-
STS-300?
by
Spirit
on 15 May, 2006 21:54
-
In case something goes wrong with Discovery and a rescue mission(STS-300) is required, how many crew members will be launched on-board Atlantis and how are they going to return Discovery's 6(7) crew members with the 7-seater space shuttle?
Plus an extra question: how are the mission numbers being generated? Why STS-121 comes before STS-115, STS-116...
-
#1
by
DaveS
on 15 May, 2006 22:27
-
Spirit - 15/5/2006 11:41 PM
Plus an extra question: how are the mission numbers being generated? Why STS-121 comes before STS-115, STS-116...
STS-121 was inserted into flight manifest shorthly after the release of CAIB's final report when NASA realized that STS-114 had become overloaded with the TPS inspections, crew transfer cargo transfer, 2(?) EVAs etc.
So they decided to split up the duties of the original STS-114 into two test-flight missions before resuming station assembly.
So STS-121 came before STS-115 not longer after the CAIB's final report. Prior to Columbia it wasn't usual that the flights got swapped around, just take a look on STS-107. It flew after STS-112 and STS-113 as it had lower priorty than HST(STS-109) and ISS.
-
#2
by
astrobrian
on 15 May, 2006 22:30
-
The mission numbers are just given in order, its not how the order of flights actually ends up. If something with a cargo on mission 156 then 157 would get to fly next, to use an example. I haven't heard a crew number mentioned but I would think 2 would be right but seating would be an issue unless they bend the rules and just sit on the mid deck floor or something equally strange.
Edit : and mission prioritytoo forgot about that.
-
#3
by
mkirk
on 15 May, 2006 23:11
-
Spirit - 15/5/2006 4:41 PM
In case something goes wrong with Discovery and a rescue mission(STS-300) is required, how many crew members will be launched on-board Atlantis and how are they going to return Discovery's 6(7) crew members with the 7-seater space shuttle?
The requirement is for 4 to go up on 300 and 11 down. I attached a chart and a couple of pictures of how the seating will be done. The forward seats on the mid-deck will be right up against the forward lockers with the crew's legs in the empty locker spaces. The additional seats are behind them next to the EVA/Airlock hatch.
The crew who will fly STS-300 will be in the Shuttle Mission Simulator and the STS-121 Ascent/Entry Flight Control Team will be in the Mission Control Center practicing Ascent and Abort Procedures this Wednesday morning.
Mark Kirkman
-
#4
by
shuttlefan
on 15 May, 2006 23:41
-
Would the decision to launch STS-300 be made by President Bush as wouldn't it be too hard a decision to make for NASA, to send up another shuttle without knowing what caused the first one to be damaged?
-
#5
by
astrobrian
on 15 May, 2006 23:55
-
I think it wouldn't be hard at all, you would have people banging the doors down to be on the 300 flight. I also don't think anyone would try to stop a rescue flight either unless something completely not understood happened.
Super pictures too btw
-
#6
by
wannamoonbase
on 16 May, 2006 00:56
-
Yes great pics thanks.
11 Down that would set a record that would stand for some time.
As it is I think the Mir flights had 8 down at least once, that could stand for a long time as well.
-
#7
by
hyper_snyper
on 16 May, 2006 01:17
-
Why 4 for the rescue mission? Is that the minimum number needed to operate a shuttle?
-
#8
by
rdale
on 16 May, 2006 01:18
-
shuttlefan - 15/5/2006 7:28 PM
Would the decision to launch STS-300 be made by President Bush as wouldn't it be too hard a decision to make for NASA, to send up another shuttle without knowing what caused the first one to be damaged?
1) I don't think the President is qualified to make such a decision... I'm sure the NASA Admin would make that call.
2) How do you know we wouldn't know what caused the first one to be damaged?
-
#9
by
shuttlefan
on 16 May, 2006 01:45
-
" How do you know we wouldn,t know what caused the first one to be damaged?"
I guess I should rephrase the question a little: Would NASA send up a rescue shuttle EVEN IF they wouldn't know what caused the first one to be damaged.
....Hope that's better..
-
#10
by
astrobrian
on 16 May, 2006 02:12
-
You have to try to do something I would think. Cant just give up on a crew because of the unknowns
-
#11
by
Jim
on 16 May, 2006 11:48
-
hyper_snyper - 15/5/2006 9:04 PM
Why 4 for the rescue mission? Is that the minimum number needed to operate a shuttle?
Yes
-
#12
by
Wisi
on 16 May, 2006 13:20
-
But STS-1 to STS-4 have been flown with only two crew-members (commander and pilot). Why do they need two mission specialists for the rescue mission?
-
#13
by
Jim
on 16 May, 2006 13:25
-
Wisi - 16/5/2006 9:07 AM
But STS-1 to STS-4 have been flown with only two crew-members (commander and pilot). Why do they need two mission specialists for the rescue mission?
The flight test missions didn't have much to do on orbit.
Rendezvous and docking take more than two people
More the reason is that SAS affect 50% of the crew in the first few days.
-
#14
by
shuttlefan
on 16 May, 2006 13:44
-
" Can't just give up on a crew because of the unknowns."
Totally agree.
-
#15
by
Spirit
on 16 May, 2006 14:24
-
Jim - 16/5/2006 1:35 PM
hyper_snyper - 15/5/2006 9:04 PM
Why 4 for the rescue mission? Is that the minimum number needed to operate a shuttle?
Yes
Then how were the first flights conducted with two crewmembers? Are the other two astronauts needed for docking the shuttle to the station?
-
#16
by
Jim
on 16 May, 2006 14:36
-
Spirit - 16/5/2006 10:11 AM
Jim - 16/5/2006 1:35 PM
hyper_snyper - 15/5/2006 9:04 PM
Why 4 for the rescue mission? Is that the minimum number needed to operate a shuttle?
Yes
Then how were the first flights conducted with two crewmembers? Are the other two astronauts needed for docking the shuttle to the station?
answered in previous posts
-
#17
by
mkirk
on 16 May, 2006 17:51
-
Spirit - 16/5/2006 9:11 AM
Jim - 16/5/2006 1:35 PM
hyper_snyper - 15/5/2006 9:04 PM
Why 4 for the rescue mission? Is that the minimum number needed to operate a shuttle?
Yes
Then how were the first flights conducted with two crewmembers? Are the other two astronauts needed for docking the shuttle to the station?
It really takes 3-4 crew members to manage crew workload of the flight deck during dynamic flight (i.e. ascent/rendezvous-docking/entry). In fact there are cockpit switches that can not be reached by the CDR and PLT. Normally these switches are not an issue, but they would be during "off-nominal" situations such as an emergency powerdown for a loss of cooling. There were some procedures that would have required Bob Crippen to unstrap from his seat and climb to the back of the cockpit during STS-1...that would have been tricky during dynamic flight. Even today we have a "swizzle stick" that crew members can use to reach switches such as on the overhead panels...these are hard to reach even without a pressure suit and helmet on.
Another factor is maintaining SA (situational awareness) and coordinating checklists. This is a tuff task for a 4 man flight deck crew even when things are going well, it would be a nightmare if their were systems problems or an abort with only 2 crew.
On a STS-300 mission you would really need 4 crew members to deal with Normal and possibel emgency procedures,Contingcy EVAs, Rendezvous-Docking, and rescue related tasks.
Mark Kirkman
-
#18
by
Spirit
on 16 May, 2006 19:28
-
So where would Atlantis dock on STS-300? Is there another hatch for shuttles on the ISS?
-
#19
by
Wisi
on 16 May, 2006 20:01
-
Discovery would be sent home first (without crew), before docking (or even before lift-off, don't know) of STS-300 (Atlantis).
There are speculations concernig a mechanism to deorbit and launch the shuttle automatically, without any crew actions (look at
this thread). If this box doesn't exist, the orbiter would be burned in the atmospere.
-
#20
by
Jim
on 16 May, 2006 20:03
-
Spirit - 16/5/2006 3:15 PM
So where would Atlantis dock on STS-300? Is there another hatch for shuttles on the ISS?
PMA 3
-
#21
by
Spirit
on 16 May, 2006 20:06
-
Thanks for the answers
-
#22
by
rfoshaug
on 22 May, 2006 12:21
-
In case STS-300 is launched, would the damaged orbiter be ditched without attempting to save it or land it unmanned?
-
#23
by
Jamie Young
on 22 May, 2006 18:11
-
rfoshaug - 22/5/2006 7:08 AM
In case STS-300 is launched, would the damaged orbiter be ditched without attempting to save it or land it unmanned?
Not yet confirmed, although Discovery is understood to have the ability to land herself in California.
-
#24
by
astrobrian
on 22 May, 2006 22:03
-
I thought someone has to be around to at the very least drop the landing gear.
-
#25
by
Wisi
on 22 May, 2006 22:25
-
There are rumours aroud, that NASA developed a box to do this automatically. This box can be installed on the flight deck of Discovery. The rest can be done automatically anyway. But let's hope the 'box' won't be used...
-
#26
by
astrobrian
on 22 May, 2006 22:42
-
Does anyone know for sure about this box? And if it is around if it is on STS-121?
-
#27
by
Chris Bergin
on 22 May, 2006 22:55
-
astrobrian - 22/5/2006 11:29 PM
Does anyone know for sure about this box? And if it is around if it is on STS-121?
I'll try and confirm, but it IS available for STS-121.
-
#28
by
Spirit
on 23 May, 2006 18:38
-
-
#29
by
shuttlefan
on 29 Jun, 2006 18:18
-
They said this morning that the STS-300 vehicle should also be ready in time to support a possible STS-121 rescue.
-
#30
by
Mark Dave
on 30 Jun, 2006 01:18
-
Hopefully it won't have to be used. But just to be safe I'm ok with it.
You know also to help, why not have both stacks there on both pads. There is a photo of Columbia and Atlantis together rolling to their respective pads. IMO something like that would be better, and if there is need of a rescue the other orbiter is already set up to fly. This is how I would view this situation.
-
#31
by
Jim
on 30 Jun, 2006 01:33
-
MarkD - 29/6/2006 9:05 PM
Hopefully it won't have to be used. But just to be safe I'm ok with it.
You know also to help, why not have both stacks there on both pads. There is a photo of Columbia and Atlantis together rolling to their respective pads. IMO something like that would be better, and if there is need of a rescue the other orbiter is already set up to fly. This is how I would view this situation.
One was rolling back from a pad in that photo.
They don't want to configure the other orbiter for rescue and then have to roll it back after a successful STS-121 and reconfigure it.
-
#32
by
Mark Dave
on 30 Jun, 2006 02:14
-
Good point, but keep it in the VAB just incase if needed.
-
#33
by
shuttlefan
on 30 Jun, 2006 02:21
-
MarkD.: " Good point, but keep it in the VAB just incase if needed."
I totally agree that the whole vehicle should at least be stacked together.
-
#34
by
Jim
on 30 Jun, 2006 02:23
-
shuttlefan - 29/6/2006 10:08 PM
MarkD.: " Good point, but keep it in the VAB just incase if needed."
I totally agree that the whole vehicle should at least be stacked together.
They still would have to destack the orbiter to reconfigure it.
Right now, the ET and SRB's will be mated. They will just be waiting for the orbiter.
-
#35
by
shuttlefan
on 30 Jun, 2006 04:07
-
Anyone know what date ET/SRB mating is scheduled to be achieved?
-
#36
by
psloss
on 30 Jun, 2006 10:34
-
shuttlefan - 29/6/2006 11:54 PM
Anyone know what date ET/SRB mating is scheduled to be achieved?
As of yesterday's countdown status briefing estimate, end of next week.
-
#37
by
norm103
on 30 Jun, 2006 18:51
-
will the sts 300 obiter bring back the mplm if it flys. or will it be lost with the other obiter?
-
#38
by
mainengine
on 01 Jul, 2006 19:25
-
It should remain docked at the ISS.
-
#39
by
Mark Dave
on 01 Jul, 2006 21:05
-
Good idea, leave the MPLM on the station as it will be needed in the future anyway. If the rescue vehicle can bring it back as well, they should. Why, redundency is better, have a back up plan if the first try doesn't work.
