Author Topic: Landing at White Sands, very bad idea! (Read 35792 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.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #20 on:** 12/21/2006 11:23 pm »

This is a tough thread. On one hand there no way in hell they'd land at WSSH if it was going to be a major problem for ground processing on Discovery. Shannon, while a bit fluffy today, isn't going to lie. Then there's the MTT comments which (and I quote):

"There is a very good chance it will be at White Sands and everyone is scrambling because they (White Sands) do not have the equipment to safe the orbiter and temperatures are freezing or below. Plus the orbiter will be there for at least a month until they can get the ferry equipmnt there to ferry the orbiter to KSC. It's not a great situation but possibly no choice in the matter. We will wait and see and pray for a break in the weather."

But all I'm thinking of is seeing Discovery safely on the ground, personally.

gordo · « **Reply #21 on:** 12/21/2006 11:23 pm »

The 3 month STS3-STS4 turnaround proved the dust was a pain but not a show stopper.

Gary · « **Reply #22 on:** 12/21/2006 11:25 pm »

A month? That could be problematic with the Gypsum.... I know they will get it protected as quickly as possible but if you are saying a month then I can understand the concerns.

psloss · « **Reply #23 on:** 12/21/2006 11:30 pm »

Quote

Gary - 21/12/2006 7:08 PM

A month? That could be problematic with the Gypsum.... I know they will get it protected as quickly as possible but if you are saying a month then I can understand the concerns.

John Shannon hinted in the press briefing a couple of hours ago that it could be as much as 2 months because the program wants to "go slow" and make sure they have the right people and equipment to get the orbiter ready for ferry.

With respect to the gypsum, DaveS already noted the anecdote from the press briefing from Shannon about a military plane (C-135 I think) that spent 9 months there on the concrete "pad" they built after the STS-3 experience...

DaveS · « **Reply #24 on:** 12/21/2006 11:31 pm »

Quote

Gary - 22/12/2006 1:08 AM

A month? That could be problematic with the Gypsum.... I know they will get it protected as quickly as possible but if you are saying a month then I can understand the concerns.

A C-137 was at WSSH for 9 months and didn't suffer any gypsum contamination. Doubt that Discovery will get any gypsum related problems.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #25 on:** 12/21/2006 11:35 pm »

There's an important point to be made by way of the trouble Columbia had after STS-3......lessons learned.

I actually like the fact there's notes of concern, because it shows they are aware, they've learnt from STS-3, and one can assume everything possible is being put into place to mitigate.

Also, didn't they have a huge sandstorm the day before Columbia landed? That can't of helped.

gordo · « **Reply #26 on:** 12/21/2006 11:37 pm »

they also had a huge sandstorm out on the runway where they left Columbia, hence the sheltered pad.

psloss · « **Reply #27 on:** 12/21/2006 11:44 pm »

Quote

gordo - 21/12/2006 7:20 PM

they also had a huge sandstorm out on the runway where they left Columbia, hence the sheltered pad.

Watching the briefing again...it was a C-135...landed without its left main landing gear...

Shannon also said the orbiter was left on the lakebed without throat plugs in the thrusters after STS-3...

Scotty's comments though do leave me wondering what happens to the GSE out at White Sands, too.

Gary · « **Reply #28 on:** 12/21/2006 11:46 pm »

Thanks guys. Didn't know about the sheltered pad. I missed John Shannons talk.

Shuttle Man · « **Reply #29 on:** 12/21/2006 11:47 pm »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 21/12/2006 6:06 PM

But all I'm thinking of is seeing Discovery safely on the ground, personally.

Very well said.

psloss · « **Reply #30 on:** 12/21/2006 11:50 pm »

Quote

Gary - 21/12/2006 7:29 PM

Thanks guys. Didn't know about the sheltered pad. I missed John Shannons talk.

Actually someone here posted a nice link to some "fluffy" info about White Sands; the NASA site, actually:
http://www.wstf.nasa.gov/WSSH/Default.htm
http://www.wstf.nasa.gov/WSSH/Deservice.htm

STS-500Cmdr · « **Reply #31 on:** 12/21/2006 11:58 pm »

About Discovery being grounded a year--i remind you she isnt sked to fly again until about next Oct. STS-122 the Columbus mission. The situation as i understand is get the vehicle and crew on the ground before everything runs out--if you wait til Saturday--when its at the edge with cryo, consumables, etc--for one thing your going to end up with the media causing people like me headaches with graphics and media circus-"Space Shuttle is trouble" "Astronauts in danger" "astronauts are gonna die", etc--now of course you cant let that run your decision. As much as White Sands is a nightmare as far as gypsum and logistically. I'd rather land at WS than have an unthinkable situation that i dont want to say. I suppose the White Sands landing is going to generate some kind of media circus anyway.

BTW--i asked this in one of the other threads the other day i dont think i got an answer to this but--i remember back on STS-99 toward the end there was some talk of White Sands and Rob Navias-this is back in 2000-said NASA didnt have live TV capability as WS anymore. Is that still the case?? Would we hear just audio of the landing or someone recording it on a camcorder and playing it later, etc?

Andrewwski · « **Reply #32 on:** 12/21/2006 11:59 pm »

I've got a question about moving it out of WSSH if that is indeed a landing site.

(1) Do they need a full-fleged mate/demate device or is there some kind of other, more temporary, device that could be set up?

(2) How did they move Colombia after STS-3?

Andrewwski · « **Reply #33 on:** 12/22/2006 12:02 am »

Never mind...I kind of got my answer from today's flight day thread.

psloss · « **Reply #34 on:** 12/22/2006 12:05 am »

Quote

STS-500Cmdr - 21/12/2006 7:41 PM

BTW--i asked this in one of the other threads the other day i dont think i got an answer to this but--i remember back on STS-99 toward the end there was some talk of White Sands and Rob Navias-this is back in 2000-said NASA didnt have live TV capability as WS anymore. Is that still the case?? Would we hear just audio of the landing or someone recording it on a camcorder and playing it later, etc?

Answered in today's flight day thread via the mission status briefing -- yes they are planning live video.

(The briefing is being re-run right now, by the way.)

gordo · « **Reply #35 on:** 12/22/2006 12:13 am »

Quote

Andrewwski - 22/12/2006 12:42 AM

I've got a question about moving it out of WSSH if that is indeed a landing site.

(1) Do they need a full-fleged mate/demate device or is there some kind of other, more temporary, device that could be set up?

(2) How did they move Colombia after STS-3?

1. Hire cranes - technology now is quite impressive

2. Fixed crane(long dismantled) - see pics on links provided at top of this page.

For TV : A small satellite truck had been hired/dispatched from Austin. Will provide multi-camera coverage for NASA. I'm sure all the locals TV stations will be there...big even for them if it happens.

kevinseven11 · « **Reply #36 on:** 12/22/2006 12:15 am »

if not o well i can just see it on this website

landofgrey · « **Reply #37 on:** 12/22/2006 03:14 am »

Personally, if I were a pilot, I'd rather fly into Northrup than any of the other facilities... 17,000 x 900 feet of hard-packed, laser-leveled, flat-as-paper powder, not to mention all the flat dessert around it for miles and miles... much more room than KSC and without swamps and alligators. WSMR is IMO the most forgiving (read: safest) landing facility there is and is actually where astronauts do MOST of their shuttle landing training, not Edwards or KSC. For crew safety, WSMR is the best I think. As for turnaround, 54-60 days, NOT a year. A headache yes, but there's plenty of cusion time in the processing flow to be methodical and just get Discovery back home whenever she's ready. The talk of gypsum and whatnot is mostly hype (from media and others who might wish it were as much of a problem as they say) based little on facts and a lot on a stupid mistake made in 1982 when NASA left Columbia sitting smack in the middle of the desert with no protection, during a sandstorm.

Or I could be wrong lol. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if we have a sunny warm afternoon tomorrow. It IS Florida after all

rdale · « **Reply #38 on:** 12/22/2006 03:33 am »

Actually I haven't seen any hype from the media about after-effects, as you'll notice the hype in here came from NASA/USA workers!

landofgrey · « **Reply #39 on:** 12/22/2006 03:40 am »

Mostly it has, for sure, as I'm sure a lot of the people who either have or will have to process the vehicle don't fancy the thought of Discovery coming back resembling a giant talcum powder tin. I've heard some things from media too, maybe only because of my exposure, but it's essentially speculation as opposed to the words of people with experience. BUT... watch CNN have a field day tomorrow if they go to White Sands. I noticed there will not be a postlanding press conference if they do lol (actualy I'm not sure if that refers only to a crew press conference or the regular NASA briefing).

rdale · « **Reply #40 on:** 12/22/2006 04:03 am »

That was the crew press conference, regular media briefings are always held at Johnson after touchdown.

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #41 on:** 12/22/2006 04:08 am »

My two cents...

The most important goal is to get Discovery and her crew home safely. If a WSSH landing is necessary, no problem. It's safe. Will it take a while to get her back and ready? Yeah. But so what? Her next flight (STS-122) isn't scheduled for launch until October 17, 2007. There's plenty of time to get her whipped around after returning her to KSC. And even if it is delayed a little while, it's okay. There's built-in time at the scheduled end of the shuttle program to allow for some delays like this.

As for a lot of the mainstream news media, they're going to try to make NASA look bad no matter what in cases like this. We've known this for a long, LONG time. Forget 'em! We know what's up

In short, if they land at White Sands, great. They're home safe. Let the media have their fun. No one who knows anything about NASA takes them seriously. We'll see Discovery back in Florida soon enough and they'll work to get her whipped around for flight again next year.

DaveS · « **Reply #42 on:** 12/22/2006 04:13 am »

Quote

nathan.moeller - 22/12/2006 5:51 AM

My two cents...

The most important goal is to get Discovery and her crew home safely. If a WSSH landing is necessary, no problem. It's safe. Will it take a while to get her back and ready? Yeah. But so what? Her next flight (STS-122) isn't scheduled for launch until October 17, 2007.

The problem is that she's is getting the SSPTS and that is a long process to get implemented. 1 month delay of getting her into OPF-3 means one month not spent on not getting SSPTS installed.

That is what everything is about.

SSPTS = Station/Shuttle Power Transfer System

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #43 on:** 12/22/2006 04:19 am »

Quote

DaveS - 21/12/2006 10:56 PM

The problem is that she's is getting the SSPTS and that is a long process to get implemented. 1 month delay of getting her into OPF-3 means one month not spent on not getting SSPTS installed.

That is what everything is about.

SSPTS = Station/Shuttle Power Transfer System

Yeah I know about SSPTS. But is it really going to take seven months to install it on Discovery? It sounds like she'll be back in OPF-3 by late February or early March. That gives them about seven months to get the job done. Can't it be done during normal launch processing? Of course, it will push some work around in the schedule but is it realistic to think they can't get the job done by late September or early October 2007? I'm not being sarcastic but please fill me in on some details if I am way off the mark on this.

STS-500Cmdr · « **Reply #44 on:** 12/22/2006 04:25 am »

Watch the other networks--the clueless Fox who probably havent a clue where White Sands is--BTW i dont know if anyone mentioned this anywhere here but earlier i was watching CNN for a min talking about this and showing that awful CNN interview with the crew--and the meteorologist talked for a min about the weather at KSC and the winds--they zoom in with GoogleEarth--and they zoom in on the skid strip--not the SLF--to show people this is where the shuttle lands and the crosswinds[wrong runway, dingbat]--watch networks tomorrow with "their gonna die"--im dying to see the graphics and captions. Anyway forgive me for my news media watch-haha.

landofgray--no post-landing presser--but good ol' Rob Navias said there'll be a mic on the runway for at least the commander to make a statement if he wants, probably the usual walk around, then into the motor home.

DaveS · « **Reply #45 on:** 12/22/2006 04:26 am »

Took alot of time to install it on Endeavour which is why her RTF has been pushed to the right so much. Originally she was to have her RTF this year, but thanks to SSPTS it has slipped to 2007.

Turnaround processing for Discovery between 121 and 116 took little more than 3 months. And that is nominal time for launch preps in the OPF.

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #46 on:** 12/22/2006 04:34 am »

Quote

DaveS - 21/12/2006 11:09 PM

Took alot of time to install it on Endeavour which is why her RTF has been pushed to the right so much. Originally she was to have her RTF this year, but thanks to SSPTS it has slipped to 2007.

Turnaround processing for Discovery between 121 and 116 took little more than 3 months. And that is nominal time for launch preps in the OPF.

Yeah I know nominal turnaround time but do you have a good estimate on how long it took to install SSPTS on Endeavour?

northanger · « **Reply #47 on:** 12/22/2006 05:01 am »

I'm calling the pocket: STS-116 wheel stop on 22-Dec @ Kennedy :: 3:56 p.m. EST.

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #48 on:** 12/22/2006 05:03 am »

I'm with you NorthAnger!!

northanger · « **Reply #49 on:** 12/22/2006 05:32 am »

Is this the one we're looking at?

Deorbit to Kennedy on Orbit 202
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/165684main_KSC202_close.gif

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #50 on:** 12/22/2006 05:35 am »

Quote

northanger - 22/12/2006 12:15 AM

Is this the one we're looking at?

Deorbit to Kennedy on Orbit 202
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/165684main_KSC202_close.gif

Yes. Then Orbit 203 opens up the option to pick any of the three sites (KSC, WSSH, and EDW). Orbit 204 has the option for WSSH and EDW. Orbits 205 and 206 are for EDW only (I think).

trickydick412 · « **Reply #51 on:** 12/22/2006 05:39 am »

I have to say, I'm with those of you who want to avoid the silly "NASA Endangers Astronauts Lives" story that would come with a Saturday landing. This is especially true since this mission was the first since STS-107 that really avoided silliness like features on the range safety officers.

What is the "unthinkable" scenario, where the shuttle is out of consumables and all the landing sites are no go? Do they go to a TAL site or another the list of secondary and tertiary sites like Nassau and Myrtle Beach? I am having a nightmare of having to land at King Khalid Airport in Saudi Arabia and having Old Reliable and her crew attacked by jihadis or something.

northanger · « **Reply #52 on:** 12/22/2006 05:39 am »

Quote

nathan.moeller - 22/12/2006 12:18 AM

Quote
northanger - 22/12/2006 12:15 AM

Is this the one we're looking at?

Deorbit to Kennedy on Orbit 202
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/165684main_KSC202_close.gif

Yes. Then Orbit 203 opens up the option to pick any of the three sites (KSC, WSSH, and EDW). Orbit 204 has the option for WSSH and EDW. Orbits 205 and 206 are for EDW only (I think).

Ah, I get it now. That's how that works. This is the one at 3:56pm EST.

landofgrey · « **Reply #53 on:** 12/22/2006 05:42 am »

I'm awake way too late but have to be at KSC early so I figure I'll pull an all0nighter with coffee...

rdale - during missions the briefings are at JSC but pre/postlaunch and postlanding briefings are always at KSC, mainly I guess because that's where the "important" people are.

I may be sitting in the ksc news center watching it come in elsewhere tomorrow like with 114 (I embarrassingly feel asleep there during the landing), but my intuition says they'll be landing at KSC. My brain says otherwise, but intuition says Florida. In other words, I have no clue. I do NOT think it'll be Edwards though.

Landing at WSMR doesn't worry me, but staying on the concrete pad for 45-60 days does. What's to say there won't be a sandstorm or rain/snowstorm in that time? I'm not fond of the idea of leaving the orbiter exposed that long.

Oh, and I love watching or listening to the media though. Either local or national sometimes it seems that they're operating philosophy is "jumping to conclusions saves so much time over doing actual research and time IS of the essence in order to get 'the scoop'" I mean, not even bothering to get a picture of the correct runway lol hilarious. Fox radio is pretty good, Holly Hickman does her research even though she's new on the beat <=== FREE PLUG FOR FOX.

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #54 on:** 12/22/2006 05:43 am »

Right. Then the following attempts will follow about 90 minutes apart from one another, of course. Orbit 204 entry to KSC will take her straight over Houston. So that would be cool but I'm still hoping for Orbit 203. These guys are going to be tired as it is and three or four attempts in one day would make it even tougher for them to bring her down.

trickydick412 · « **Reply #55 on:** 12/22/2006 05:46 am »

Speaking of FOX, I had the "pleasure" of having to catch the launch on FOX.

I don't know what was worse, John Kasich trying to pretend he was a big space fanatic when he knew nothing about what was going on, or the graphic which identified Discovery as Atlantis.

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #56 on:** 12/22/2006 05:51 am »

Quote

trickydick412 - 22/12/2006 12:29 AM

Speaking of FOX, I had the "pleasure" of having to catch the launch on FOX.

I don't know what was worse, John Kasich trying to pretend he was a big space fanatic when he knew nothing about what was going on, or the graphic which identified Discovery as Atlantis.

True. Funny they saved the STS-115 Atlantis graphic and misplaced it for Discovery. Showing the shuttle reaching orbital speeds before the SRBs separated didn't help them either...

Hopefully C-Span will carry 117 in the wee-hours of the morning. Just got the word from Navias that we'll have some good live TV of final approach and landing should they come in at WSSH. I'm sure that's already been discussed but I was at work until 11 EST. No post-landing news conference should that be the case, but the crew will be able to say a few words at a mic.

northanger · « **Reply #57 on:** 12/22/2006 05:57 am »

All KSC people need to go to bed!

Thanks Nathan for landing-orbit info.

northanger · « **Reply #58 on:** 12/22/2006 05:59 am »

LOL, I watched the launch on CNN. Oh oh! it's it's about to go up! Like they were rushing to get to the camera before the launch.

landofgrey · « **Reply #59 on:** 12/22/2006 06:00 am »

John Kasich knows tax reform but not much else. I've found that the radio correspondents for the networks are a lot better than the tv "personalities" who read the new. And we all remember how the Associated Press republished the story of the previous day's scrub and mistook it for a Dec. 7 scrub and CNN ran with it. HILARIOUS.

I want to call in the morning and see what the WB-57 will do if they don't come in at Kennedy. It's supposed to do video support of the landing (more cameras that might be seen on TV).

OK... Landing minus 14 hour (give or take) weather check. The skies here (20 miles from KSC) are still relatively clear, light breeze. I hope it holds.

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #60 on:** 12/22/2006 06:00 am »

No problem Gwen. I'm headin' to bed for the night. I'll try to catch the landing tomorrow at work! I leave it to you guys to have some great coverage for me to come home to

northanger · « **Reply #61 on:** 12/22/2006 06:07 am »

okie dokie, Nathan.

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #62 on:** 12/22/2006 06:08 am »

Gwen I fouled up my numbers. First landing opportunity at Kennedy is Orbit 202, not 203. So adjust the numbers I gave down one. But one last bit of info...from the ground track for a landing on Orbit 202, they'll shoot for Runway 15 (NW to SE). But bear in mind they can switch to Runway 33 (SE to NW) at any time before the HAC (heading alignment circle/cylinder). Example: STS-121 switch from 33 to 15.

Landing at Edwards on Orbit 204 or Orbit 205 has a planned landing on Runway 04 (SW to NE) as opposed to Runway 22 (NE to SW) which saw the landings of STS-114, STS-111, STS-98, STS-92, etc.

But for my mistake earlier...here is the updated landing plan:
Orbit 202 is for KSC only. Orbit 203 opens up the option to pick any one of the three sites (KSC, WS, EAFB). Orbit 204 carries the options of WS and EAFB. Orbit 205 is for EAFB only. So two shots at Kennedy, one shot at WSSH and three shots at EAFB.

Radioheaded · « **Reply #63 on:** 12/22/2006 06:13 am »

Quote

landofgrey - 22/12/2006 1:43 AM

OK... Landing minus 14 hour (give or take) weather check. The skies here (20 miles from KSC) are still relatively clear, light breeze. I hope it holds.

Let's all hope for a little prechristmas miracle

northanger · « **Reply #64 on:** 12/22/2006 06:13 am »

GO.TO.BED.

but, thanx.

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #65 on:** 12/22/2006 06:14 am »

Quote

Radioheaded - 22/12/2006 12:56 AM

Let's all hope for a little prechristmas miracle

Amen. I'M.OUT.

Stevo · « **Reply #66 on:** 12/22/2006 06:25 am »

Why can't they select one of the other runways at Edwards to deal with the crosswind issues? The forecast is for winds 290 at a peak of 22 knots, which results in peak crosswinds of:

Runway 22 (Concrete) - 26500 x 300 ft - ~21 kt crosswind (OUT OF LIMITS)
Runway 35 (Lakebed) - 39200 x 300 ft - 19 kt crosswind (OUT OF LIMITS)
Runway 33 - 31200 x 300 ft - 14 kt crosswind (Just within the limits)

Why can't they use Runway 33? It's longer than the most-often used Runway 22 and should be within limits of the crosswind constraints.

northanger · « **Reply #67 on:** 12/22/2006 06:33 am »

Quote

Stevo - 22/12/2006 1:08 AM

Why can't they select one of the other runways at Edwards to deal with the crosswind issues? The forecast is for winds 290 at a peak of 22 knots, which results in peak crosswinds of:

Runway 22 (Concrete) - 26500 x 300 ft - ~21 kt crosswind (OUT OF LIMITS)
Runway 35 (Lakebed) - 39200 x 300 ft - 19 kt crosswind (OUT OF LIMITS)
Runway 33 - 31200 x 300 ft - 14 kt crosswind (Just within the limits)

Why can't they use Runway 33? It's longer than the most-often used Runway 22 and should be within limits of the crosswind constraints.

Because they're using Runway 15 at KSC?

Stevo · « **Reply #68 on:** 12/22/2006 06:44 am »

Quote

northanger - 22/12/2006 2:16 AM

Quote
Stevo - 22/12/2006 1:08 AM

Why can't they select one of the other runways at Edwards to deal with the crosswind issues? The forecast is for winds 290 at a peak of 22 knots, which results in peak crosswinds of:

Runway 22 (Concrete) - 26500 x 300 ft - ~21 kt crosswind (OUT OF LIMITS)
Runway 35 (Lakebed) - 39200 x 300 ft - 19 kt crosswind (OUT OF LIMITS)
Runway 33 - 31200 x 300 ft - 14 kt crosswind (Just within the limits)

Why can't they use Runway 33? It's longer than the most-often used Runway 22 and should be within limits of the crosswind constraints.

Because they're using Runway 15 at KSC?

I'm referring to Runway 15/33 at Edwards. It was used on STS-7.

northanger · « **Reply #69 on:** 12/22/2006 06:51 am »

Stevo. I knew what you were referring to.

Fred Clausen · « **Reply #70 on:** 12/22/2006 06:55 am »

Quote

northanger - 22/12/2006 12:16 AM

Quote
Stevo - 22/12/2006 1:08 AM

Why can't they select one of the other runways at Edwards to deal with the crosswind issues? The forecast is for winds 290 at a peak of 22 knots, which results in peak crosswinds of:

Runway 22 (Concrete) - 26500 x 300 ft - ~21 kt crosswind (OUT OF LIMITS)
Runway 35 (Lakebed) - 39200 x 300 ft - 19 kt crosswind (OUT OF LIMITS)
Runway 33 - 31200 x 300 ft - 14 kt crosswind (Just within the limits)

Why can't they use Runway 33? It's longer than the most-often used Runway 22 and should be within limits of the crosswind constraints.

Because they're using Runway 15 at KSC?

If runway 33 is on the lakebed, the lakebed at EDW is too wet for landing.

LSainsbury · « **Reply #71 on:** 12/22/2006 07:38 am »

Hey all,

Sorry to jump in!

What time is landing? I'm in the UK so I'm wondering what time I should be watching NASA live feed to catch the landing?

Cheers

Lee

northanger · « **Reply #72 on:** 12/22/2006 07:42 am »

STS-116 Landing is 22-Dec, KSC, Orbit #202 @ 3:56 p.m. EST. Think that's 20:56 UT.

LSainsbury · « **Reply #73 on:** 12/22/2006 07:54 am »

Cool - thanks - I'll keep any eye open for it then!

rdale · « **Reply #74 on:** 12/22/2006 08:02 am »

Quote

nathan.moeller - 22/12/2006 1:51 AM
But for my mistake earlier...here is the updated landing plan:
Orbit 202 is for KSC only. Orbit 203 opens up the option to pick any one of the three sites (KSC, WS, EAFB). Orbit 204 carries the options of WS and EAFB. Orbit 205 is for EAFB only. So two shots at Kennedy, one shot at WSSH and three shots at EAFB.

Almost right... If they suit up for a shot at orbit 202, they will not be able to attempt 205.

Any event on NASA TV is listed in the NASA TV broadcast schedule - http://www.nasa.gov/ntv

psloss · « **Reply #75 on:** 12/22/2006 11:29 am »

Quote

Stevo - 22/12/2006 2:27 AM

I'm referring to Runway 15/33 at Edwards. It was used on STS-7.

The lakebed was red earlier in the week according to the execute packages uploaded to the crew; however, 15/33 was green in yesterday's package.

psloss · « **Reply #76 on:** 12/22/2006 11:41 am »

Quote

DaveS - 22/12/2006 12:09 AM

Took alot of time to install it on Endeavour which is why her RTF has been pushed to the right so much. Originally she was to have her RTF this year, but thanks to SSPTS it has slipped to 2007.

Turnaround processing for Discovery between 121 and 116 took little more than 3 months. And that is nominal time for launch preps in the OPF.

This would be a good question for Flightstar; a contributing factor had to be resources for working on the TPS -- Endeavour has been #3 on the priority list. And then they added the 24/7 gap filler work to Discovery and Atlantis' flows after Endeavour was powered up 14 months ago. (In reading the status reports last year / early this year, it appears they had to concentrate on one orbiter at a time.)

Rocket Nut · « **Reply #77 on:** 12/22/2006 11:48 am »

Quote

northanger - 22/12/2006 12:44 AM

I'm calling the pocket: STS-116 wheel stop on 22-Dec @ Kennedy :: 3:56 p.m. EST.

I sure hope so!!! Love to hear those BOOM-BOOM reports as she flies overhead at about 60,000 feet.

Cheers,

Larry

JimO · « **Reply #78 on:** 12/22/2006 12:39 pm »

There's also a strong possibility that the crosswind constraints can be modified for EDW, because the Discovery has improved tires and brakes that actually ARE certified to higher standards.

rdale · « **Reply #79 on:** 12/22/2006 12:41 pm »

That was mentioned but also noted that if there was good weather at Northrup they would be hard pressed to modify rules somewhere else just for post-processing improvement.s

Gary · « **Reply #80 on:** 12/22/2006 12:52 pm »

Quote

JimO - 22/12/2006 1:22 PM

There's also a strong possibility that the crosswind constraints can be modified for EDW, because the Discovery has improved tires and brakes that actually ARE certified to higher standards.

All of that would have been taken into account at the MMT.

ETEE · « **Reply #81 on:** 12/22/2006 01:09 pm »

Quote

JimO - 22/12/2006 1:22 PM

There's also a strong possibility that the crosswind constraints can be modified for EDW, because the Discovery has improved tires and brakes that actually ARE certified to higher standards.

Would the improved tyres help with HIGH crosswinds?

rdale · « **Reply #82 on:** 12/22/2006 01:11 pm »

The new tires are good up to crosswinds of 20 per last night's press conference.

psloss · « **Reply #83 on:** 12/22/2006 01:17 pm »

Quote

ETEE - 22/12/2006 8:52 AM

Would the improved tyres help with HIGH crosswinds?

To add to Rob's post, the existing flight rule limits -- 15 knots daytime, 12 knots darkness -- ARE high crosswinds for the orbiter. I don't believe they've landed an orbiter with sustained winds at the limits -- crosswind landings are an ongoing detailed test objective (DTO).

ETEE · « **Reply #84 on:** 12/22/2006 01:24 pm »

So as the tires only appear just before landing, surely their crosswind performance only applies to runway level crosswinds and not HIGH altitude.

psloss · « **Reply #85 on:** 12/22/2006 01:25 pm »

Quote

ETEE - 22/12/2006 9:07 AM

So as the tires only appear just before landing, surely their crosswind performance only applies to runway level crosswinds and not HIGH altitude.

Yup -- high crosswinds refer to speed, not altitude, in this context.

ETEE · « **Reply #86 on:** 12/22/2006 01:37 pm »

Sorry I had heard reference to strong jet stream in approach; maybe strong instead of high would be better adjective for crosswinds at runway level?

rdale · « **Reply #87 on:** 12/22/2006 01:40 pm »

Not sure what you are asking... The crosswind limit is over concern when the wheels touch the ground. The jet stream is not an issue.

ETEE · « **Reply #88 on:** 12/22/2006 01:52 pm »

Well as a question then, what are the landing constraints on strong high altitude cross winds as Discovery is only a glider and its landing track is determined by the physical locations of its deorbit rev and the designated landing strip? Do I assume from the previous replies that crosswinds are only an issue when landing gear is extended?

Gary · « **Reply #89 on:** 12/22/2006 01:58 pm »

Crosswinds are constraints for landing. At high altitude ENERGY is the key.

Jim · « **Reply #90 on:** 12/22/2006 01:59 pm »

Quote

ETEE - 22/12/2006 9:35 AM

Well as a question then, what are the landing constraints on strong high altitude cross winds as Discovery is only a glider and its landing track is determined by the physical locations of its deorbit rev and the designated landing strip? Do I assume from the previous replies that crosswinds are only an issue when landing gear is extended?

Crosswind affects the orbiter when the tires hit the ground, not when they are deployed.