-
Atlantis stay of execution reversed in new manifest
by
Chris Bergin
on 21 Jul, 2007 05:36
-
-
#1
by
halkey
on 21 Jul, 2007 10:37
-
Atlantis had the coolest name of all the shuttles and I feel a tinge of sadness that it has run out of appeals and now faces the chair. May it find peace in the afterlife. RIP Atlantis.
-
#2
by
svenge
on 21 Jul, 2007 10:42
-
Coolest name? I can only think of FIVE other orbiters that had better names... Atlantis is a name better suited for a research submarine, not a spacecraft.
-
#3
by
halkey
on 21 Jul, 2007 10:51
-
Challenger, Endeavour, Columbia, Discovery, none of those names reflect the mythical place conjured by Atlantis' name, a vehicle that indeed traveled to a near mythical realm that exists beyond most peoples' experiences.
-
#4
by
shuttlepilot
on 21 Jul, 2007 11:17
-
I'm sad about this, because she's my favourite shuttle. But I'm also happy, because I know her retirement will be better for NASA budget
-
#5
by
Celeritas
on 21 Jul, 2007 13:51
-
svenge - 21/7/2007 6:42 AM
Coolest name? I can only think of FIVE other orbiters that had better names... Atlantis is a name better suited for a research submarine, not a spacecraft.
Once again . . . Who decided to name a shuttle after a continent supposed to have sunk in the Atlantic?
-
#6
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 21 Jul, 2007 14:33
-
shuttlepilot - 21/7/2007 12:17 PM
I'm sad about this, because she's my favourite shuttle. But I'm also happy, because I know her retirement will be better for NASA budget
In a way, Atlantis will still be flying as parts from her will be used in her sisters...
(Didn't think of that, did ya?
)
-
#7
by
Squid.erau
on 21 Jul, 2007 14:45
-
Once again . . . Who decided to name a shuttle after a continent supposed to have sunk in the Atlantic?
Just like all the other orbiters, Atlantis was named after a famous ship of exploration. Atlantis in particular was named for a sailing ship used for oceanographic research operated by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.
Matt
-
#8
by
Bubbinski
on 21 Jul, 2007 16:13
-
I'll always remember Atlantis as the shuttle I actually got to see launch with my own eyes. Twice. And I got to see her land once.
Anyway, I prefer to think of this as going off into a well earned retirement being looked at and admired by millions of museum visitors in due course, not as an "execution". She'll be intact and still have her good looks.
-
#9
by
vt_hokie
on 21 Jul, 2007 17:39
-
Atlantis will always be my favorite!
I look forward to seeing her on display!
-
#10
by
Shuttle Man
on 21 Jul, 2007 18:04
-
This decision makes little sense, does appear like they want to cut workforce, the orbiter does not need to be retired. This could be changed back again.
Otherwise, expect worse than this..
-
#11
by
vt_hokie
on 21 Jul, 2007 18:57
-
Shuttle Man - 21/7/2007 2:04 PM
Otherwise, expect worse than this..
Yeah, that would suck. That's Endeavour a couple of years ago, right?
Have they even replaced the missing RCC panels on Enterprise yet? (Still need to make it down to the new museum one of these days...)
http://media.nasm.si.edu/webimages/640/WEB10049-2003_640.jpg
-
#12
by
brahmanknight
on 21 Jul, 2007 19:44
-
Could this have anything to do with Atlantis' lack of the SSPTS? Doesn't that keep it from have the amount of time for EVA's and other tasks that the other two orbiters could acomplish?
-
#13
by
Chris Bergin
on 21 Jul, 2007 20:00
-
brahmanknight - 21/7/2007 8:44 PM
Could this have anything to do with Atlantis' lack of the SSPTS? Doesn't that keep it from have the amount of time for EVA's and other tasks that the other two orbiters could acomplish?
Interesting question. However, I would have assumed this would have been addressed beforehand. Plus, that is still a 'to be tested' mod, as it will be on 118.
As with FAWGs, they could simply change it back. It's a planning document (though the absolute best for knowing where the schedule is). However, if this was close to being swapped back, we'd of see a big line and "under review" - as we did with the manifest inbetween Atlantis flying to 2010 and back to 2008 retirement.
-
#14
by
Bubbinski
on 21 Jul, 2007 20:06
-
Under this scenario, would they now be able to keep Atlantis ready for last resort, emergency LON duty, if the other orbiter on the ground had a serious issue? Or would Atlantis simply not be able to do a LON at all (lack of funds, personnel?)
-
#15
by
Davie OPF
on 21 Jul, 2007 20:21
-
Bubbinski - 21/7/2007 3:06 PM
Under this scenario, would they now be able to keep Atlantis ready for last resort, emergency LON duty, if the other orbiter on the ground had a serious issue? Or would Atlantis simply not be able to do a LON at all (lack of funds, personnel?)
No one has really talked through any of the techs, that I know of, showing the plan for Atlantis post flight 125. From what I've read I think LON processing is impossible, because of flow timelines, and besides each flight would be designated by the next scheduled orbiter, which Atlantis would not be involved with.
I find this all baffling. A near flight ready orbiter no longer becomes the case if used for spare parts. Imagine the OMS Pod damage on Atlantis, if it had been structurally damaged during re-entry. There's no spare OMS Pods, so you can assume Atlantis would donor a pod if that happened on a future flight. From that point onwards, Atlantis is grounded.
When Atlantis was moved back into ops to 2010, I thought it was a no brainer. With the OMDP requirement changes, I find this move totally baffling and obviously pushed by management to hand out some pink slips. There is simply no other decent explanation for this.
-
#16
by
psloss
on 21 Jul, 2007 20:22
-
Bubbinski - 21/7/2007 4:06 PM
Under this scenario, would they now be able to keep Atlantis ready for last resort, emergency LON duty, if the other orbiter on the ground had a serious issue? Or would Atlantis simply not be able to do a LON at all (lack of funds, personnel?)
It's going to be like the "place" the fleet was in a year ago (or, as Shuttle Man wrote, worse) with two flying orbiters -- at that time, Endeavour wasn't ready to support LON.
There are some interesting logistical questions I can think of, but I do think this is more a "budget shortfall" issue than a technical one -- perhaps this is also trying to be prepared for possibly having the same budget outcome as the current fiscal year.
-
#17
by
Bubbinski
on 21 Jul, 2007 20:35
-
Ahh...if there is a budget issue developing, are they also looking at other things like cutting out STS-131 and STS-133? (I remember reading that they're marked off as "contingency" flights). Are they trying to speed up shuttle retirement, it sounds like maybe they want to if they're moving up a few flights like HST SM and STS-119/Truss S6 and sending Atlantis off to early retirement.
-
#18
by
psloss
on 21 Jul, 2007 20:43
-
Bubbinski - 21/7/2007 4:35 PM
Ahh...if there is a budget issue developing, are they also looking at other things like cutting out STS-131 and STS-133? (I remember reading that they're marked off as "contingency" flights). Are they trying to speed up shuttle retirement, it sounds like maybe they want to if they're moving up a few flights like HST SM and STS-119/Truss S6 and sending Atlantis off to early retirement.
Those I think are all distinct issues...for example, they're only talking about moving STS-125 up by about a month.
-
#19
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 21 Jul, 2007 21:07
-
Bubbinski - 21/7/2007 4:35 PM
Ahh...if there is a budget issue developing, are they also looking at other things like cutting out STS-131 and STS-133? (I remember reading that they're marked off as "contingency" flights). Are they trying to speed up shuttle retirement, it sounds like maybe they want to if they're moving up a few flights like HST SM and STS-119/Truss S6 and sending Atlantis off to early retirement.
According to the lastest FAWG, STS-131 and STS-133 are still on the schedule. They're the third to last, and last flights (respectively) listed in the 2010 year.
2010
February - TBD - Endeavour - TBD
April - TBD - Discovery - TBD
July - TBD - Endeavour - TBD
The February flight would be STS-131 and the July flight would be STS-133. That leaves at least two months before the September 30, 2010 retirement date of the entire fleet.
-
#20
by
STS Tony
on 22 Jul, 2007 00:38
-
I can see the CLF flights going. They aren't as important as the module and truss flights.
-
#21
by
Analyst
on 22 Jul, 2007 06:31
-
STS Tony - 22/7/2007 2:38 AM
I can see the CLF flights going. They aren't as important as the module and truss flights.
Remember they are mostly carrying spare parts (ORUs). If something important breaks these ORUs (and therefore the CLF flights) are even more important than a module or truss segment: If too many critical ORUs break you can't run ISS at all, without a truss segment you have a less capable ISS, but still working.
Analyst
-
#22
by
gordo
on 22 Jul, 2007 19:08
-
With the amount of manifest changes we have in the past 12 months, I would put a bets on its being very different again as we approach 125.
The only other reason that they wish to retire Atlantic as originally planned, is that their is a need for certain rotable spares to meet the 2010/11 cut off.
-
#23
by
Jorge
on 22 Jul, 2007 20:46
-
gordo - 22/7/2007 2:08 PM
With the amount of manifest changes we have in the past 12 months, I would put a bets on its being very different again as we approach 125.
It is important to note that the FAWG manifest is
not the "official" SSP manifest. The only official manifest is the one in the FDRD. The FDRD doesn't go out nearly as far as the FAWG (only the flights with the blue orbiter icon in the FAWG are baselined in the FDRD), and doesn't change nearly as often.
With the FAWG you are essentially getting a set of "snapshots" of the decision-making process within the shuttle program at particular times. It is eternally a work-in-progress. The current gyrations with Atlantis post-125 do not represent a "decision" followed by a "reversal of decision"; rather, it's an ongoing internal discussion. No "decision" is made, as far as SSP management is concerned, until it's baselined in the FDRD. The FAWG is still an important document because it gives "work-to" guidance to the program elements for flights beyond the FDRD, allowing issues to be tagged early. But no one within the program mistakes the FAWG for the FDRD. I wish the same were true for this site.
-
#24
by
Chris Bergin
on 22 Jul, 2007 21:15
-
Jorge - 22/7/2007 9:46 PM
But no one within the program mistakes the FAWG for the FDRD. I wish the same were true for this site.
We've not mistaken the FAWG for the FDRD. We lay all our info on the table (unlike EVERY other site) and give the opportunity for comment and clarification from those involved/have a good insight, before any news article, in order for accuracy. Also, if one reads the actual article, you'll note that I made a big point about the fluidity of FAWGs and the fact they are planning documents, rather than set in stone decisions.
The facts presented in the FAWGs have been accurately portrayed. As they will continue to be, given this is an ever-evolving schedule that is of interest to the readership.
-
#25
by
Jorge
on 22 Jul, 2007 21:39
-
Chris Bergin - 22/7/2007 4:15 PM
Jorge - 22/7/2007 9:46 PM
But no one within the program mistakes the FAWG for the FDRD. I wish the same were true for this site.
We've not mistaken the FAWG for the FDRD. We lay all our info on the table (unlike EVERY other site) and give the opportunity for comment and clarification from those involved/have a good insight, before any news article, in order for accuracy. Also, if one reads the actual article, you'll note that I made a big point about the fluidity of FAWGs and the fact they are planning documents, rather than set in stone decisions.
The facts presented in the FAWGs have been accurately portrayed. As they will continue to be, given this is an ever-evolving schedule that is of interest to the readership.
To clarify, I'm talking about the comments, not the news story.
-
#26
by
Chris Bergin
on 22 Jul, 2007 21:52
-
Ah, thanks for the clarification Jorge. So basically, the official SSP manifest, based on FDRD, only goes up to 125?
-
#27
by
Jorge
on 23 Jul, 2007 02:29
-
Chris Bergin - 22/7/2007 4:52 PM
Ah, thanks for the clarification Jorge. So basically, the official SSP manifest, based on FDRD, only goes up to 125?
Right. Everything to the right of that is under review - and even when the FAWG manifest doesn't show TBD for those flights like it does now, it's always subject to review.
The biggest difference is that changes to flights baselined in the FDRD require PRCB approval. Changed to flights to the right of that (in the FAWG but not the FDRD) don't require PRCB approval.
-
#28
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Jul, 2007 02:56
-
Appreciated Jorge. Good learning curve!
-
#29
by
Avron
on 23 Jul, 2007 04:22
-
Its all just politics .. who blinks first etc.. where the money ends up... (its not about jobs, never is and will not be in todays climate).
IMHO.. if you look at the logic you will be lost..
-
#30
by
Bret
on 24 Jul, 2007 16:20
-
I agree with STS Tony: the CTS flights are inevitably going to get the axe due to continued budgetary pressure. ORUs will have to be squeezed onto the Progress flights, or COTS if that gets off the ground.
-
#31
by
Analyst
on 24 Jul, 2007 17:53
-
Progress can't carry many ORUs, COTS is a long shot at best. ATV and more so HTV could help. HTV can carry external cargo.
Analyst
-
#32
by
cpcjr
on 24 Jul, 2007 18:54
-
Bubbinski - 21/7/2007 12:13 PM
I'll always remember Atlantis as the shuttle I actually got to see launch with my own eyes. Twice. And I got to see her land once.
Anyway, I prefer to think of this as going off into a well earned retirement being looked at and admired by millions of museum visitors in due course, not as an "execution". She'll be intact and still have her good looks.
Certainly a better end than
Challenger, and
Columbia got.
-
#33
by
Orbiter Obvious
on 24 Jul, 2007 19:59
-
Columbia's end was very honorable. I can't remember where I saw it, but NASA made a very nice reference to Columbia returning to KSC, her Arlington.
-
#34
by
Chris Bergin
on 24 Jul, 2007 20:03
-
Orbiter Obvious - 24/7/2007 8:59 PM
Columbia's end was very honorable. I can't remember where I saw it, but NASA made a very nice reference to Columbia returning to KSC, her Arlington.
Correct, those were Mike Leinbach comments here:
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-020104a.htmlEasily some of the best quotes I've ever read from a NASA manager.
-
#35
by
psloss
on 24 Jul, 2007 20:10
-
Orbiter Obvious - 24/7/2007 3:59 PM
Columbia's end was very honorable. I can't remember where I saw it, but NASA made a very nice reference to Columbia returning to KSC, her Arlington.
She may have died honorably and been put to rest honorably, but the way she was killed...I wouldn't call it that. I don't know that "honorable" is the first word that springs to mind from "retirement," but I'd much rather see these ships retire than another one get destroyed.
-
#36
by
Orbiter Obvious
on 25 Jul, 2007 18:22
-
Sorry, yes, that is what I meant.
-
#37
by
cpcjr
on 25 Jul, 2007 18:56
-
Orbiter Obvious - 24/7/2007 3:59 PM
Columbia's end was very honorable. I can't remember where I saw it, but NASA made a very nice reference to Columbia returning to KSC, her Arlington.
I did not mean to imply that
Columbia's end was not honorable, only that being retired intact is a better end than destruction.
Columbia and her last crew died with honor; both gave their all to the end; but I would have rather have seen her in a museum than scattered all over Texas.
-
#38
by
Flightstar
on 26 Jul, 2007 16:11
-
Chris Bergin - 24/7/2007 3:03 PM
Orbiter Obvious - 24/7/2007 8:59 PM
Columbia's end was very honorable. I can't remember where I saw it, but NASA made a very nice reference to Columbia returning to KSC, her Arlington.
Correct, those were Mike Leinbach comments here:
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-020104a.html
Easily some of the best quotes I've ever read from a NASA manager.
Mike is very respected. His quotes there show one of the reasons why.
-
#39
by
RafaelCE
on 25 Aug, 2007 00:49
-
Well, knowing what space flight really is and means for those who fly and us who dream of it, I'd rather die doing what I love and lived an entire life for than just retire and live out of the past. Spaceflight is definitively dangerous. But if everybody always thought that way, there would have never been spaceflight.
Now, the politics on decision making, hearing the disent, and stuff, that's completely a different issue.
Ok Chris, off topic, bump us off.
