ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1920 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2694 times:
STS-128 is on the ground at Edwards... Time to start the STS-129 thread... I hate to say it but these ISS missions are starting to get tedious... same orbit, similiar EVAs, etc... But it's what we've got for manned spaceflight until Ares/Orion (or whatever) gets going....
Courtesy: NASA
Launch Target:
Nov. 12, 2009
Orbiter:
Atlantis
Mission Number:
STS-129
(129th space shuttle flight)
Launch Window:
10 minutes
Launch Pad:
39A
Mission Duration:
11 days
Landing Site:
KSC
Inclination/Altitude:
51.6 degrees/122 nautical miles
Commander Charlie Hobaugh will lead the STS-129 mission to the International Space Station aboard space shuttle Atlantis. Barry Wilmore will serve as the pilot. Mission Specialists are Robert Satcher, Michael Foreman, Randy Bresnik and Leland Melvin. Wilmore, Satcher and Bresnik will be making their first trips to space.
The mission will return station crew member Nicole Stott to Earth. STS-129 is slated to be the final space shuttle crew rotation flight to or from the space station.
Atlantis will deliver parts to the space station, including a spare gyroscope. The mission will feature three spacewalks.
STS-129 is the 31st shuttle mission to the station.
It looks like they have seven launches scheduled still including the next one, STS-129 Atlantis on or around November 12th, 2009. STS-133's crew has already been penciled in either the last or second to last Shuttle trip. I still have time to get to a launch.
David
Flying is the second greatest thrill known to mankind, landing is the first!
MadameConcorde From Monaco, joined Feb 2007, 4586 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1857 times:
Are NASA going to scrap all Shuttle launches after Sept. 2010?
When will the last Shuttle crew go up and back? I hope they will send more ladies up there.
I would not want to miss out on going to see a launch before they terminate the flights.
So you all seem to think there will be no more flights in 2011?
There was a better way to fly. It was called Concorde.
Rwessel From United States, joined Jan 2007, 936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 month 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1805 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7): Are NASA going to scrap all Shuttle launches after Sept. 2010?
When will the last Shuttle crew go up and back? I hope they will send more ladies up there.
I would not want to miss out on going to see a launch before they terminate the flights.
So you all seem to think there will be no more flights in 2011?
That's the schedule. Most people think that while there will be no Shuttle flights after STS-133 (which will fly after STS-134), NASA won't be able to keep the current schedule, and the last flight of the program will slip into early 2011. But there likely won't be any more than the six currently scheduled flights.
There are women astronauts scheduled to fly on STS-129 (Nicole Stott - return leg only - she's onboard ISS now), STS-130 (Kathryn Hire), STS-131 (Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger, Stephanie Wilson, Naoko Yamazaki*), and STS-133 (Nicole Stott).
Karen Nyberg *was* scheduled to fly STS-132 until a couple of months ago, but she apparently had a medical issue and was replaced.
No further ISS crew exchanges are planned via the shuttle at this point (after Stott’s return on STS-129), so unless things change (always possible), I think that's it for women flying on the shuttle.
Launch now slipped to 16 Nov to accomodate an Atlas V (Intelsat 14) launch. One attempt on the 16th, possibly a second on the 17th. After that they'll have to stand down for Delta IV WGS launch on the 18th.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
Tiger119 From United States, joined Sep 2003, 1754 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 month 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1560 times:
Does the Aries program's schedule conflict with the Shuttle Program's remaining launches? Do the aries flights add to the number of "STS" flight numbering?
David
Flying is the second greatest thrill known to mankind, landing is the first!
Rwessel From United States, joined Jan 2007, 936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 month 17 hours ago) and read 1534 times:
Quoting Tiger119 (Reply 12): Does the Aries program's schedule conflict with the Shuttle Program's remaining launches? Do the aries flights add to the number of "STS" flight numbering?
In the sense that it uses some of the same facilities. I don't know how far along the mods to pad 39B are at this point (it was officially deactivated for Shuttle use a couple of years ago), and if they could still use 39B for the Shuttle in an emergency, but all the remaining Shuttle flights are scheduled to use 39A. After that, both pads will be modified to dedicated Ares-I (39B) and Ares-5 (39A) roles. There have also been mods to the VAB to support Ares-I assembly (and bigger changes are planned to support Ares-V after the Shuttle program ends).
I expect that if there's a conflict between a Shuttle mission at this point and an Ares test, the Ares test will get much lower priority.
Mind you that next week’s test is the *only* Ares flight scheduled before 2013, so the opportunity for conflicts should be minimal.
The STS numbers do not include any of the Ares flights, so the six remaining Shuttle flights will remain STS-129 through STS-134.
Tiger119 From United States, joined Sep 2003, 1754 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 weeks 6 days 1 hour 56 minutes ago) and read 1382 times:
Quoting Rwessel (Reply 13): and if they could still use 39B for the Shuttle in an emergency, but all the remaining Shuttle flights are scheduled to use 39A. After that, both pads will be modified to dedicated Ares-I (39B) and Ares-5 (39A) roles. There have also been mods to the VAB to support Ares-I assembly (and bigger changes are planned to support Ares-V after the Shuttle program ends).
- Are the Ares launch(es) a prelude to man-flight using that rocket?
Quoting Rwessel (Reply 13): The STS numbers do not include any of the Ares flights, so the six remaining Shuttle flights will remain STS-129 through STS-134.
- If the Ares program does progress into man-flight, will they then use "STS" numbers or use another prefix?
David
Flying is the second greatest thrill known to mankind, landing is the first!
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1920 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 weeks 6 days 54 minutes ago) and read 1376 times:
Quoting Rwessel (Reply 13): I don't know how far along the mods to pad 39B are at this point (it was officially deactivated for Shuttle use a couple of years ago), and if they could still use 39B for the Shuttle in an emergency,
Endeavour would have used pad B for launch on need support just this past spring in support of the HST. I believe it was the Rotating Service Structure or Payload Changeout Room that was decertified for shuttle use not the pad itself
Quoting Tiger119 (Reply 14): - Are the Ares launch(es) a prelude to man-flight using that rocket?
Yes. Ares V is unmanned.
Quoting Tiger119 (Reply 14): - If the Ares program does progress into man-flight, will they then use "STS" numbers or use another prefix?
Very unlikely NASA will continue to use "STS". STS stands for Space Transportation System which is another name for the Shuttle Program. I'd guess they'll probably come up with an acronym based off of the "Constellation" program name.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
Rwessel From United States, joined Jan 2007, 936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 weeks 4 days 18 hours 6 minutes ago) and read 1296 times:
Quoting Tiger119 (Reply 14): - Are the Ares launch(es) a prelude to man-flight using that rocket?
Quoting Tiger119 (Reply 14): - If the Ares program does progress into man-flight, will they then use "STS" numbers or use another prefix?
Ares-I is intended for manned flight. Next week's Ares-I-X will be a limited function test flight. Ares-I-Y (scheduled for 2013) will be a test with considerably more of the “real” hardware. There will then be an unmanned test mission with a full-up Ares-I and an Orion in 2014 (currently identified as the “Orion-1” mission), followed a manned flight (“Orion-2”), both in 2014. Names for the planned Orion missions are following the “Orion-nn” scheme at the moment.
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1920 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 weeks 4 days 15 hours 54 minutes ago) and read 1280 times:
Quoting Rwessel (Reply 16): There will then be an unmanned test mission with a full-up Ares-I and an Orion in 2014 (currently identified as the “Orion-1” mission), followed a manned flight (“Orion-2”), both in 2014. Names for the planned Orion missions are following the “Orion-nn” scheme at the moment.
"Orion-nn" would be the radio call sign. I wonder if Ares will follow the Apollo/Shuttle pattern of mission designators and radio call signs?
Mission Designator "STS-129" also referred to by callsign "Atlantis"
Mission Designator "SA-503" callsign "Apollo 8"
Mission Designator "AO-102" callsign "Orion 2" ??
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1920 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 week 6 days 1 hour 4 minutes ago) and read 894 times:
Less Than Two Weeks to Launch
Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:47:40 AM EST
At NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, Launch Pad 39A technicians are loading space shuttle Atlantis' two, mass-memory units today. Located in the middeck's two avionics bays, each reel-to-reel digital magnetic tape storage device holds basic flight software for the shuttle's general purpose computers and can store additional data.
Preparations for final ordnance installations and connections at the pad will begin today and are expected to wrap up this weekend.
At NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, the STS-129 mission's six astronauts will be given their L-10 physicals today. They'll also practice integrated entry procedures in Johnson's motion base simulator.
Atlantis is scheduled to launch on its 11-day supply mission to the International Space Station at 2:28 p.m. EST Nov. 16.
NASA is also working an issue, fleet wide, with a structural issue in the OMS pods. Apparently some attach points are seeing higher than expected acoustic loads at Main Engine ignition.
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1920 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 days 22 hours 14 minutes ago) and read 569 times:
Launch forecast for tommorrow courtesy Patrick AFB forecasters (Issued at 12Z today):
Probability of KSC weather prohibiting launch: 10%
Probability of KSC weather prohibiting tanking: 0%
Primary concern(s): Low cloud ceiling
Probability of KSC weather prohibiting launch for 24-hour delay: 30%
Probability of KSC weather prohibiting tanking: 0%
Primary concern(s): Low cloud ceiling, SLF crosswinds
Probability of KSC weather prohibiting launch for 48-hour delay: 60%
Probability of KSC weather prohibiting tanking: 10%
Primary concern(s): SLF crosswinds, showers within 20NM of the SLF, flight through precipitation
Looks good weather wise for a launch tommorrow. One item of concern - seas will be 7 to 9 ft in the SRB recovery area. Not a constraint to launch but may delay SRB recovery until the seas subside.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
Longhornmaniac From United States, joined Jun 2005, 2018 posts, RR: 51 Reply 21, posted (5 days 5 hours 3 minutes ago) and read 494 times:
Sorry to get off topic, but I was just curious, since it was mentioned earlier in the thread regarding the two pads, 39A and 39B, if, hypothetically, an emergency mission had to be flown, approximately how long would it take from the decision to fly the mission to lift-off?
What would the logistics of such a mission be? How would a crew be selected (presumably, they'd be different from the crew slated for the next planned mission)?
I've always wondered this, if there was ever some emergency aboard the ISS or something that required a launch, how would it get done? Would NASA even be the primary go-to, or would some other country have a quicker response available?
As for STS-129, I'm excited! I'll hopefully get to watch it online tomorrow, if I'm not at home. Atlantis has always been my favorite shuttle, for some strange reason.
Rwessel From United States, joined Jan 2007, 936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (5 days 2 hours 11 minutes ago) and read 473 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 21): I've always wondered this, if there was ever some emergency aboard the ISS or something that required a launch, how would it get done? Would NASA even be the primary go-to, or would some other country have a quicker response available?
Basically there is very little capability for any sort of timely emergency launch of a manned spacecraft. For the next year or so, a Shuttle launch will always be about two-three months away, and repurposing one of those flights would not be impossible. After that, the US won't have any manned launch capacity until probably about 2017. The Russians also have very limited flexibility - they simply don't have a big stock of R-7s and Soyuz to use, and the manufacturing lead times are quite long. But those flights are planned for every three or six months into the foreseeable future, so that's probably the baseline for an emergency Soyuz launch.
A sufficient emergency on board ISS will result in a prompt evacuation via the two Soyuz always docked there (until recently, there was only one, and that limited the permanent crew to three - now with construction further along, the six person crew requires two Soyuz). Note that the Soyuz have limited lifespans on orbit (a bit over seven months, at the moment) and are rotated out in that interval with crew changes.
An emergency that does not require the (hopefully temporary) abandonment of the station (say one crewmember becomes seriously ill), can use one of the Soyuz to evacuate half the crew (presumably including the sick guy), since you can't leave more than three people on board if there's only one Soyuz.
Slightly more flexibility is provided by Progress, HTV-1 (from Japan) and Jules Verne (from Europe) for moving cargo to the station (remembering that only Progress has anything like a regular launch schedule at the moment), and if some broken part needed urgently to be replaced (and no spare was on orbit), a pending launch of one of those would likely be repurposed. While none of those have particularly flexible flight schedules (and no real stocks of any of these vehicles exist), their unmanned nature makes a faster response at least somewhat plausible. And just the fact that these will be additional regularly scheduled flights will give up more opportunities to ferry stuff up.
Legs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 107 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (4 days 15 hours 59 minutes ago) and read 394 times:
Quoting Rwessel (Reply 22): Note that the Soyuz have limited lifespans on orbit (a bit over seven months, at the moment) and are rotated out in that interval with crew changes.
What are the limiting factors that keep the time on orbit down?
Im exhausted from passing the buck and dodging responsibility
Rwessel From United States, joined Jan 2007, 936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (4 days 12 hours 51 minutes ago) and read 363 times:
Quoting Legs (Reply 27): What are the limiting factors that keep the time on orbit down?
The main issue is the lifetime of various seals in the fuel system. Hydrazine is corrosive, and the “easy” to use seals have a limited lifetime once exposed.
One of the features of the abandoned Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) was to store the hydrazine (and nitrogen tetroxide) in sealed tanks, that didn't expose any of the fuel lines and whatnot to the fuel until the vehicle was to be used. The CRV was intended to be carried basically inert on some launcher (various concepts used both the Shuttle and expendable launchers, including the Ariane 5) to the ISS.
The Soyuz can't do that, since it needs its systems during launch and docking.
There are planned enhancements to Soyuz to increase the on-orbit lifetime to about a year. OTOH, they’ve been “planned” for a while now. With the current Soyuz, the six member crew on ISS basically demands four new Soyuz launches per year.
Bruce From United States, joined May 1999, 4948 posts, RR: 28 Reply 31, posted (3 days 19 hours 5 minutes ago) and read 220 times:
Fantastic shot from the external tank camera on launch! minus some signal drop/static. Where in the tank is that camera mounted? Are there any pics from the launch pad that show the camera?
Bruce
Bruce Leibowitz - Green Bay, WI (GRB/KGRB) - Canon 20D/100-400L IS lens
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1920 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 2754 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Dec 2005, 119 posts, 
From Monaco, joined Feb 2007, 4586 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 107 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
