Author Topic: Landing at White Sands, very bad idea! (Read 35787 times)

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