-
STS-125/400 Single Pad option progress - aim to protect Ares I-X
by
Chris Bergin
on 19 Jan, 2009 20:29
-
-
#1
by
marsavian
on 19 Jan, 2009 20:41
-
From a timeline standpoint, the difference between Single Pad and Dual Pad options - according to the original presentation - changes the ability to launch Endeavour on a rescue from three days from LON call-up (Dual Pads) to 15 days after LON call up (Single Pad).
12 days difference is far too long, the idea should be abandoned. I am all for flying I-X even if just to collect the data for future posterity/use if it's canned but this is just too dangerous an idea especially if an MMOD impact happens very late. Ultimate Safety first and last should be the creed with the fragile Shuttle.
p.s. nice thorough article as always.
-
#2
by
psloss
on 19 Jan, 2009 21:04
-
12 days difference is far too long, the idea should be abandoned. I am all for flying I-X even if just to collect the data for future posterity/use if it's canned but this is just too dangerous an idea especially if an MMOD impact happens very late. Ultimate Safety first and last should be the creed with the fragile Shuttle.
I believe John Shannon has been saying for a while now that the choice isn't about safety so much as about schedule trades between the different HSF programs (Shuttle, ISS, Constellation). Since the time the dual pad option was originally selected, more of the repair capabilities were demonstrated in-flight. Even when they were executing the dual pad plan last fall, IIRC he said in the 125 preflight briefings that the STS-400 LON capability was largely for a STS-107-type launch incident rather than for something discovered during late inspection.
-
#3
by
Shuttle Man
on 19 Jan, 2009 21:06
-
Agreed, and that will be why they rejected the idea originally. I suspect that will be trimmed slightly, but for a contingency unlikely ever to be required, even that timeline is workable. Remember, the chances of this being needed are very slim, and Constellation's pressure for Ares I-X is great.
-
#4
by
marsavian
on 19 Jan, 2009 21:18
-
12 days difference is far too long, the idea should be abandoned. I am all for flying I-X even if just to collect the data for future posterity/use if it's canned but this is just too dangerous an idea especially if an MMOD impact happens very late. Ultimate Safety first and last should be the creed with the fragile Shuttle.
I believe John Shannon has been saying for a while now that the choice isn't about safety so much as about schedule trades between the different HSF programs (Shuttle, ISS, Constellation). Since the time the dual pad option was originally selected, more of the repair capabilities were demonstrated in-flight. Even when they were executing the dual pad plan last fall, IIRC he said in the 125 preflight briefings that the STS-400 LON capability was largely for a STS-107-type launch incident rather than for something discovered during late inspection.
What if the Shuttle is hit by a sizeable MMOD that punctures life support systems. The 9 day difference between the two options could mean the difference between life and death. How could anyone forgive themselves if this scenario came about and they knew they could have been saved with another flight plan, it would be like Columbia all over again.
-
#5
by
marsavian
on 19 Jan, 2009 21:20
-
Agreed, and that will be why they rejected the idea originally. I suspect that will be trimmed slightly, but for a contingency unlikely ever to be required, even that timeline is workable. Remember, the chances of this being needed are very slim, and Constellation's pressure for Ares I-X is great.
Who cares, I-X is not a long pole item. If Cx cannot survive due to a 3 month I-X delay it was not built on any solid foundations in the first place.
-
#6
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 19 Jan, 2009 21:26
-
Agreed, and that will be why they rejected the idea originally. I suspect that will be trimmed slightly, but for a contingency unlikely ever to be required, even that timeline is workable. Remember, the chances of this being needed are very slim, and Constellation's pressure for Ares I-X is great.
Agreed psloss and Shuttle Man. My question, however, is on the techincal side of the STS-400 vehicle processing. The presentation and article say that Endeavour will undergo pad processing up to hyper loading. My question: why can't they load the hypergols at the pad and then roll back to the VAB? IIRC, Atlantis' hypergols were removed back in October because of the possibility of destacking and return to the OPF, not because there is some rule precluding the presence of hypergols in the VAB. If the hypergols were loaded before the 400 vehicle rolled back to the VAB, wouldn't that save them some time on the pad in the unlikely event that 400 actually needed to launch?
-
#7
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 19 Jan, 2009 21:31
-
Agreed, and that will be why they rejected the idea originally. I suspect that will be trimmed slightly, but for a contingency unlikely ever to be required, even that timeline is workable. Remember, the chances of this being needed are very slim, and Constellation's pressure for Ares I-X is great.
Who cares, I-X is not a long pole item. If Cx cannot survive due to a 3 month I-X delay it was not built on any solid foundations in the first place.
You're missing the point of what psloss and Shuttle Man are trying to tell you. It is all about give and take. If the Space Shuttle Program engineers come to the conclusion that we can safely launch HST and (if needed) 400 from the same pad because of all the on-orbit repair capabilities we now have, then they will take that option and turn over Pad-B to Cx. If it is determined that we can't do that safely, and Pad-B is required for 400, than that's exactly what we'll do and Cx will wait because it is necessary for HST crew's safety in the highly unlikely event that 400 is needed.
And I-X is very much a long pole item for Cx given all the data it will accumulate as Cx heads into further critical design reviews. If I-X was not a long pole item we would not be flying it.
-
#8
by
marsavian
on 19 Jan, 2009 21:35
-
J2-X is and has always been the Ares I long pole item followed by Orion. The on-orbit repair capability is for known TPS damage not unknown MMOD damage. Look at the MMOD hits recently, luckily in uncritical areas, die are being thrown every time up there.
-
#9
by
psloss
on 19 Jan, 2009 21:35
-
What if the Shuttle is hit by a sizeable MMOD that punctures life support systems. The 9 day difference between the two options could mean the difference between life and death. How could anyone forgive themselves if this scenario came about and they knew they could have been saved with another flight plan, it would be like Columbia all over again.
If the MMOD only compromises the life support systems in a non-catastrophic way, they jettison HST and land as soon as they can -- assuming the leak rate is slow enough. But if it's a large leak and they can't re-enter, there's not enough time to get
any rescue vehicle up there fast enough.
-
#10
by
psloss
on 19 Jan, 2009 21:40
-
My question: why can't they load the hypergols at the pad and then roll back to the VAB? IIRC, Atlantis' hypergols were removed back in October because of the possibility of destacking and return to the OPF, not because there is some rule precluding the presence of hypergols in the VAB. If the hypergols were loaded before the 400 vehicle rolled back to the VAB, wouldn't that save them some time on the pad in the unlikely event that 400 actually needed to launch?
Don't think that's right, then -- they would load hypers on the 400 vehicle during the first stay at the pad. The second stay would be very similar to what they did with the 115 vehicle after disconnecting it to partially roll back for the tropical storm. Pad validations, connecting ordnance, countdown preps, pressurizing OMS/RCS, aft closeouts, countdown and launch.
-
#11
by
marsavian
on 19 Jan, 2009 21:44
-
What if the Shuttle is hit by a sizeable MMOD that punctures life support systems. The 9 day difference between the two options could mean the difference between life and death. How could anyone forgive themselves if this scenario came about and they knew they could have been saved with another flight plan, it would be like Columbia all over again.
If the MMOD only compromises the life support systems in a non-catastrophic way, they jettison HST and land as soon as they can -- assuming the leak rate is slow enough. But if it's a large leak and they can't re-enter, there's not enough time to get any rescue vehicle up there fast enough.
What if there is irreparable damage to the TPS too ? There are so many unexpected bad things that could potentially happen all at once, think Apollo 13 for example. Without the safety of the ISS nearby, and a rescue Shuttle nearly 2 weeks away, this plan is Russian Roulette IMO. Again I can't believe this option is being seriously considered.
-
#12
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 19 Jan, 2009 21:53
-
What if the Shuttle is hit by a sizeable MMOD that punctures life support systems. The 9 day difference between the two options could mean the difference between life and death. How could anyone forgive themselves if this scenario came about and they knew they could have been saved with another flight plan, it would be like Columbia all over again.
If the MMOD only compromises the life support systems in a non-catastrophic way, they jettison HST and land as soon as they can -- assuming the leak rate is slow enough. But if it's a large leak and they can't re-enter, there's not enough time to get any rescue vehicle up there fast enough.
What if there is irreparable damage to the TPS too ?
Then the LON Shuttle WILL BE launched!!!! Once again (and this is the last statement I'm making on this discussion), if there is any type of unrepairable damage the LON shuttle will be launched in time to rescuse the crew -- no matter what day of the mission the damage is detected! Like psloss said earlier, if the damage was so critical from MMOD that it compromised life support capabilities to the point that the crew couldn't LAND Atlantis in time, we could not get 400 there fast enough even if it was launched from Pad-B. Therefore, your question about irrepairable damage as well is irrelevant because it would sadly be a LOC scenario regardless of LON ability. The bottom line is this: any type of survivable damage incurred during launch or while on orbit would result in the launch of the LON vehicle in time to rescue the HST crew.
Furthermore, John Shannon and Wayne Hale have said SEVERAL times that LON capability is for Columbia style damage and, sometimes, minor MMOD strikes. Not extreme MMOD cases. This means TPS damage! Therefore, 400 will serve its purpose no matter which Pad it's stationed on.
-
#13
by
AnalogMan
on 19 Jan, 2009 21:55
-
My question: why can't they load the hypergols at the pad and then roll back to the VAB? IIRC, Atlantis' hypergols were removed back in October because of the possibility of destacking and return to the OPF, not because there is some rule precluding the presence of hypergols in the VAB. If the hypergols were loaded before the 400 vehicle rolled back to the VAB, wouldn't that save them some time on the pad in the unlikely event that 400 actually needed to launch?
Don't think that's right, then -- they would load hypers on the 400 vehicle during the first stay at the pad. The second stay would be very similar to what they did with the 115 vehicle after disconnecting it to partially roll back for the tropical storm. Pad validations, connecting ordnance, countdown preps, pressurizing OMS/RCS, aft closeouts, countdown and launch.
Looking at the L2 presentation, the hypergols
are loaded on the LON at the first pad visit, and rolled back to the VAB in that condition.
-
#14
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 19 Jan, 2009 21:58
-
My question: why can't they load the hypergols at the pad and then roll back to the VAB? IIRC, Atlantis' hypergols were removed back in October because of the possibility of destacking and return to the OPF, not because there is some rule precluding the presence of hypergols in the VAB. If the hypergols were loaded before the 400 vehicle rolled back to the VAB, wouldn't that save them some time on the pad in the unlikely event that 400 actually needed to launch?
Don't think that's right, then -- they would load hypers on the 400 vehicle during the first stay at the pad. The second stay would be very similar to what they did with the 115 vehicle after disconnecting it to partially roll back for the tropical storm. Pad validations, connecting ordnance, countdown preps, pressurizing OMS/RCS, aft closeouts, countdown and launch.
Looking at the L2 presentation, the hypergols are loaded on the LON at the first pad visit, and rolled back to the VAB in that condition.
Ah... thanks.
-
#15
by
marsavian
on 19 Jan, 2009 21:59
-
What if the Shuttle is hit by a sizeable MMOD that punctures life support systems. The 9 day difference between the two options could mean the difference between life and death. How could anyone forgive themselves if this scenario came about and they knew they could have been saved with another flight plan, it would be like Columbia all over again.
If the MMOD only compromises the life support systems in a non-catastrophic way, they jettison HST and land as soon as they can -- assuming the leak rate is slow enough. But if it's a large leak and they can't re-enter, there's not enough time to get any rescue vehicle up there fast enough.
What if there is irreparable damage to the TPS too ?
Then the LON Shuttle WILL BE launched!!!! Once again (and this is the last statement I'm making on this discussion), if there is any type of unrepairable damage the LON shuttle will be launched in time to rescuse the crew -- no matter what day of the mission the damage is detected! Like psloss said earlier, if the damage was so critical from MMOD that it compromised life support capabilities to the point that the crew couldn't LAND Atlantis in time, we could not get 400 there fast enough even if it was launched from Pad-B. The bottom line is this: any type of survivable damage incurred during launch or while on orbit would result in the launch of the LON vehicle in time to rescue the HST crew.
Your 'bottom line' cannot be said with absolute authority to be true in every possible outcome. No-one is thinking outside the box here. There is no ISS safe shelter here guys, that's the crucial difference. The crew may not survive anyway in really bad conditions but there are ranges of possibilities whose span covers days (different leak rates allied with totally hosed TPS) in which a different plan could make the difference.
-
#16
by
psloss
on 19 Jan, 2009 22:17
-
Your 'bottom line' cannot be said with absolute authority to be true in every possible outcome. No-one is thinking outside the box here. There is no ISS safe shelter here guys, that's the crucial difference. The crew may not survive anyway in really bad conditions but there are ranges of possibilities whose span covers days (different leak rates allied with totally hosed TPS) in which a different plan could make the difference.
A crew and vehicle won't survive every possible outcome during ISS missions, either. You can postulate leaks with entry-critical damage at times on ISS missions when there's no safe haven either.
-
#17
by
marsavian
on 19 Jan, 2009 22:25
-
Your 'bottom line' cannot be said with absolute authority to be true in every possible outcome. No-one is thinking outside the box here. There is no ISS safe shelter here guys, that's the crucial difference. The crew may not survive anyway in really bad conditions but there are ranges of possibilities whose span covers days (different leak rates allied with totally hosed TPS) in which a different plan could make the difference.
A crew and vehicle won't survive every possible outcome during ISS missions, either. You can postulate leaks with entry-critical damage at times on ISS missions when there's no safe haven either.
Indeed, but why limit ourselves for something that is not as important as maximising the life chances of the Astronauts. If the World is forced to watch these guys die and it is known the Agency could have made a difference if not for the trivial sake of testing the World's Biggest Firework early, it would never be forgiven. 3 strikes and you are out !
-
#18
by
Chris Bergin
on 19 Jan, 2009 22:43
-
My question: why can't they load the hypergols at the pad and then roll back to the VAB? IIRC, Atlantis' hypergols were removed back in October because of the possibility of destacking and return to the OPF, not because there is some rule precluding the presence of hypergols in the VAB. If the hypergols were loaded before the 400 vehicle rolled back to the VAB, wouldn't that save them some time on the pad in the unlikely event that 400 actually needed to launch?
Don't think that's right, then -- they would load hypers on the 400 vehicle during the first stay at the pad. The second stay would be very similar to what they did with the 115 vehicle after disconnecting it to partially roll back for the tropical storm. Pad validations, connecting ordnance, countdown preps, pressurizing OMS/RCS, aft closeouts, countdown and launch.
Looking at the L2 presentation, the hypergols are loaded on the LON at the first pad visit, and rolled back to the VAB in that condition.
It says to proceed through half of pad flow and stop at Hyper load. Doesn't that mean prior to Hyper load, rather than after? If there's another indication noted that I missed, then it means changing one word in the article, but it's still important.
-
#19
by
psloss
on 19 Jan, 2009 22:45
-
Indeed, but why limit ourselves for something that is not as important as maximising the life chances of the Astronauts. If the World is forced to watch these guys die and it is known the Agency could have made a difference if not for the trivial sake of testing the World's Biggest Firework early, it would never be forgiven. 3 strikes and you are out !
What evidence do you have that NASA's stakeholders would view it that way? If I-X is just a fireworks display, it should be canceled for THAT reason.
-
#20
by
psloss
on 19 Jan, 2009 22:50
-
It says to proceed through half of pad flow and stop at Hyper load. Doesn't that mean prior to Hyper load, rather than after? If there's another indication noted that I missed, then it means changing one word in the article, but it's still important.
It says both, but the chart seems more precise and I assume that's what AnalogMan is referring to.
-
#21
by
Chris Bergin
on 19 Jan, 2009 22:57
-
It says to proceed through half of pad flow and stop at Hyper load. Doesn't that mean prior to Hyper load, rather than after? If there's another indication noted that I missed, then it means changing one word in the article, but it's still important.
It says both, but the chart seems more precise and I assume that's what AnalogMan is referring to.
Got it, thanks!
-
#22
by
cb6785
on 19 Jan, 2009 22:58
-
You can't prevent everything.
Of course it is safer to have ISS as a safe heaven...or to have LON ready in two days. But we won't have ISS for any mission beyond LEO either and we won't have any chance for LON beyond LEO either. Does that mean we shouldn't do it because something could happen and in the worst case people could die?
You can only minimise the chances of LOC happening on any kind of mission and (exspecially post Columbia) NASA is exactly doing that. I don't know any other place in the world where things are tested and discussed that thorough.
Nobody would send them up if they weren't sure they have the best chances to come back in one piece.
-
#23
by
marsavian
on 19 Jan, 2009 23:08
-
Indeed, but why limit ourselves for something that is not as important as maximising the life chances of the Astronauts. If the World is forced to watch these guys die and it is known the Agency could have made a difference if not for the trivial sake of testing the World's Biggest Firework early, it would never be forgiven. 3 strikes and you are out !
What evidence do you have that NASA's stakeholders would view it that way? If I-X is just a fireworks display, it should be canceled for THAT reason.
They would not be viewed any kinder than the Challenger/Columbia Managers for
not taking the absolute safest path they could have and less so given that previous experience. I think you could put a fork in any further manned missions, NASA just wouldn't be trusted and might even be broken up as punishment. As to the fireworks remark, I was just reducing it to a basic level, it's just an *unmanned* first test flight of a rocket whose final manned form will not ultimately be delayed if it takes place later in the year.
I can just guess why there is schedule pressure, maybe the Cx guys think if I-X flies early the program is safe but it's a false hope, if Ares I is cancelled it's because it either costs too much, does not perform or is taking too long, flying in July will not prevent any of those being true against the EELV/DIRECT competition in the long run. If it survives it will be because it is deemed the safest, safeguards MSFC jobs and produces the biggest HLV as a byproduct. It really is a simple choice for Obama and his administrator in which the timing of I-X will play no part and it's bad IMO that the Shuttle Program is being harassed in this misguided way.
-
#24
by
Jorge
on 19 Jan, 2009 23:18
-
Indeed, but why limit ourselves for something that is not as important as maximising the life chances of the Astronauts. If the World is forced to watch these guys die and it is known the Agency could have made a difference if not for the trivial sake of testing the World's Biggest Firework early, it would never be forgiven. 3 strikes and you are out !
What evidence do you have that NASA's stakeholders would view it that way? If I-X is just a fireworks display, it should be canceled for THAT reason.
They would not be viewed any kinder than the Challenger/Columbia Managers for not taking the absolute safest path they could have and less so given that previous experience.
The "absolute safest path" is not to fly HST SM-04 at all. Period. If you are going to commit to flying it at all, you are by definition committing to taking some risk.
"Just delay Ares I-X" is not a free option; there are real budgetary consequences to doing so.
I don't personally agree with the single-pad option but I recognize that this does not eliminate LON capability, only delays it. The range of scenarios that require LON are quite unlikely and the range of scenarios that would be survivable with a dual-pad LON but not with a single-pad LON are more unlikely still.
-
#25
by
marsavian
on 19 Jan, 2009 23:19
-
You can't prevent everything.
Of course it is safer to have ISS as a safe heaven...or to have LON ready in two days. But we won't have ISS for any mission beyond LEO either and we won't have any chance for LON beyond LEO either. Does that mean we shouldn't do it because something could happen and in the worst case people could die?
You can only minimise the chances of LOC happening on any kind of mission and (exspecially post Columbia) NASA is exactly doing that. I don't know any other place in the world where things are tested and discussed that thorough.
Nobody would send them up if they weren't sure they have the best chances to come back in one piece.
Can someone seriously tell me why the HST Astronauts should have to put up with the twin disadvantages of no ISS shelter and delayed LON capability ? This is not some theoretical PC game to see how quickly and cheaply you can juggle two Space programs at once with the same facilities. Ares I-X is a variable that should not be in the equation at all. This is basic probabilitistic logic, you do everything you can to to maximise your chances on manned missions with NO compromises.
-
#26
by
cb6785
on 19 Jan, 2009 23:29
-
You can't prevent everything.
Of course it is safer to have ISS as a safe heaven...or to have LON ready in two days. But we won't have ISS for any mission beyond LEO either and we won't have any chance for LON beyond LEO either. Does that mean we shouldn't do it because something could happen and in the worst case people could die?
You can only minimise the chances of LOC happening on any kind of mission and (exspecially post Columbia) NASA is exactly doing that. I don't know any other place in the world where things are tested and discussed that thorough.
Nobody would send them up if they weren't sure they have the best chances to come back in one piece.
Can someone seriously tell me why the HST Astronauts should have to put up with the twin disadvantages of no ISS shelter and delayed LON capability ? This is not some theoretical PC game to see how quickly and cheaply you can juggle two Space programs at once with the same facilities. Ares I-X is a variable that should not be in the equation at all. This is basic probabilitistic logic, you do everything you can to to maximise your chances on manned missions with NO compromises.
Nobody is putting any astronaut in chains and strapping him or her in the vehicle. If the astronaut office want's to object against any plan regarding the safety of a mission they will do it.
-
#27
by
Peter NASA
on 19 Jan, 2009 23:31
-
Marsavian, be careful not to allow your dislike for Ares I-X cloud the rationale here. As the article states, the requirement of a rescue mission is very low, or highly unlikely as Chris wrote it.
Yes, single pad is about helping Ares I-X, but remember, your opinion about Ares I-X being a big fireworks display is not what the Agency deems it as.
-
#28
by
marsavian
on 20 Jan, 2009 00:00
-
Marsavian, be careful not to allow your dislike for Ares I-X cloud the rationale here. As the article states, the requirement of a rescue mission is very low, or highly unlikely as Chris wrote it.
Yes, single pad is about helping Ares I-X, but remember, your opinion about Ares I-X being a big fireworks display is not what the Agency deems it as.
I don't dislike it, it's a discrete choice, one means to a common end and I understand its rationale, I would have made a big fireball remark if it was a D-IVH test to make the same point. Astronauts are more important than Rockets is my point and we shouldn't cut corners in that respect no matter how low the risk of doing so. The Agency is ultimately judged on its Manned Missions and isn't that what Ares I is all about, the safest rocket ? The Shuttle needs all the help it can get in that regards.
-
#29
by
Lee Jay
on 20 Jan, 2009 00:35
-
I'm with mars on this one - I hate this plan. Schedule, especially for something with a decade-long development schedule, shouldn't be a driver for crew safety, however remote the possibilities. They rejected it once, and they should do so again, IMHO.
Good article, Chris.
-
#30
by
Stowbridge
on 20 Jan, 2009 19:08
-
Good article Chris. I understand the reservations with this plan, which is giving undue priority to Ares I-X, but also the low probability of a rescue missions being required.
-
#31
by
psloss
on 23 Jan, 2009 10:19
-
Bill Harwood reports out of the manifest options meeting that while the decision was to continue to prepare for a mid-May launch date for STS-125, a decision on using Pad B for LON or releasing it to Constellation was deferred until mid-March:
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/current.htmlExcerpt:
Debating the various options today, Gerstenmaier decided to wait until mid March to make a final decision. If the Ares 1-X project can make up enough time to have a realistic shot at a mid July launch, NASA might go with single-pad operations for the Hubble mission. By moving Atlantis to the pad ahead of schedule in March, engineers could free up high bay 3 in the Vehicle Assembly Building for Ares 1-X assembly.
-
#32
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Jan, 2009 12:00
-
Although it needs to be noted no manifest decisions were to be made by the Gerst meeting this week, as noted in our article, last week.
-
#33
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Jan, 2009 13:35
-
Single Pad decision day is April 1, as per meeting overview memo on L2.
-
#34
by
Analyst
on 23 Jan, 2009 16:57
-
Probably Ares I-X will slip on its own beyond July - or will be canceled by then altogether - and this becomes a non issue. I understand the SSP to wait and see.
Analyst
-
#35
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 23 Jan, 2009 17:11
-
Probably Ares I-X will slip on its own beyond July - or will be canceled by then altogether - and this becomes a non issue. I understand the SSP to wait and see.
Analyst
Do you really think they'd cancel Ares 1-X?
-
#36
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Jan, 2009 17:18
-
Probably Ares I-X will slip on its own beyond July - or will be canceled by then altogether - and this becomes a non issue. I understand the SSP to wait and see.
Analyst
Do you really think they'd cancel Ares 1-X?
I'd say only if they cancel Ares I, which is "doutbful" to "unlikely" but "possible".
No cancellation of Ares, no cancellation of Ares I-X.
-
#37
by
K-P
on 23 Jan, 2009 18:30
-
Just a small question about shuttle orbit, not sure if it is answered before and just speculating here, but...
How possible it would be to use some sort of additional fuel tank located in shuttle bay to refill OMS tanks after last burn to orbit and use that extra thrust to move shuttle from HST orbit to ISS orbit in emergency situation such as heatshield damage?
And yes, let's just assume that in this case there would have been such an extra tank designed, and yes, OMS engines/tanks could be refilled on orbit, and yes, shuttle managers would be ok to carry liquid fuels on shuttle bay.
...just wanting to know if OMS engines have such capacity and shuttle such lift capacity to carry that needed extra fuel in addition of HST service mission cargo?
-
#38
by
Jorge
on 23 Jan, 2009 18:38
-
Just a small question about shuttle orbit, not sure if it is answered before and just speculating here, but...
How possible it would be to use some sort of additional fuel tank located in shuttle bay to refill OMS tanks after last burn to orbit and use that extra thrust to move shuttle from HST orbit to ISS orbit in emergency situation such as heatshield damage?
Not possible at all. Even if you completely filled the payload bay with OMS prop, it won't be enough to change inclination by more than a few degrees. And even if it were possible to do so by filling the bay, it would be pointless to do so because then you wouldn't have room for the HST servicing hardware. Which is, after all, the point of the whole exercise.
-
#39
by
FreeWillie
on 24 Jan, 2009 05:21
-
Gerst did make some decisions this week.
They decided not to consider November for HST anymore, and HST has a higher priority than 2J/A. Now they just wait to see how Ares I-X does schedule wise.
-
#40
by
Peter NASA
on 24 Jan, 2009 17:22
-
Gerst did make some decisions this week.
They decided not to consider November for HST anymore, and HST has a higher priority than 2J/A. Now they just wait to see how Ares I-X does schedule wise.
On work to dates. 125 has always held priority.
-
#41
by
robertross
on 24 Jan, 2009 19:40
-
One fault path that I didn't see was pad damage beyond it's use. If there were a serious pad failure, and they couldn't use 39B for the near-term, that would push not only LON, but STS-127 as well to the right a far way (depending on extent of damage). I wonder how they would work around that? Push Ares off, or stick with the baseline and delay STS-127; LON would be a distant memory.
-
#42
by
Lawntonlookirs
on 25 Jan, 2009 16:41
-
One fault path that I didn't see was pad damage beyond it's use. If there were a serious pad failure, and they could use 39B for the near-term, that would push not only LON, but STS-127 as well to the right a far way (depending on extent of damage). I wonder how they would work around that? Push Ares off, or stick with the baseline and delay STS-127; LON would be a distant memory.
I was woundering that same thing. Especially with the damage that was caused on the two flights last year. Both of them took some time to get 39A back in shape.
-
#43
by
cb6785
on 25 Jan, 2009 16:57
-
One fault path that I didn't see was pad damage beyond it's use. If there were a serious pad failure, and they could use 39B for the near-term, that would push not only LON, but STS-127 as well to the right a far way (depending on extent of damage). I wonder how they would work around that? Push Ares off, or stick with the baseline and delay STS-127; LON would be a distant memory.
I was woundering that same thing. Especially with the damage that was caused on the two flights last year. Both of them took some time to get 39A back in shape.
STS-127 definetly would have to be pushed to the right since there is no way to install the payload at Pad B.
-
#44
by
Thorny
on 25 Jan, 2009 17:07
-
STS-127 definetly would have to be pushed to the right since there is no way to install the payload at Pad B.
Would it be possible to install the payload in the OPF?
-
#45
by
PhoenixRising
on 29 Jan, 2009 19:48
-
Do we know when a more definite launch date is going to be set? Is the May 12+ launch date still a runner or are we looking at late May or even further? I've read about the single pad option they are looking at with regard to Ares I-X, just wondering when we can expect a more concrete launch date for 125?
-
#46
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 30 Jan, 2009 00:04
-
STS-127 definetly would have to be pushed to the right since there is no way to install the payload at Pad B.
Would it be possible to install the payload in the OPF?
No.
-
#47
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 30 Jan, 2009 00:07
-
Do we know when a more definite launch date is going to be set? Is the May 12+ launch date still a runner or are we looking at late May or even further? I've read about the single pad option they are looking at with regard to Ares I-X, just wondering when we can expect a more concrete launch date for 125?
Yes, May 12 is still a runner. They would not have decided to approve that date for STS-125 last week if it were not. Right now, we're targeting May 12 for dual pad ops and May 21 for single pad ops. The final decision date for single or dual pad ops will be April 1. As we progress closer to that date, and we see a more reasonable schedule for Ares I-X, than we will have a better idea what the official date for 125's launch will be.
-
#48
by
Chris Bergin
on 30 Jan, 2009 00:15
-
Do we know when a more definite launch date is going to be set? Is the May 12+ launch date still a runner or are we looking at late May or even further? I've read about the single pad option they are looking at with regard to Ares I-X, just wondering when we can expect a more concrete launch date for 125?
Hoping to hear something in a couple of weeks based on the spare hardware shipping date. No pre-emption of a more solid date being set yet, but will report it when that becomes the case.
-
#49
by
cd-slam
on 30 Jan, 2009 03:58
-
Yes, May 12 is still a runner. They would not have decided to approve that date for STS-125 last week if it were not. Right now, we're targeting May 12 for dual pad ops and May 21 for single pad ops. The final decision date for single or dual pad ops will be April 1. As we progress closer to that date, and we see a more reasonable schedule for Ares I-X, than we will have a better idea what the official date for 125's launch will be.
I've seen this April 1 decision date around for a while. But as per earlier processing data, for a May 12 launch with dual pad ops, Atlantis would need to be rolled over to VAB and mated to its ET stack on March 26. So if a decision is made to change to single pad ops, Atlantis would have to be destacked and returned to OPF.
There's some commentary on Bill Harwood's website noting that Ares 1-X is a month behind schedule and thus dual pad ops are likely to be approved.
-
#50
by
Analyst
on 30 Jan, 2009 07:00
-
Yes, May 12 is still a runner. They would not have decided to approve that date for STS-125 last week if it were not. Right now, we're targeting May 12 for dual pad ops and May 21 for single pad ops. The final decision date for single or dual pad ops will be April 1. As we progress closer to that date, and we see a more reasonable schedule for Ares I-X, than we will have a better idea what the official date for 125's launch will be.
So if a decision is made to change to single pad ops, Atlantis would have to be destacked and returned to OPF.
Why this? They roll it out a little later (after STS-127 has been at 39A and been rolled back). But why destack?
Analyst
-
#51
by
cd-slam
on 30 Jan, 2009 21:35
-
Yes, May 12 is still a runner. They would not have decided to approve that date for STS-125 last week if it were not. Right now, we're targeting May 12 for dual pad ops and May 21 for single pad ops. The final decision date for single or dual pad ops will be April 1. As we progress closer to that date, and we see a more reasonable schedule for Ares I-X, than we will have a better idea what the official date for 125's launch will be.
So if a decision is made to change to single pad ops, Atlantis would have to be destacked and returned to OPF.
Why this? They roll it out a little later (after STS-127 has been at 39A and been rolled back). But why destack?
Analyst
Because the second ET-SRB stack won't be ready until mid April. I think the May 21 date quoted above for single pad ops is based on using Endeavour on the first stack and Atlantis on the second stack. Thus Endeavour would have to roll at end of March and Atlantis by mid April. According to Bill's website the decision would be taken in mid March, then it's just a matter of switching orbiters in the rollover sequence.
-
#52
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 30 Jan, 2009 22:40
-
Yes, May 12 is still a runner. They would not have decided to approve that date for STS-125 last week if it were not. Right now, we're targeting May 12 for dual pad ops and May 21 for single pad ops. The final decision date for single or dual pad ops will be April 1. As we progress closer to that date, and we see a more reasonable schedule for Ares I-X, than we will have a better idea what the official date for 125's launch will be.
So if a decision is made to change to single pad ops, Atlantis would have to be destacked and returned to OPF.
Why this? They roll it out a little later (after STS-127 has been at 39A and been rolled back). But why destack?
Analyst
Because the second ET-SRB stack won't be ready until mid April. I think the May 21 date quoted above for single pad ops is based on using Endeavour on the first stack and Atlantis on the second stack. Thus Endeavour would have to roll at end of March and Atlantis by mid April. According to Bill's website the decision would be taken in mid March, then it's just a matter of switching orbiters in the rollover sequence.
No. The decision will be made on April 1. And Endeavour's current processing timelines show her being mated to her tank on April 7/8. What would happen is that Atlantis would be mated in late March (to perserve the dual pad option) and a decision on pad ops made on April 1. If the decision is for single pad ops, Endeavour will be mated on April 7/8, rolled out on April 14/15, serviced at the pad, rolled back in late April (like the 27 or so), Atlantis rolled out and processed for launch, launched on May 21, and Endeavour rolled back out 6/7 days after Atlantis' launch for a NET STS-400 launch date of STS-125 Launch +15days.
If the decision is made to go with dual pad ops, Atlantis is already mated to her stack and thus you've saved about a week's worth of processing time.
EDIT: Will we have a better idea which pad option we'll be using by mid-March? Possibly. But the final decision will be made on April 1.
-
#53
by
Chris Bergin
on 09 Feb, 2009 21:38
-
-
#54
by
khdrummer
on 21 Feb, 2009 23:22
-
Since they are planning on removing the lightning mast on Pad 39B soon, perhaps this may shed some light on what they are thinking in regards to dual pad flow. If they were seriously considering this they wouldn't they leave the lightning mast in place?
-
#55
by
AnalogMan
on 22 Feb, 2009 00:04
-
Since they are planning on removing the lightning mast on Pad 39B soon, perhaps this may shed some light on what they are thinking in regards to dual pad flow. If they were seriously considering this they wouldn't they leave the lightning mast in place?
Interesting information - when, or what is the current plan, to remove the lightning mast on 39B?
-
#56
by
khdrummer
on 22 Feb, 2009 14:36
-
Quoting Padrat on Page 3--
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15311.45He says in regards to Pad B:
"Well, just to give you an idea, they are currently scheduled to begin taking down the wires and FSS lightning mast next week. Will be bringing a big crane on to the pad surface next week, but obviously not one of the 21000's scale. "
-
#57
by
shuttlefan
on 04 Mar, 2009 18:06
-
The lightning tower has come down off Pad B!! Will it still be able to support a rescue shuttle for STS-125 or is this pretty-much an indication that they've decided to go with single-pad, or worse, cancelled STS-125 due to the space debris issue?
-
#58
by
rdale
on 04 Mar, 2009 18:08
-
There is no talk of canceling STS-125, debris has always and will always be in space.
-
#59
by
SgtBulldog
on 04 Mar, 2009 19:44
-
So May 12 is looking like the likely launch date then?
-
#60
by
rdale
on 04 Mar, 2009 19:56
-
That's the plan until things change - I'd refer you back to the article Chris posted just above in this thread.
-
#61
by
punkboi
on 04 Mar, 2009 20:04
-
The lightning tower has come down off Pad B!! Will it still be able to support a rescue shuttle for STS-125 or is this pretty-much an indication that they've decided to go with single-pad, or worse, cancelled STS-125 due to the space debris issue?
I don't think the removal of the FSS mast means a thing. Of all things, if dual pad ops were still chosen, Endeavour would not have one or twice, but
thrice the protection from the new towers.
-
#62
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 04 Mar, 2009 20:51
-
The lightning tower has come down off Pad B!! Will it still be able to support a rescue shuttle for STS-125 or is this pretty-much an indication that they've decided to go with single-pad, or worse, cancelled STS-125 due to the space debris issue?
I don't think the removal of the FSS mast means a thing. Of all things, if dual pad ops were still chosen, Endeavour would not have one or twice, but thrice the protection from the new towers.
They are studying their options. Basically, they are looking at whether the shuttle can safely maneuver through the new lightening protection system that has/is being erected for Ares I. If the shuttle can safely maneuver through the overhead wiring with enough clearance than Endeavour will be sat on Pad-B for LON as long it it won't interfere with the Ares I-X schedule (which it shouldn't). If there is not enough clearance, Endeavour will be sat on Pad-A and the single pad LON op will be adopted.
And we should all go look at this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15311.50The Pad-B lightening mast has been removed.
-
#63
by
Bubbinski
on 05 Mar, 2009 01:32
-
It's good to hear of the progress on STS-119 so it can launch in March and keep STS-125 on track for May. However, are there good poppets that can be installed in Atlantis? Or will they be content to put the doubler plate on the line and find poppets with the least cracking?
-
#64
by
padrat
on 06 Mar, 2009 21:29
-
They are studying their options. Basically, they are looking at whether the shuttle can safely maneuver through the new lightening protection system that has/is being erected for Ares I. If the shuttle can safely maneuver through the overhead wiring with enough clearance than Endeavour will be sat on Pad-B for LON as long it it won't interfere with the Ares I-X schedule (which it shouldn't). If there is not enough clearance, Endeavour will be sat on Pad-A and the single pad LON op will be adopted.
I'm kinda curious on how it plays into clearance with them planning on only having wire between towers 1 and 2 (towers furthest north) in time for STS 125. You would think that clearance wouldn't be that much of an issue. Well, I guess it might if you take into account the roll after liftoff. Wonder if it would clear the wire before it rolled.
-
#65
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Mar, 2009 02:03
-
-
#66
by
Chris Bergin
on 28 Mar, 2009 20:50
-
