Current status of shuttle programme ?

John Doe wrote:
Am I the only one with a feeling that the arrays won't be launched by
the shuttle and P6 will stay on Z1 for a very long time ?

I'm sure Bob Haller would want it that way. There's a chance that the
shuttle program will be canned prematurely, but I suspect that they'll
let it run its course, giving NASA enough flights to complete the
station and service/deorbit HST.

Is there truly a consensus that the shuttle will complete assembly of
the truss ?

What else can? Even if there is an alternative, the habitable modules do
need the shuttle, and they can't be launched until the truss is done.

Should the shuttle be grounded midways in those flights, it runs the
chance of leaving the station in an asymetrical configuation.

They won't ground the shuttle between the launch of S3/4 and P3/4
without very good reason. There are contingencies, of course.

Will NASA modify installation schedules to ensure that whenever the
shuttle brings an asymetrical segment, that segment will not be fully
installed, making it possible for crews to EVA and remove it should the
shuttle be grounded for a long time (or permanently) to put the station
back in a symetrical config ?

It's possible. As I recall, installing the truss segments is a very
EVA-heavy task. Your proposal would require offloading a lot of EVAs
from the shuttle to the station crew, to be performed while the shuttle
is not present. Significant extra training would be required for the ISS
crew for this job.

Additionally, with a crew of only two, the SSRMS would not be available
during the EVA, which would require a rethink of the EVA procedures.

Asymmetry is only a real problem for the P3/4-S3/4 stage. Outer segments
are less important. Earlier ISS schedules had long gaps between the P6
relocation (shortly after the arrival of P5) and the arrival of S6 (very
late in the assembly sequence).

--Chris

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:52:05 -0500, John Doe wrote:

Am I the only one with a feeling that the arrays won't be launched by
the shuttle and P6 will stay on Z1 for a very long time ?

Can't answer if you're the only one, but I think worst case is that
ISS would end up with two or three, instead of four solar array sets.

Is there truly a consensus that the shuttle will complete assembly of
the truss ?

If you have ten remaining fights, I think the most likely scenario
is...

2006:
STS-121, ULF-1 (RTF Test Flight 2)
STS-115, P3 & P4

2007:
STS-120, Node 2
STS-122, Columbus

2008:
STS-116, P5
STS-117, S3 & S4

2009:
STS-124, Kibo JEM
STS-125, Kibo EF

2010:
STS-118, S5
STS-119, S6

The outfitting missions for Columbus and Kibo currently scheduled for
Shuttle would be offloaded to ATV and HTV.

One of the Truss flights might get canned for HST, but I'd doubt it.

Should the shuttle be grounded midways in those flights, it runs the
chance of leaving the station in an asymetrical configuation.

They can live with that, now that NASA can buy Progress flights to
keep ISS tanked up.

Brian

John Doe wrote in :

Chris Bennetts wrote:
I suspect that there'll be a few nervous moments when the P6 arrays are
retracted and re-extended during the relocation. As I recall, there were
a few hiccups during the initial extension on STS-97. I hope it goes
smoothly.


Am I the only one with a feeling that the arrays won't be launched by
the shuttle and P6 will stay on Z1 for a very long time ?

Is there truly a consensus that the shuttle will complete assembly of
the truss ?

Consensus? Didn't I already say that the current plan is being reviewed by
the ISS partners, and that they wanted their elements moved earlier (before
the completion of the truss)? "Consensus" depends on how well the partners
negotiate here, provided they don't shoot themselves in the foot.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Brian Thorn wrote:
If you have ten remaining fights, I think the most likely scenario
is...

2006:
STS-121, ULF-1 (RTF Test Flight 2)
STS-115, P3 & P4

2007:
STS-120, Node 2
STS-122, Columbus

2008:
STS-116, P5
STS-117, S3 & S4
[...]

I mostly agree, but I'd swap the 2007 and 2008 flights. As well as the
symmetry issue, there may be a power issue to consider.

When P4/S4's arrays are extended, the P6 array on that side has to be
retracted for clearance. I'm not sure that P4 and half of P6 would be
enough to power Node 2 and Columbus adequately for even basic
utilisation. It'd be safer to get both sides in place before launching
Columbus and the Node.

--Chris

Chris Bennetts wrote:
I mostly agree, but I'd swap the 2007 and 2008 flights. As well as the
symmetry issue, there may be a power issue to consider.

I agree. As well, installing the truss requires far more EVA tasks than
just berthing a new module and making a few connections on the outside.
With a 2 man crew on ISS, presence of shuttle makes EVAs far easier
because there is someone to man the arm , choreograph everything etc.

So the focus should be on launching the truss modules which really do
require most EVA work. And considering that the shuttle could be
grounded at any point in time, those tasks shoudl have priority. And
with columbus/kibo unlaunched, that gives incentive for NASA to
contuinue to fly shuttle to complete its commitment.

Lets not forget that NASA also has to power most of the russian segment
which will remain the core life support segment, so the arrays are
quite important.

Launching node2, kibo and columbus first may allow NASa to declare "we
delivered on our commitments and can stop operating shuttle", but
without the truss, those segments are useless.

"Bob Haller" wrote in message
oups.com...
No I am important till the day, hopefully soon when the shuttle is
permanetely grounded.

I sincerly hope this is BEFORE the shuttle kills again!


The shuttle doesn't kill, Bob.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:27:19 -0600, Mark Lopa wrote
(in article ):


"Bob Haller" wrote in message
oups.com...
No I am important till the day, hopefully soon when the shuttle is
permanetely grounded.

I sincerly hope this is BEFORE the shuttle kills again!


The shuttle doesn't kill, Bob.

More importantly, everyone on the planet is serving a life sentence and
no one gets out alive.

That's a concept Bbo hasn't ever seemed to grasp.

--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
www.angryherb.net

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:27:19 -0600, Mark Lopa wrote
(in article ):

No I am important till the day, hopefully soon when the shuttle is
permanetely grounded.

I sincerly hope this is BEFORE the shuttle kills again!

The shuttle doesn't kill, Bob.

More importantly, everyone on the planet is serving a life sentence and
no one gets out alive.

Oh thanks, I feel much better now.

That's a concept Bbo hasn't ever seemed to grasp.

It gives you a real good perspective on how the greater universe and
the cosmos views mankind.

http://webpages/charter.net/tsiolkovsky/rocket.htm

wrote:

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:27:19 -0600, Mark Lopa wrote
(in article ):

No I am important till the day, hopefully soon when the shuttle is
permanetely grounded.

I sincerly hope this is BEFORE the shuttle kills again!

The shuttle doesn't kill, Bob.

More importantly, everyone on the planet is serving a life sentence and
no one gets out alive.

Oh thanks, I feel much better now.

That's a concept Bbo hasn't ever seemed to grasp.

It gives you a real good perspective on how the greater universe and
the cosmos views mankind.

http://webpages/charter.net/tsiolkovsky/rocket.htm

Ok, it sucks :

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/rocket.htm

Ok, since I'm on the subject, I forgot what the subject was.

Anyways, there it is, take it or leave it.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:16:16 +1100, Chris Bennetts
wrote:

If you have ten remaining fights, I think the most likely scenario
is...

2006:
STS-121, ULF-1 (RTF Test Flight 2)
STS-115, P3 & P4

2007:
STS-120, Node 2
STS-122, Columbus

2008:
STS-116, P5
STS-117, S3 & S4
[...]

I mostly agree, but I'd swap the 2007 and 2008 flights. As well as the
symmetry issue, there may be a power issue to consider.

I thought about that, which would essentially be the existing schedule
minus the resupply and outfitting flights. But there has been so much
talk of juggling the schedule to appease Europe (and to a lesser
degree Japan) that I'm willing to bet that the actual two-per-year
schedule looks much like I proposed above (with the possibility of a
third flight in 2006 before the cuts really kick in.)

When P4/S4's arrays are extended, the P6 array on that side has to be
retracted for clearance. I'm not sure that P4 and half of P6 would be
enough to power Node 2 and Columbus adequately for even basic
utilisation. It'd be safer to get both sides in place before launching
Columbus and the Node.

Another thing to consider is that Columbus will be mostly empty when
launched, like Destiny was. It won't need a lot of power. And once its
up, ESA can start sending up racks via ATV (perhaps modified for PMA
berthing) while waiting for power. So once S3 and S4 arrive, its ready
to go.

Brian