Author Topic: STS ReManifest  (Read 6137 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

STS ReManifest
« on: 12/13/2005 09:23 pm »
Just in from a USA guy - some of this is obvious and known, but what's BI?


A remanifest took place this weekend.  The new element/sts numbers that were changed this weekend are as follows:

ET118 = STS-116
ET119 = STS-121
ET120 = STS-115
ET117 = STS-000
ET121 = STS-000

BI-126 = STS-121
BI-127 = STS-115
BI-128 = STS-116
BI-129 = STS-117
BI-130 = STS-118
BI-115 = STS-000
BI-117 = STS-000
BI-118 = STS-000
BI-119 = STS-000
BI-120 = STS-000
BI-121 = STS-000
BI-124 = STS-000

OV-103 Flight 32 was STS-116 changed to STS-121
OV-104 Flight 27 was STS-121 changed to STS-115
OV-105 Flight 20 was STS-117 changed to STS-116
OV-103 Flight 33 was STS-118 changed to STS-119
OV-104 Flight 28 was STS-115 changed to STS-117
OV-105 Flight 21 was STS-119 changed to STS-118

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 Chris Bergin

RE: STS ReManifest
« Reply #1 on: 12/13/2005 09:39 pm »
BI stands for Booster Integration - I've just been told.
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 psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
RE: STS ReManifest
« Reply #2 on: 12/13/2005 09:41 pm »
BI refers to the booster sets...I believe that sets are somewhat tailored for heavy/not heavy payloads, where the 12A and 13A payloads would need "hotter" sets.  (The booster segment sets are mixed/cast/used together.)

Have to do some deciphering, but did the launch sequence change?  Or any of the baselined ISS missions?

Thanks,

Philip Sloss

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
RE: STS ReManifest
« Reply #3 on: 12/13/2005 09:46 pm »
OK, after looking at the manifest that Steven Pietrobon published; I'm assuming that this means something along the lines of the program finalizing/making official changes previously reported -- as you noted in your original post.  

The resulting orbiter assignments match Mr. Pietrobon's 31 October manifest:
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/shuttle/manifest.txt

Thanks again for keeping us up to date,

Philip Sloss

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: STS ReManifest
« Reply #4 on: 12/13/2005 10:04 pm »
I can only think they've aligned to ISS elements being launched in a newly decided order, but I'm guessing until someone says that's the case.
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 Dobbins

  • Propellerhead
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: STS ReManifest
« Reply #5 on: 12/13/2005 10:55 pm »
Quote
psloss - 13/12/2005  5:46 PM

OK, after looking at the manifest that Steven Pietrobon published; I'm assuming that this means something along the lines of the program finalizing/making official changes previously reported -- as you noted in your original post.  

The resulting orbiter assignments match Mr. Pietrobon's 31 October manifest:
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/shuttle/manifest.txt


Does anyone know how accurate this is?

I have put this information into a table that has the same format as NASA's Consolidated Launch Manifest  at http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/future/index.html to make it easier to read. If anyone knows any errors let me know. My table is at http://www.brandxcomputers.com/shuttle.html

John B. Dobbins

Offline Hotol

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: STS ReManifest
« Reply #6 on: 12/14/2005 12:33 am »
Did we know ET-119 is going to be the first tank back for STS-121?

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: STS ReManifest
« Reply #7 on: 12/14/2005 02:01 am »
Yes, that's been noted here for a few months.

Offline FransonUK

  • Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me...don't ya
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: STS ReManifest
« Reply #8 on: 12/14/2005 09:36 am »
Can't say I knew about BIs either. But that's the first sort of info I've seen.

At least it looks like they are moving ever closer. Now where's those damn tanks ;)
Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: STS ReManifest
« Reply #9 on: 12/14/2005 03:06 pm »
I was aware that the propellants for the booster sets are very carefully mixed to ensure a 'steady' thrust from both boosters, but didn't know about the heavy/not-heavy payload thing.

Which payloads are classed as 'heavy' and 'not heavy', then? My guess would be labs and solar arrays as heavy and MPLMs/Spacehabs and truss spacers as not heavy. Is that accurate or miles off the mark?

How are these heavy/not-heavy judgements made?

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
RE: STS ReManifest
« Reply #10 on: 12/14/2005 03:54 pm »
I was trying to remember where I'd read that and found at least one post by Kim Keller regarding that; here's an example with respect to ISS 5A/STS-98:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.shuttle/msg/2c3d4d8931666e56?hl=en&

Regarding judgments, I would assume that ascent performance calculations based on either generic or orbiter-specific numbers would come into play.  The KSC folks here would know much better about this; I just found it an interesting note when I first read about it way back when.  It probably came up in Usenet discussions during periods like this where remanifesting was being considered in a sequence with a heavy payload or payloads.

Edit -- I probably should have looked a little harder at that thread...I had the same questions for Kim at the time; take a look at some of the Kim's other posts in that Usenet thread...

Philip Sloss

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: STS ReManifest
« Reply #11 on: 12/14/2005 05:48 pm »
I didn't even know there were so many mailing lists etc!
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 psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
RE: STS ReManifest
« Reply #12 on: 12/14/2005 06:41 pm »
The sci.space.* groups are mostly unmoderated, and after STS-107 it was horrible, but there is great information in many old threads (I used to ask questions there a bit).  I wish I could remember all of those threads.

Philip Sloss

Offline STS Tony

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1677
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 106
RE: STS ReManifest
« Reply #13 on: 12/14/2005 10:26 pm »
I wonder what the prefered list is of the United Space Alliance ;)

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: STS ReManifest
« Reply #14 on: 12/15/2005 09:02 pm »
Looks like the ET order has changed. ET-119, then ET-118.

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: STS ReManifest
« Reply #15 on: 12/15/2005 09:55 pm »
Yep, ET-118 going second with Atlantis.
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.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0