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.
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).
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.
Then a penalty on top of that due to inclination (51.6 vs 39) which I don't have handy right now.
~ 15,000 lbs?Quote from: Jorge on 09/01/2011 10:32 pmThen a penalty on top of that due to inclination (51.6 vs 39) which I don't have handy right now.
Quote from: Fequalsma on 09/02/2011 12:48 am~ 15,000 lbs?Quote from: Jorge on 09/01/2011 10:32 pmThen 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.
The reasons that Rookie gave are correct.
Quote from: alk3997 on 09/01/2011 11:01 pmThe reasons that Rookie gave are correct. There wasn't any doubt nor did you have to confirm it.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: Blackstar on 09/02/2011 10:22 am 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.
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.