NASA buys SRMs for STS-335

[orb]

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/dec/HQ_C09-057_RSRM.html

CONTRACT RELEASE : C09-057

NASA Buys Additional Space Shuttle Reusable Solid Rocket Motors

WASHINGTON -- NASA has purchased two reusable solid rocket motors from ATK Launch Systems Inc. of Brigham City, Utah, to provide a "launch on need" rescue capability for the final planned space shuttle mission, targeted for September 2010.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

"Mini Shuttle extension"?

NASA are considering adding two additional missions to the Shuttle's manifest - STS-135 and STS-136.

STS-135 was originally called STS-335, and was intended to be the LON mission for STS-133. Given that, if flown, this would be the final Shuttle mission (so there would be no more opportunities to resupply the ISS via Shuttle), NASA decided to add an MPLM to STS-335 to replenish the ISS’s supplies after the increased consumption by the STS-133 crew’s extended stay.

However, NASA then decided that it would be a bit wasteful to retire the Shuttle with an Orbiter, an external tank, a set of SRB’s, and an MPLM ready to go, and so they threw together a mission – STS-135. There is also some speculation about a possible STS-136

If STS-135 is flown, it will have a crew of 4, so that in the event of tile damage during launch, the crew could be returned to Earth on the Soyuz's (two Soyuz would fly, each with a Russian commander plus two Shuttle crew). Of course, if these Soyuz flights were flown, it would significantly impact downstream ISS Expedition launches.

If both STS-135 and STS-136 are flown, STS-135's LON will be STS-136. STS-136 would then launch with a crew of 4, and its rescue would be by two Soyuz.

STS-135 would be flown by Atlantis.
Both missions would be flown sometime in late 2010/early 2011.

The payloads for both the missions would be an MPLM.
However, due to a problem with the ISS's software not liking two MPLMs being berthed to ISS at the same time, another option is to move STS-133's payload, the PMM, to the final Shuttle flight, and have STS-133 fly with an MPLM.

Whatever happens, Steve Lindsey will definitely command the final Space Shuttle mission!

Sources:
www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/nasa-evaluating-sts-135-addition-to-shuttle-manifest
www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/nasa-direction-extra-shuttle-flights-commerical-launcher

-----
Pretty exciting times for the SSP at the moment, with this "mini-extension" being considered!

 

[Ark]

The ISS's software can't handle two MPLMs docked at the same time? What are they running, Windows 95?

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

The ISS's software can't handle two MPLMs docked at the same time? What are they running, Windows 95?

No, Vista! :rofl:

(Actually, it was XP last time I checked)!

 

[orb]

NASA are considering adding two additional missions to the Shuttle's manifest - STS-135 & STS-136.

STS-135 was originally called STS-335, and was intended to be the LON mission for STS-133.

It's not definite yet. That's why I titled the thread "... for STS-335". If they decide to extend planned flights with at least STS-135, Atlantis will be moved from STS-335 to 135.

 

[Ark]

No, Vista! :rofl:

I told them not to do it, but they wouldn't listen! They let their love of flashy interfaces get the better of them, and now every time something docks, they have to click through a series of "Are you sure you want to allow STS-135.exe to dock?" :lol:

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

It's not definite yet.

Well, that's why I said "NASA are considering".

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------

I told them not to do it, but they wouldn't listen! They let their love of flashy interfaces get the better of them, and now every time something docks, they have to click through a series of "Are you sure you want to allow STS-135.exe to dock?" :lol:

"STS-135_docking.exe" requires a software update.

---
Downloading "dockingupdate.zip"

Stage 1 of 3 - 7% complete

:rofl:

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Estimated time of completion: December 22, 2012 or when Earth explodes, which ever comes first!

 

[Urwumpe]

The ISS's software can't handle two MPLMs docked at the same time? What are they running, Windows 95?

Actually, the software that has a problem is the operating system of the ISS itself, which is a custom thing, running on 386SX processors. It would be possible to fix the problem and write new software to be patched, but guess what: That would take more time as the Space Shuttle has.

 

[Ark]

Actually, the software that has a problem is the operating system of the ISS itself, which is a custom thing, running on 386SX processors. It would be possible to fix the problem and write new software to be patched, but guess what: That would take more time as the Space Shuttle has.

Within the NASA bureaucracy, maybe. I know a couple of college kids that'll do it in exchange for some supercomputer time and all the Code Red they can drink. :lol:

 

[SiberianTiger]

Actually, the software that has a problem is the operating system of the ISS itself, which is a custom thing, running on 386SX processors. It would be possible to fix the problem and write new software to be patched, but guess what: That would take more time as the Space Shuttle has.

They should really consider outsourcing. :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

The problem is more the formal verification of the code... this is already something that takes ages on "Hello World" and is a lifetime task for a complete OS...

 

[Andy44]

Within the NASA bureaucracy, maybe. I know a couple of college kids that'll do it in exchange for some supercomputer time and all the Code Red they can drink. :lol:

Yeah, but you don't want to trust people's lives to code written in that manner. Space shuttle software is expensive, but that's because it's done right. Here's a good article about the code-writers for STS:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html

 

[Notebook]

Slightly off topic, why don't they leave a Shuttle attached to the ISS? Besides the obvious problem of getting a spare crew back down, I can't see any others.

N.

 

[tl8]

They have already sold them...

 

[Ghostrider]

Slightly off topic, why don't they leave a Shuttle attached to the ISS? Besides the obvious problem of getting a spare crew back down, I can't see any others.

Because it takes up one docking port, it increases drag and after a couple of weeks it's just an expensive paperweight that you can't use anyway because it's too big for any desk and in freefall paperweights are meaningless anyway.

 

[jinglesassy]

slightly off topic but whats going to happen to endeavor discovery and atlantis after retirement?

 

[Notebook]

They have already sold them...

Well, they might have said, I was going to put in a bid...

To Ghostrider:

Changing course slightly....maybe it could be there for some time, not permanently.
Could it be moved some distance away with no risk? Could it use the OMS system to boost the ISS, or is it off-axis.
Seems a shame to leave both of them in museums.
All these questions, and its nearly Xmas.

N.

 

[agentgonzo]

Slightly off topic, why don't they leave a Shuttle attached to the ISS? Besides the obvious problem of getting a spare crew back down, I can't see any others.

N.

Without constant power and running of the fuel cells, the orbiter would freeze up and stop working. Once it gets into that state it's dead and can't be restarted. The station-to-shuttle power system cannot keep the shuttle fully powered - only provide a top-up to the shuttle's fuel cells.

 

[Notebook]

I suspected something like that(honest!) Just a shame for them to end up on Earth. Why not leave one in orbit? Too sentimental?

N.