-
#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.
