-
#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.
