-
#240
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 26 Jun, 2010 03:02
-
* If it will be a "YES" by August, what are the implications of a one month delay to the STS-135 (possible) flight?
We'd be likely to see a delay since it takes about one year to plan a flight, train a crew and get ready to go fly.
If we're talking about deciding in by August for a late-June launch date there probably wouldn't be much of any delay considering the SRBs and ET would already be known elements of the stack and you'd only be talking about training a veteran four person crew for a 12-day, NO EVA flight.
-
#241
by
Skylon
on 30 Jun, 2010 19:53
-
If we're talking about deciding in by August for a late-June launch date there probably wouldn't be much of any delay considering the SRBs and ET would already be known elements of the stack and you'd only be talking about training a veteran four person crew for a 12-day, NO EVA flight.
I suppose at some point STS-335 will have a crew attached to it, similar to STS-400. As the objectives of STS-335 would be similar to STS-135, with the major difference being not returning six astronauts "crew training" shouldn't be an issue.
I'm wondering if we'll see a new crew assembled for STS-335/135, or a recycle of a more recent mission (STS-131 or STS-132's flight deck crews).
-
#242
by
astrobrian
on 30 Jun, 2010 21:07
-
I'm wondering if we'll see a new crew assembled for STS-335/135, or a recycle of a more recent mission (STS-131 or STS-132's flight deck crews).
Would likely be a mixture of crews, especially since some of the recent flights crews are still doing tours for the respective missions.
-
#243
by
Chris Bergin
on 01 Jul, 2010 21:52
-
-
#244
by
Chris Bergin
on 01 Jul, 2010 22:09
-
-
#245
by
Commander Keen
on 08 Jul, 2010 19:52
-
Let's say that STS-133 or 134 suffered an Abort To Orbit and they would not be able to make it to the ISS, albeit an unlikely scenerio. Would that make STS-135 almost a certainty?
-
#246
by
yg1968
on 08 Jul, 2010 20:24
-
STS-335 would then be flown to rescue the stranded Shuttle. I doubt that it would fly an additionnal cargo as it would then be a rescue mission.
-
#247
by
Namechange User
on 08 Jul, 2010 20:26
-
An abort to orbit does not mean the shuttle is "stranded". No rescue would be necessary.
-
#248
by
nathan.moeller
on 08 Jul, 2010 20:31
-
Let's say that STS-133 or 134 suffered an Abort To Orbit and they would not be able to make it to the ISS, albeit an unlikely scenerio. Would that make STS-135 almost a certainty?
Abort to orbit is a launch abort scenario, not LON. If ATO is needed, they'd either continue their mission after reaching orbit or, depending on the reason for the abort, return home. LON would only be needed in the event the shuttle suffers critical damage to her TPS during launch or on orbit, making re-entry too dangerous to risk the crew.
-
#249
by
nathan.moeller
on 08 Jul, 2010 20:32
-
STS-335 would then be flown to rescue the stranded Shuttle. I doubt that it would fly an additionnal cargo as it would then be a rescue mission.
STS-335 will not rescue a stranded shuttle. The rescue flight would fly to the station WITH the MPLM (Raffaello) to rescue the stranded CREW and re-supply the station. The damaged shuttle would have long been remotely flown home or discarded.
-
#250
by
Commander Keen
on 08 Jul, 2010 20:56
-
STS-335 would then be flown to rescue the stranded Shuttle. I doubt that it would fly an additionnal cargo as it would then be a rescue mission.
Sorry, I believe I did not explain myself properly. I am not talking about a rescue mission I am talking about a reflight. Since the ATO mission would not be able to dock and transfer its cargo or accomplish its mission, would it mean an automatic activation of an additional mission.
-
#251
by
Namechange User
on 08 Jul, 2010 21:01
-
STS-335 would then be flown to rescue the stranded Shuttle. I doubt that it would fly an additionnal cargo as it would then be a rescue mission.
Sorry, I believe I did not explain myself properly. I am not talking about a rescue mission I am talking about a reflight. Since the ATO mission would not be able to dock and transfer its cargo or accomplish its mission, would it mean an automatic activation of an additional mission.
The answer to that question is based in politics. Unfortunately, like so many other answers to questions so many have right now, no one really knows.
-
#252
by
yg1968
on 08 Jul, 2010 22:34
-
STS-335 would then be flown to rescue the stranded Shuttle. I doubt that it would fly an additionnal cargo as it would then be a rescue mission.
STS-335 will not rescue a stranded shuttle. The rescue flight would fly to the station WITH the MPLM (Raffaello) to rescue the stranded CREW and re-supply the station. The damaged shuttle would have long been remotely flown home or discarded.
Thanks. I shouldn't have tried answering that question... Hopefully my reputation rating will not become negative because of this.
Perhaps I can try to redeem myself by posting a useful link on LON procedures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-3xx
-
#253
by
Chris Bergin
on 09 Jul, 2010 14:09
-
Total coincidence to this thread picking up a bit, but we'll have a large STS-135 article later today!
PS VERY cool to see this site's got a lot of accreditation on that Wiki link YG posted!
-
#254
by
nathan.moeller
on 09 Jul, 2010 16:05
-
Thanks. I shouldn't have tried answering that question... Hopefully my reputation rating will not become negative because of this. Perhaps I can try to redeem myself by posting a useful link on LON procedures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-3xx
It's alright. I can tell you all you need to know about LON without Wiki
And that's great news, Chris. Really hoping they approve 135 (AND 136).
-
#255
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Jul, 2010 04:23
-
Perhaps I can try to redeem myself by posting a useful link on LON procedures: