Jim - 22/7/2007 10:20 PMOne of the stories was to avoid STS-13. Another was they wanted to track missions/payloads vs flights. "I still wonder why the Challenger launch planned for January 1986, following 61-A, B, and C, still was numbered as 51-L, which literally means the 12th planned flight of fiscal year 1985"Like you said, it was "planned:. TDRSS problems delayed the mission
AstroRJY - 22/7/2007 9:29 PMThey actually thought they could launch 12 flights in one year? Well they did get 9 off during all of 1985 which I think is still a record pace.... just checked yeah, managed 8 launches in 1992 and 1997.
Thorny - 22/7/2007 10:17 PM 1. Note that NASA never really abandoned the original scheme. Internally, the Challenger disaster was referred to as STS-33. The STS-33 which flew in 1989 was then internally called STS-33R.2.The first number in "41-B" was actually the "program year" (Fourth fiscal year of Shuttle flights) not 1984. 1990 (Program Year 10) would have seen 10-1-B not 01-B, had the scheme continued.3. Once a mission was assigned a designation, it kept it, despite delays. Hence 51-L (slipped into 1986 by continuing IUS redesign difficulties, and with 51J getting IUS priority)
Jim - 22/7/2007 10:23 PMQuoteThorny - 22/7/2007 10:17 PM 2.The first number in "41-B" was actually the "program year" (Fourth fiscal year of Shuttle flights) not 1984. 1990 (Program Year 10) would have seen 10-1-B not 01-B, had the scheme continued.2. It was fiscal year not "program" year
Thorny - 22/7/2007 10:17 PM 2.The first number in "41-B" was actually the "program year" (Fourth fiscal year of Shuttle flights) not 1984. 1990 (Program Year 10) would have seen 10-1-B not 01-B, had the scheme continued.
SpaceNutz SA - 23/7/2007 2:45 AMHard to believe that in the age of technology - and with NASA leading the way - that they are still superstitious about the number 13
Jim - 22/7/2007 10:23 PM2. It was fiscal year not "program" year
Thorny - 23/7/2007 1:24 PMIt was Fiscal Year, I agree. But the "year" was not 1984, but Year 4. That's why the designation wasn't 841-B but 41-B.
GLS - 23/7/2007 1:24 PMSTS 30 -> STS 61-ASTS 31 -> STS 61-BSTS 32 -> STS 61-CSTS 33 -> STS 51-L (moved from STS 26)STS 34 -> STS 61-E
Jim - 23/7/2007 1:03 PMLike I said, the 90's were not accounted for and so 101-A was not the nomenclature.
Thorny - 23/7/2007 2:08 PMQuoteJim - 23/7/2007 1:03 PMLike I said, the 90's were not accounted for and so 101-A was not the nomenclature.At the time of Challenger, they didn't have a rough schedule that went out into FY1990?