RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2371 times:
In order to avoid a necessary major check on the shuttle, it will be retired in 2008 and the remaining shuttle missions will be completed by Discovery and Endeavour.
Atlantis will remain in reserve as a spare parts source.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2341 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Thread starter): In order to avoid a necessary major check on the shuttle, it will be retired in 2008 and the remaining shuttle missions will be completed by Discovery and Endeavour.
That's been expected for some time now. Atlantis has gone the longest since an OMDP (Orbiter Maintenance Down Period) which take place about every three years or every 5-7 flights for each Shuttle Orbiter.
Discovery was just beginning its last ODMP when Columbia was lost in 2003. Endeavour's OMDP began in late 2004 and is now almost finished. All three Orbiters got the post-Columbia safety modifications, but Atlantis had the least work done on her, so if you need to start retiring Shuttles circa 2008, Atlantis is the logical one to go first.
At five flights per year, which is what NASA needs to complete the remaining 17 shuttle flights on the manifest before 2010, two Orbiters can handle the load fairly easily. With three Orbiters, NASA can probably pull off six flights in 2007 and 2008, depending on exactly when Atlantis is retired in 2008.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 11053 posts, RR: 82 Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2281 times:
CX747, the CEV, basically a much modernised, slightly larger (more so internally) Apollo CSM, 4-6 crew.
Launched by a single Shuttle style SRB, and second stage liquid engine, plus an Apollo style lauch escape system, along with the CEV being on top of the stack, rather than like the Shuttle arrangement, so much safer than Shuttle.
For ISS support, Lunar missions (with a new lander launched by the planned 'Longfellow' heavy lift unmanned launched), perhaps eventually a component of a Mars mission.
Much discussed on here in the recent past.
Good thing too, with hindsight, Apollo should never have been junked for Shuttle, but retained and modernised.
CEV may also include an unmanned version for ISS logistical support, like the Russian 'progress'.
CEV will be semi resuseable, less the ablative heatshield, with a land touchdown and refurbishement for up to 10 missions.
Best of both worlds, not 'throwing everything away' per mission, but retaining a long term CEV production line too.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2239 times:
Quoting CX747 (Reply 2): Has NASA actually decided on what will replace the shuttles?
The Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV, for human spaceflight operations, and a mix of commercial resupply vehicles for the unmanned cargo delivery to the Space Station. CEV is to come in three flavors... the first will be used to take crews or up to six to and from the Space Station, beginning around 2012. Later, a lunar CEV will take crews of four to Lunar Orbit and back. Finally, much farther down the road, CEVs will be the crew transfer vehicle for spacecraft bound for Mars.
Quoting GDB (Reply 3): Launched by a single Shuttle style SRB, and second stage liquid engine, plus an Apollo style lauch escape system, along with the CEV being on top of the stack, rather than like the Shuttle arrangement, so much safer than Shuttle.
That's the current plan, although it seems to be changing radically about every other month. NASA has now decided to go with a stretched SRB, one fuel-segment longer than the Shuttle version. This allowed them to scrap plans to use a Space Shuttle Main Engine in the second stage, and they will instead use a J-2S developed late in the Apollo era. The upper stage will probably now be smaller, as well.
Due to major budget overuns with the Shuttle's return-to-flight, and political resistance to reducing the number of remaining Shuttle flights, it is looking increasingly likely that the only way NASA will have any chance to get the CEV flying before 2012-2013 will be to dump this plan and instead launch CEV on one of the commercial launchers, Atlas 5 or Delta IV. NASA's recent decision to reduce the size of the CEV has been seen as the first step in that direction.
DeltaGuy From United States, joined Sep 2001, 4172 posts, RR: 29 Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2200 times:
Wonder if any of the shuttles will find their way into museums when all is said and done? If they're scavenging Atlantis, that may make it more or less suitable for the museum.
DeltaGuy
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2192 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 5): Wonder if any of the shuttles will find their way into museums when all is said and done?
It's all but assured the Shuttles will eventually find their way to museums.
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 5): If they're scavenging Atlantis, that may make it more or less suitable for the museum.
Most likely things to be scavenged are parts under the skin. You won't notice if a valve or computer board are missing. External components like a tile, hatch, or engine could be replaced with a dummy and no one would be the wiser.
It's typical for the major components (like the SSME) to be removed for display anyway.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2139 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 5): Wonder if any of the shuttles will find their way into museums when all is said and done? If they're scavenging Atlantis, that may make it more or less suitable for the museum.
They'll certainly end up in museums or static display.
My guesses:
Discovery: Nat'l Air & Space Museum's Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles, replacing Enterprise.
Atlantis: U.S. Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB.*
Endeavour: Kennedy Space Center, probably in a dedicated "Space Shuttle Center" along the lines of the Apollo-Saturn V Center there.
Enterprise: Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards AFB (relocated from Dulles.)
The parts scavenging won't be a problem. They're mostly under the hood and can be replaced after the final flight of the program.
* I've been told it is physically impossible to get a Shuttle to Johnson Space Center in Houston, following construction of new bridges in the area. JSC would certainly want a Shuttle, and if they can find a way, they'd probably get Atlantis.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2282 posts, RR: 11 Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2124 times:
Quoting Thorny (Reply 7): * I've been told it is physically impossible to get a Shuttle to Johnson Space Center in Houston, following construction of new bridges in the area. JSC would certainly want a Shuttle, and if they can find a way, they'd probably get Atlantis.
One of my favorite movie trilogies, Back to the Future" Doc replied when asked if there was enough room to get up to 88, "Roads? Where we're going we don't need any roads."
Where there is a will, there is a way and if they had to borrow a Sikorsky Sky Crane to get that thing in place, I would suspect it will be done!
SLCPilot From United States, joined Aug 2003, 370 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2078 times:
It's only a my opinion, so take it with a big grain of salt from this high school educated (but much older) observer.
The shuttle program will make three more flights. You heard it here first. Do 5, 6, or 7 flights a year even sound believable to the planners? Do they look in the mirror and believe it? I don't.
Nasa has become so risk averse they will not take any chances, and you take a chance (a calculated one) every time they launch. It's sad, and I consider myself a space program supporter, but Nasa has not shown progress since Columbia. As of right now every launch must take place in daylight, and in a situation that will allow an abort to station. Every first day of flight is preoccupied with tile inspection. Furthermore, payload and and it's single mission of supporting station has made it an ineffective system.
Respectfully (and sadly candid),
SLCPilot
I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 11053 posts, RR: 82 Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2025 times:
Cannot see only three-though I agree they should be as few as possible.
Let's see-NASA are obliged to launch the European and Japanese ISS modules, which no other system can do.
Allowing some decent science on ISS.
Throw in at least a few ISS crew changes/logistics flights, one per year say, the final Hubble repair (the current NASA chief seems not to rule this out unlike his predecessor).
So a bare mimium, is one more flight test-to ISS, four more crew/logisitic flights to ISS 2006-2010, the two ISS module flights, Hubble repair, I'm not up on what other Shuttle only, vital larger components ISS needs-(more solar arrays and/or trusses?), assume two more flights worth at a minimum.
That's 11 flights.
Could CEV be unmanned tested on a launch vehicle not 'man rated'.
Because it seems folly not to proceed with the planned launch vehicle-the J-2S engine is a good move IMHO.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2019 times:
Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 10):
The shuttle program will make three more flights.
Unlikely. There is growing sentiment on Capitol Hill to live up to our international obligations regarding the Space Station, that means launching the Shuttle enough times to build out the Station to support Europe's and Japan's modules. NASA figured that at 17 flights. The 18th will be to the Hubble Space Telescope, another politically popular mission.
Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 10):
Do 5, 6, or 7 flights a year even sound believable to the planners?
Sure. They've done so many, many years. Remember, most years NASA only had three usable Orbiters, with one of the Orbiters down for overhaul and maintenance (the aforementioned OMDPs.) The odd years they had all four Orbiters available, NASA flew eight missions (1992 and 1997.) The low flight rates of 1999-2003 were due almost entirely to the Space Station, for which the Shuttle manifest had been cleared, not being ready. There are no more OMDPs planned. The Shuttles should be ready to fly out the manifest of 17-18 flights. The long pole in the Shuttle processing tent is turning around the Orbiter itself. But the Oribiter had little to do with the Columbia disaster (caused by high speed impact with foam broken off the External Tank) so there really is not a major hit on turnaround time post-Columbia. Five flights per year will be easy. Six will be possible, if things go reasonably well.
Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 10):
Nasa has become so risk averse they will not take any chances, and you take a chance (a calculated one) every time they launch.
I'm not sure that's true. I think its much more a CYA mentality at the moment. NASA always said they'd fly when they thought they had the foam impact problem solved, and they always said STS-114 would be a test flight. Well, STS-114 showed that the problem was only about 85% solved, so they had to order some more fixes and redesigns, and that plan was greatly complicated by Hurricane Katrina eating up at least one month of schedule, pushing STS-121 out of the planned March launch window and into the May launch window.
Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 10): As of right now every launch must take place in daylight, and in a situation that will allow an abort to station.
"Right now" being the operative term. NASA always said that return to more relaxed launch windows would depend on how well STS-114 and STS-121 (the next flight) went. Well, regarding visibility, STS-114 went exceptionally well. The new radars detected the large piece of PAL Ramp that fell off. The new onboard cameras worked perfectly. The pirouette maneuver on approach to the Space Station came off without a hitch. In short, NASA is now very comfortable with resuming low-light launches. But they'll fly STS-121 in full daylight just to verify the results of STS-114, and they'll probably fly STS-115 in daylight in July, simply because they can. NASA has already pencilled in launching STS-116 in December during low-light conditions, pending the success of STS-121 and STS-115.
The abort-to-staton requirement will be cancelled if the spacewalk repair technique tests planned for STS-121 work out as planned. That will involve a crewman working at the end of the OBSS boom, itself at the end of the robot arm. If the OBSS boom proves as stable as engineers expect, then it will give the Orbiter the ability to perform tile repairs even if it is not at the Space Station. NASA has said repeatedly that the Hubble mission won't be officially scheduled until the self-repair techniques are proven by STS-121. But NASA has pencilled in the Hubble mission for late 2007, which indicates how confident NASA is in the OBSS boom.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2014 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 12): I'm not up on what other Shuttle only, vital larger components ISS needs-(more solar arrays and/or trusses?), assume two more flights worth at a minimum. That's 11 flights.
Europe's Columbus lab and Japan's Kibo lab. Kibo has so many parts it will take three launches (lab, external facility, and logisitics module). They also need the US's Node 2 to connect to, and more power to provide electricity for them.
Here's the breakdown of remaining major payloads:
STS-121: Resupply
STS-115: Solar Array segments P3 and P4 (port side of truss structure)
STS-116: Truss segment P5 (port spacer between solar array segments)
STS-117: Solar Array segments S3 and S4 (starboard side of truss structure)
STS-118: Truss segment S5 (starboard spacer between solar array segments)
STS-119: Solar Array segment S6 (starboard end of truss structure)
STS-120: Node 2
STS-122: Columbus
STS-123: Resupply and Columbus outfitting
STS-124: Kibo Lab Module
STS-125: Kibo Logistics Module
STS-126: Resupply
STS-127: Resupply
STS-128: Resupply
STS-129: Kibo Exposed Facility
STS-130: Resupply
STS-131: Node 3 and Cupola (living quarters and viewing dome)
STS-xxx: Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission 4
Quoting SCEagle (Reply 13): Think they'll make operational use out of the next RTF Test Flight? Like Discovery's carrying Leonardo? Maybe they could carry a module?
Yes. Discovery carried the RAFAELLO module last time and will carry LEONARDO this time.
SLCPilot From United States, joined Aug 2003, 370 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1990 times:
Quoting Thorny (Reply 14): I think its much more a CYA mentality at the moment.
And right or wrong, with thousands of people involved with this mentality, it's hard to make progress. I don't have a solution.
Congress may well have an eagerness to live up to our commitments, and they can put financial pressure on Nasa's operations, but that still doesn't launch vehicles. My selection of three more launches is a number pulled out of thin air, and speculation based on the current flight rate (~1 per year), and mere speculation with respect to how long Congress and the public and Nasa will justify the cost of flight in light of the CEV program.
Quoting Thorny (Reply 14): Six will be possible, if things go reasonably well.
And that's a major problem. Even a subtle problem, that in the past may have been deferred, will be the subject to an engineered solution. That takes time, money and effort.
Respectfully,
SLCPilot
PS> a few personal, unrelated notes:
- Thorny, you are living proof the RR systems carries little weight. Thank you very much for your well thought out and lengthy contributions to this thread and others. It may mean little, but you have my respect.
- I hope to see a shuttle launch someday. My current flight benifits make this a realistic possibilty.
-Finally, a "plug" for a little known movie. If you have enjoyed this thread at all, and haven't seen it, rent "The Dish". It's a gem that was over-looked by many and can be enjoyed by an engineer, and their spouse!
I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1966 times:
Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 16): And that's a major problem. Even a subtle problem, that in the past may have been deferred, will be the subject to an engineered solution. That takes time, money and effort.
A year ago, this was a valid concern. Since then, however, NASA has already faced a nagging, poorly understood problem, overcame it, and launched the Space Shuttle. This was the External Tank fuel sensor glitch which delayed the STS-114 launch about two weeks last July. They didn't sit on the ground for months waiting for a redesign, as your premise suggests would be the case.
Interesting, but keep in mind that Encyclopedia Astronautica rarely has a kind word to say about NASA or the US space program. His love affair with the Soyuz is almost embarrassing.
Quoting RC135U (Reply 19): Any specifics as to where they're going to land the CEV after the mission is completed? Edwards? White Sands?
Both are certainly options, as is the range in Utah where Genesis and Stardust came down. NASA is a long way from having to make that decision, though.
MD-90 From United States, joined Jan 2000, 7395 posts, RR: 17 Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1474 times:
Quoting Thorny (Reply 7): They'll certainly end up in museums or static display.
It would be nice if Huntsville could get one. Probably not, but at least we have the Pathfinder (flight test article, cruder version of Enterprise) and the only intact Saturn V left in the world.
Remember that the NASM already has Enterprise. I think Kennedy will get one, possibly Johnson and Dryden. Even though the USAF Museum in Dayton is huge, I'm not sure that they'd place one there. Maybe...
Lehpron From United States, joined Jul 2001, 7027 posts, RR: 31 Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1443 times:
Question:
Quote: In an all-hands meeting at KSC, NASA shuttle program manager Wayne Hale told workers that Atlantis would serve as a "parts donor" between 2008 and the shuttle fleet's scheduled retirement in September 2010.
Just like with the remaining Concordes that were built and never sold, BA/AF took them as parts donors.
But, in this case, these are old parts from a used machine, every aspect of Atlantis has been through cycles. Does that put the remaining Shuttles at risk at all?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1440 times:
Quoting Lehpron (Reply 23):
Just like with the remaining Concordes that were built and never sold, BA/AF took them as parts donors.
No, BA and AF took them as working aircraft and indeed flew several of them alongside their origional fleet. BA bought the UK development fleet from the government as well, and used them as parts donor aircraft (the Brooklands aircraft went several years with no nose after it was taken as a replacement for a damaged one on a revenue aircraft).
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 25, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1393 times:
Quoting MD-90 (Reply 22): It would be nice if Huntsville could get one.
They'll be vying for one with the Air Force Museum if Houston decides its not practical to get one of the Shuttles. Because Marshall already has Pathfinder, I think the Air Force Museum has the edge.
Quoting MD-90 (Reply 22): Probably not, but at least we have the Pathfinder (flight test article, cruder version of Enterprise) and the only intact Saturn V left in the world.
Well, the vertical Saturn V is a replica built in the late 1990s. The horizontal one is AS-500F the Facilities Checkout Vehicle never built to fly.
There were two leftover Saturn Vs at the end of Apollo, AS514 and AS515 (the 14th and 15th Saturn V's built) and an odd assort of ground test stages, including AS500F. The Saturn Vs now on display at Houston, Huntsville and Cape Canaveral are a hodge-podge assortment...
Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral FL
Stage 1: Test Article S1C-T (now painted in Apollo 8's AS503 colors)
Stage 2: AS514
Stage 3: AS514
Johnson Space Center, Houston TX
Stage 1: AS514
Stage 2: AS515
Stage 3; AS513*
Marshall Spaceflight Center, Huntsville AL
Stage 1: AS500F
Stage 2: AS500F
Stage 3: AS500F
Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans
Stage 1: AS515
Nat'l Air and Space Museum, Washington DC
Stage 3: AS515 (SkyLab backup)
*The lower two stages of SA513 launched SkyLab, which was built from a Saturn IB S-IVB stage.
26 TheSonntag: Just very theoretical, of course, but could there be a chance that one of the Shuttles might be displayed outside of Europe? I thought about Sinsheim
27 Lehpron: Wasn't the last Buran destroyed in a Hanger when the roof caved in due to snow accumilation?
28 TheSonntag: I am not sure... I think it was damaged, not destroyed. Anyway, I guess the one which the museum bought is somewhere in the middle east, not really i
29 MD-90: Unfortunately they ran out of money before they built the launch tower to go with it. That would've been nice. One of the most impressive sights I've
30 RichardPrice: Of the 5 production models, one was destroyed by the roof collapse (1.01), two remain in the original factory in deteriorating condition (2.01 and 2.
31 Lehpron: Are any of the surviving production models capable of becoming operational? Or is it about as expensive/likely as bringly Concorde back as 'model B'?
32 MD-90: Probably. Buran only made one spaceflight, didn't it? And that was by remote control, with no cosmonauts aboard, I believe. Of course, that's somethi
33 DfwRevolution: One flight of about 18 orbits IIRC The Shuttle is automated under computer control for probably 99% of the flight. Astronauts are only required to ha
34 Thorny: Two orbits. And there have been persistent reports ever since that the heat protection system didn't work as well as expected and that Buran 1 was de
35 SLCPilot: I have seen pictures of the tile damage suffered by Buran. They aren't in wide circulation, but there was damage to the tile protection system on the
36 David L: You can call him anything you like - he probably can't hear you. Sorry!
37 MD-90: That would probably set a record for the longest landing run ever.
38 SLCPilot: Thorny (first name B, right?), As it seems that the same "little" problem that they have known about for almost a year has delayed the next flight un
39 Thorny: Not really. NASA is not redesigning the ECO sensors. They're just replacing them. That will take three weeks and eliminate the chance of KSC hitting
40 DfwRevolution: Dear god! I remember reading about the Foton M1 failure years ago, at the time because someone on the ground was killed, but I had no idea that the f
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States, joined May 1999, 4283 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 11053 posts, 
From Malaysia, joined Feb 2001, 47 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
