Author Topic: Landing at White Sands, very bad idea! (Read 35789 times)

Scotty · « **on:** 12/21/2006 10:12 pm »

Unless you were at White Sands for the STS-3 landing (and yes I was there as part of the Orbiter recovery team), you have no idea how bad a landing there will be on Discovery's future use as a orbiter.
That white gypsum dust will get into everything, and it will require a long process to get that dust out of the orbiter.
Also, with out the equipment that was there for the STS-3 landing (the equipment was moved from Edwards to White Sands prior to that landing), all the onboard avionics will be toasted, and have to be replaced or checked out.

They broke the landing rules with the last Shuttle landing here at KSC, and the expected conditions at KSC for Friday afternoon are no worse than they were last time.

gordo · « **Reply #1 on:** 12/21/2006 10:19 pm »

....and if you know what you are talking about you will know the facility has come on a long way to support the landing. They don't see the gypsum as an big issue as there is a gypsum free area for the orbiter to be de-serviced. Columbia, got caught in the open in a "sand" storm hence your hassles. The kit to de-service the orbiter and keep the system happy will be there and ready by Saturday.

So all in all I don't really see what you are getting at with your post. Number 1 priority is Crew safety, If the Orbiter takes a year to clean up then fine.

northanger · « **Reply #2 on:** 12/21/2006 10:25 pm »

Completely agree, from an orbiter standpoint. Isn't NASA focused on crew safety? Are there any differences between KSC Sep + KSC Dec weather conditions where you can break landing rules in one but not the other?

mkirk · « **Reply #3 on:** 12/21/2006 10:39 pm »

Quote

Scotty - 21/12/2006 4:55 PM

Unless you were at White Sands for the STS-3 landing (and yes I was there as part of the Orbiter recovery team), you have no idea how bad a landing there will be on Discovery's future use as a orbiter.
That white gypsum dust will get into everything, and it will require a long process to get that dust out of the orbiter.
Also, with out the equipment that was there for the STS-3 landing (the equipment was moved from Edwards to White Sands prior to that landing), all the onboard avionics will be toasted, and have to be replaced or checked out.

They broke the landing rules with the last Shuttle landing here at KSC, and the expected conditions at KSC for Friday afternoon are no worse than they were last time.

Yeah I have talked with a lot of folks from back then and everyone has something to say about what a pain in the ass that turnaround was.

There is no doubt everyone wants to avoid NOR!!!

But violating the Flight Rules in the heat of battle is also to be avoided! The reason they exist is to take this kind of emotion and pressure out of the decision process. The Flight Rules are “canned” reasoning or “what iffing” that is done in a deliberate manner so that the best possible decisions are made. Yeah in practice rules get bent all the time but you damn well better be right and if they are broken it is in the interest of safety and not to make shuttle processing easier.

As for the last KSC landing, nobody intentionally violated the Flight Rules that day either. Yes they were pushed to the limit of interpretation but nobody said “screw the rules”. I was there listening to the Weather Capcom/STA loop and was praying the STA pilot would interpret the detached anvil rule the way we all wanted, but I can assure you he followed the rules and would not have approved the landing (with an "observed go" call) if he though it was a safety issue.

It was a close call that day in terms of characterizing the weather but I still believe it was an honest good faith interpretation and NOBODY INTENTIONALLY WAIVED THE FLIGHT RULE.

Mark Kirkman

Scotty · « **Reply #4 on:** 12/21/2006 10:40 pm »

Unless they have pulled a STS-3 circus, and moved all the landing support equipment from Edwards to White Sands, this landing at White Sands (if it happens) will keep Discovery grounded for at least a year.
So, what is the difference in landing at KSC, and running the risk of TPS damage; or landing at White Sands and running the risk of that gypsum dust getting into everything, and risking all the avionics?
With out the Cool and Purge trailers, the crew will have to shut down all the onboard systems and basically abandon the Orbiter on the lakebed runway.
That dust will get into the Orbiter, I have no doubts about that.
Check the weather forcasts for White Sands on Saturday and Sunday; windy.

psloss · « **Reply #5 on:** 12/21/2006 10:45 pm »

Quote

Scotty - 21/12/2006 6:23 PM

Unless they have pulled a STS-3 circus, and moved all the landing support equipment from Edwards to White Sands, this landing at White Sands (if it happens) will keep Discovery grounded for at least a year.
So, what is the difference in landing at KSC, and running the risk of TPS damage; or landing at White Sands and running the risk of that gypsum dust getting into everything, and risking all the avionics?
With out the Cool and Purge trailers, the crew will have to shut down all the onboard systems and basically abandon the Orbiter on the lakebed runway.
That dust will get into the Orbiter, I have no doubts about that.
Check the weather forcasts for White Sands on Saturday and Sunday; windy.

I take it then you don't believe that the "stuff" they've already built out there will mitigate that at all, then.

Or the equipment they claim to be airlifting out there tonight...

Is that not going to help or is it not enough to help?

Thanks.

mkirk · « **Reply #6 on:** 12/21/2006 10:47 pm »

I don’t completely disagree with you…this will probably suck!!

But we haven’t even gotten to the real decision point yet and don’t really know what the real time weather is going to be. Just look what happened on launch day. When we all got up that morning nobody believed a launch was going to occur, just hours later the weather was beautiful and we all saw a great launch.

Also, the TPS protection concern you mentioned is only part of the rationale for the existing Flight Rules.

Personally I think the wind direction is going to change in favor for us at Edwards (i.e. less cross wind component) and this will not be an issue.

Mark Kirkman

DaveS · « **Reply #7 on:** 12/21/2006 10:48 pm »

Quote

Scotty - 22/12/2006 12:23 AM

Unless they have pulled a STS-3 circus, and moved all the landing support equipment from Edwards to White Sands, this landing at White Sands (if it happens) will keep Discovery grounded for at least a year.
So, what is the difference in landing at KSC, and running the risk of TPS damage; or landing at White Sands and running the risk of that gypsum dust getting into everything, and risking all the avionics?
With out the Cool and Purge trailers, the crew will have to shut down all the onboard systems and basically abandon the Orbiter on the lakebed runway.
That dust will get into the Orbiter, I have no doubts about that.
Check the weather forcasts for White Sands on Saturday and Sunday; windy.

Scotty, did you watch today's briefing at all?

They have a couple of C-17 leaving KSC tonight with a pair of power and purge units for White Sands. They will be there well in time for the White Sands landing.

Also, they're going to tow Discovery off the runway to a de-servicing area made of concrete in a sheltered area.

John Shannon mentioned that a C-137 was parked on that de-servicing area for 9(nine) months and it suffered no gypsum contamination. Discovery will parked there for 2 months, tops.

Alot have changed since 1982! They have plugs which they're going to use to protect the various RCS, water dump, OMS engine, and SSME nozzles.

Next time, try to watch a briefing BEFORE making the comments.

rdale · « **Reply #8 on:** 12/21/2006 10:53 pm »

Quote

mkirk - 21/12/2006 6:30 PM

When we all got up that morning nobody believed a launch was going to occur

Hey - let's not lump all meteorologists in with them ;> Some of us were very confident...

I guess I'd like to hear specifics from those in this thread who are doom and glooming - why was everything John Shannon said today incorrect? Is he lying? Was his lied too? Clearly what he says and what you are posting are mutually exclusive...

lsullivan411 · « **Reply #9 on:** 12/21/2006 10:54 pm »

Well said DaveS, I just got through listening to the briefing and John Shannon certainly sounded very positive about White Sands - I don't think he would have been if there were major issues to be worried about. Let's just hope that tomorrow Florida clears up and Discovery can land there, but if not and they can't get into Edwards I would certainly feel better about White Sands today than I did 48 hours ago.

mkirk · « **Reply #10 on:** 12/21/2006 10:57 pm »

Quote

rdale - 21/12/2006 5:36 PM

Quote
mkirk - 21/12/2006 6:30 PM

When we all got up that morning nobody believed a launch was going to occur

Hey - let's not lump all meteorologists in with them ;> Some of us were very confident...

I guess I'd like to hear specifics from those in this thread who are doom and glooming - why was everything John Shannon said today incorrect? Is he lying? Was his lied too? Clearly what he says and what you are posting are mutually exclusive...

No, he wasn't lying and yes many of the concerns have been mitigated!

Mark Kirkman

northanger · « **Reply #11 on:** 12/21/2006 11:00 pm »

whew. I mean, great analysis Mark & everybody. I didn't catch Shannon's briefing & feel better about NOR. But I'm praying for a KSC landing.

gordo · « **Reply #12 on:** 12/21/2006 11:01 pm »

IMO if there really were big issues they would have been looking at going to other AFB facilities, where there might have been hangarage available, they are not, so obviously happy with NOR.

rdale · « **Reply #13 on:** 12/21/2006 11:02 pm »

Quote

northanger - 21/12/2006 6:08 PM

Are there any differences between KSC Sep + KSC Dec weather conditions where you can break landing rules in one but not the other?

I'm not sure I understand - what difference does a rain shower in September mean vs one in December? Weather is weather. It doesn't matter what the calendar says, nor would it make sense to say "these rules are only valid 9 months of the year, the other three you can change them if you want."

kevinseven11 · « **Reply #14 on:** 12/21/2006 11:03 pm »

landing in white sands is brilant get all people to new mexico. then next day launch shuttle in flordia so i can finaly see a luanch. lol

rdale · « **Reply #15 on:** 12/21/2006 11:05 pm »

Quote

gordo - 21/12/2006 6:44 PM

IMO if there really were big issues they would have been looking at going to other AFB facilities, where there might have been hangarage available, they are not, so obviously happy with NOR.

I think John made it clear that crew safety trumps recovery efforts. Clearly there are places with more protective facilities, but much less safe landing opportunities. So even if they were looking at an extended downtime, there's little question in my mind that NOR would still be the place to go.

If they tried to put down the shuttle on a less than stellar runway, and something happened as a result, just imagine the press when they ask "why was a 2 month schedule delay worth..."

northanger · « **Reply #16 on:** 12/21/2006 11:05 pm »

rdale. Mark cleared that up: no rules were waived. I agree, weather's weather. Somebody needs to get some butterflies flapping up some better KSC weather.

rdale · « **Reply #17 on:** 12/21/2006 11:06 pm »

Quote

kevinseven11 - 21/12/2006 6:46 PM

landing in white sands is brilant get all people to new mexico. then next day launch shuttle in flordia so i can finaly see a luanch. lol

I don't think this will draw many people to NM at all. Viewing is clearly worse there than anywhere else, and there is no shuttle launch until March - and all shuttle launch from Florida.

Gary · « **Reply #18 on:** 12/21/2006 11:14 pm »

Why would a white sands landing ground the Orbiter for a year? Columbia was launched on STS-4 just three months after landing there.

psloss · « **Reply #19 on:** 12/21/2006 11:19 pm »

Quote

Gary - 21/12/2006 6:57 PM

Why would a white sands landing ground the Orbiter for a year? Columbia was launched on STS-4 just three months after landing there.

I'm getting the feeling this is an apples-to-oranges thing, but in the case of STS-3, the Edwards landing convoy and the lifting crane were pre-positioned at White Sands before landing and Columbia was only there for a week. The landing was on 30 March 1982 and the ferry left on 6 April 1982.