Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

SpaceNut · 2007-03-02 19:18:44

When it is all said and done, with shuttle retiring in 2010, there will be 12 billion dollars plus of assets doing nothing for space exploration. Just think in 2020 the ISS will be a pile of metal orbiting earth with a value in excess of 100 billion...

Grypd · 2007-03-04 07:34:42

After all the trouble they've had to protect the Space Shuttle from re-entry at 17,000 mph, you wouldn't think such a routine event as a hail-storm would do enough damage as to cause a return to the shed! Will the latest mod to the programme turn out now to be a tent-shelter over the whole sheebang?

But it is not the shuttle itself damaged but that of the very flimsy external tank and as it contains super cold hydrogen and oxygen it makes sense to ensure since it is dented that there is no eddy points inside these tanks.

cIclops · 2007-03-04 11:05:10

When it is all said and done, with shuttle retiring in 2010, there will be 12 billion dollars plus of assets doing nothing for space exploration. Just think in 2020 the ISS will be a pile of metal orbiting earth with a value in excess of 100 billion...

It's difficult to put a value on something like the STS infrastructure or the ISS. As an example of the constraints Griffin has to deal with, he recently had to request authority from Congress just to be able to lease some of the Shuttle assets.

Also note that the recent March Storm have petitioned Congress to "Prevent NASA from diverting funds from science, aeronautics and education programs to CEV" - this is very unhelpful, especially when Congress cut over $500m from NASA's current funding and all the money has to come from Exploration. NASA needs full funding and authority to decide how to allocate that money!

GCNRevenger · 2007-03-04 12:50:12

After all the trouble they've had to protect the Space Shuttle from re-entry at 17,000 mph, you wouldn't think such a routine event as a hail-storm would do enough damage as to cause a return to the shed! Will the latest mod to the programme turn out now to be a tent-shelter over the whole sheebang?
But it is not the shuttle itself damaged but that of the very flimsy external tank and as it contains super cold hydrogen and oxygen it makes sense to ensure since it is dented that there is no eddy points inside these tanks.

The thing that doesn't make sense is putting full-vehicle 360deg protection for the whole stack the better part of a mile away from the launch pad.

GCNRevenger · 2007-03-04 12:55:32

When it is all said and done, with shuttle retiring in 2010, there will be 12 billion dollars plus of assets doing nothing for space exploration. Just think in 2020 the ISS will be a pile of metal orbiting earth with a value in excess of 100 billion...
It's difficult to put a value on something like the STS infrastructure or the ISS. As an example of the constraints Griffin has to deal with, he recently had to request authority from Congress just to be able to lease some of the Shuttle assets.
Also note that the recent March Storm have petitioned Congress to "Prevent NASA from diverting funds from science, aeronautics and education programs to CEV" - this is very unhelpful, especially when Congress cut over $500m from NASA's current funding and all the money has to come from Exploration. NASA needs full funding and authority to decide how to allocate that money!

Amen

NASA is being asked to do three or four main things (VSE, Shuttle/ISS, probes/telescopes, misc) but has money for only two and a half.

dicktice · 2007-03-04 20:21:30

RCNR wrote: "The thing that doesn't make sense is putting full-vehicle 360deg protection for the whole stack the better part of a mile away from the launch pad."

Natch: It was meant in jest. Of course the proper solution would be to assemble the stack and then move the building away after it stopped hailing. :idea:

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-05 10:04:38

When it is all said and done, with shuttle retiring in 2010, there will be 12 billion dollars plus of assets doing nothing for space exploration. Just think in 2020 the ISS will be a pile of metal orbiting earth with a value in excess of 100 billion...
It's difficult to put a value on something like the STS infrastructure or the ISS. As an example of the constraints Griffin has to deal with, he recently had to request authority from Congress just to be able to lease some of the Shuttle assets.
Also note that the recent March Storm have petitioned Congress to "Prevent NASA from diverting funds from science, aeronautics and education programs to CEV" - this is very unhelpful, especially when Congress cut over $500m from NASA's current funding and all the money has to come from Exploration. NASA needs full funding and authority to decide how to allocate that money!

I told you so, I told you so! The Democratic Congress is not interested in space exploration, they are not interested in the United States succeeding and making any firsts in anything.

cIclops · 2007-03-05 10:57:43

I told you so, I told you so! The Democratic Congress is not interested in space exploration, they are not interested in the United States succeeding and making any firsts in anything.

Please explain how a joint resolution between Reps and Dems to freeze a wide range of government 2007 budget requests proves that the Dems are not interested in space exploration.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-05 13:39:21

Because they haven't agreed on a budget. The reason for the freeze is that no one can agree on next year's budget, so the fallback position is the previous years budget, and what are the Democrats doing now? A non-binding resolution condeming the War in Iraq which took 3 weeks to hammer out, sole for the purpose of embarrasing the President, three weeks that could have been more productively spend appropriating the additional funds NASA needs for next year. There were no Budget freezes until the Democrats came to power. I think if the Republicans got reelected to the majority in Congress, NASA wouldn't be having this problem. As it is, I'd gladly sacrifice the Space Station to keep the CEV program fully funded. The ISS is a white elephant, and the Shuttle is scheduled for decommisioning in 2010. If it really is necessary to keep the Shuttle going for 3 more years, NASA could always sell launch services or Shuttle tickets more controversially, it doesn't matter what NASA launches so long as it keeps the Shuttle Personel in jobs and around til when we are ready to launch the Ares. if somebody else pays for the payload, NASA can keep going with the Shuttle program until it expires in 2010. The savings from not fisnishing the Space Station can go toward keeping the Constellation vehicle program on track. If you want someone to complain too, complain to Congress for freezing the Budget and forcing this choice on us, but given my preference the Future is more important that the present of NASA as that present is unacceptable. If everybody was happy with the Shuttle program, we could have just kept on launching the thing and adding on to the Space Station ad infinitum, but since we decided to change course, lets get on with changing the course. The ISS is just a ready source of funds where money is being wasted on a space station to house astronauts doing trivial activities in low Earth orbit, it is nice to have this "fat" to cut so we don't have to cut into the "Muscle" that will actually take us to the Moon and Mars. I don't see much of anything of value that is being don on the Space Station, the Shuttle however is an employment program for those people we want to keep with NASA for when we want to employ them in launching the Aries Rockets. So we can have the Shuttle do 'whatever' while we're getting the next generation launch vehicles ready to launch as soon as we can.

cIclops · 2007-03-05 15:53:18

A non-binding resolution condeming the War in Iraq which took 3 weeks to hammer out, sole for the purpose of embarrasing the President, three weeks that could have been more productively spend appropriating the additional funds NASA needs for next year.

That only proves the Democrats are more interested in embarrassing the President than space exploration. It's important to understand that the Democrats are interested in space maybe even more so than the the Republicans, partly because of the number of government jobs directly involved.

ISS is an incredible space vehicle, and when it's finished in 2010 it will be a unique laboratory for micro gravity research, space medicine and engineering. The money developing and producing the modules and equipment has already been spent, so stopping construction now would not save that much. Shutting Shuttle down would save several billions, but then the US would have no access to space (HST would not be serviced) until Orion and Ares are ready which won't be before 2010 at the earliest even with a blank check.

NASA only exists because of the confluence of Democrats and Republican interests driven by political, scientific, technological and military factors. All these factors are needed to keep NASA strongly funded, so it means that all those interests have to be satisfied. It's poor Griffin's job to balance those interests and yet keep the space program moving forward.

dicktice · 2007-03-05 16:02:30

Now you've done it, CIclops: he's off again, and anything that you write to counter his rantings about all things political "sole for the purpose of embarrassing the President" for God's sake, will get neither you nor this thread back on track. I hope he takes the hint, because outside of politics he seems quite rational, and even imaginative....

cIclops · 2007-03-05 16:28:52

How about this dicktice

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-06 01:11:59

Now you've done it, CIclops: he's off again, and anything that you write to counter his rantings about all things political "sole for the purpose of embarrassing the President" for God's sake, will get neither you nor this thread back on track. I hope he takes the hint, because outside of politics he seems quite rational, and even imaginative....

Actually I agree that the Democrats are more interested in embarrasing the President. Some Democrats are interested in Space, John F. Kennedy was and so was Lyndon Baynes Johnson, without those two Presidents we might not have gotten to the Moon when we did. Whenever the Democrats have been out of power for some time they go on "attack mode" and try to create problems for the President and by so doing for the country as well. For some politicians, politics is just a game with winners and losers, they expend their efforts trying to create problems for their opponents so they can score points and win. The Democrats seem more moderate when they are in power than when they are not. I dare say, some of the democratic constituents have little love for the USA, and some pols will try to satisfy those interests to get elected.

It would be much simpler if the Democrats would simply provide enough funding for both programs rather than force us to cut spending on one to provide funding for another. If the Democrats want both programs, they should fund both programs, and stop with the expensive penny pinching that will only drive up costs in the long run, they did this with the Space Shuttle by the way The original design for the space shuttle by the way called for a winged lower stage and a winged orbiter, both were to land on a runway, but the Democratic cheap penny-pinching Congress cut funds for development, and the result was compromise and the Shuttle which we have today, and here we go again, cutting funds for a future program to help maintain a present program. I would be happy to have both if Congress would provide funding for both, but if they force us to make a choice, my choice would be the Constellation Program as I think that is more of a space exploration program than the ISS. What I don't want to see is the Orion Program pushed back and back to maintain a bloated Space Station. I think our return to the Moon has been delayed long enough.

cIclops · 2007-03-06 01:46:05

I would be happy to have both if Congress would provide funding for both, but if they force us to make a choice, my choice would be the Constellation Program as I think that is more of a space exploration program than the ISS. What I don't want to see is the Orion Program pushed back and back to maintain a bloated Space Station. I think our return to the Moon has been delayed long enough.

Griffin's plan will move NASA from the Shuttle world to the Ares one in about five years. Checkout the current five year plan The Shuttle program is huge, 20,000 people are involved in it, it's not easy to transform. By the end of 2010 (FY2011) funding for Shuttle will be almost zero and all that money will be available for Exploration Systems giving them more than $9 billion a year. The problem is moving from here to there and the Continuing Resolution hasn't helped, but NASA has full support from the Senate space committee. Yes part of the plan involves finishing the ISS, sure it's expensive, but it's also extremely useful and key to getting the full support needed to fund everything else.

The US space world in three years from now ought to look like this:

1. All Shuttles retired
2. ISS fully operational with a crew of 6 and four laboratory modules
3. Orion/Ares in final stages of development
4. Exploration funding almost three times its current level
5. Ares V and LSAM in development
6. Commercial cargo services to ISS via COTS
7. Science funding beginning to increase again
8. Lunar architecture established and the Mars architecture baselined

dicktice · 2007-03-06 17:55:55

Tom, you made my day! I've been in favour of the fly-back booster approach ever since reading Arthur C. Clarke's "Prelude to Space" way back in the 1950's. And do still, I do, I do ... but it was a nuclear-powered spaceplane, back when we knew nothing of atmospheric pollution, pre "On the Beach" in fact, or the H-bomb atmospheric tests. It won't happen now, until something more benign is thought up to power the fly-back booster. Here's your chance, youngster, to cast off your interminal and (face it) boring political inhibitions, and come up with some joint-party supported programs--if only to challenge the Chinese in the already begun race to establish a foothold on the Moon.

cIclops · 2007-03-10 07:09:20

Video of repair work on the ET inside the VAB (7MB wmv)

EuroLauncher · 2007-04-03 12:09:14

Colorado Native Flying on Next Shuttle Set for Interviews
http://newsblaze.com/story/200704031029 … ories.html

cIclops · 2007-04-06 10:29:55

Shuttle propulsion system inspections ordered

STORY WRITTEN FOR CBS NEWS "SPACE PLACE" & USED WITH PERMISSION
Posted: April 5, 2007
With external tank repairs in high gear, NASA managers today ordered removal of the shuttle Atlantis's three main engines for inspections to make sure no contamination is present in the ship's hydrogen fuel lines. While engineers are hopeful the work can be completed under the umbrella of external tank repairs, getting Atlantis off before its May launch window closes remains a major challenge.

SpaceNut · 2007-04-06 18:51:29

With all the work on just this one mission and added cost for its use, you have to wonder how much it will change the flight plans that were to be for the remainder of the year let alone out to 2010.
I think even Nasa is looking at other options to keep missions on track.

SpaceNut · 2007-04-06 20:14:49

ATK managers satisfied NASA management that an extension to the lifetime of the of the two Solid Rocket Motors that will help launch Atlantis is viable, thus taking away the deadline of a July launch before the need to destack the SRBs. certified lifetime on July 3 extending the lifespan from five years, to five and half years.

The decision relaxes the tight timeline on four sets of motors in total, namely RSRM-96, 97, 98 and 99, which are to be used on STS-117, 118, 120 and 122 respectively.

New external tank arrives in Florida scheduled to fly with the orbiter Endeavour on an International Space Station assembly mission later this year.

A switch to the new tank would delay launch until around June 16 or June 17
The other option would be to continue repairs to the damaged tank, a course of action that would enable NASA to try to launch Atlantis prior to a May 21 deadline.

SpaceNut · 2007-04-07 20:15:12

I was surprised with the extent of damage to the orbiters heat shield

Tank work continues

A total of 2,656 areas of damage were identified on the tank outside the nose area.
Damage to 32 of the shuttle's heat-resistant tiles also has been repaired.
Six of the reinforced carbon-carbon panels that protect the leading edge of Atlantis' left wing have undergone inspections. No problems have been found.

cIclops · 2007-04-10 17:25:19

At an audio press conference today, NASA announced that launch has been delayed to 8 June to allow time to complete and test repairs.

June Launch for Space Shuttle Atlantis

WASHINGTON - NASA is targeting June 8 as the next possible launch opportunity for space shuttle Atlantis’ STS-117 mission to the International Space Station.
Tuesday’s decision by agency management followed a meeting that reviewed the progress in repairing insulating foam on the shuttle’s external fuel tank, which was damaged during a sudden hail storm Feb. 26 at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, Fla. That damage required engineers to repair approximately 2,660 sites on the tank.
The meeting also included an assessment of using the repaired external tank for the STS-117 mission versus swapping to one that arrived last week from the manufacturing plant in New Orleans. Managers decided to finish repairs to Atlantis’ current tank and use it for STS-117. The tank that arrived Friday will be prepared for space shuttle Endeavour’s STS-118 mission to the space station and now is targeted for launch in August.
“The workforce has done an amazing job of assessing and repairing the tank so far, but the sheer volume of repairs dictates moving the launch target to June,” said Space Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale.
June 8 is the opening of the next available launch window for Atlantis to go to the station. STS-117 Commander Rick Sturckow, Pilot Lee Archambault and mission specialists Jim Reilly, Patrick Forrester, Steven Swanson and John "Danny" Olivas will continue training at NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston.

SpaceNut · 2007-04-11 10:32:53

Yes and that's with testing the repairs to the same tank. If they should happen to need the next tank that they do have, it will add another month to the launch delay and possibly cutting down the number of flights during 2007.

cIclops · 2007-04-21 21:52:24

NASA Latest News: 04.20.07 - 3:15 p.m. EDT
In high bay 1 of the Vehicle Assembly Building, technicians and engineers continue repairing foam on the external fuel tank. The poured foam repairs are nearly complete and spray foam repairs are scheduled to begin next week.
Due to the amount of tank repair work remaining, the rollout of Atlantis to the launch pad is now scheduled for May 12. This six-day change is not expected to affect the June 8 target launch date.
Preparations for the removal of Atlantis' three main engines to inspect for flow liner contamination are complete. Engine removal is scheduled to begin next week. This work can be accomplished within the time frame of the tank repair.
During a meeting at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, agency officials revised the target launch dates for space shuttle flights during the next 12 months. The space shuttle and International Space Station programs agreed to the changes during a meeting to evaluate options following the STS-117 mission's delay.

cIclops · 2007-05-11 15:34:13

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2007-03-02 19:18:44

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#27 2007-03-04 07:34:42

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#28 2007-03-04 11:05:10

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#29 2007-03-04 12:50:12

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#30 2007-03-04 12:55:32

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#31 2007-03-04 20:21:30

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#32 2007-03-05 10:04:38

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#33 2007-03-05 10:57:43

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#34 2007-03-05 13:39:21

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#35 2007-03-05 15:53:18

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#36 2007-03-05 16:02:30

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#37 2007-03-05 16:28:52

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#38 2007-03-06 01:11:59

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#39 2007-03-06 01:46:05

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#40 2007-03-06 17:55:55

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#41 2007-03-10 07:09:20

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#42 2007-04-03 12:09:14

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#43 2007-04-06 10:29:55

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#44 2007-04-06 18:51:29

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#45 2007-04-06 20:14:49

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#46 2007-04-07 20:15:12

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#47 2007-04-10 17:25:19

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#48 2007-04-11 10:32:53

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#49 2007-04-21 21:52:24

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

#50 2007-05-11 15:34:13

Re: Shuttle STS-117 - Atlantis

Board footer