Fly AMS, But Don't Expect A Rescue Capability

I see no problem with that. Frankly I think we have solved the tile and RCC damage problem pretty well Meaning back to problems that usually mean you want to come DOWN as soon as possible.

Lets fly it.
 
Actually, it is all about the money, as this flight would mean a change of the shutdown of Shuttle Operations, so it takes money away from Orion unless there is full funding for the extra mission.

On the "No problems with safety issues": Sounds like the typical response of people who will never ever fly the mission and have their own life put at risk. The TPS damage is not under control as it still happens and can still cause critical damage. The risk just got mitigated by a large amount, but that does only mean that you have only a lower probability of a controllable high damage risk - when it happens, and you have no back-up plan, you loose the crew. And it is your decision. It is no low probability-high damage risk, which happens in a short time and without notice.

Always remember Murphies Law, when gambling with the life of others (Regardless if you manage a Space program, be a medic or command a company in war): When things can go wrong, they will most likely do that with the most catastrophic results.
 
I heard about this on the radio the other day. Heck with them. Decision's been made, stick with it. Things are already set in motion to decommision STS, and it would cost a lot more money to turn around now. But the biggest thing has to be the compromising of post-Columbia safety rules. If NASA learns nothing else from the shuttle years, it has to be that not following the rules results in bad habits and has negative consequences.

Add to that the further delay of Orion.
 
Of course, the entire shuttle is a safety risk in the first place. No abort modes prior to SRB sep, and too many failures that can lead to an LCV.

At first I didn't quite appreciate the safety benefits of a tower-and-capsule type vehicle as opposed to a Shuttle type vehicle. Both the Challenger and Columbia accidents would have been more-or-less survivable with a tower-and-capsule.

With a TaC on Challenger, I think there's somewhat less of a likelyhood that an O-ring failure would have caused a structural failure. Even if there was a structural failure, the capsule would have been upwind of debris, there would have been an escape tower, and capsules are generally sturdier. Plus, the capsule would have had parachutes, rather than depending on wings to land, which are fragile and can be snapped off in such an accident. Challenger would have been an abort, but not an LCV. Now, if there had been an actual explosion, rather than just a breakup, things are a bit iffier.

For Columbia, the lack of an exposed heat shield (and its position upwind of debris) would have prevented damage to the heat shield. Of course, in the event of a heat shield failure (whether from damage or bad design), a TaC would have had much the same misfortune as Columbia.
 
See this story:

Senate Commerce Committee Approves National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008

I don't understand American politics. Does this mean that NASA has got extra money or does El Presidente still need to sign it off?

The bill requires the agency to develop a plan to support the operations of the International Space Station beyond 2015 and to ensure the Station's scientific capabilities are utilized to the maximum extent. The bill also requires the Administrator to establish an International Space Station Utilization Advisory Committee to assess and recommend scientific research to effectively utilize the Station. The bill establishes a research fund of $200 million to support scientific research, including the development of flight hardware for experiments on the Station. Finally, the bill requires the Administrator to plan an additional Shuttle mission to deliver scientific experiments to the Station.
Click to expand...
Is that political speak for the AMS gets to fly, assuming $200m is enough?
 
Since the congress passed it with more than two thirds of the votes in favor (please correct me if I'm wrong) I don't even think the president gets a chance to veto it.
 
Zatnikitelman said:
Since the congress passed it with more than two thirds of the votes in favor (please correct me if I'm wrong) I don't even think the president gets a chance to veto it.
Click to expand...

The President can still veto a bill with a two-thirds majority vote in favor. It gets sent back to Congress for reconsideration and if both houses vote a two-thirds majority in favor, the veto gets overridden.
 
Master of Blades said:
Huh? Anyone care to explain what's this all about?
Click to expand...
I hope this explanation is what you're looking for. If not, let me know.

United States Representative Mark Udall decided that he really wants the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, or AMS, to be added to the ISS. So, on May 15, he introduced H.R. 6063, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008. This bill will require NASA to, among other things, continue operating the ISS through at least 2020. It will also require NASA to fly another shuttle mission "to deliver scientific experiments to the Station." Presumably this refers to the AMS.

Stick with me, because this next part will be hard to follow.

U.S. Government 101 - Congressional Procedure

The U.S. House of Representatives sent this bill to the House Committee on Science and Technology, which then sent it on to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. On May 20, the subcommittee passed the bill, and the full committee followed suit on June 4. The House itself amended the bill several times, and passed the amended bill on June 18. On June 20, the bill was sent to the U.S. Senate, which sent it to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. On June 24, the committee passed the bill unanimously.

Now this bill will head to the Senate floor for a general vote. If it fails to pass, it will just flat out die. If the Senate as a whole passes the bill, then the next step depends on whether or not the Senate amended the bill. If the Senate passed a different version, the bill goes to a special "conference committee", consisting of members of both the Senate and the House. Once this committee irons out all the differences, the bill will be sent back to both the Senate and the House for a new vote. If this vote fails, then the bill is dead, and the measure can't be brought up for another year. If it passes both votes, though, then the bill goes to the President, who will either sign it into law or veto it. If the President chooses for whatever reason to veto the bill, then Congress can override the veto if a two-thirds majority in both houses votes for the bill.

NASA's reaction

NASA itself is trying to get the ISS finished so they can retire the shuttle and move on to Orion, so they're not too happy about this latest development. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has basically told the Senate that unless Congress is willing to spend the money to add another mission to the manifest and to keep the production and processing facilities open, then this mission will fly without the standard contingency backup, if indeed it flies at all.
 
Considering the large amount of money already dumped into the AMS project, it almost seems like more of a waste not to fly it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Hello, rediscovering my passion for spaceflight
Replies
3
Views
2K
N_Molson
N_Molson
dgatsoulis
Project Orbiter MediaPlayerMFD open for testing [CLOSED]
Replies
12
Views
5K
dgatsoulis
dgatsoulis
DecoFox
Problem My vessel DLL crashes on launch, but only sometimes
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
Blake
B
TorchDesigner
Problem [Orbiter2024] Multiple Bugs with XR1 and Fly-by-Wire
Replies
1
Views
4K
dbeachy1
dbeachy1
pi314
KSP degen returning after a decade or so
Replies
0
Views
645
pi314
pi314
Back
Top