STS-119 Processing Latest (OPF/VAB/Rollout/Pad)

[Chris Bergin]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5407 - a good mission overview article from Chris Gebhardt.

This will serve as the opening processing flow thread.

[ChrisGebhardt]

Good article.  

[Chris Bergin]

Trekkie07 - 21/4/2008  8:56 PM

Good article.  

Yeah, he's a very promising writer! I'll send on your note

[Rocket Ronnie]

Very interesting read. Is there a high res of the image at the top of the article?

[Chris Bergin]

Rocket Ronnie - 21/4/2008  9:14 PM

Very interesting read. Is there a high res of the image at the top of the article?

Not really, as I photoshopped it Basically, it's a Shuttle image and two screenshots from an L2 video...but I'll post the hi res images of what I used, if that helps...

Shuttle image is from Jody Minor of MSFC.

[Rocket Ronnie]

Thanks Chris!!!

[George CA]

Interesting article. So they won't get the data back until mid to late 2009, after the Ares I-X flight. At least they are getting the data.

[Chris Bergin]

Bump Welcome home Discovery.

[ichilton]

Hi,

How come the numbers are all out of sync and it's STS-119 instead of STS-127?

Thanks

Ian

[Chris Bergin]

Hi,

How come the numbers are all out of sync and it's STS-119 instead of STS-127?

Thanks

Ian

I don't think there's any large theory behind it, other than the way the manifest panned out via changes to the running order, delays, RTFs etc.etc.

I'm sure one of the guys on here will be able to give a specific answer.

[Bruce]

After the gap in flights post-Columbia, the flights were rearranged somewhat. I believe it was to keep others happy. Such as installing Kibo without further delay. So STS-119 got delayed until S6 was essential. Rather than renumber the flights, they kept them. Hence STS-121 being out of sequence too (return to flight).

[nathan.moeller]

Hi,

How come the numbers are all out of sync and it's STS-119 instead of STS-127?

Thanks

Ian

I don't think there's any large theory behind it, other than the way the manifest panned out via changes to the running order, delays, RTFs etc.etc.

I'm sure one of the guys on here will be able to give a specific answer.

They name the missions in the order they plan them.  So, at the time of the Columbia accident, missions STS-114 through STS-120 had been planned out in detail and had their names.  When the word came in that a second return to flight mission was needed, it was planned out as STS-121.  So even though it was planned after STS-120, it flew first.

And remember that STS-119 was scheduled to fly right after STS-118 up until 2005.  The schedule at the time looked something like this -

STS-114 - LF1 - Rafaello
STS-121 - ULF1.1 - Leonardo
STS-115 -12A - P3/P4
STS-116 - 12A.1 - P5
STS-117 - 13A - S3/S4
STS-118 - 13A.1 - S5
STS-119 - 15A - S6
STS-120 - 10A - Node 2
STS-122 - 1E - Columbus

When NASA management decided to revamp the manifest that year, they decided to give the international partners priority in a sort of 'thank you for waiting' scenario.  It was determined that the S6 truss could wait until later so they moved STS-119 back a ways.  They just didn't change the designation of the mission.

[Shadow Spork]

Hi,

How come the numbers are all out of sync and it's STS-119 instead of STS-127?

Thanks

Ian

I don't think there's any large theory behind it, other than the way the manifest panned out via changes to the running order, delays, RTFs etc.etc.

I'm sure one of the guys on here will be able to give a specific answer.

They name the missions in the order they plan them.  So, at the time of the Columbia accident, missions STS-114 through STS-120 had been planned out in detail and had their names.  When the word came in that a second return to flight mission was needed, it was planned out as STS-121.  So even though it was planned after STS-120, it flew first.

And remember that STS-119 was scheduled to fly right after STS-118 up until 2005.  The schedule at the time looked something like this -

STS-114 - LF1 - Rafaello
STS-121 - ULF1.1 - Leonardo
STS-115 -12A - P3/P4
STS-116 - 12A.1 - P5
STS-117 - 13A - S3/S4
STS-118 - 13A.1 - S5
STS-119 - 15A - S6
STS-120 - 10A - Node 2
STS-122 - 1E - Columbus

When NASA management decided to revamp the manifest that year, they decided to give the international partners priority in a sort of 'thank you for waiting' scenario.  It was determined that the S6 truss could wait until later so they moved STS-119 back a ways.  They just didn't change the designation of the mission.

To add to that, this would also answer a more broader question over the history of the shuttle missions over the years on why they the mission numbers weren't in the order of their flight when first planned. For example, in late 1998, there was STS-95 with space shuttle Discovery (the flight that Sen. John Glenn flew on), in which it was the 92nd flight of the shuttle since STS-1. Right after that mission, it was STS-88, the first assembly mission of the ISS with Endeavour, and being the 93rd flight of the shuttle since STS-1.

[tblaxland]

Trekkie07 - 21/4/2008  8:56 PM

Good article. 

Yeah, he's a very promising writer! I'll send on your note

It was a good article. This sentence near the end caught my eye though:
"differential acceleration of the crewmember and the seat in the forward and backward X, Y, and Z axes"
Technical speak for "any direction", right? 

[nathan.moeller]

To add to that, this would also answer a more broader question over the history of the shuttle missions over the years on why they the mission numbers weren't in the order of their flight when first planned. For example, in late 1998, there was STS-95 with space shuttle Discovery (the flight that Sen. John Glenn flew on), in which it was the 92nd flight of the shuttle since STS-1. Right after that mission, it was STS-88, the first assembly mission of the ISS with Endeavour, and being the 93rd flight of the shuttle since STS-1.

Bingo.  There are many cases of this.  The reasons, however, vary.  STS-103 went out of order because of the Hubble emergency in 1999.  STS-107 went out of order because of the extensive planning and training required to fly the mission.  It all depends on the situation.  STS-119 will be the last mission to fly out of numerical order.  It's all normal from STS-127 to STS-133.

[ichilton]

When NASA management decided to revamp the manifest that year, they decided to give the international partners priority in a sort of 'thank you for waiting' scenario.  It was determined that the S6 truss could wait until later so they moved STS-119 back a ways.  They just didn't change the designation of the mission.

Thanks for all the answers/info!

Ian

[rosbif73]

STS-119 will be the last mission to fly out of numerical order.  It's all normal from STS-127 to STS-133.

... as currently planned. But with the talk of mandating Nasa to fly an extra mission for AMS, I imagine that mission would become STS-134 but might conceivably be shuffled to before 132 and 133.

[eeergo]

There was also talk of moving Node3/Cupola to an earlier date than that currently assigned because the hardware would be ready to go earlier. Possibly before STS-129, although that is just speculation right now of course.

[nathan.moeller]

STS-119 will be the last mission to fly out of numerical order.  It's all normal from STS-127 to STS-133.

... as currently planned. But with the talk of mandating Nasa to fly an extra mission for AMS, I imagine that mission would become STS-134 but might conceivably be shuffled to before 132 and 133.

Had no idea that was even in the works.  Let's hope I will stand corrected in two to three years.

[ChrisGebhardt]

Trekkie07 - 21/4/2008  8:56 PM

Good article. 

Yeah, he's a very promising writer! I'll send on your note

It was a good article. This sentence near the end caught my eye though:
"differential acceleration of the crewmember and the seat in the forward and backward X, Y, and Z axes"
Technical speak for "any direction", right? 

Yes sir.