Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
House Forces Nasa To Launch AMS/Accelerate Orion  
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3799 times:

Thank whatever deity you want, but this year's NASA appropriation passed the House swimmingly last week.

$20.2 billion, $1b of which is intended to accelerate Orion development. Also, the bill requires NASA to fly the AMS to the station on a new Shuttle flight, and funds same.

http://www.hcnonline.com/site/news.c...=1574&PAG=461&dept_id=635585&rfi=6

NS

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1596 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3772 times:

Thats great news! Very glad to hear that AMS will fly even with all the drama that surrounds it, it's still a nice and useful piece of equipment.


My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3396 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3771 times:

Moon came a little bit closer again  Wink

To me, it seems they want to get Orion so much underway that Obama cannot cancel it...


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3765 times:



Quoting Sinlock (Reply 1):
Very glad to hear that AMS will fly even with all the drama that surrounds it, it's still a nice and useful piece of equipment.

Its also the single most expensive scientific experiment ever built, and we'd be stupid to not launch it.

Also in the bill: NASA is required to be prepared to support the station until 2020, rather than 2016.

NS


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3396 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3754 times:



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 3):
Also in the bill: NASA is required to be prepared to support the station until 2020, rather than 2016.

Which is no real surprise, because once it is up, it would be stupid to use it for only 6 years at full capacity... I just wonder how long the oldest, 1998 launched modules can be used without bigger issues.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3724 times:



Quoting Sinlock (Reply 1):
Thats great news! Very glad to hear that AMS will fly even with all the drama that surrounds it, it's still a nice and useful piece of equipment.

Don't celebrate yet. The Senate has to sign on as well. And they probably won't, at least not in the same form as the House bill. And then there is the little matter that the Columbia Accident Investigation Board found that the Shuttle needs to be "recertified at system and subsystem level" if NASA is to fly the Shuttle beyond 2010, a finding both NASA and the White House accepted in 2003.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 2):
Moon came a little bit closer again

Not really. The new money in the NASA budget in the House bill would just replace Shuttle funding that Constellation was planning on using in Fiscal Year 2011 after Shuttle retirement. Constellation needs the Shuttle's funding to really get going, any delay in retiring Shuttle results in a year-for-year delay in getting Constellation going. $2.5 billion, which is what the House bill added to the budget, won't accellerate Constellation, it will just prevent the year-for-year slip (and not even all of that, as the Shuttle's budget is closer to $3 billion.)

Right now, they have a fighting chance of getting STS-134 off before the end of Fiscal Year 2010, but only if no more delays hit the Shuttle program, but the Shuttle program has been hit with delay after delay these last few years.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 3):
Its also the single most expensive scientific experiment ever built, and we'd be stupid to not launch it.

I guess you're not counting Voyager, Viking, Galileo, Cassini, Hubble, Chandra, etc. as "single" experiments? They all exceed AMS's $1.5 billion, some by huge margins (Hubble is well over $3 billion in today's dollars.)


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3396 posts, RR: 29
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3654 times:



Quoting Thorny (Reply 5):
Not really. The new money in the NASA budget in the House bill would just replace Shuttle funding that Constellation was planning on using in Fiscal Year 2011 after Shuttle retirement. Constellation needs the Shuttle's funding to really get going, any delay in retiring Shuttle results in a year-for-year delay in getting Constellation going. $2.5 billion, which is what the House bill added to the budget, won't accellerate Constellation, it will just prevent the year-for-year slip (and not even all of that, as the Shuttle's budget is closer to $3 billion.)

Ok I see your point, but the way the last Shuttle missions went, isn't it pretty likely that Shuttle will end as planned in 2010?


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3582 times:



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 6):
isn't it pretty likely that Shuttle will end as planned in 2010?

The missions themselves are going well, thankfully. It is the "getting them ready for launch" that has been the bottleneck, primarily due to External Tank delays (first the ECO sensor fiasco and now botched manufacturing planning.) We might be through the worst of them, but right now, I'd say it is 50/50 that STS-133 gets off before September 30, 2010, nevermind squeezing in an STS-134.

The last schedule has 133 in April, 2010. I think that probably is delayed a month or two now, because STS-119 has slipped from December 2008 to February 2009 thanks to External Tank delays, and that delay isn't reflected in the rest of the launch dates. If 133 is now aiming toward June 2010, they still have three months contingency time.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1438 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3554 times:

Bring back the Saturn V to do the heavy lifting.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3543 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 8):
Bring back the Saturn V to do the heavy lifting.

You do know that Ares V (guess what the "V" is in reference to?) has a similar lift capability right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems

It's too bad that we didn't have this sort of lift all along...the Saturn V or Ares V could have lofted ISS in a fraction of the number of launches.

[Edited 2008-06-18 12:40:38]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3539 times:

Couldn't one of the logistics or contingency missions be used to haul the AMS? I know there are some things that only the shuttle can handle, but racks and supplies could go via ATM.
What besides S6, Kibo's porch, Node 3 and maybe the Express logistics carriers couldn't go by anything but the shuttle?



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3520 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

At some point the unified space effort will have to start taking real precedence over national programs (outside of defence requirements) as we're going to have to start going off planet for resources and space eventually. The sooner we get started on that the less of an emergency it'll be when it becomes necessary rather than fantasy.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3514 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 8):
Bring back the Saturn V to do the heavy lifting.

That would cost more and take as much time as Ares V.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 9):
You do know that Ares V (guess what the "V" is in reference to?)

Nothing. It was tribute to Saturn I and Saturn V. Some say it meant number of engines in the first stage, but that seems like reaching to me.

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 10):
Couldn't one of the logistics or contingency missions be used to haul the AMS?

Not without sacrificing other things the ISS needs more critically, like spare parts.

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 10):
but racks and supplies could go via ATM

(I presume you mean ATV.) Supplies, yes. Racks, no.

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 10):
What besides S6, Kibo's porch, Node 3 and maybe the Express logistics carriers couldn't go by anything but the shuttle?

All the racks in the three MPLMs flying before Shuttle retirement. ATV can't deliver racks, as it docks at the smaller Russian port, too small and the wrong shape to fit a rack through. (HTV can, but is a lot smaller and won't fly until sometime in 2009 at the earliest.) Also, the US is obligated to deliver the racks for Columbus and Kibo. It isn't obligated to deliver AMS, which was the sad truth that caused NASA to cancel it.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3510 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 12):
Nothing. It was tribute to Saturn I and Saturn V. Some say it meant number of engines in the first stage, but that seems like reaching to me.

That was my point -- that it was a tribute.

[Edited 2008-06-18 13:25:28]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3396 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

I always thought the last 2 contingency flights were never supposed to fly? Couldnt you use one of them for the AMS?

User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3473 times:



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 14):
I always thought the last 2 contingency flights were never supposed to fly? Couldnt you use one of them for the AMS?

They are contingency flights to refly cargo in the event one of the earlier missions is not successful (failure to rendezvous, dock, what-have-you) and are otherwise intended to launch spare parts that can't fly on Progress, ATV or HTV (large, unpressurized elements like CMGs.)
The two flights, STS-131 and STS-133, are carrying four Express pallets with unpressurized cargo. There isn't room for them and AMS.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1438 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3463 times:



Quoting N328KF (Reply 9):
You do know that Ares V (guess what the "V" is in reference to?) has a similar lift capability right?

Yes the new Constellation program is more or less Apollo on steroids, the main engines are more or less updated versions of the engines the Saturn V used but it takes a goverment program to mess up "if its not broken don't fix it", with todays computers a digital watch with a caculator has more ram than the Apollo Command module and Luner Lander.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3439 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 16):
it takes a goverment program to mess up "if its not broken don't fix it", with todays computers a digital watch with a caculator has more ram than the Apollo Command module and Luner Lander.

Which is exactly why it would cost as much to simply rebuild Apollo and Saturn today. Nothing is built that way or with those components anymore, it would all have to be redesigned anyway.

We do have experience telling us this is true, see the Delta II and Atlas II programs... large rockets put back into production after many years absense. They both got the suffix "II" because they had to be redesigned to use contemporary subsystems and manufacturing techniques, because Convair and McDonnell-Douglas found that too many suppliers of the original equipment were out of the business and couldn't produce them anymore. See also the C-5B program, which is very different under the hood from the C-5A's. Atlas II, Delta II, and C-5B all went into production about ten years after the last of their predecessors left the factory.

It has been 39 years since Saturns were built.

Also, remember that Saturn was not an optimized launch vehicle, it was done under the program motto "waste anything but time" and there were a lot of shortcuts taken that drove up costs. The third stage, in particular, was a kludge... an imrpoved, re-engined S-IV stage from the Saturn 1 program, because there wasn't time to develop a TLI-optimized stage (alongside S-1C and S-II) before 1970.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3374 times:



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 2):
To me, it seems they want to get Orion so much underway that Obama cannot cancel it...

I suppose, but Obama knows Florida is a swing state, and Florida sees NASA as its birthright, so Obama will be quiet about it at least for this year.

Quoting Thorny (Reply 5):
And then there is the little matter that the Columbia Accident Investigation Board found that the Shuttle needs to be "recertified at system and subsystem level" if NASA is to fly the Shuttle beyond 2010, a finding both NASA and the White House accepted in 2003.

That sucker will be pencil-whipped, if need be.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 11):
At some point the unified space effort will have to start taking real precedence over national programs (outside of defence requirements) as we're going to have to start going off planet for resources and space eventually.

Oh, come on now!

Quoting DL021 (Reply 11):
The sooner we get started on that the less of an emergency it'll be when it becomes necessary rather than fantasy.

It is fantasy. No one will vote to support such a thing till they are guaranteed a seat. And if you think it's easier to build an ecosystem that will support life on the moon or Mars, etc than to save the one we have now, I think you are very misguided.

I think the whole idea of migrating off the Earth gives people a free ticket to not worry about the Earth and its environment which is absurd to me. We know an awful lot of things we can do that would have impact in a small number of years, but we refuse to do them due to inertia. That is what has to change.

Yes, a metor strike could wipe out life as we know it any day, but that's just the chances we take.

Quoting Thorny (Reply 17):
We do have experience telling us this is true, see the Delta II and Atlas II programs... large rockets put back into production after many years absense. They both got the suffix "II" because they had to be redesigned to use contemporary subsystems and manufacturing techniques, because Convair and McDonnell-Douglas found that too many suppliers of the original equipment were out of the business and couldn't produce them anymore. See also the C-5B program, which is very different under the hood from the C-5A's. Atlas II, Delta II, and C-5B all went into production about ten years after the last of their predecessors left the factory.

What about the restart of U2 production during the Regan administration? Did Lockheed mothball enough of the technology so it could be produced without a lot of re-engineering?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3345 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):
What about the restart of U2 production during the Regan administration? Did Lockheed mothball enough of the technology so it could be produced without a lot of re-engineering?

Airframe and major structures, yes. The problem with restarts after so many years is getting all the subsystems back into production. We're seeing this argument now in favor of continuing F-22 and C-17 production.

I forgot about U-2R, that's another good one to look up.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2378 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3296 times:



Quoting Thorny (Reply 12):
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 8):
Bring back the Saturn V to do the heavy lifting.

That would cost more and take as much time as Ares V.

That and I believe the Saturn V design couldn't be expanded. The Ares V has some concepts that would be big enough (by volume) to carry payloads s big as the shuttle.

Check out the last page



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2238 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3282 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 20):
That and I believe the Saturn V design couldn't be expanded. The Ares V has some concepts that would be big enough (by volume) to carry payloads s big as the shuttle.

I don't know any reason you couldn't put an oversized payload shroud on an Saturn V. Certainly it would be trivial to put a 10.1m diameter stack on top of the S-II (loosing the third stage), although that would somewhat limit your mass to LTO (as it did with Skylab/S-V-INT21), so you might want to build a "wide" S-IVB. Or you could just pop the extra wide shroud on top of the S-IVB - although going from 6.7m to 12m would be a bit more than typical (for example, the Delta III's upper section was 4m, stacked on a 2.7m lower section, which was only 50% wider, not 80%).

And there were certainly growth variants of the S-V considered. Take a look at:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/saturnv.htm

For example, the Saturn V-25(S)B concept, four big strap on solids, a stretched S-IC, a strengthened (but otherwise unchanged) S-II, and a stretched and strengthened S-IVB, for a total punt to LEO of 223,500kg(!!). Note it also has a 10.1m payload fairing.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satv25sb.htm

Even the basic design was due for an upgrade with the next (expected) production run with improved performance F-1A engines (20% more thrust, 2% higher ISP).


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1438 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3266 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 21):
Even the basic design was due for an upgrade with the next (expected) production run with improved performance F-1A engines (20% more thrust, 2% higher ISP).

great links, if they kept up the S-V25sb that monster could of had the ISS complete years ahead of a shuttle supplied system, it only took congress to really mess it up. This would have made a space telescope that is bigger than the hubble possible sooner.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3263 times:

Would it be possible to take Ares V and add more than two SRBs? I'm envisioning a monster similar to Vulkan-Energia here.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3257 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 22):
great links, if they kept up the S-V25sb that monster could of had the ISS complete years ahead of a shuttle supplied system, it only took congress to really mess it up. This would have made a space telescope that is bigger than the hubble possible sooner.

The original Space Station would have been launched by a Saturn V variant and serviced by a much smaller Shuttle. Station modules were to be 33 feet in diameter, same as S-1C and S-II! Imagine that! We today look at films of SkyLab and think, "Wow, that's huge inside!" Kibo looks big empty, at 15 ft. in diameter.

When Apollo died, there were no other customers for Saturn V, and the Space Station program couldn't afford Saturn V on its own. The same is basically true today. The only customer for Ares V will be Constellation. No one else can afford that monster. There is vague talk of using Ares V to launch a reborn JIMO, but Ares is so expensive that there won't be any money leftover to build JIMO.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 23):
Would it be possible to take Ares V and add more than two SRBs?

No, the Crawler and Crawlerway can't handle that much weight.


25 N328KF : I wasn't asking about those two systems...I was asking about the Ares stack.
26 Rwessel : It would require considerable reinforcing and changes to the first stage tank structure to provide the additional attach points, and you might need t
27 Thorny : Okay. Well, it probably could be done, but it would be enormously expensive. You'd need all new launch infrastructure to assemble, move, and launch i
28 DfwRevolution : There is still the issue of exhaust interaction between the SRB and core stage. With an extra pair of SRB, the exhaust from the six RS-68s is unable
29 N328KF : I can see that now. I was just hoping that it would be a cheap and affordable way to bring super heavy-lift to the US program. Too bad about Vulkan-E
30 NorCal : I don't know much about the shuttle, but would it be that far fetched to fly it to the moon and orbit it a few times and then return home? Is it capab
31 N328KF : Escaping a gravity well requires a tremendous amount of energy. In this case, you're escaping the surface, then escaping Earth orbit, slowing down to
32 Thorny : Going to to the moon is all about mass (weight.) The Shuttle weighs about twice what the Apollo Command/Service Module and Lunar Module stack weighed
33 Rwessel : My mistake - I was looking at a source that listed the total thrust for both boosters. Which oddly listed the Shuttle SRBs on an "each" basis. Yes, I
34 PC12Fan : I'll be damned, I never knew such studies were done. Thanks for that. I've seen concepts of an Ares V with four strap on SRB's but it's just that - a
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic House Forces Nasa To Launch AMS/Accelerate Orion
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
When To Launch posted Sun Jun 4 2006 17:24:32 by Planebuff
Senate Clears Nasa To Buy Russian Spaceships posted Mon Sep 26 2005 10:47:26 by Centrair
I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!? posted Thu Sep 15 2005 23:21:06 by TedTAce
China Set To Launch 2nd Manned Spacecraft posted Fri Jul 15 2005 18:43:15 by SATL382G
Expedition 11 Ready To Launch posted Fri Apr 15 2005 02:39:53 by SATL382G
Where's Nasa Planning To Bring Orion Down? posted Wed Sep 6 2006 02:01:14 by RC135U
"Orion" Said To Be Name Of NASA's CEV Program posted Fri Jul 21 2006 10:42:36 by AerospaceFan
Does Burt Rutan Want To See Nasa Abolished? posted Sat Dec 8 2007 13:04:19 by PPVRA
India To Buy Six C-130Js For Special Forces posted Wed May 30 2007 23:03:21 by DEVILFISH
Time To Split Off The First "A" In Nasa? posted Fri Feb 2 2007 21:46:42 by N328KF

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format