Nelson Begins Formal Push For Extra Shuttle Flight

Hmm, but then there would be no LON available for THIS mission. If there's a failure before reaching ISS, the only rescue option would be a Soyuz TM. That's not going to bring back 4 crew, Unless they use both Soyuz vehicles from ISS.

What a shame. He has sold out to Obama for 1 additional flight. WTF!

Then we can transition into your vision for space Mr. President.

Wow, he sure put up a fight didn't he.

And he's from Florida, what a joke...

I don't think the people who were in the House hearing today would have rolled over so easily.

We'll see.

Not good enough. Restart tank production on an accelerated schedule and eliminate the gap!
Fly shuttle twice a year and begin transition over to shuttle derived heavy lift.
Pony up congress. NASA is chump change compared to your other bottomless pit spending. America's future is fading and your letting it happen!

That is the plan...they would use the Soyuz as the CRV but the cost spiral up quickly there if one is actually needed...

the LON is not going to move to an operational number...there is no money for it.

Robert G. Oler

They would have two Soyuz on standby at Baikonour to act as rescue vehicles for STS-135. Each would fly with a pilot and have seats for two astronaunts from Atlantis. Frankly, it's questionable whether that back-up plan is practical. I'm not sure that two Soyuz and two R-7s could be made ready in time on the sort of time-scale that would be required to support STS-135.

If anyone from SSP reads this, one old LWT tank is in storage at KSC. It is not currently in accord with NASA standards. However, given that STS-135 would be a year away at the very least, could it be made ready? It would be a lot easier if Endeavour were available for a LON-336 mission (in the unlikely event of problems) instead of having to arrange a deal with Roskosmos.

So instead of a 5 year gap, Nelson trims it down to 4.5 years, BFD. Do Florida voters really think Nelson is looking out for them with this BS?

That's what I was worried about! So a 4-person ride, needing two Soyuz and corresponding R7s ready! That's an awful mess. Unless ISS timelines are arranged so that these systems can be ready to then fly as usual ISS CRV.

Bolden pointed out before that going this way is tough.

> Do Florida voters really think Nelson is looking out for them with this BS?

What else do you expect him to do? Drive his car over the rest of Congress who aren't in favor of Florida handouts?

> [STS-135] would provide critical spare parts and logistics for long-term ISS operations

Who would think the STS and ISS people are this stupid? Who actually thinks they planned the entire fly-out of the shuttle and missed some "critical spare parts and logistics"?

Jeeze guys we're one flight short. We forgot to take up the oxygen tanks.

What a waste-SOMD has already said this flight isn't necessary to keep ISS running.....what's going to get a deep cut in NASA's FY11 budget to pay for this ~billion dollar pure Florida jobs handout ? Because I'm willing to bet Nelson isn't getting a top line plus up for this gov't welfare stunt.

Additionally is Nelson willing to take the blame if Atlantis has a bad day resulting from launching an aging spacecraft for the pure sake of maintaining Florida jobs for an extra 6 months ? The chaos that would ensue even in the scenario that a crippled Atlantis reached the ISS would be ugly.

I agree. The Shuttle program needs to continue until NASA has a successor vehicle ready to take humans back into orbit.

Marcel F. Williams

Griffin did. There's a record of his Congress testimony, where he mentioned all things necessary to complete the ISS -- and the corresponding Shuttle missions -- all to meet the 2010 Shuttle retirement deadline. All other things were cut -- to the point that AMS-2 was put back on the manifest by the Congress, not NASA. So the manifest was cut to the bone.

Most of those flights were construction flights, with some resupply missions thrown in for a good measure. SUDDENLY, a system or subsystem would fail here or there -- and OMG, there's no space on the manifest to fly a replacement!!! Who could have thought, THINGS BREAK from time to time!?!

While Griffin boys spent all and more on their "Vision" Ares rockets, the 100 billion $ orbiting outpost was left without a viable plan to deliver big spare parts post 2010. Strangely enough, ISS is designed in a way that only Shuttle can ship most modules and components -- with some saying it was done mainly as a way to make sure Russians could not come up with Energia as competition (think of it -- several Skylab-sized modules stuck together. Each module thrown with a single unmanned launch. The Station could have been completed so much faster...). Anyway, now comes a time when the new NASA boss has a mandate to run ISS to 2020 or longer, and stares into logistical abyss...

Well, if a shuttle is damaged and cannot reach the ISS (including JURe), and cannot abort/land -- it's toast anyway, LON or not. AFAIK, the shuttle cannot support its crew for a month, and LC-39A pad turnaround schedule is more than 30 days. LC-39B is not available anymore. So a shuttle that cannot TAL and cannot reach ISS is lost with all hands. Sad but true.

"Who would think the STS and ISS people are this stupid? Who actually thinks they planned the entire fly-out of the shuttle and missed some "critical spare parts and logistics"?"

Accusations of stupidity aren't part of this. The fact is that the plan has changed.

The plan under which STS-134 was the last shuttle mission assumed ISS retirement in 2015. Now, the ISS is being extended until 2020 or possibly longer. So, it is quite possible that there are some components that are not currently manifested that would be required to keep the ISS operational until 2020 but were not needed if you assumed a 2015 retirement. Will CRS be operational at the necessary flight rate to close that gap? Will it be operational soon enough to compensate for this possibility? Given the $100B invested in ISS, why take the risk on that dice roll?

Without a significant top line plus up (i.e., ~$3 billion per year) which NASA will never receive, NASA cannot afford to bring a successor online, restart Shuttle production lines, and operate Shuttle all at the same time.

The old argument about what amount Congress SHOULD fund NASA should no longer be part of the conversation because its a hopeless plea.

We are so close to ending the External fuel tank production line it might not be doable to start it back up. All major tooling at Michoud is in a preservation state and a contract for removal of ET tooling has been awarded. The unofficial word is NASA has postpone removal until touchdown of the last shuttle flight.
A commercial (non aerospace) contractor is requesting over 280,000 square feet of production space for their project in the main 103 blding at Michoud. NASA has set aside space in a former et storage building to get them to get them started on their project.
It doesn't make sense to remove ET tooling if HLV
is going to be shuttle derived by design.
Boeing and Lockheed are still proceeding at Michoud on the Orion and Ares upper stage programs
a new VAB is being constructed on the east of the 103 building and is well underway.

Yes, that is unfortunately true. One little result of Ares 1-X.

But even with an abort to ISS, you still need to get the extra two Soyuz up pretty quickly.