Author Topic: Landing at White Sands, very bad idea! (Read 35791 times)

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).