-
#640 by DaveS on 27 Jul, 2007 14:16
-
Quote
Thorny - 27/7/2007 4:10 PM
Prime landing site for RCO is Vandenberg AFB, not White Sands.
The disabled Orbiter would be left at the ISS until close to depletion... a lot longer than 2 days. Probably 2-3 weeks. It would leave with just enough juice for the destructive de-orbit or maybe attempted autoland at White Sands. -
#641 by Thorny on 27 Jul, 2007 14:21
-
Quote
Endeavour118 - 27/7/2007 3:27 AM
HAs the shuttle ever launched on any holidays besides the 4th of july and has it launched on friday the 13th
STS-5 launched on Veterans Day.
No Friday the 13th launches.
-
#642 by Thorny on 27 Jul, 2007 14:23
-
Quote
DaveS - 27/7/2007 9:16 AM
QuoteThorny - 27/7/2007 4:10 PM
Prime landing site for RCO is Vandenberg AFB, not White Sands.
The disabled Orbiter would be left at the ISS until close to depletion... a lot longer than 2 days. Probably 2-3 weeks. It would leave with just enough juice for the destructive de-orbit or maybe attempted autoland at White Sands.
Thanks for the correction. When did that change? I'd think WS has a lot more open area to handle landing rollout if it comes in a little long or short. -
#643 by DaveS on 27 Jul, 2007 14:29
-
Quote
Thorny - 27/7/2007 4:23 PM
They can handle the landing rollout. It's the the debris during entry that prompted the change from Edwards to Vandenberg. By landing at Vandenberg they can minimize the amount of land that the orbiter flies over during entry as to compared with either Edwards or White Sands.QuoteDaveS - 27/7/2007 9:16 AM
QuoteThorny - 27/7/2007 4:10 PM
Prime landing site for RCO is Vandenberg AFB, not White Sands.
The disabled Orbiter would be left at the ISS until close to depletion... a lot longer than 2 days. Probably 2-3 weeks. It would leave with just enough juice for the destructive de-orbit or maybe attempted autoland at White Sands.
Thanks for the correction. When did that change? I'd think WS has a lot more open area to handle landing rollout if it comes in a little long or short. -
#644 by AstroRJY on 27 Jul, 2007 14:45
-
Quote
Endeavour118 - 27/7/2007 4:27 AM HAs the shuttle ever launched on any holidays besides the 4th of july and has it launched on friday the 13th
Great question so I researched it...
No Friday the 13ths, only 3 launches on the 13th of any month- STS,-29, STS-54, STS-70 but no Fridays. Came close a couple times launching on the 12th of a month though. For example if STS-104 had been dealyed 24 hours, might have had a Friday the 13th launch in 2001.
Holidays: STS-1 launched on Palm Sunday 4/12/81.
STS-5 launched on Veteran's Day, 11/11/82.
STS-33 launched 11/22/89 on Thanksgiving Eve, the night before Thanksgiving which actually was Thanksgiving Day in European time zones it was 7 in the evening; eastern time of the US.
And of course as you said STS-121 launched on the 4th of July 2006.
I even checked to see about Columbus Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day-- nope.edited some typos.
-
#645 by shuttlefan on 27 Jul, 2007 14:55
-
Quote
AstroRJY - 27/7/2007 9:45 AM
QuoteEndeavour118 - 27/7/2007 4:27 AM HAs the shuttle ever launched on any holidays besides the 4th of july and has it launched on friday the 13th
Great question so I researched it...
No Friday the 13ths, only 3 launches on the 13th of any month- STS,-29, STS-54, STS-70 but no Fridays. Came close a couple times launching on the 12th of a month though. For example if STS-104 had been dealyed 24 hours, might have had a Friday the 13th launch in 2001.
Holidays: STS-1 launched on Palm Sunday 4/12/81.
STS-5 launched on Veteran's Day, 11/11/82.
STS-33 launched 11/22/89 on Thanksgiving Eve, the night before Thanksgiving which actually was Thanksgiving Day in European time zones it was 7 in the evening; eastern time of the US.
And of course as you said STS-121 launched on the 4th of July 2006.
I even checked to see about Columbus Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day-- nope.edited some typos.
I know you're asking about launches, but just for the record, STS-103 was the first shuttle to be up over Christmas, 1999.
-
#646 by AstroRJY on 27 Jul, 2007 15:12
-
Quote
shuttlefan - 27/7/2007 10:55 AM
QuoteAstroRJY - 27/7/2007 9:45 AM
I know you're asking about launches, but just for the record, STS-103 was the first shuttle to be up over Christmas, 1999.QuoteEndeavour118 - 27/7/2007 4:27 AM HAs the shuttle ever launched on any holidays besides the 4th of july and has it launched on friday the 13th
Great question so I researched it...
No Friday the 13ths, only 3 launches on the 13th of any month- STS,-29, STS-54, STS-70 but no Fridays. Came close a couple times launching on the 12th of a month though. For example if STS-104 had been dealyed 24 hours, might have had a Friday the 13th launch in 2001.
Holidays: STS-1 launched on Palm Sunday 4/12/81.
STS-5 launched on Veteran's Day, 11/11/82.
STS-33 launched 11/22/89 on Thanksgiving Eve, the night before Thanksgiving which actually was Thanksgiving Day in European time zones it was 7 in the evening; eastern time of the US.
And of course as you said STS-121 launched on the 4th of July 2006.
I even checked to see about Columbus Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day-- nope.edited some typos.
Good point. Also there have been a couple flights during Thanksgiving such as STS-61B in 1985 and STS-113 in 2002
-
#647 by Jim on 27 Jul, 2007 15:32
-
Quote
SpaceNutz SA - 27/7/2007 9:54 AM
In the case of an abort to orbit, where the shuttle doesn't reach the ISS orbit and the thermal protection system inspections suggest the shuttle could not return to earth safely, the ISS could be brought down to meet the shuttle. Such a procedure is known as joint underspeed recovery [3].http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-3xx
This is where I read that but the reference article is not available.
Don't use wikipedia -
#648 by joncz on 27 Jul, 2007 16:12
-
Quote
Jim - 27/7/2007 11:32 AM
Don't use wikipedia
How about AAS and AIAA?
From the 1999 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference
http://www.space-flight.org/AAS_meetings/1999_astro/1999_astro.html
is this presentation:
99-394 Contingency ISS Rendezvous Recovery Planning by Houston and Moscow Control
0410pm Centers – D.R. Adamo
During launch to International Space Station (ISS), contingencies compromising Space Shuttle
Orbiter (SSO) propulsive capability may preclude nominal rendezvous. In some of these
contingency scenarios, ISS translation maneuvers to a lower orbit height, planned in real time,
can resurrect SSO rendezvous capability. Expending some ISS propellant in such scenarios can
thereby avoid a costly and disruptive delay to SSO cargo delivery. A cooperative response to
these contingencies, called Joint Underspeed Recovery (JURe), has been negotiated by flight
mechanics specialists from Houston and Moscow Control Centers. Constraints, strategies,
procedures, and a dedicated spreadsheet associated with JURe operations are presented. An
example "paper simulation" is also provided.
-
#649 by John2375 on 27 Jul, 2007 22:04
-
. Also there have been a couple flights during Thanksgiving such as STS-61B in 1985 and STS-113 in 2002
STS-80 was also up over Thanksgiving.. and STS-87 too I believe -
#650 by AstroRJY on 27 Jul, 2007 22:24
-
Quote
John2375 - 27/7/2007 6:04 PM . Also there have been a couple flights during Thanksgiving such as STS-61B in 1985 and STS-113 in 2002 STS-80 was also up over Thanksgiving.. and STS-87 too I believe
You are correct both of those launched on Novemebr 19th one year apart ('96 and '97) and were 2 week missions. Also STS-50 was up during the 4th of July 1992 which was a first at that time.
-
#651 by Endeavour118 on 28 Jul, 2007 03:59
-
same with sts-71
-
#652 by Jorge on 28 Jul, 2007 05:16
-
Quote
DaveS - 27/7/2007 9:29 AM
QuoteThorny - 27/7/2007 4:23 PM
QuoteDaveS - 27/7/2007 9:16 AM
QuoteThorny - 27/7/2007 4:10 PM
Prime landing site for RCO is Vandenberg AFB, not White Sands.
The disabled Orbiter would be left at the ISS until close to depletion... a lot longer than 2 days. Probably 2-3 weeks. It would leave with just enough juice for the destructive de-orbit or maybe attempted autoland at White Sands.
Thanks for the correction. When did that change? I'd think WS has a lot more open area to handle landing rollout if it comes in a little long or short.
They can handle the landing rollout. It's the the debris during entry that prompted the change from Edwards to Vandenberg. By landing at Vandenberg they can minimize the amount of land that the orbiter flies over during entry as to compared with either Edwards or White Sands.
Yes, Vandenberg has the lower public overflight risk. But last I heard, White Sands was still prime for RCO landings because WSSH has a lakebed runway with full MLS while VAFB has a concrete runway with only MSBLS Jr. VAFB required upgrade to full MLS to become the prime RCO landing site and last I heard not only was this not completed, it was not funded. If you have any updates that would be appreciated. -
#653 by SpaceNutz SA on 28 Jul, 2007 09:02
-
Quote
joncz - 27/7/2007 6:12 PM
QuoteJim - 27/7/2007 11:32 AM Don't use wikipedia
How about AAS and AIAA? From the 1999 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference http://www.space-flight.org/AAS_meetings/1999_astro/1999_astro.html is this presentation: 99-394 Contingency ISS Rendezvous Recovery Planning by Houston and Moscow Control 0410pm Centers – D.R. Adamo During launch to International Space Station (ISS), contingencies compromising Space Shuttle Orbiter (SSO) propulsive capability may preclude nominal rendezvous. In some of these contingency scenarios, ISS translation maneuvers to a lower orbit height, planned in real time, can resurrect SSO rendezvous capability. Expending some ISS propellant in such scenarios can thereby avoid a costly and disruptive delay to SSO cargo delivery. A cooperative response to these contingencies, called Joint Underspeed Recovery (JURe), has been negotiated by flight mechanics specialists from Houston and Moscow Control Centers. Constraints, strategies, procedures, and a dedicated spreadsheet associated with JURe operations are presented. An example "paper simulation" is also provided.Can anyone clear this one up? I'm very interested to know. If what Jim say's is true then it seemingly implies that if an ATO situation unfolded where the TPS was damaged on launch it would be game-over for the crew?
-
#654 by spacemuppet on 28 Jul, 2007 17:03
-
What would happen if say before the shuttle even cleared the tower the entire autopilot system went down and the CDR had to assume manual control all the way to orbit? Is this theoretically possible and would he have anything to reference, anything to "aim for"? What about the roll? Is there an actual throttle lever in the cockpit? I assume that even if this is all possible the chances of living through it are slim and the chances of reaching a mission orbit are probably close to zero...(?)
-
#655 by Jim on 28 Jul, 2007 17:17
-
there is a throttle lever. The shuttle can't fly without computer guidance. In a manual mode, the astronauts would be following the same cues provided by the computers. Also the shuttle is fly by wire. The control inputs made by the astronauts are interpreted by the computers to actuate the proper jets or control surfaces
-
#656 by spacemuppet on 28 Jul, 2007 17:29
-
On the Eileen Collins flight where 2of the 3 computers crapped out, what exactly would have happened if the third one died too?
-
#657 by Danny Dot on 28 Jul, 2007 17:33
-
Quote
spacemuppet - 28/7/2007 12:03 PM
What would happen if say before the shuttle even cleared the tower the entire autopilot system went down and the CDR had to assume manual control all the way to orbit? Is this theoretically possible and would he have anything to reference, anything to "aim for"? What about the roll? Is there an actual throttle lever in the cockpit? I assume that even if this is all possible the chances of living through it are slim and the chances of reaching a mission orbit are probably close to zero...(?)
As Jim said, the computers fly the shuttle -- always. But on ascent there is the capability of flying with the stick and with the throttles. This mode is called "Control Stick Steering -- CSS". While in the atmosphere, chances are a manually flown shuttle would result in the airloads ripping the stack apart. After getting out of the atmosphere, the shuttle handles well and it is simple to fly to an orbit that is safe. Much harder (impossible?) to fly to an orbit that something like a station rendezvous could be made from.
Danny Deger -
#658 by Jorge on 28 Jul, 2007 17:35
-
Quote
SpaceNutz SA - 28/7/2007 4:02 AM
Quotejoncz - 27/7/2007 6:12 PM
QuoteJim - 27/7/2007 11:32 AM Don't use wikipedia
How about AAS and AIAA? From the 1999 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference http://www.space-flight.org/AAS_meetings/1999_astro/1999_astro.html is this presentation: 99-394 Contingency ISS Rendezvous Recovery Planning by Houston and Moscow Control 0410pm Centers – D.R. Adamo During launch to International Space Station (ISS), contingencies compromising Space Shuttle Orbiter (SSO) propulsive capability may preclude nominal rendezvous. In some of these contingency scenarios, ISS translation maneuvers to a lower orbit height, planned in real time, can resurrect SSO rendezvous capability. Expending some ISS propellant in such scenarios can thereby avoid a costly and disruptive delay to SSO cargo delivery. A cooperative response to these contingencies, called Joint Underspeed Recovery (JURe), has been negotiated by flight mechanics specialists from Houston and Moscow Control Centers. Constraints, strategies, procedures, and a dedicated spreadsheet associated with JURe operations are presented. An example "paper simulation" is also provided.Can anyone clear this one up? I'm very interested to know. If what Jim say's is true then it seemingly implies that if an ATO situation unfolded where the TPS was damaged on launch it would be game-over for the crew?
Jim is partially right and partially wrong. JURe is a real capability and there are flight rules and procedures governing it. However, whether it will be used (and whether it can save the crew) depends on circumstances. There is an internationally agreed-to minimum survivable altitude for ISS (150 n.mi., or 278 km), and under no circumstances would ISS be deboosted below that altitude in order to complete a JURe. So the answer to the survivability question depends on just how bad the shuttle's underperformance was (in other words, how early during the ascent did the SSME fail). In some cases, the magnitude of the OMS dump required to make up for the MPS underspeed may make it impossible for the orbiter to reach even 150 n.mi. In other cases, it may still be possible to reach 150 n.mi. but at the cost of giving up deorbit capability - and that means NASA would have to carefully weigh the risks of standalone repair/compromised entry vs JURe/CSCS/LON. -
#659 by Jorge on 28 Jul, 2007 17:39
-
Quote
spacemuppet - 28/7/2007 12:29 PM
On the Eileen Collins flight where 2of the 3 computers crapped out, what exactly would have happened if the third one died too?
You are confused. No main computers crapped out on STS-93. What happened was that an AC bus short caused two out of six main engine controllers to fail. There are two MECs on each engine and they are powered such that loss of an AC bus only results in loss of one MEC on two different main engines. If the other MEC had failed on either of those two SSMEs, the engine would have been lost and an intact abort (RTLS, TAL, ATO, or nominal MECO after the "press to MECO" call) would have resulted, depending on when the MEC failed.
