Author Topic: FEATURE: After 26 Years, Workhorse Discovery Stands Ready for Final Mission  (Read 10812 times)

Offline STS-85

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Liked: 1
Also, unless I'm not thinking straight, Discovery launched 6 flights within 1 calendar year, right? That's gotta be a record?
STS-41D, 51A, 51C, 51D, 51G, 51I

Offline STS-85

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Liked: 1
One last thing..
You say on STS-95, beacuse of the drag-chute door issue, that that was the only flight since implementation of the drag-chute to not use it..
I'm pretty certain the following flight, STS-88, did not use it either.. because Endeavour was already on the Pad, they bolted the chute door shut and obviously didn't use it on landing....

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15672
  • Liked: 33
quick question -
You said that if the main engines light up, it's considered a flight, even if they're shut down as in STS-41D, and require changing out..

So after the FRR on 6/2/84, did they change out the main engines
Depended on the situation in the different cases, sometimes with a varying number of variables.  In some cases, some or all the engines were replaced after a FRF or pad shutdown; in some cases, post-firing engine inspections, maintenance, and retesting were carried out in-place at the pad.

In the case of 41D, the center engine was replaced after the FRF, as replacing the engine with another one that was ready was more advantageous to the schedule.  After the abort, the right engine was replaced with the original center engine.

Also, unless I'm not thinking straight, Discovery launched 6 flights within 1 calendar year, right? That's gotta be a record?
STS-41D, 51A, 51C, 51D, 51G, 51I
Not within the same calendar year, but within the span of a year in 1984 and 1985.

Offline STS-85

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Liked: 1
Also, unless I'm not thinking straight, Discovery launched 6 flights within 1 calendar year, right? That's gotta be a record?
STS-41D, 51A, 51C, 51D, 51G, 51I
[/quote]
Not within the same calendar year, but within the span of a year in 1984 and 1985.

That's what I meant, just worded it wrong.. impressive though, 6 flights w/in a year..


Offline Jason Davies

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 963
  • Liked: 4
Very good idea to add yet more to an epic length of an article, but there's no other way to do it. She deserves the full tribute. Nice work Chris G!

Offline Chris Bergin

  • NSF Managing Editor
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 97451
  • Liked: 7249
Yeah. Great idea by Chris G as leaving it as is wouldn't be a proper historical overview for her.

Remember, Chris G also gave her lost sisters Columbia and Challenger tribute articles too:

Challenger:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/01/1983-1986-missions-history-space-shuttle-challenger/

Columbia:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/02/space-shuttle-columbia-a-new-beginning-and-vision/

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/02/columbia-ov-102-a-pioneer-to-the-end/


Offline STS Tony

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
  • Liked: 5
  • Los Angeles
Beautful overview of a great servant.

Offline steveS

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Liked: 0
The articles mentions that "She also holds the distinction of reaching the highest orbital altitude of any Space Shuttle orbiter: 378 miles during the STS-103 mission to Hubble."

What about the orbits of the Hubble repair missions such as STS-125? Were they lower than 378 miles ?

Offline wally

  • Member
  • Posts: 73
  • Liked: 0
  • Romania
During STS-125, Atlantis had an orbital apogee of 566 km (352 miles), at least according to Heavens-Above. Probably due to effects of atmospheric drag on HST?
« Last Edit: 02/23/2011 10:40 AM by wally »

Online Naito

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • Liked: 18
  • Toronto, Canada
    • ProudlyGeeky
Great article Chris!

Which picture is this?? Where can I find the high-res?
Carl C.

Offline wedge

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 0
  • KSC, FL
From one of the many who have been with the program since the beginning, thank you very much for a great article.

Enjoyed reading it over and all the great memories it brought back.

Go Discovery!

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9699
  • Liked: 82
  • Lansing MI
Neat stuff with details of the stinger cracks from ET-137

---

After propellant was loaded into the external tank (ET), the November 5, 2010 launch of Space Shuttle mission STS-133 was scrubbed due to a gaseous hydrogen leak located in a vent line near the ground umbilical and ET connection. Subsequent visual inspections identified cracks in the sprayed-on foam insulation in the forward end of the ET intertank segment, adjacent to the liquid oxygen (LOX) tank, as shown in Figure 1. These cracks necessitated repair of the foam due to debris concerns that violated launch constraints. As part of the repair process, the affected foam was removed to reveal cracks in the underlying external hat stiffeners on the intertank, as shown in Figure 2. Ultimately, five stiffeners were discovered to be cracked adjacent to the LOX tank. As the managing center for the ET Project, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) coordinated failure investigation and repair activities among multiple organizations, which included the ET prime contractor (Lockheed Martin Space Systems Michoud Operations), the Space Shuttle Program Office at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC), the NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC), and the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC). STS-133 utilized the external tank designated as ET-137. Many aspects of the investigation have been reported previously in Refs. 1-7, which focus on the root cause of the failures, the flight readiness rationale and the local analyses of the stringer failures and repair. This paper summarizes the global analyses that were conducted on ET-137 as part of the NESC effort during the investigation, which was conducted primarily to determine if the repairs that were introduced to the stringers would alter the global response of the ET. In the process of the investigation, a new STAGS tabular input capability was developed to more easily introduce the aerodynamic pressure loads using a method that could easily be extended to incorporate finite element property data such as skin and stiffener thicknesses and beam cross-sectional properties.

Tags: