Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

SpaceNut · 2005-09-26 08:50:19

This article was meantioned prviously but it needs to be renoted since this is money miss directed if shuttle never flys again but in the same reference I think this is a good means to extend any vehicles stay regardless to the type.
[url=http://www.flatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050925/NEWS02/509250344/1007/news02]Space station missions get a jolt;
New shuttle power supply could extend flights[/url]

Current justification:

NASA plans to cut the remaining number of shuttle missions to the station from 28 to between 15 and 20.
"We need to use the shuttle as efficiently as possible, and when you can stay docked 12 days rather than seven, you can get a lot more work done," said Alan Poindexter, a NASA astronaut involved in the development of the system.

The why it is needed:

Shuttle orbiters rely on three fuel cells to generate electricity to power spaceship systems. Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen are transformed into electricity within the devices. Water is created as a byproduct.
The shuttle's limit on time at the station, which is based on the amount of electricity the fuel cells can generate, is about six to eight days.

How much will such a system cost:

The new $70 million power transfer system will reroute electricity to docked shuttles from the station's massive American solar panels, which stretch 240 feet from tip to tip and generate enough electricity to power 30 average American homes.
The extra electricity -- as much as 8 kilowatts -- will enable visiting shuttle crews to stay at the station for nine to 12 days.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-27 20:14:33

NASA Ships Shuttle Fuel Tank to New Orleans for Modification

External tank #119, which is expected to be used in the next shuttle mission, departed NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida today. The huge, orange external tank is being transported by NASA's solid rocket booster retrieval ship Freedom Star

Was this the ET that was first fuel tested and then changed out due to faulty sensor?

SpaceNut · 2005-09-28 06:12:03

Full speed ahead:
Shuttle Endeavour returning to launch processing

About 75 workers gathered around the $1.8 billion spaceship

Is this all there is that work on the orbiter?

Pretty low cost when compared to how much is used to refurbish for relaunch each time.
I wonder if it would have been cheaper to keep the lines building new vehicles and to only refurb one ocasionally...

SpaceNut · 2005-09-29 06:26:24

Factiod pulled forward:

Since shuttles inception in 1971 up to the current day we have already put $150 billion into its use.

For a 34 year total and only if this flight occurs have we flown them for the total 121 missions.

If each shuttle was on average 2 billion to make and we have made 6, that comes to 12 billion approximately. That 150 billion minus the construction costs leaves 138 billion, of which I question how much of the developement costs were since I am not in the know and will need to research later. The next question is how much of the cargo is hidden in each flight as well as training of each mission. But even not knowing these things the average cost to fly is 1.1 billion once the next has flown.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-30 09:19:17

[url=http://www.flatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050930/NEWS02/509300335/1007]NASA devises foam fix
Facilities' storm damage likely to bump shuttle launch to May[/url]

NASA has a plan to fix its problem-plagued external fuel tanks, and the agency is studying the possibility of launching its next two shuttle missions in May and July.
NASA aims to replace an external tank foam ramp that shed a one-pound piece of insulation on the agency's first post-Columbia mission, prompting managers to put future flights on hold.

This what they plan to do:

NASA plans to remove the 37-foot ramp, replacing it with a new type of foam that will be applied with more exacting techniques designed to prevent shedding.
The area will be outfitted with instrumentation to better understand aerodynamic forces that could cause damage in flight.
Engineers think the change will work because the first 10 feet of the ramp was removed and replaced in that same fashion prior to Discovery's flight.
The work was done so that a safety modification could be made beneath the ramp, and no foam was shed from the reworked area.

So why was the whole not reworked in the first place?

SpaceNut · 2005-10-04 19:58:20

Say its not so, some goof, I mean some highly skilled worker screwed up royally... Fire this morron right now..
Official Offers Shuttle Foam Loss Theory

Workers may have accidentally cut or crushed the section of foam that broke off Discovery's fuel tank during its launch two months ago — a mishap that threatened the safety of the astronauts and grounded the shuttle fleet.
What probably happened is that during modifications to the tank at Michoud, technicians inadvertently damaged the section that ended up coming off, while working on nearby areas, Hale said. "This foam, which normally is not touched after it's applied, clearly was touched," he said.
Workers using plastic knives to remove nearby foam may have made small cuts in the section that tore away, allowing air to condense in the crevices against the tank, full of super-cold fuel, Hale said. Another possibility, he said, is that workers leaned against the piece of foam that broke off, and fractured it. Yet another theory is that the foam cracked because of normal thermal stresses.

I do recall hearing such a story but it was on moving it that it had happened ...

SpaceNut · 2005-10-05 08:30:24

This has happened before :evil:
Shuttle tank foam damaged before launch

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla., March 11 (UPI) -- Foam insulation on shuttle Columbia's external fuel tank had been damaged and repaired prior to launch, the team tasked to find the cause of the spaceship's demise said Tuesday.
The problem report generated by Kennedy Space Center workers is among the thousands of documents and other records being scrutinized in an attempt to understand why the orbiter did not survive its re-entry into Earth's atmosphere on Feb. 1 after a 16-day research mission. Seven astronauts died in NASA's worst accident since the 1986 Challenger explosion.
The damaged insulation is of particular interest since the problem was reported in an area that shed debris during launch.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-06 09:00:22

Figured I would share this link Spacelab reusable laboratory

Enjoy...

SpaceNut · 2005-10-14 11:20:20

Problems are a brew for the may 2006 launch of a shuttle even if the tank that will get delivered is not used on atlantis first...

NasaWatch:

PRCB Tackles STS-121 Launch Date
Editor's note: NASA held a PRCB today - the main topic was preparations for STS-121. In order to support a May 2006 launch date for STS-121, KSC needs the External Tank by 17 January 2006. The External Tank folks say that they can deliver it by 7 February 2006. However, that delivery date comes with some complex assumptions. The chance of making that date was estimated to range from 50% by MSFC to "somewhat less than 100%" by the External Tank folks. Wayne Hale is reported to have commented that he agreed to the estimate of less than 100%. At end of meeting, according to a knowledgeable source, Wayne Hale said "We have not set a launch date. I don't care what's in the newspapers this evening. So that we all understand, we have had an assessment. We'll come back on the 27th and MAYBE we'll set a launch date."

SpaceNut · 2005-10-14 19:54:13

It appears that Nasa has a plan of attack that will possibly lead to the may 2006 launch of shuttle Atlantis.
NASA hopeful tests can pave way to May shuttle launch

NASA managers are hopeful an exhaustive series of upcoming tests will help engineers pin down what caused foam insulation to fall off the shuttle Discovery's external tank during launch last July and, if all goes well, clear the way for another launch next May
We are at the point where we believe we have an understanding of the parameters of those problems well enough in hand so we can get internal working schedules to the rest of our elements,"

Other changes coming besides the ET foam being fixed.
Shuttle heat shield to get stronger tiles

NASA hopes to launch its next shuttle mission in May 2006 and the orbiter will have a new type of tile on its underside.
The new heat shield tiles are tougher than the existing tiles. It was damage to another part of the heat shield,
However, the stronger tiles are not as resistant to heat. So they will probably be installed in areas where damage could be especially dangerous – such as around the main landing gear doors - but which at the same time are do not experience the most intense heating during re-entry through the Earth’s atmosphere.

Ad Astra · 2005-10-15 15:02:38

My sources in the shuttle program say that May will be a stretch, so don't cross your fingers. At least the foam problem didn't turn out to be as hard to solve as previously thought.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-17 11:55:30

Someone from within Nasa appears to be questioning the flight rate of the remaining shuttles from now through to its retirement in 2010.
NasaWatch

Griffin Looks at Further Reduction in Shuttle Flight Rate
NASA Internal Memo from Michael Griffin to William Gerstenmaier: In-Guide Option for FY 2007 Budget
"1. Assume serial processing of all Shuttle operations as soon as possible in FY06. Provide an estimate for the number of Shuttle flights that can realistically be flown between now and the end of FY2010, assuming serial processing. Specify all operational assumptions necessary to execute the serial processing plan, including required workforce reductions and cost impacts of such."
Editor's note: Among the options currently under consideration in response to this memo is reducing shuttle processing to a single shift (with large layoffs) to support a flight rate of 2 shuttle missions per year. This would, of course, dramatically reduce the number of flights available to build the ISS (7 ISS, 1 Hubble) which would almost certainly result in the inability to place international partner elements on-orbit. Stay tuned.

That would mean 8 flights, not 15 plus that we were looking at to complete the ISS with the shuttle.

Commodore · 2005-10-17 12:59:29

Would the money saved by cutting a shuttle and staff be enough to field an alternetive launch method for some of the other modules?

J.J. Moesker · 2005-10-17 16:11:51

The modules have been designed for shuttle specific launch loads. To give an example; the fundamental frequency of the launcher imposes a stiffness requirement on the payload. The space shuttle has a low fundamental frequency compared to other launchers in the HLLV segment, just 13 Hz axial and lateral. Proton for excites at 30 Hz axial and 15 Hz. It would be doubtful that the modules could be modified to comply with those requirements new stiffness requirements.

What I have read so far is that the Japanese centrifuge module and the Russian solar power module have been canceled due to rescheduling. Our European projects Columbus (COF) and ERA where scheduled for December ‘06 and November ’07 launch. But given the fact that ST-120 will require at least 4 prior launches I don’t expect COF to go orbital prior to late 2007 or early 2008.

Reading trough the memo it seems that NASA is going breaking IP commitments. One can only guess at the long term consequences of such a policy. This is going to be interesting…..

John Creighton · 2005-10-17 16:39:50

If they can cut the staff for operating the shuttle by a third then couldn’t they devote the resources saved to speeding up the development of the CEV. Clearly this means a less frequently shuttle flight right. However, it should mean better continuity between the end of the shuttle and the first flight of the CEV to the ISS. The money saved could be used to provide alternative methods for launching the remaining modules post 2010 or forget about the remaining modules and dumping the rest of the money back into the VSE. It sounds like a good study to me. I look forward to hearing about the alternatives and recommendations.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-17 20:00:33

Hey, less Shuttle, more something else

With more money available, NASA could think more about building a Moon base, which is important because as it stands now things are dangerously sketchy beyond the first Lunar landings in ~2018.

Or, NASA could start putting up some money for Mars hardware, like designing a HAB, which would also serve as a Moon base module too. The basic NASA DRM-III HAB could just about ride on the big VSE heavy lander if the heat shield/parachutes were deleted.

Or put some money into Project Prometheous and get cracking on a small space reactor again for a Mars mission or Lunar power.

Overall though, NASA would have to be extremely efficient with the way it spends it ~$16Bn budget if it were to really meaningfully execute VSE, particularly with the vampiric ISS still around, while the Shuttle Army is still around. I think that chances aren't too good of this happening, and so Griffin is finally starting to talk some sense.

Commodore · 2005-10-17 20:27:38

The modules have been designed for shuttle specific launch loads. To give an example; the fundamental frequency of the launcher imposes a stiffness requirement on the payload. The space shuttle has a low fundamental frequency compared to other launchers in the HLLV segment, just 13 Hz axial and lateral. Proton for excites at 30 Hz axial and 15 Hz. It would be doubtful that the modules could be modified to comply with those requirements new stiffness requirements.

If it were to be done, we'd have to do it by closely reproducing the shuttles cargo bay. In other words, throw together a shuttle-c/z. Not the heaviest lifter in terms of the VSE, but far from useless either.

Reading trough the memo it seems that NASA is going breaking IP commitments. One can only guess at the long term consequences of such a policy. This is going to be interesting…..

Interesting indeed. Even if one wants to argue that the ISS is useless from the US prospective and was just a braindead project to keep the shuttle going, something I'd question anyway, even more so after the immune system tread the other day, the other partner state put hard money into it at our request, so you know they are trying to get the best out of it. A waste by any standard.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-17 20:53:02

The trouble that I forsee with nasa downsizing its shuttle army to just one shift would be that the work load would somehow magical increase and lots of overtime would be needed to make up for all the goofballs and there mistakes.
We have already had lots of idle time and nothing was save in the course of the last 2 years. So why would this change as a result of 1 less flight per year....

Commodore · 2005-10-17 20:55:34

New NASA Plans Could Dramatically Limit Shuttle Flights And Halt Space Station Assembly

The serial processing would likely gut the manned program. Congress would fund just enough to keep the contractors happy, and to hell with everything else, you'll probably never finish it anyway.

The "combination" runs the serious risk of going over time and budget, with the ISS falling to pieces before it could be finished, and further delaying the VSE. To avoid that, we'll have to find some extra cash. Bake Sale anyone? Seriously, we could probably eat crow from the partners, admit our sole launch method has gone geriatric on us, and its going to be a lot more expensive and risky, and ask for help financially and with hardware in return for completing it fully and keep it well stocked and manned for the duration. At this point the partners will probably agree, mostly cause they with go giddy at the very thought of us groveling, or Congress will grow a pair allow us to grovel to no one.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-17 21:01:17

No, Shuttle-C/Z are out of the question. It would be easier to take the big mega rocket and build a Shuttle bay-like cradle on top of it then it would be to develop basically a new rocket with a different launch pad arrangement. The big booster without the upper stage needed for Lunar missions should lift about 80MT. It really is pretty useless, there is no good reason to build it.

Hey, except for our "partner" Russia using the ISS as their own space hotel, our "partners" wouldn't be getting that much out of the ISS anyway. The sum total of all space research that could be carried out there just isn't all that much. Maybe NASA will say something like... "its worthless to us, and its almost as worthless to you, and we really really need the money."

Simply put, the current Shuttle Army is arranged to fly Shuttle about five or six times a year. Even during the height of the VSE lunar program, we aren't probobly going to need so many people, particularly the vast legions tied up with the orbiter. The Shuttle Army is bigger then it needs to be for the Moon, and it will cost NASA dearly for almost no return on the investment except political kudos.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-17 21:13:58

Part of the problem with the shuttle army is how spread out it actually is. Here is just a small piece of it tied up in engine testing.
Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne Runs First Rocket Engine Test Since Katrina

a tremendous morale boost to our employees, many of whom lost their homes to the hurricane."
Stressing that a complete resumption of "business as usual" is many months away, Geiger said test schedules and other areas of the workload are picking up. "A hot-fire test of a Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) is planned for this week," Geiger said, "and engine assembly and processing have also resumed."
"But again, what's really important," Geiger reiterated, "is what the sight of 'smoke and fire' has done for our people. For all of us, we feel like a corner has been turned." More than 250 Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne employees work at SSC.

So how many other facilities have personel that work on the shuttle and what are there numbers. A centerlized workforce streamlines cost.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-17 21:27:46

New NASA Plans Could Dramatically Limit Shuttle Flights And Halt Space Station Assembly
The serial processing would likely gut the manned program. Congress would fund just enough to keep the contractors happy, and to hell with everything else, you'll probably never finish it anyway.
The "combination" runs the serious risk of going over time and budget, with the ISS falling to pieces before it could be finished, and further delaying the VSE. To avoid that, we'll have to find some extra cash. Bake Sale anyone? Seriously, we could probably eat crow from the partners, admit our sole launch method has gone geriatric on us, and its going to be a lot more expensive and risky, and ask for help financially and with hardware in return for completing it fully and keep it well stocked and manned for the duration. At this point the partners will probably agree, mostly cause they with go giddy at the very thought of us groveling, or Congress will grow a pair allow us to grovel to no one.

Hmmmm... Is SpaceRef reading Griffin's memo right? Is there really not enough money to even fund Shuttle & ISS at a rate high enough for the 18 flight manifest and get TheStick/CEV started? Thats... shocking actually, I guess Shuttle has become even more expensive with the pins/needles handling required.

To be quite blunt, none of the other countries have much to offer NASA financially without completly gutting their entire agencies. That is not happening. The combined sum of the ESA/RSA/JAXA disposable income wouldn't pay for even one flight a year I bet.

I take issue with this statement in the link:

"At some point NASA has to grow up and decide to finish things they promised the taxpayer, politicians, and foreign partners that they'd do - and not walk away... when the going gets tough."

Now see, this is an example of someone who has no clue. The US right now intends to spend a very large sum of money on finishing the ISS, and for this expenditure of taxpayer money the US will recieve basically nothing in return, other then avoiding a political browbeating. There is a difference between "going gets tough" and "doing stupid things without a good reason." At least with the "going gets tough" is done with, you get something to show for it, but this is just not the case with Shuttle/ISS. Simply put, to be quite realpolitik about it, our international partners and Shuttle/ISS supporting Congressmen have no business demanding the US do something so obviously not in its interest.

As far as NASA not executing VSE, the answer is very simple... once the ISS is gone, without another justification to exsist, NASA would cease to exsist. There is a saying of sorts, that I don't perfectly recall, that the threat of death brings remarkable clarity.

Edit: SpaceNut is right to a point, that it might save money to eliminate small-time field offices, themselves exsisting only due to politics, and move VSE operations to the Cape' as much as practical.

J.J. Moesker · 2005-10-19 12:31:29

The rumors surrounding the shuttle/ISS grow more radical everyday. It is reported that Mike Griffin made a visit to Japan this week to discuss a rumored ISS “buy-off” deal that includes ‘participation’ of the Japanese in the exploration effort. Furthermore it seems that Griffin might get 'a license to kill' concerning the shuttle program.

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/ … .html#more
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1073

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-19 12:48:12

The rumors surrounding the shuttle/ISS grow more radical everyday. It is reported that Mike Griffin made a visit to Japan this week to discuss a rumored ISS “buy-off” deal that includes ‘participation’ of the Japanese in the exploration effort. Furthermore it seems that Griffin might get 'a license to kill' concerning the shuttle program.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/ … .html#more
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1073

It may finally be happening! The ISS and Shuttle might just go away! Or at the least achieve the ~33-50% Shuttle Army reduction to make VSE less likly to fail.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-21 10:32:19

Tile Test System Could Make Space Shuttle Safer

Underside of Discovery as viewed from the iSS

At first glance at the title I thought that it was going to be the data for the tile patch test kit that was recently flown on Discovery but much to my surprise it was more of a companies attempts to test while on the ground the tile system. The article goes into details of the non distructive testing methods and types used to detect flaws in the tiles of the shuttle.

This caught my eye thou:

The project is aimed at developing a real-time, on-line monitoring system for the tiles on a military version of the space shuttle.

Say what? ????

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-09-26 08:50:19

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#102 2005-09-27 20:14:33

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#103 2005-09-28 06:12:03

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#104 2005-09-29 06:26:24

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#105 2005-09-30 09:19:17

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#106 2005-10-04 19:58:20

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#107 2005-10-05 08:30:24

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#108 2005-10-06 09:00:22

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#109 2005-10-14 11:20:20

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#110 2005-10-14 19:54:13

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#111 2005-10-15 15:02:38

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#112 2005-10-17 11:55:30

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#113 2005-10-17 12:59:29

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#114 2005-10-17 16:11:51

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#115 2005-10-17 16:39:50

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#116 2005-10-17 20:00:33

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#117 2005-10-17 20:27:38

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#118 2005-10-17 20:53:02

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#119 2005-10-17 20:55:34

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#120 2005-10-17 21:01:17

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#121 2005-10-17 21:13:58

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#122 2005-10-17 21:27:46

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#123 2005-10-19 12:31:29

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#124 2005-10-19 12:48:12

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#125 2005-10-21 10:32:19

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

Board footer