-
Launch windows for STS-125
by
smndk
on 29 Jul, 2008 18:48
-
Is there a place where I can find a list of possible lauch windows for STS-125?
They have now talked about lauch on October 2nd, October 5th, and October 8th. Is launch possible every day? If so for how long?
/Svend
-
#1
by
Endeavour118
on 29 Jul, 2008 19:00
-
launch window is 1 hour
so if there is a scrub take 25 minutes off give or take
-
#2
by
smndk
on 29 Jul, 2008 19:06
-
launch window is 1 hour
so if there is a scrub take 25 minutes off give or take
Thanks for the reply.
What do you mean by "take 25 minutes off"?
-
#3
by
Jim
on 29 Jul, 2008 19:08
-
launch window is 1 hour
so if there is a scrub take 25 minutes off give or take
that is only for ISS missions. It is different for HST missions.
-
#4
by
Jim
on 29 Jul, 2008 19:09
-
Is there a place where I can find a list of possible lauch windows for STS-125?
They have now talked about lauch on October 2nd, October 5th, and October 8th. Is launch possible every day? If so for how long?
/Svend
Launch is possible every day
-
#5
by
Jorge
on 29 Jul, 2008 19:45
-
launch window is 1 hour
so if there is a scrub take 25 minutes off give or take
that is only for ISS missions. It is different for HST missions.
Right, closer to -30 minutes per day for HST's altitude and inclination.
-
#6
by
psloss
on 29 Jul, 2008 19:48
-
launch window is 1 hour
so if there is a scrub take 25 minutes off give or take
that is only for ISS missions. It is different for HST missions.
Right, closer to -30 minutes per day for HST's altitude and inclination.
Hey Jorge,
Do you know why STS-103 only had approx. 40-minute long launch windows vs. the ~65-minute windows for the other servicing missions?
Thanks.
-
#7
by
Jorge
on 29 Jul, 2008 20:27
-
launch window is 1 hour
so if there is a scrub take 25 minutes off give or take
that is only for ISS missions. It is different for HST missions.
Right, closer to -30 minutes per day for HST's altitude and inclination.
Hey Jorge,
Do you know why STS-103 only had approx. 40-minute long launch windows vs. the ~65-minute windows for the other servicing missions?
Haven't the foggiest - the charts from the Flight Operations Panel just say "BASED ON THERMAL AND ET IMPACT CONSTRAINTS" but don't explain how those differed between STS-103 and the servicing missions before and after it. But I know who to ask.
-
#8
by
smndk
on 29 Jul, 2008 20:37
-
Haven't the foggiest - the charts from the Flight Operations Panel just say "BASED ON THERMAL AND ET IMPACT CONSTRAINTS" but don't explain how those differed between STS-103 and the servicing missions before and after it. But I know who to ask.
Are the charts from the Flight Operations Panel you are refering to available somewhere on L2, by any chance?
-
#9
by
Jorge
on 29 Jul, 2008 20:45
-
Haven't the foggiest - the charts from the Flight Operations Panel just say "BASED ON THERMAL AND ET IMPACT CONSTRAINTS" but don't explain how those differed between STS-103 and the servicing missions before and after it. But I know who to ask.
Are the charts from the Flight Operations Panel you are refering to available somewhere on L2, by any chance?
'Fraid not.
-
#10
by
Jorge
on 29 Jul, 2008 21:15
-
launch window is 1 hour
so if there is a scrub take 25 minutes off give or take
that is only for ISS missions. It is different for HST missions.
Right, closer to -30 minutes per day for HST's altitude and inclination.
Hey Jorge,
Do you know why STS-103 only had approx. 40-minute long launch windows vs. the ~65-minute windows for the other servicing missions?
Haven't the foggiest - the charts from the Flight Operations Panel just say "BASED ON THERMAL AND ET IMPACT CONSTRAINTS" but don't explain how those differed between STS-103 and the servicing missions before and after it. But I know who to ask.
STS-103's unique launch window size was caused by a combination of larger ET debris footprint for the SLWT vs the LWT used on the previous servicing missions, and a high insertion altitude (315 nmi vs 297 for STS-125) that caused the debris footprint to impinge on the Guadalupe Island constraint. Had sufficient time been available in the design cycle, an adjustment to the MECO targets could have moved the footprint enough to avoid the constraint and allow a full 65-minute planar window, but STS-103 was called up on (relatively) short notice.
STS-61 LWT 310 nmi 72 min
STS-82 LWT 313 nmi 65 min
STS-103 SLWT 315 nmi 42 min
STS-109 SLWT 308 nmi 65 min
STS-125 SLWT 297 nmi 66 min
-
#11
by
psloss
on 29 Jul, 2008 21:17
-
STS-103's unique launch window size was caused by a combination of larger ET debris footprint for the SLWT vs the LWT used on the previous servicing missions, and a high insertion altitude (315 nmi vs 297 for STS-125) that caused the debris footprint to impinge on the Guadalupe Island constraint. Had sufficient time been available in the design cycle, an adjustment to the MECO targets could have moved the footprint enough to avoid the constraint and allow a full 65-minute planar window, but STS-103 was called up on (relatively) short notice.
STS-61 LWT 310 nmi 72 min
STS-82 LWT 313 nmi 65 min
STS-103 SLWT 315 nmi 42 min
STS-109 SLWT 308 nmi 65 min
STS-125 SLWT 297 nmi 66 min
Interesting. Thanks, Jorge.
-
#12
by
JSC Phil
on 29 Jul, 2008 21:28
-
Haven't the foggiest - the charts from the Flight Operations Panel just say "BASED ON THERMAL AND ET IMPACT CONSTRAINTS" but don't explain how those differed between STS-103 and the servicing missions before and after it. But I know who to ask.
Are the charts from the Flight Operations Panel you are refering to available somewhere on L2, by any chance?
'Fraid not.
Something will be done to change that.
-
#13
by
Orbiter
on 30 Jul, 2008 09:52
-
STS-103's unique launch window size was caused by a combination of larger ET debris footprint for the SLWT vs the LWT used on the previous servicing missions, and a high insertion altitude (315 nmi vs 297 for STS-125) that caused the debris footprint to impinge on the Guadalupe Island constraint. Had sufficient time been available in the design cycle, an adjustment to the MECO targets could have moved the footprint enough to avoid the constraint and allow a full 65-minute planar window, but STS-103 was called up on (relatively) short notice.
STS-61 LWT 310 nmi 72 min
STS-82 LWT 313 nmi 65 min
STS-103 SLWT 315 nmi 42 min
STS-109 SLWT 308 nmi 65 min
STS-125 SLWT 297 nmi 66 min
Interesting. Thanks, Jorge.
Looks like this mission will have the second longest launch window of any Hubble Mission.
-
#14
by
marktowler
on 30 Jul, 2008 11:33
-
STS-103's unique launch window size was caused by a combination of larger ET debris footprint for the SLWT vs the LWT used on the previous servicing missions, and a high insertion altitude (315 nmi vs 297 for STS-125) that caused the debris footprint to impinge on the Guadalupe Island constraint. Had sufficient time been available in the design cycle, an adjustment to the MECO targets could have moved the footprint enough to avoid the constraint and allow a full 65-minute planar window, but STS-103 was called up on (relatively) short notice.
STS-61 LWT 310 nmi 72 min
STS-82 LWT 313 nmi 65 min
STS-103 SLWT 315 nmi 42 min
STS-109 SLWT 308 nmi 65 min
STS-125 SLWT 297 nmi 66 min
Interesting. Thanks, Jorge.
Looks like this mission will have the second Longest launch window of any Hubble Mission.
Looks like that Hubble is losing the altitude as it has not been touched by the shuttle since 2002.
The launch window could be a bit longer by the time the Shuttle is due to launch in October due to the Hubble losing the altitude further.
-
#15
by
Jorge
on 30 Jul, 2008 14:40
-
STS-103's unique launch window size was caused by a combination of larger ET debris footprint for the SLWT vs the LWT used on the previous servicing missions, and a high insertion altitude (315 nmi vs 297 for STS-125) that caused the debris footprint to impinge on the Guadalupe Island constraint. Had sufficient time been available in the design cycle, an adjustment to the MECO targets could have moved the footprint enough to avoid the constraint and allow a full 65-minute planar window, but STS-103 was called up on (relatively) short notice.
STS-61 LWT 310 nmi 72 min
STS-82 LWT 313 nmi 65 min
STS-103 SLWT 315 nmi 42 min
STS-109 SLWT 308 nmi 65 min
STS-125 SLWT 297 nmi 66 min
Interesting. Thanks, Jorge.
Looks like this mission will have the second Longest launch window of any Hubble Mission.
Looks like that Hubble is losing the altitude as it has not been touched by the shuttle since 2002.
The launch window could be a bit longer by the time the Shuttle is due to launch in October due to the Hubble losing the altitude further.
Possibly. The 125 data I quoted above was for the OCF design cycle, which was built to an August 14 launch date.
-
#16
by
psloss
on 02 Aug, 2008 14:15
-
-
#17
by
smndk
on 02 Aug, 2008 18:05
-
-
#18
by
Ford Mustang
on 08 Aug, 2008 17:34
-
Sorry for sounding... well, dumb, but I'm a bit confused.
If the PRCB does allow the October 5th launch of Atlantis (hope they do, would be able to cover launch as it's a non-school night), would they launch on the early hours of that Sunday, or the pre-dawn hours of the Monday?
Bill Harwood's launch time:
DATE...WINDOW OPEN...WINDOW CLOSE
10/05/08...03:02:14 AM...04:04:06 AM
-
#19
by
DaveS
on 08 Aug, 2008 17:52
-
Sorry for sounding... well, dumb, but I'm a bit confused.
If the PRCB does allow the October 5th launch of Atlantis (hope they do, would be able to cover launch as it's a non-school night), would they launch on the early hours of that Sunday, or the pre-dawn hours of the Monday?
Bill Harwood's launch time:
DATE...WINDOW OPEN...WINDOW CLOSE
10/05/08...03:02:14 AM...04:04:06 AM
All of the launch window times are EDT, so that time makes 3:02:14 am on Sunday, not Monday as Monday is the 6th.
