Author Topic: STS-107 to ISS?  (Read 31372 times)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
STS-107 to ISS?
« on: 09/01/2011 09:59 pm »
One issue that has never been resolved AFAIK is whether STS-107 could have *usefully* flown to ISS to conduct its mission while docked to the station. Yes, I know that Columbia was mass limited and yes, I know that Columbia did not carry a docking adapter .... but .... if, for example, Columbia had been equipped with a SpaceHAB docking module (a normal SpaceHAB research module with an APAS in the roof), could Columbia have docked with ISS? If so, what amount of mass could have been carried inside the SpaceHAB module? Could the EDO have flown, as well?

I am curious why Columbia was not turned into a utilization vehicle for the ISS program; it seems that the plan was to only fly Columbia on rare occasions after 2003 (of course, the accident changed all those plans).  Just the mid-deck downmass that could have been carried back by Columbia would have made docking with ISS worthwhile, and the water generated by the fuel cells would have been very useful for ISS.

I know the original reason why STS-107 was not slated to dock with ISS, but after Triana was bumped off from the payload bay, there must have been some reason why STS-107 wasn't re-scheduled to fly to ISS.



Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10390
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 1415
  • Likes Given: 171

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #2 on: 09/01/2011 10:20 pm »
One issue that has never been resolved AFAIK is whether STS-107 could have *usefully* flown to ISS to conduct its mission while docked to the station. Yes, I know that Columbia was mass limited and yes, I know that Columbia did not carry a docking adapter .... but .... if, for example, Columbia had been equipped with a SpaceHAB docking module (a normal SpaceHAB research module with an APAS in the roof), could Columbia have docked with ISS? If so, what amount of mass could have been carried inside the SpaceHAB module? Could the EDO have flown, as well?

I am curious why Columbia was not turned into a utilization vehicle for the ISS program; it seems that the plan was to only fly Columbia on rare occasions after 2003 (of course, the accident changed all those plans).  Just the mid-deck downmass that could have been carried back by Columbia would have made docking with ISS worthwhile, and the water generated by the fuel cells would have been very useful for ISS.

I know the original reason why STS-107 was not slated to dock with ISS, but after Triana was bumped off from the payload bay, there must have been some reason why STS-107 wasn't re-scheduled to fly to ISS.


RDM and DDM were different modules.  DDM was for logistics and not research.

There are many reasons why not to go
a.  who was going to pay for the DDM
b.  107 wanted microgravity and not rendezvous thrusting
c.  107 was two shifts and rendezvous would have interrupted shifting
d.  107 flew a repeating orbit and the inclination was set up launch and entry would work with the 2 shifts.
e.  There would be no benefit for 107 to be at the ISS for its science.
f.  107 middeck was fulled with experiments

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #3 on: 09/01/2011 10:32 pm »
One issue that has never been resolved AFAIK is whether STS-107 could have *usefully* flown to ISS to conduct its mission while docked to the station. Yes, I know that Columbia was mass limited and yes, I know that Columbia did not carry a docking adapter .... but .... if, for example, Columbia had been equipped with a SpaceHAB docking module (a normal SpaceHAB research module with an APAS in the roof), could Columbia have docked with ISS? If so, what amount of mass could have been carried inside the SpaceHAB module? Could the EDO have flown, as well?

About 6000-7000 lbs less than it actually did (I don't have the cargo mass off the top of my head), assuming the EDO had flown, just due to the greater mass of Columbia alone. Then a penalty on top of that due to inclination (51.6 vs 39) which I don't have handy right now.

Of course, the SpaceHAB docking module was never developed, so the real mass penalty would have been higher since the ODS would need to have been installed.

Quote
I am curious why Columbia was not turned into a utilization vehicle for the ISS program; it seems that the plan was to only fly Columbia on rare occasions after 2003 (of course, the accident changed all those plans).

Columbia would have flown STS-118 (ISS 13A.1) had the accident not occurred. It could possibly have done additional utilization/logistics missions after assembly complete, but the manifest didn't go out far enough to see them even if they'd been planned. There were a lot of little reasons Columbia wasn't used for utilization/logistics during assembly, such as manifest inflexibility due to Columbia's performance being much lower than the others (ISS flights were routinely shifted between orbiters as schedules slipped), a desire to keep one orbiter in a non-ISS config with the internal airlock, and a desire not to fly Columbia much (at the time of the accident, Columbia was scheduled to fly just three missions: STS-118/ISS 13A.1 in 2003, STS-123/HST SM-04 in 2004, and STS-144 HST retrieval in 2009).

Quote
I know the original reason why STS-107 was not slated to dock with ISS, but after Triana was bumped off from the payload bay, there must have been some reason why STS-107 wasn't re-scheduled to fly to ISS.

Payload penalty, desire to concentrate crew training on science ops rather than ISS (and all that entails, like rendezvous), dual shift flight would have been disruptive to ISS ops.
JRF

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #4 on: 09/01/2011 11:01 pm »
One issue that has never been resolved AFAIK is whether STS-107 could have *usefully* flown to ISS to conduct its mission while docked to the station. Yes, I know that Columbia was mass limited and yes, I know that Columbia did not carry a docking adapter .... but .... if, for example, Columbia had been equipped with a SpaceHAB docking module (a normal SpaceHAB research module with an APAS in the roof), could Columbia have docked with ISS? If so, what amount of mass could have been carried inside the SpaceHAB module? Could the EDO have flown, as well?

I am curious why Columbia was not turned into a utilization vehicle for the ISS program; it seems that the plan was to only fly Columbia on rare occasions after 2003 (of course, the accident changed all those plans).  Just the mid-deck downmass that could have been carried back by Columbia would have made docking with ISS worthwhile, and the water generated by the fuel cells would have been very useful for ISS.

I know the original reason why STS-107 was not slated to dock with ISS, but after Triana was bumped off from the payload bay, there must have been some reason why STS-107 wasn't re-scheduled to fly to ISS.


The reasons that Rookie gave are correct.  In addition, the flight planning took, at the time, two to three years so changing the design would have delayed an already delayed flight.  In hingsight it's very easy to say, "why didn't we fly to ISS", but at the time it would have been , "why fly to ISS?".  ISS wasn't paying for the payload from their accounts and they would have had to accomodate the payloads. 

This really is a question that at the time would have made no sense. It's probably why there wasn't an answer to it. The thought of needing a rescue capability for that flight would not have even come up.

And really (in my mind) the real question you could ask is why we continued to fly after STS-112?  That might be worth a chapter in a book one day.

Hindsight is 20-20 but at the time flying STS-107 to ISS really wasn't a consideration.

Andy
(or Noobie, if you prefer)
« Last Edit: 09/02/2011 01:20 am by alk3997 »

Offline Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #5 on: 09/02/2011 12:48 am »
~ 15,000 lbs?


Then a penalty on top of that due to inclination (51.6 vs 39) which I don't have handy right now.


Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #6 on: 09/02/2011 01:18 am »
~ 15,000 lbs?


Then a penalty on top of that due to inclination (51.6 vs 39) which I don't have handy right now.



I seem to remeber something about 400 lbs per 0.1 degree of inclination or something like that.  It's in the KSC Shuttle handbook that used to be available to the news media.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #7 on: 09/02/2011 01:34 am »
~ 15,000 lbs?


Then a penalty on top of that due to inclination (51.6 vs 39) which I don't have handy right now.



I seem to remeber something about 400 lbs per 0.1 degree of inclination or something like that.  It's in the KSC Shuttle handbook that used to be available to the news media.



600lb per degree noobie

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #8 on: 09/02/2011 01:37 am »
The reasons that Rookie gave are correct. 

There wasn't any doubt nor did you have to confirm it.

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #9 on: 09/02/2011 02:00 am »
The reasons that Rookie gave are correct. 

There wasn't any doubt nor did you have to confirm it.

Ah yes, but I did need to add to it.  It wasn't just the technical details tha you gave that made it a non-factor at the time.

And, thanks for the correction on 600 lbs.

Andy


Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #10 on: 09/02/2011 10:22 am »
You asked a really murky question and then got a bunch of misleading replies. You and the questioners seem to be focused on the technical engineering issues. But those are not the important ones. Sure, Columbia could have flown to the ISS orbit. But that's not the point--by definition, STS-107 was not an ISS mission, it was a precursor research mission prior to starting research on ISS.

Go back and read the section in the CAIB report about why the STS-107 mission actually happened (I wrote that section).* I'm too lazy to do that myself right now, but here it is from memory:

STS-107 was initially proposed as a "research" mission to bridge the gap between a series of Spacelab missions in the 1990s and the operation of the ISS. The science community was concerned that NASA was essentially going to stop its research for something like 5+ years while it built ISS, then try and re-start the research after all the members of the community had quit and gone on to other things. So the NRC recommended that at least one, possibly two shuttle research missions be flown in the late 1990s. A congressional staffer then put this into (I think) a NASA authorization act. NASA then turned this into plans for two research missions that they then reduced to one mission, STS-107. STS-107 then got repeatedly delayed (in part because NASA officials never really wanted to do it in the first place).

So, by definition, the STS-107 mission was not an ISS mission. When you ask if it could have gone to ISS, that's warping the entire point--if they had sent Columbia to ISS, it would not have been the same mission, it would have been something entirely different.



*(Hey, look! A footnote!) I should add that ever since I wrote that part of the CAIB I have thought that I should turn it into a paper with more details about the origins of the STS-107 mission and then how it warped over time, especially including interviews with some of the people who initiated the research mission. But I've just never had the ambition to go and write that. And I keep hoping that somebody will come along and do a serious academic paper about it.
« Last Edit: 09/02/2011 10:42 am by Blackstar »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #11 on: 09/02/2011 02:34 pm »
Well, I was involved in some discussions about what became STS-107 very early on, which is what inspiring me to generate this duplicate thread. At the time, there was supposed to be a "commercial" tinge to STS-107, this was back when STS-107 was going to carry a grab bag of diverse payloads, including Triana.

Can anyone remember the proposal for STS-107 to rescue the Milstar satellite?

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #12 on: 09/02/2011 02:35 pm »
A congressional staffer then put this into (I think) a NASA authorization act. NASA then turned this into plans for two research missions that they then reduced to one mission, STS-107.

I can recall Congressionally mandated ISS utilization missions, but nothing about Congressionally mandated free flyer Shuttle missions.  I guess that's a lesson for us about having Congress run a space program.

« Last Edit: 09/02/2011 02:35 pm by Danderman »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #13 on: 09/02/2011 05:19 pm »
Well, I was involved in some discussions about what became STS-107 very early on, which is what inspiring me to generate this duplicate thread. At the time, there was supposed to be a "commercial" tinge to STS-107, this was back when STS-107 was going to carry a grab bag of diverse payloads, including Triana.

107 was a Spacehab RDM mission,period. Everything else was secondary

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #14 on: 09/02/2011 05:20 pm »

I can recall Congressionally mandated ISS utilization missions, but nothing about Congressionally mandated free flyer Shuttle missions.  I guess that's a lesson for us about having Congress run a space program.


It was ISS precursor missions and not utilization.  Precursor missions do not need to go to the ISS.

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #15 on: 09/02/2011 05:33 pm »
Well, I was involved in some discussions about what became STS-107 very early on, which is what inspiring me to generate this duplicate thread. At the time, there was supposed to be a "commercial" tinge to STS-107, this was back when STS-107 was going to carry a grab bag of diverse payloads, including Triana.

Can anyone remember the proposal for STS-107 to rescue the Milstar satellite?


There was never any flight design or other real program activity kicked-off to rescue Milstar with Shuttle on any flight.  Anything you heard would have been "what if's".  In that timeframe we did have a lot of discussions about OV-102 being turned over for commercial activity, however.

After STS-49, satellite rescues were frowned upon by higher-ups due to the cost and potential for them not working out well.  Remember the Intelsat rescue almost didn't work out well.

Andy

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #16 on: 09/02/2011 07:02 pm »
A congressional staffer then put this into (I think) a NASA authorization act. NASA then turned this into plans for two research missions that they then reduced to one mission, STS-107.

I can recall Congressionally mandated ISS utilization missions, but nothing about Congressionally mandated free flyer Shuttle missions.  I guess that's a lesson for us about having Congress run a space program.

I know it's become all popular lately for people to think that Congress is full of idiots and somehow the executive branch is full of ponies and rainbows, but I know some of the congressional staffers involved in this stuff and they are not dumb people. From what I understand of the situation, the Congress intervened to "run a space program" (and let's remember that they are duly elected officials in a democracy) because they thought that the executive branch--NASA--was essentially gutting its research program in favor of building the ISS and in the process, undercutting its reason for building ISS in the first place.

Put a different way--throughout the 1990s NASA periodically flew Spacehab research missions every couple of years. (Perhaps somebody can provide a list here.) The original plan was for NASA to fly the last mission on a shuttle and then a couple of years later start research on the ISS. If they followed this plan, there would be no interruption in research missions--they would essentially continue at 2-year intervals and transition from shuttle to ISS.

But ISS was perpetually delayed and it became clear in the research community, and within Congress, that NASA was going to fly the last Spacehab mission and then try to resume research on the ISS five years or more later. What happens in such a situation is that the community dies. People leave and go do other stuff. And you cannot attract new people because five years is longer than the time that a Ph.D. graduate student is willing to spend on data collection for a dissertation. In other words, long delays in research are horrible for research communities.

So the science community complained, and Congress listened, and Congress told NASA to fly two more shuttle research flights, which I think were initially designated "R1" and "R2." NASA decided to only do the R2 mission (although somewhere I have early manifests ca 1998 that show both missions scheduled). That R2 mission became STS-107 and then NASA kept delaying it and delaying it because they really wanted to build ISS and they really didn't care all that much about research.

The reason NASA ended the Spacehab missions when it did and the reason that it reduced the two missions to one, and the reason that STS-107 kept getting delayed is because at its heart, NASA's human spaceflight program is an engineering program and not a science program. The engineers want to build stuff, not help scientists study stuff. And this means that when money gets tight, the first thing they do is cut the research funding--which is why ISS has relatively little US science content but was a whopping big engineering project.
« Last Edit: 09/02/2011 07:03 pm by Blackstar »

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #17 on: 09/02/2011 08:11 pm »
Yes, thanks for the refresher.  I remember the arguments that we would go so quickly from SpaceLab (not just Hab) to ISS utilization flights in such a short time that there would be little interruption in science. 

Then the Russians were in constant delay mode on the Service Module and everything slowed down but there were no more Spacelab flights (Spacelab having been retired) even if ISS was delayed.  So, the two science missions were inserted as a way of getting some science while we waited for ISS to be available for science research.  Hab was then used as a not-quite-as-capable Spacelab-substitute.

If you look at the number of the flights, STS-88 was the first ISS assembly flight and STS-90 was the last Spacelab flight.  Of course, the STS-88 flight moved out six months beyond STS-90 and that was already after some previous slips.  It showed that science was intended to pick-up rather quickly again.

It's probably not fair to say that no one at NASA wanted science flights since (at least I think) the number of "pure science" Shuttle flights was really impressive.  If you look at the number of Spacelab flights and their costs, that is a huge investment in pure science. I'm not sure we'll see that ever again with a government space program.

There were many reasons that STS-107 was delayed, including flowliners, BSTRA balls and schedules of other flights.  That's where I really think the CAIB missed - they didn't put enough weight on the program looking at all of these other potential major problems that the program was working and realize that we had too many balls in the air at once.  We stood down for these items but never equated the foam loss on STS-112 with another item that could cause an accident.  But we did standdown with these other items.  It was a focus issue more than a we didn't care issue.  But, now I'm off topic (sorry).

Andy

« Last Edit: 09/02/2011 08:16 pm by alk3997 »

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #18 on: 09/02/2011 09:20 pm »
It's probably not fair to say that no one at NASA wanted science flights since (at least I think) the number of "pure science" Shuttle flights was really impressive.  If you look at the number of Spacelab flights and their costs, that is a huge investment in pure science. I'm not sure we'll see that ever again with a government space program.

I would not say that "no one" wanted science flights. It is certainly true that life and microgravity science was created at NASA and funded by the human spaceflight program. And science was essentially subsidized by the human side of the agency. However, it is a complex relationship and NASA's human spaceflight side remains at its core an engineering program. So what often happens is that the science is used as a justification for building stuff--like the ISS--but when the budgets get squeezed, the science is then thrown off so that the engineers can at least build something.

Now I could diverge and talk about how we ended up with a massive ISS that took forever to build before it could do any science at all and how that was both typical of this problem and a big mistake. But I won't do that.

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: STS-107 to ISS?
« Reply #19 on: 09/02/2011 09:40 pm »
"Now I could diverge and talk about how we ended up with a massive ISS that took forever to build before it could do any science at all and how that was both typical of this problem and a big mistake..."

Now that I agree with.  A smaller man-tended ISS at the beginning would have allowed microgravity science to continue.  But, again another topic.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1