Author Topic: STS-62A: The Polar Express  (Read 24839 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline James Lowe1

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • New York City
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #1 on: 12/18/2005 07:06 pm »
Stunning read. I don't think it's fully appreciated just how quotable these guys are.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #2 on: 12/18/2005 07:48 pm »
Nice article.  I wish I could still browse the Aviation Week back issue stacks at San Diego State (did that a lot when I was in school)...there was a decent amount of info in AvWeek about getting SLC-6 ready (along with just generally good technical information about the shuttle).  This reminds me to go dig out the Vandenberg scrap book I made back then...

One of the interesting things in the 84-85 timeframe was what they were going to do for TAL abort sites; they ended up with Easter Island and Hao Atoll, but there's not a lot of land in the south Pacific!

(I think end of July '86 would have been hard to meet, and I'm not sure it was still the target at the time of the 51-L disaster.)

Philip Sloss

Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 16
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #3 on: 12/18/2005 07:58 pm »
Yes, great read.  I wasn't paying much attention to the Shuttle program when SLC-6 was being planned, so it's good to get the history.

Carbon-wound SRBs.  I wonder if that would have a chance of working now, with more understanding of the material.


Offline DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1199
  • Likes Given: 65
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #4 on: 12/18/2005 08:31 pm »
Here's an french site that has a couple of videos of Enterprise stacking activties at SLC-6: http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/shuttle/vandenberg/SLC6_1985.htm
Here's the main page for SLC 6: http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/shuttle/vandenberg/SLC6%201979.htm
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline ADC9

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • France
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 15
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #5 on: 12/19/2005 02:53 am »
Enjoyed the article. I'm a bit stunned by the lack of distance between structures and the pad. Where was the LCC and wouldn't a launch do untold damage to the buildings seen very close to the pad?

Offline SRBseparama

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #6 on: 12/19/2005 03:22 am »
>350-450 nautical miles< Is that the highest orbit a Shuttle will have gone too? What's the current record?

Would have loved to have seen that view.

Offline Orbiter Obvious

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #7 on: 12/19/2005 03:47 am »
Hubble is 350 miles I think?

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1134
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #8 on: 12/19/2005 06:23 am »
I'll be putting together an article about the launch site and the filament-wound cases at a later date, but there were studies done as late as 1994 for ISS missions in an attempt to get more payload into orbit. Never worked out, it seems, although the Pathfinder shuttle model (I'm not too sure where that is displayed) is actually mounted to a 'real' pair of filament-wound SRBs. The boosters had done their first full-duration test firing in October 1984 and were expected to be fully certified for flight just a couple of weeks after 51L...

There were murmurings that only two Vandenberg flights could be achieved per year, possibly four, although much of the processing had to be done at KSC and the orbiter shipped back to California for the final weeks of processing, simply because the Air Force didn't have the same facilities. It would have been nowhere near as frequent as the once-every-three-weeks launches that KSC was achieving in the months before Challenger.

In light of Challenger, I think using these boosters would have been risky, as would the excessive ice buildup on the External Tank - far more, apparently, than at KSC - and the hydrogen detonation problems. It would have been a fantastic view (and ride), but perhaps it's for the best that it didn't happen.

Offline DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1199
  • Likes Given: 65
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #9 on: 12/19/2005 08:31 am »
According to my information the Air Force had actually installed two vertically mounted jet engines to provide hot air to alliviate the problem with excessive ice build-up on the ET. And as far as the facilities go: VAFB had the following shuttle facilities:

-Orbiter Maintenance and Checkout Facility(OMCF, VAFB version of the KSC OPFs)
-ET Processing and Storage Facility(ETPSF)
-2xHypergolic Maintenance and Checkout Cells(HMCCs)
-Mate/De-mate Device(MDD)
-SLF class runway
-Mobile Payload Changeout Room(PCR)
-Payload Preparation Facility(PPF)

If vyou combine all these, you get about the same facilities that exists at KSC. So I fail to see how in terms of facilities, Vandenberg could support at atleast 3 flts/year rate.

Source for the info: Space Shuttle - The History of the National Space Transportation System, 3rd edition.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline Rocket Ronnie

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 176
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #10 on: 12/19/2005 12:43 pm »
Quote
DaveS - 19/12/2005  3:31 AM

According to my information the Air Force had actually installed two vertically mounted jet engines to provide hot air to alliviate the problem with excessive ice build-up on the ET. And as far as the facilities go: VAFB had the following shuttle facilities:


Does KSC have this? I know it's been mentioned that they wanted to use heaters to keep the ice, frost and slush down on the ET, but went with heaters on things like the bi-pod ramp?

Offline DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1199
  • Likes Given: 65
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #11 on: 12/19/2005 01:00 pm »
KSC do not have any jet engines or anything else that can prevent excessive ice build-up on the ET during countdown. The jet engines were primarely to deal with the thick fog that Vandenberg is usually covered by. At KSC, this is not really a problem.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline Jamie Young

  • This custom rank is currently being decided on
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1327
  • Denver
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 151
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #12 on: 12/20/2005 02:24 am »
Other Vandenberg threads on this section:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=882 - Vandenberg Missions

And

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1039 - Vandenberg Shuttle mission to repair Landsat


Offline Orbiter Obvious

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #13 on: 12/20/2005 09:44 pm »
Did they ever more an Orbiter (Discovery) to Vandenberg, or was it cancelled before that happened?

Offline DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1199
  • Likes Given: 65
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #14 on: 12/20/2005 09:47 pm »
The only orbiter that ever visited Vandenberg was Enterprise in 1984-1985 for facilities checking. Columbia was to have gone out to Vandenberg before Discovery to do an Flight Readiness Firing to verify that SLC 6 was really ready for Discovery.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline Jamie Young

  • This custom rank is currently being decided on
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1327
  • Denver
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 151
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #15 on: 12/20/2005 10:17 pm »
Quote
DaveS - 20/12/2005  4:47 PM

The only orbiter that ever visited Vandenberg was Enterprise in 1984-1985 for facilities checking. Columbia was to have gone out to Vandenberg before Discovery to do an Flight Readiness Firing to verify that SLC 6 was really ready for Discovery.

That's interesting. Why not use Discovery for the Flight Readiness Firing? I don't understand why they'd need to ship Columbia over to only then ship her back before another shipping of Discovery to California?

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #16 on: 12/20/2005 10:31 pm »
I believe that was the plan for a short time after the 51-L disaster.  Before 51-L, the FRF would have been part of the pad flow with Discovery for the first launch.

Edit: another nit -- Discovery never visited SLC-6 but it did make a short stop at the north Vandenberg shuttle landing facility on top of the 747 SCA from Edwards AFB when it was delivered to NASA in October, 1983.  If I recall correctly, they did a fit test/check on the mate/demate device there (which eventually ended up in Palmdale).

Philip Sloss

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #17 on: 12/20/2005 10:56 pm »
Quote
psloss - 20/12/2005  6:31 PM

Edit: another nit -- Discovery never visited SLC-6 but it did make a short stop at the north Vandenberg shuttle landing facility on top of the 747 SCA from Edwards AFB when it was delivered to NASA in October, 1983.  If I recall correctly, they did a fit test/check on the mate/demate device there (which eventually ended up in Palmdale).
Whoops, my bad...the Discovery rollout ceremony at Plant 42 might have been in October, 1983, but I believe the transport to Edwards and all the 747 ferry "stuff" were in early November, 1983.  (I remember there was a cool picture of Discovery being towed to Edwards in the LA Times and noticing the texture of the blankets on the fuselage being different than Columbia and Challenger...there was a photo of the Vandenberg fit check in an Aviation Week issue at the time.)

Philip Sloss

Offline Sergi Manstov

  • NSF Russian Editor
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #18 on: 12/21/2005 05:29 am »
The timing of the second Shuttle complex would have caused the Soviet Union to look deeper into Buran. It seems we both lost.

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1134
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: STS-62A: The Polar Express
« Reply #19 on: 12/21/2005 06:41 am »
Does anyone have any information on how 'well' the filament-wound cases actually performed during test firings at Thiokol? I'm researching a piece about these boosters and haven't found much technical data on their performance. In terms of structural integrity, would they have stood up the stresses of a full-scale launch? Jerry Ross, as you'll read in my article, had his own doubts, but what was NASA's or the Air Force's point of view?

Any thoughts?

Tags:
 

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