless?
Atlantis, Discovery then Endeavour.
-
#34
by
Andy L
on 24 Jun, 2007 21:25
-
Chris Bergin - 24/6/2007 4:17 PM
Jackson - 24/6/2007 10:09 PM
I see that Atlantis will still be the first to retire regardless?
Atlantis, Discovery then Endeavour.
If it remains 2010!
-
#35
by
Thorny
on 24 Jun, 2007 21:53
-
Jorge - 24/6/2007 2:47 PM
Couldn't that be squeezed onto 120 with Node 2?
No. The CMG needs a payload bay carrier to mount it on, which won't fit in the bay with Node 2.
I realize this is academic, but are you sure? They did it with the MPLM in the bay on 114, and Node 2 is only 2 feet longer.
-
#36
by
psloss
on 24 Jun, 2007 22:39
-
Thorny - 24/6/2007 5:53 PM
I realize this is academic, but are you sure? They did it with the MPLM in the bay on 114, and Node 2 is only 2 feet longer.
It's not length, it's mass. Node 2 is heavier than an MPLM. Not sure if Node 2 is fully outfitted for launch, but consider things like CBMs and how many a Node has versus a logistics module.
-
#37
by
psloss
on 24 Jun, 2007 23:01
-
psloss - 24/6/2007 6:39 PM
Thorny - 24/6/2007 5:53 PM
I realize this is academic, but are you sure? They did it with the MPLM in the bay on 114, and Node 2 is only 2 feet longer.
It's not length, it's mass. Node 2 is heavier than an MPLM. Not sure if Node 2 is fully outfitted for launch, but consider things like CBMs and how many a Node has versus a logistics module.
To follow, here are some numbers:
From the
press kits, STS-114 MPLM (Raffaello) launch weight was about 18000 pounds and STS-121 MPLM (Leonardo) launch weight was about 21000 pounds. Node 2 launch weight from
this reference is 30000 pounds.
Another illustration in this snapshot of the STS-93 payload -- which is heavier, Chandra (AXAF) or the IUS?
-
#38
by
Thorny
on 25 Jun, 2007 00:15
-
psloss - 24/6/2007 6:01 PM
To follow, here are some numbers:
From the press kits, STS-114 MPLM (Raffaello) launch weight was about 18000 pounds and STS-121 MPLM (Leonardo) launch weight was about 21000 pounds. Node 2 launch weight from this reference is 30000 pounds.
Ah, I forgot that Node 2 is larger than Node 1. I was wondering why they couldn't get more in the payload bay with Node 2, considering that Node 1 and PMA-1 went up together on one mission.
-
#39
by
stockman
on 25 Jun, 2007 00:18
-
Thorny - 24/6/2007 8:15 PM
psloss - 24/6/2007 6:01 PM
To follow, here are some numbers:
From the press kits, STS-114 MPLM (Raffaello) launch weight was about 18000 pounds and STS-121 MPLM (Leonardo) launch weight was about 21000 pounds. Node 2 launch weight from this reference is 30000 pounds.
Ah, I forgot that Node 2 is larger than Node 1. I was wondering why they couldn't get more in the payload bay with Node 2, considering that Node 1 and PMA-1 went up together on one mission.
Small point. I believe Node 1 went with PMA-1 AND PMA-2. I remember Unity had both attached to it during the first launch.
-
#40
by
DaveS
on 25 Jun, 2007 00:31
-
psloss - 25/6/2007 1:01 AM
Another illustration in this snapshot of the STS-93 payload -- which is heavier, Chandra (AXAF) or the IUS?
The IUS(32,500 lbs). AXAF is 10,560 lbs.
-
#41
by
Jorge
on 25 Jun, 2007 03:21
-
psloss - 24/6/2007 5:39 PM
Thorny - 24/6/2007 5:53 PM
I realize this is academic, but are you sure? They did it with the MPLM in the bay on 114, and Node 2 is only 2 feet longer.
It's not length, it's mass. Node 2 is heavier than an MPLM. Not sure if Node 2 is fully outfitted for launch, but consider things like CBMs and how many a Node has versus a logistics module.
Correct - my reply was very badly worded, implying that it was volume-constrained.
-
#42
by
Davie OPF
on 02 Jul, 2007 11:58
-
OV-106 - 24/6/2007 10:51 AM
By the way in regards to the manifest, TBD does not really mean to be determined in the conventional sense. For the most part the program knows exactly what is the primary payload and goal of the flight. I just has not been baselined into the manifest as such and historically does not happen until we move closer in time to the actual flight of that mission.
Which is the best way for processing flows.
-
#43
by
Chris Bergin
on 05 Sep, 2007 16:09
-
As you may have seen on the L2 ticker, there has been a major shake-up forward plan for the shuttle manifest.
This includes saving Atlantis.
Gerst is meeting in Washington over approval and funding as we speak, so there's an article to come.
Documentation (large) has been on L2 since the other week, but we will turn this into a story once we get word of how the meeting went.
Currently, it looks like it will be approved, with a manifest acceleration, Atlantis extending to four remaining flights after all, the program ending early, both CLF flights being approved, plus changes to Constellation from Ares I-X onwards.
-
#44
by
shuttlefan
on 05 Sep, 2007 18:07
-
Chris Bergin - 5/9/2007 11:09 AM
As you may have seen on the L2 ticker, there has been a major shake-up forward plan for the shuttle manifest.
This includes saving Atlantis.
Gerst is meeting in Washington over approval and funding as we speak, so there's an article to come.
Documentation (large) has been on L2 since the other week, but we will turn this into a story once we get word of how the meeting went.
Currently, it looks like it will be approved, with a manifest acceleration, Atlantis extending to four remaining flights after all, the program ending early, both CLF flights being approved, plus changes to Constellation from Ares I-X onwards.
So you're saying the Shuttle is going to be retired earlier than first thought?
-
#45
by
Jorge
on 05 Sep, 2007 18:15
-
shuttlefan - 5/9/2007 1:07 PM
Chris Bergin - 5/9/2007 11:09 AM
As you may have seen on the L2 ticker, there has been a major shake-up forward plan for the shuttle manifest.
This includes saving Atlantis.
Gerst is meeting in Washington over approval and funding as we speak, so there's an article to come.
Documentation (large) has been on L2 since the other week, but we will turn this into a story once we get word of how the meeting went.
Currently, it looks like it will be approved, with a manifest acceleration, Atlantis extending to four remaining flights after all, the program ending early, both CLF flights being approved, plus changes to Constellation from Ares I-X onwards.
So you're saying the Shuttle is going to be retired earlier than first thought?
Keeping Atlantis in the flow will allow the remaining 14 flights to be completed by April 2010, compared to July 2010 for the manifest with Atlantis retiring in 2008. Naturally flights will get delayed along the way, but this plan adds three months margin for the real deadline (September 30, 2010).
-
#46
by
Chris Bergin
on 05 Sep, 2007 19:26
-
-
#47
by
Rob in KC
on 05 Sep, 2007 22:36
-
-
#48
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2007 02:45
-
Thanks. There's a lot more to come yet!
-
#49
by
TJL
on 15 Sep, 2007 16:41
-
Chris:
Has a final decision been made yet whether or not keep Atlantis flying beyond STS-125?
At the press conference yesterday, I couldn't tell if Wayne Hale said there was a savings to keep her flight ready or not.
Thanks.
-
#50
by
rdale
on 15 Sep, 2007 18:47
-
He was indicating that if the schedule doesn't slip in a significant fashion, Atlantis will be retired early.
-
#51
by
Chris Bergin
on 15 Sep, 2007 19:16
-
TJL - 15/9/2007 5:41 PM
Chris:
Has a final decision been made yet whether or not keep Atlantis flying beyond STS-125?
At the press conference yesterday, I couldn't tell if Wayne Hale said there was a savings to keep her flight ready or not.
Thanks.
The decision has been made that Atlantis can fly through the scheduled OMDP, thus allowing her to be flight ready up to 2011 (a moot year, but you get the idea).
The orginal news on this led to a plan that showed the option of having Atlantis utilized throughout the manifest. That was a planning document.
Now the decision has been moved forward and Atlantis is required, as per SSP manifest acceleration and she will be manifested for two further flights (possibly on the next FAWG). However, "confirmed decisions" are for the future baselining of missions, and they are only up to STS-126 so far. So yes, this is going to be the case, but you have to wait until she's FDRDed into the specific missions.
This allows you to word it either ways, and I thought Mr Hale was being economic with what he said, versus what he's written in memos and documentation. I noted he was placing a lot on "being careful with US taxpayers money" (paraphrased) because the documentation, especially the SSP manifest acceleration will not work without Atlantis, from what I've read and been told.
He seemed to be speaking from a civil servant angle, which appeared to be more as a protective measure against opening himself up for media examination on his previous comments that they can fly out the manifest with two orbiters.
Bottom line, from everything we've seen documented (always more value than pressers) and seen says Atlantis will not be retiring in 2008.
-
#52
by
psloss
on 15 Sep, 2007 19:41
-
Chris Bergin - 15/9/2007 3:16 PM
This allows you to word it either ways, and I thought Mr Hale was being economic with what he said, versus what he's written in memos and documentation. I noted he was placing a lot on "being careful with US taxpayers money" (paraphrased) because the documentation, especially the SSP manifest acceleration will not work without Atlantis, from what I've read and been told.
In case anyone wants to review what he said, John44 posted that video yesterday:
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2835&Itemid=2The first answer was from a question by Bill Harwood and is at the very end of "Part 1" -- about 39 minutes in.
The second answer was from a question by Mark Carreau comes about 16 minutes into "Part 2".
Ultimately, this is another example of the program keeping its options open.
-
#53
by
Real Madrid
on 23 Sep, 2007 17:14
-
I have a question goes the atlantis out of service in 2008 or 2010?
-
#54
by
David AF
on 23 Sep, 2007 17:17
-
Real Madrid - 23/9/2007 12:14 PM
I have a question goes the atlantis out of service in 2008 or 2010?
Read the thread and the articles. Will be 2010, but it's not baselined yet until nearer the time.
-
#55
by
Real Madrid
on 23 Sep, 2007 17:20
-
Okay thanks for asking on my question.
-
#56
by
siobhanmarie
on 22 Nov, 2007 18:58
-
That's great news and can only agree with Chris SF that Atlantis is too young to die.
-
#57
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 23 Nov, 2007 01:38
-
siobhanmarie - 22/11/2007 2:58 PM
That's great news and can only agree with Chris SF that Atlantis is too young to die.
The final decision to keep Atlantis flying until 2010 has not yet been made. She has not been manifested (officially assigned) to any missions past her Hubble STS-125 flight currently scheduled for August 2008. This thread is from earlier in the year with the post right above yours made in September.
There is another thread on this site decidied to this topic. I'll try to find it and link it.
EDIT: Nevermind. That thread is on L2 so I can't post it here. Any way, what I've said above is correct. While the program made the decision to press ahead with plans to fly Atlantis past the 2008 Hubble mission, she has yet to manifested (assigned any flights). Wasn't trying to bust your spirits as I agree that Atlantis is "too young to die" but I just wanted you to know that it was not official yet. Keep watching though. Wayne Hail (the manager of the Space Shuttle Program) said in a recent press conference that the decision on whether Atlantis would keep flying through 2010 would be made within the coming months. Until then, GO ATLANTIS and STS-122!
-
#58
by
Chris Bergin
on 15 Jan, 2008 19:27
-
New planning documents have finally given Atlantis her extra two flights and NASA folk now say this is all a done deal and official.
Will write it up as part of a large article on new things in L2
-
#59
by
PurduesUSAFguy
on 15 Jan, 2008 19:47
-
If this lets us stand down the shuttle fleet sooner, then it's a good thing. We have to get the space station/shuttle monkey off our back as soon as possible if any of VSEs goals of leaving low Earth orbit are going to have a chance of surviving.
-
#60
by
Chris Bergin
on 16 Jan, 2008 06:07
-
-
#61
by
ChrisC
on 16 Jan, 2008 17:04
-
Great article, thanks Chris!
I'm a little surprised that they're going to do the SSPTS install on Atlantis.
Could someone post a screenshot of the updated FAWG Planning Manifest? I'm talking about the timeline document that looks like this:
http://images.google.com/images?q=FAWG+Planning+ManifestI'm sure it's probably available on L2, but (sorry to those of you who've heard me say this before) I don't subscribe to L2 because from what I hear it's TOO GOOD. I would never be able to pull myself away and get back to work! This FAWG manifest is the only thing that I really need to have in a higher quality format; for everything else, the teaser images in the NSF articles and elsewhere are good enough for me.
The copy I have now is dated Jan 2007 and obvious completely out of date. I was waiting for the Atlantis decision to be final before asking. It would be great if the screenshot was of a resolution high enough that I can read the small print (e.g. "SPDU"). Or better yet, a PDF
-
#62
by
Stowbridge
on 16 Jan, 2008 17:05
-
Chris Bergin - 16/1/2008 1:07 AM
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5333
That was a quality read. I like the personal touch, where one feels a level of empathy for the vehicle when seeing the alternative fate of being a spare parts bin.
