Shuttle Questions Q & A (Part 3)

#560 by Thorny on 09 Jul, 2007 02:12
16 days between 61C Columbia and 51L Challenger in January 1986.
16 days between STS-71 Atlantis and STS-70 Discovery in June-July 1995.
17 days between 51D Discovery and 51B Challenger in April 1985.
17 days between STS-38 Atlantis and STS-35 Columbia in November 1990.
18 days between STS-56 Discovery and STS-55 Columbia in April 1993.
#561 by spacemuppet on 09 Jul, 2007 02:47
Does NASA have the ABILITY to have 2 orbiters in orbit at the same time?
#562 by rdale on 09 Jul, 2007 02:56
Only for CSCS.
#563 by missinglink on 09 Jul, 2007 15:57
Are those micrometeorite shields on the ISS made of aluminum? Whatever happened to Carbon 60 a.k.a. "buckminsterfullerene". Wasn't that material supposed to offer awesome compressibility, its hardness under pressure increasing to twice that of diamond? And why aren't the surfaces of the Shuttle covered with C60?

Could a near-lightspeed spacecraft of the future be "cushioned" against encounters with microparticles in deep space by a kilometer or two of C60?
#564 by Jim on 09 Jul, 2007 16:04
ISS panel are aluminum
#565 by Jorge on 09 Jul, 2007 16:50
Quote
missinglink - 9/7/2007 10:57 AM

Are those micrometeorite shields on the ISS made of aluminum? Whatever happened to Carbon 60 a.k.a. "buckminsterfullerene". Wasn't that material supposed to offer awesome compressibility, its hardness under pressure increasing to twice that of diamond? And why aren't the surfaces of the Shuttle covered with C60?

C60 is not yet a practical engineering material. There were never any plans to use it on the shuttle or ISS.
#566 by nathan.moeller on 09 Jul, 2007 17:02
Quote
spacemuppet - 8/7/2007 8:54 PM

What was the shortest time gap between shuttle launches ever? I assume it happened sometime before 1986?

Something I find even more interesting (and frightening with today's processing timelines) is the turnaround time for Atlantis between her first and second missions. I believe she was only on the ground for 47 days between the landing of STS-51J and the launch of STS-61B (both in 1985).

But there are at least two instances of shuttle's flying ten days apart (landing-launch). STS-61C Columbia landed on January 18, 1986 and was followed by STS-51L Challenger on January 28. The same thing happened between STS-64 Discovery and STS-68 Endeavour in 1994.
#567 by C5C6 on 09 Jul, 2007 17:33
I assume that if the VAFB launch site had been used, the 16-day gap record would be shortened.....was that its purpose? trying to keep an orbiter orbiting at all times?
#568 by bobthemonkey on 09 Jul, 2007 17:51
VAFB was for polar orbits, primarily for military missions, (Keyholes over the Soviet bloc) and for some weather sats.

Permenant presence was intended for the station, not the shuttle.
#569 by psloss on 09 Jul, 2007 18:07
Quote
nathan.moeller - 9/7/2007 1:02 PM

But there are at least two instances of shuttle's flying ten days apart (landing-launch). STS-61C Columbia landed on January 18, 1986 and was followed by STS-51L Challenger on January 28. The same thing happened between STS-64 Discovery and STS-68 Endeavour in 1994.
I believe that's been discussed here before...in all the cited cases, delays were a contributing factor...looking at Thorny's list:

Quote
Thorny - 8/7/2007 10:12 PM

16 days between 61C Columbia and 51L Challenger in January 1986.
16 days between STS-71 Atlantis and STS-70 Discovery in June-July 1995.
17 days between 51D Discovery and 51B Challenger in April 1985.
17 days between STS-38 Atlantis and STS-35 Columbia in November 1990.
18 days between STS-56 Discovery and STS-55 Columbia in April 1993.
61-C was delayed several times mostly in January, but also in December 1985. The STS-70 ET was used as a woodpecker nest, requiring rollback for repairs. Challenger was remanifested to 51-B from 51-E after rollback in early March, 1985. The STS-38 and STS-35 stacks both went through MPS hydrogen leak issues in the summer of 1990. And STS-55 had a RSLS abort. (As did STS-68.)
#570 by Thorny on 09 Jul, 2007 20:39
Quote
nathan.moeller - 9/7/2007 12:02 PM

But there are at least two instances of shuttle's flying ten days apart (landing-launch). STS-61C Columbia landed on January 18, 1986 and was followed by STS-51L Challenger on January 28. The same thing happened between STS-64 Discovery and STS-68 Endeavour in 1994.

Even better: only six days seperated the landing of STS-71 Atlantis and the launch of STS-70 Discovery in the summer of 1995.
#571 by John2375 on 10 Jul, 2007 14:10
I found video - http://www.astronomynow.com you have to sign up for it but they have most of the mission video wrap-ups available - some like the DOD flights aren't there, but most from the beginning to around STS-70 or so are there.. pretty cool.
STS-37 is there - during the narration, CDR Nagel admits he got low on the HAC and there were some "rather unusual high altitude winds" that resulted in a "low-energy but safe touchdown"
From watching the video.. you can't really see anything as far as if it's short and by how much because as stated here, because of the late-change to the lakebed runway, the camera angle doesn't really tell you much - lakebed touchdowns kick up a ton of dust anyway so you can't really tell.

I see that despite this near disaster, the commander, Steve Nagel, was given another command, STS-55, so it couldn't have been completely considered his fault.

Have there been any other "close calls" on return? I seem to remember watching the landing of STS-69 and it not appearing to be as 'normal' as some.. seemed to flatten out and glide sideways somewhat, but maybe all was under control, I don't know.
#572 by Analyst on 10 Jul, 2007 14:19
Quote
nathan.moeller - 9/7/2007 7:02 PM
Something I find even more interesting (and frightening with today's processing timelines) is the turnaround time for Atlantis between her first and second missions. I believe she was only on the ground for 47 days between the landing of STS-51J and the launch of STS-61B (both in 1985).

And the STS-51J landing was in California, this gives you an OPF time of a month maximum (I have to look it up in Jenkings book.) Today (STS-121 or STS-117) we are worried by a west coast landing even if the next mission is almost half a year away.

Analyst
#573 by psloss on 10 Jul, 2007 14:31
Quote
Analyst - 10/7/2007 10:19 AM

And the STS-51J landing was in California, this gives you an OPF time of a month maximum (I have to look it up in Jenkings book.) Today (STS-121 or STS-117) we are worried by a west coast landing even if the next mission is almost half a year away.
Does that mean faster is better? If so, why?
#574 by Analyst on 10 Jul, 2007 14:49
Quote
psloss - 10/7/2007 4:31 PM
Does that mean faster is better? If so, why?

Everything else equal, faster is better. Why? Because you are more efficient. If everything else is not equal, we are talking about trade offs: risk vs. cost, risk vs. speed, etc. If faster is still better depends on how you weight all these factors. I am pretty sure different people will come to different conclusions now. What are your preferences?

Analyst
#575 by psloss on 10 Jul, 2007 15:04
Quote
Analyst - 10/7/2007 10:49 AM

Everything else equal, faster is better. Why? Because you are more efficient. If everything else is not equal, we are talking about trade offs: risk vs. cost, risk vs. speed, etc. If faster is still better depends on how you weight all these factors. I am pretty sure different people will come to different conclusions now. What are your preferences?
See, that's not polite -- you're supposed to answer my question first. If you weren't implying that that faster (pre-51L processing) was better, then I withdraw my question. Otherwise, I'll follow your answer. :bleh:
#576 by Danny Dot on 10 Jul, 2007 15:09
Quote
John2375 - 10/7/2007 9:10 AM

snip

Have there been any other "close calls" on return? I seem to remember watching the landing of STS-69 and it not appearing to be as 'normal' as some.. seemed to flatten out and glide sideways somewhat, but maybe all was under control, I don't know.

I don't remember the flight numbers, but do remember the CDR names and will not post them here. One flight got very low in the HAC as the result of letting the PLT get a little stick time. They ended up flying wings level on the HAC for a while during the crew handover. They got so low as to have maximum HAC shrink, but got back all the energy for a good landing.

Another crew had a significant yaw on tough down because of using too much rudder command.

I would not call these "close calls". There was no real risk of loosing the orbiter and crew. I will send by personal message the names of the CRDs to anyone that asks.

Danny Deger
www.dannydeger.net
#577 by brahmanknight on 11 Jul, 2007 13:25
Exactly how will the orbiter inspection be handled with the OBSS at the station? Will the SSRMS be used to do it? Will the late inspection be done before leaving the station? Will flight day two for the orbiter revert back to the old, pre-Columbia days?
#578 by Jorge on 11 Jul, 2007 14:02
Quote
brahmanknight - 11/7/2007 8:25 AM

Exactly how will the orbiter inspection be handled with the OBSS at the station? Will the SSRMS be used to do it? Will the late inspection be done before leaving the station? Will flight day two for the orbiter revert back to the old, pre-Columbia days?

Hmm? OBSS will only be left at ISS for one flight. STS-124 is incapable of launching with it so it will be left at the station by STS-123 and returned to Earth by STS-124. STS-123's Late Inspection will be performed while docked, exact combination of arms TBD. STS-124 will be limited to non-OBSS inspections with the RMS on FD2.
#579 by Thorny on 11 Jul, 2007 14:56
Quote
Jorge - 11/7/2007 9:02 AM

Hmm? OBSS will only be left at ISS for one flight. STS-124 is incapable of launching with it so it will be left at the station by STS-123 and returned to Earth by STS-124. STS-123's Late Inspection will be performed while docked, exact combination of arms TBD. STS-124 will be limited to non-OBSS inspections with the RMS on FD2.

Where will the OBSS be parked while at the Station?