STS-122 - Post MMT News Conference December 7
|
|
Thread rating:  |
John - 08 Dec 2007 08:26 GMT STS-122 - Post MMT News Conference December 7 http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 3184&Itemid=2
STS-122 - MMT News Conference December 6 http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 3182&Itemid=2
Craig Fink - 08 Dec 2007 13:43 GMT > STS-122 - Post MMT News Conference December 7 http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 3184&Itemid=2
In-plane liftoff, moving rendezvous performance propellent budget into the flight performance reserve, something they should consider for every flight. Ten minutes or one minute, not too much of a difference. That should be good for a couple thousand pounds. I didn't hear them talk about one of the most likely delays of a launch within the launch window. Which is someone straying into the range, and waiting for them to leave. Personally, I hope they do the right thing and launch over their head if someone strays into the range. It's an excessively large range they are protecting anyway.
Also, 11+2 day mission, not topping of the cryos for Sundays launch adds a little extra performance. With the power extention cord at the Space Station, I'm guessing that when they are talking about topping off the cryos, they aren't topping off the tanks. I wonder if NASA is taking extra payload to the Station now that they have the extention cord? Something like a 4+2 day cryos + extension cord = 11 + 2 days.
I hope one of the things they are looking at in the MCC is downlinked guidance parameter FT_FACTOR, compared to the nominal. The slope of this parameter compared to the "nominal" expected value is a real good indication of mixture ratio problems. On a flight when a plug came out of the SSME injector head and put a hole in the bell of the engine, it was real obvious post flight. High ISP because more hydrogen was being used, High MECO wt, but low on hydrogen.
Ares/Orion, tried and true Shuttle hardware, which has some tried and true Apollo hardware, like the ECO sensors in the hydrogen tank. I wonder if these great ECO sensors are going full circle and going to make it back into the Apollo on Steroids vehicle.
 Signature Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com
Brian Gaff - 08 Dec 2007 15:47 GMT I thought Atlantis could not use station power etc?
So, if the problem with these sensors was not the connectors, what was it?
My guess oxidisation on some crimped or wire wrap joint.
Brian
 Signature Brian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please!
> >> STS-122 - Post MMT News Conference December 7 [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > these great ECO sensors are going full circle and going to make it back > into the Apollo on Steroids vehicle. Craig Fink - 08 Dec 2007 15:58 GMT > I thought Atlantis could not use station power etc? That's odd, having an extension cord with no plug in Atlantis. What a waste if they forgot to modify Atlantis... I would have thought the extra payload would have been worth the cost.
 Signature Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com
Brian Thorn - 08 Dec 2007 16:09 GMT >> I thought Atlantis could not use station power etc? > >That's odd, having an extension cord with no plug in Atlantis. What a waste >if they forgot to modify Atlantis... I would have thought the extra payload >would have been worth the cost. Remember, this is still officially Atlantis's last flight to the Space Station, so NASA didn't give her SSPTS (wasn't a justifiable expense for only one flight.)
Word is that NASA is now planning to "non-retire" Atlantis and fly her two or three more times after next year's STS-125 (the Hubble mission) but that hasn't been approved or funded yet. In that case, they'll probably add SSPTS along with the other "mini-OMM" updates they'll have to perform between flights.
Brian
OM - 12 Dec 2007 09:33 GMT >Word is that NASA is now planning to "non-retire" Atlantis and fly her >two or three more times after next year's STS-125 (the Hubble mission) ...As I said when the fleet retirement was announced, don't be surprised if Congress issues orders to keep at least one Shuttle in use - if not two for the rescue mission options - past 2010 as a contingency for both Orion/Ares delays and ISS heavy payloads.
OM
 Signature ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[
Jorge R. Frank - 13 Dec 2007 03:21 GMT >> Word is that NASA is now planning to "non-retire" Atlantis and fly her >> two or three more times after next year's STS-125 (the Hubble mission) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > use - if not two for the rescue mission options - past 2010 as a > contingency for both Orion/Ares delays and ISS heavy payloads. Flying one orbiter makes no sense. The shuttle program costs $4 billion per year whether you fly it or not, independent of flight rate. Flying one orbiter would allow two flights per year, at $2 billion per flight. Either keep flying all three (with one down regularly for OMM, that leaves two for operational duty, allowing them to be the LON backups for each other) or retire them.
Greg D. Moore (Strider) - 13 Dec 2007 03:33 GMT >>> Word is that NASA is now planning to "non-retire" Atlantis and fly her >>> two or three more times after next year's STS-125 (the Hubble mission) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > for operational duty, allowing them to be the LON backups for each other) > or retire them. My primary vote, keep all 3 flying.
(my secondary vote, scrap Orion/Ares, build a OV-20x with same moldline but incorporate all lessons learned and make it a MUCH easier to turnaround the orbiter vehicle. Get rid of the hypergolics, etc.)
 Signature Greg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
Justa Lurker - 13 Dec 2007 03:41 GMT > The shuttle program costs $4 billion > per year whether you fly it or not, independent of flight rate. Not to be argumentative (honest!) but why does the cost remain at $4B/year whether there are any flights or not ?
Is cost mainly for keeping all of the supporting people on the payroll, trained, etc. ? Couldn't some be furloughed ? Was that done during post-Challenger and post-Columbia standdowns ?
Aren't there incremental costs for consumables which could be eliminated if they suspended flights ? Or are those "down in the noise" compared to the meeting payroll, benefits, facilities, and so forth ?
Just curious.
Greg D. Moore (Strider) - 13 Dec 2007 05:26 GMT >> The shuttle program costs $4 billion per year whether you fly it or not, >> independent of flight rate. > > Not to be argumentative (honest!) but why does the cost remain at $4B/year > whether there are any flights or not ? Well 'in the ballpark'.
> Is cost mainly for keeping all of the supporting people on the payroll, > trained, etc. ? Couldn't some be furloughed ? Was that done during > post-Challenger and post-Columbia standdowns ? You can furlough for say a year or so. But for one thing you risk losing trained people to other jobs. Generally not a good thing, especially for an aging system.
But if you're flying 2-3 times a year, you basically need to keep them on the payroll fulltime, even if they're only working 1/2 the time.
> Aren't there incremental costs for consumables which could be eliminated > if they suspended flights ? Or are those "down in the noise" compared to > the meeting payroll, benefits, facilities, and so forth ? They're fairly down in the noise. Last time I looked (which was about 5-6 years ago) I think the best estimate for incremental costs for a shuttle flight were about $150 million. (That included an ET at about $85 million I think, SRB refurbishment and everything else.).
With the newer SLWT that cost went up to I think about $115 million/tank.
Surprisingly, if you look at just the incremental costs for the shuttle, it wasn't actually that bad of a bargain. But, the fixed costs were huge. And unfortunately, it appears that Ares (in my opinion) won't do much better in that area.
High fixed costs aren't a problem if you have a high flight rate to match it. I've used the example of JFK airport in the past. Fixed costs are huge, but at a couple hundred flights a day, they're affordable. If they were "launching" a single 747-400 a day to Europe, no one could afford to fly.
So really, if you're going to fly the shuttle, you're almost better off flying more missions rather than fewer. Your costs go up in a sublinear fashion.
For example, assume fixed costs of $4 billion a year and incremental costs of $250 million/flight.
Keeping the shuttle flying for 2 flights a year... $4.5 billion. or $2.25 billion/flight.
Fly it 4 times (which means 2 orbiters twice a year, very managable), you're up to $5 billion already down to $1.25 billion/flight.
9 times a year...you're down to about $700 million/flight.
With the currnet workforce, parts, etc. You're probably going to be able to do 6 flights/year max.
So, what would *I* do?
Keep the shuttle, ditch Ares/Orion.
Fly 2 flights a year to ISS (MPLM flights).
And then use the other 4 flights a year I could get to assemble a lunar lander (might need to fly fuel up on say an Atlas V just to time things right).
Or other missions of opportunity.
I'll bet at least through 2020 or so it'll be cheaper and accomplish more than Orion/Ares will.
By 2020, let the commercial segment take over almost all your work.
> Just curious.
 Signature Greg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
Justa Lurker - 13 Dec 2007 23:49 GMT ...snip....
Thanks, Greg ! That was the kind of background info for which I was looking.
Greg D. Moore (Strider) - 14 Dec 2007 00:38 GMT > ...snip.... > > Thanks, Greg ! That was the kind of background info for which I was > looking. Welcome.
I'd highly recommend getting a copy of Dennis Jenkin's Space Shuttle if you want more background on the history and the like.
 Signature Greg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
Jim in Houston - 14 Dec 2007 08:53 GMT >...snip.... > >Thanks, Greg ! That was the kind of background info for which I was >looking. Pure speculation, based on nothing other than my (sizable) gut feeling, but I really think we will see the shuttles flying thru 2020. I just don't see the Constellation program being ready by 2015. Coupled with the fact we don't have anything capable of heavy lift other than the STS. I'm rambling, but I feel toward the STS like I do the BUFF ( B-52) which was never intended to fly this long. I know, I know, but hey, a guy can dream. Can't he? Regards Jim in Houston.
Contrary to popular opinion RN does not mean Real Nerd! Teddy Roosevelt's mother said: "Fill what is empty, empty what is full, and scratch where it itches"
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Greg D. Moore (Strider) - 14 Dec 2007 19:16 GMT > Pure speculation, based on nothing other than my (sizable) gut > feeling, but I really think we will see the shuttles flying thru 2020. > I just don't see the Constellation program being ready by 2015. I tend to agree. We'll see in the next year.
Dawned on me that if Hillary wins, we may see a radical change in NASA. Not necessarily "for the better" but away from Bush's initatives back to her husbands. This means a renewed focus on ISS and not allowing the Russians to dominate.
> Coupled with the fact we don't have anything capable of heavy lift > other than the STS. I'd argue we don't need that much heavy lift (and if we do, look at Atlas and Delta).
We want "lots of live with crew to attend the cargo".
For example I still think the loss of MPLM capability will hurt us somewhat.
> I'm rambling, but I feel toward the STS like I do > the BUFF ( B-52) which was never intended to fly this long. > I know, I know, but hey, a guy can dream. Can't he? True, but there's a lot more BUFFs flying so you have a much better baseline for wear/tear/etc. And they're a LOT cheaper to fly.
I'd say the SR-71 is a more apt model. Really nice plane. Very useful. But perhaps too costly to really be worth it.
(btw, just finished reading Skunkworks. not a bad book, a few errors though.)
> Regards > Jim in Houston. > > Contrary to popular opinion RN does not mean Real Nerd! > Teddy Roosevelt's mother said: "Fill what is empty, > empty what is full, and scratch where it itches"
 Signature Greg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
Jim in Houston - 15 Dec 2007 23:05 GMT On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:19:02 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote:
>(btw, just finished reading Skunkworks. not a bad book, a few errors >though.) Thanks, gotta wait for payday, but I think I am going to put that book on my "want to read" list. Appreciate your comments, thanks for the reply. Regards, Jim in Houston.
Contrary to popular opinion RN does not mean Real Nerd! Teddy Roosevelt's mother said: "Fill what is empty, empty what is full, and scratch where it itches"
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Greg D. Moore (Strider) - 17 Dec 2007 01:09 GMT > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:19:02 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" > <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > book on my "want to read" list. Appreciate your comments, thanks for > the reply. Decent book. Not much in there that was new if you're familiar with the history.
One error that I can't make sense of.
During the "Suntan" project, Rich discusses how the US had discovered the USSR was apparently doing a lot of LH2 research/work of their own. They feared that the Soviets were building their own craft of their own.
SO far so good, but then he says the launch of Sputnik explained the sudden uptick in LH2 research. Which makes NO sense to me considering that it didn't use LH2 at all.
Then, strangely, after correctly describing how the SR-71 got its name, in the epilogue, which in my guess is written by Rich and not co-authored with Leo Janes, he repeats the common UL about it.
I would have also liked to have heard more about some of the failed Skunkworks projects (like perhaps more about Suntan).
Still not bad though.
> Regards, > Jim in Houston. > > Contrary to popular opinion RN does not mean Real Nerd! > Teddy Roosevelt's mother said: "Fill what is empty, > empty what is full, and scratch where it itches"
 Signature Greg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
Brian Thorn - 13 Dec 2007 23:34 GMT >Flying one orbiter makes no sense. The shuttle program costs $4 billion >per year whether you fly it or not, independent of flight rate. Flying >one orbiter would allow two flights per year, at $2 billion per flight. Well, they should be easily able to fly one Orbiter 3 or 4 times a year, Except for that &%$#(^ ECO sensor, Atlantis would have flown twice in six months this year. Discovery did two in five months last year.
Brian
|
|
|